Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/23/1996 - Regular (2)
~~~~~ 0~ ROANp,~.~ ti ~ ~ ~ / xa^^°`e ~~~ J a 1838 WORKING DOCUMENT -SUBJECT TO REVISION ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA JULY 23, 1996 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. 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 fo the Board at (703) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements maybe made. Oc~~Z ~'O~1VF~'R~`,~~.~' ~~Ol~l COY LEGISLATIVE REQ + STS PRESENTED BY PAUL MAHONEY. T.EGISLATORS SUGGESTED THAT LOCALITIES NFF,D TO SEND 1,0 AL O~CT e-T ~ 't'O RICHMOND D I E R M ~,Q I1~~FORM THEM OF IMPACT OF BILL ~ 00 P M AFTERNOON SESSION A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call. ® Recycled Paper 1 All PRESENT AT 3.04 P.M. 2. Invocation: Gardner Smith, Director Development Services 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C'II ADDED ITEM D 1~ BRIEFING ON TOINT ITY-COUN~Y_ RTTTT,DING PERMIT APPLICATION CBE ADDED APPOINTMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMITTEE AND SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COMMITTE _ APPOINTMENTS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Supervisor Lee Eddy for being awarded the 1996 Dixon Award by the Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions. SUPERVISOR EDDY ACCEPTED CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION 2. Recognition of Treasurer Alfred C. Anderson for receiving the Victor E. Martinelli Outstanding Treasurer's Award. ;~ZR ANDERSON ACCEPTED CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on Joint Roanoke City/Roanoke County Building Permit Application (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) a AC PRESENTED TO BOARD COPIES OF NEW BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT WILL BE USED BY BOTH ROANOKE CITY AND E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Authorization to extend sanitary sewer line to Clearbrook Elementary School. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) A-072396-1 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION WITH SCHOOL BOARD DETERMINING SOURCE OF FUNDS AYES-FM,SH,HCN,BL.T NAYS-LBE 2. Request for Approval of a County participation program for Petition for Public Works projects. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) A-072396-2 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE PROGRAM AND FUNDING AYES-FM,SH,HCN~BL.T NAYS-LBE EACH PROTECT TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR APPROVAL AND COST/PAYBACK ANALYSIS. 3. Request from the Roanoke County School Board for additional funding to complete renovations to Fort Lewis Elementary School, Cave Spring Junior High, and William Byrd High School. (Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) 3 I.BE RE VESTED TO SEPARATE ISSUE BLT RULED NO SUSTAINED BY 4 TO 1 (NAY-LBE VZ OTC A-072396-3 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE FUNDING AS FOLLOWS: X11 1995 SPRING VPSA A&E FUNDS $1,25Q,0( L(2) IN'I'F,RFST FROM ~rHOOL PORTION OF 1993 GO BONDS - $487,000; f31 INCREASE LITERARY LOAN FOR FORT LEWIS - $575,000. AYE -FM~SH,BL.T NAYS-LBE,HCN 4. Request from Strauss Construction for 50% credit of the off-site sewer fees for the Polo Club Development. (Bob Benninger, Assistant Utility Director) A-072396-4 ~'TT'VIOTION TO APPROVE WITH REMOVAL OF $1 000 FOR EASEMENT THROUGH GREEN HILL PARK. URC F. OLD BUSINESS G. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS I. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA Fnl MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING AND SET 2ND AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR 8/27/96 AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEM I-1 URC 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a day care center located at 5501 Florist Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Shining Stars Early Learning Center, Inc. 4 BLT ASKED STAFF TO LOOK AT DAY CARE RErIn,ATIONS 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a religious assembly, located between 7425 and 7502 Old Mill Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of blister Sowder. 3. Ordinance to rezone approximately 5.5 acres from I-1 and C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct assisted living and elderly housing facilities, located approximately 0.1 mile north of the intersection of Route 460 and Daugherty Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richfield Retirement Community. J. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES K. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance for authorization to acquire necessary water and sewer line easements and property to construct the West Main Street Sewer Extension. (Bob Benninger, Assistant Utility Director) 0-072396-5 FM MOTION TO APPROVE ORD ~~ L. APPOINTMENTS 1. Metropolitan Transportation District Study Committee DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 2. Social Services Advisory Board 5 LBE NOMINATED TAN DOWLING TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM EXPIRIN~AUGUST 1, 2000. _APPOINTMENT ADDED TO CONSENT AGENDA FOR CONFIRMATION. 3. School Board Facilities Study Committee DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. HCN NOMINATED PATRI IA MCKINNEY TO SERVE AS AT-LAR MEII~BER TTNANTMf1TT~ V(~T(~F, VOTE TO CONFIRM IMMEDIATELY. MHA TO NOTIFY DR. CORDON. M. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT ~ ]ENDA 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. ~-072396-6 Fns: MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ADDITION TO Nom-] I~ 1. Confirmation of Committee appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Highway and Transportation Safety Commission and Social Services Advisory Board. A-072396-6.a 2. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Laurel Hills -Lot 6, Sewer Extension. A-072396-6.b 6 3. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. A-072396-6.c 4. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement for capital purchases for the Clerk of Circuit Court's Office. A-072396-6.d 5. Donation of sanitary sewer easement on Lot 9, Farmington Place, from Jeffrey Maronic, Inc., to the Board of Supervisors A-072396-6.e 6. Request from School Board for appropriation of funds from the Roanoke Valley Regional Board to the School Operating Fund. A-072396-6.f 7. Request for acceptance of St. Ives Court and portions of Sulgrave Road and Scotford Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-072396-6.g N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS S~.pervisor Harrison ~1) Has received concerns abo»t traffic conditions on Drv Hollow Road which goes to the reservoir and Camp Roano e. s e for assistance in resolving problems ~2) Attended meetin in west oun v ~~garding water and sewer lines Asked residents in the ar con ac their civic leagues if they are interested in connecting to oun v n ~~•x~pr (3) Is still interested in amending County ord to allow for ors in i'PC1f~Pntlal sections ~~pPrvisor Nickens: ~1) Received a letter from School Board member T um Leggette regarding recent Teneral Assemlzly legislation allowir~ design build" option for school construction projects Asked whether ' ^~ ^~~~^~ School Board to consider value engineering for all school projects over $2 million BLT responded that he will draft a letter to the School Board chairman. ~pervisor Eddyi(1) Announced that 5th PDC has arranged for a sneaker from North Carolina to attend a meeting to describe measures being taken in that state to preserve propertyadjacent to the Blue Ridge parkway. and invited other Board members to attend. ~2) Attended Valley Beautiful <<rmmittee meeting and the~are setting up a land trust in the Roanoke Vall~,y for...~reservation purposes (~~ Asked ECH if he has contacted VD T t~ discuss issues related to setup of a low band tourist radio ECH responded he had no~yet~ but will contact VDOT (4) Acknowledged death of Sherri Shindell who attended Board meetings on behalf o eagu o r and had donated land for Ha~~v Hollow Park HCN asked whether Facts ~Qr Voters brochure produced by the disbanded LeaQUe could be continue p,CH advised that MHA had discussion with Registrar's office about Sontinuation of the project ,.~) Asked about response to BLT's letter to RVRA concerning regional recycling BLT advised that Tnhn Hubbard is ~_ ^i ing for completion of a ioint cite/county solid waste st»dy committee beforenursuin~ a.~nd that all members of the mus cone r or there are and changes ~6) Advised he supports SH's request to Hermit cgs in residential areas. ~pervisor Tohnson• (~,) Has some correspondence he would like to discuti~ with Chief Fuqua ,~l.~uestioned why one individual must pay entire assessment for .property for one year after it has been split. Aske o invPCtigatP and report back. O. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1 Don Terp~ 5141 A~pletree Drive ,expressed appreciation to the hoard for funding the renovations to Fort Lewis Elementary hoot 2 Lela Spitz 1971 Oak Drive Ext. Salem ex resse ppreciation to the Board for funding the renovations to Fort Lewis Elementary School 8 p, REPORTS HCN ~~~TION TO RECEIVE AND FILE AFT~DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 7. 8 -iJV~ 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -May 1996 5. Accounts Paid -June 1996 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 1996. 7. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program. 8. Bond Project Status Report. ~,BE ASKED FOR REPORT ON DIXIE CAVERNS s ~ ~T Tr rTF,STED SHAT ANY REMAINING PARK FUNDS BE USED FOR R PARK. Q. WORK SESSION 1. Comprehensive Plan ~~~ ~FRRY HARRINGTON, TON HARTLEY AND GA~2Y 1V ITCIiKL_I1 UPDATED BOARD ON WORK SCHEDULE F ~nMpnrTR'~TCIVE PLAN AND PRESENTED D 9 R. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) pending litigation, Roanoke County vs. GE, et al; 2.1-344 A (3) acquisition of real estate for public purposes; and 2.1-344 A (5) discussion concerning prospective business or industry AND (1) APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO COMMITTEES. BLT MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION-FOLLOWING WORK SE. l~[ON_ URC EXECUTIVE SESSION • 6.03 P M TO 6.40 P.M. S. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION A-072396-7 ALT MOTION TO APPROVE CERTIFICATION RESO AT 7:03 P.M. 7.00 P.M -EVENING SESSION THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING AND 2ND READING HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 24 1996 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PURCHASER AND NEIGHBORS. Ordinance vacating a portion of the subdivision plat for Hunting Hills, Section 3 of record in Plat book 6, page 63, to remove the "well lot" restriction placed on Tax Map No. 88-13-3-28. T. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Glenvar High School Tennis Team for winning the State Championship. io ~t-072396- SH MOTION TO APPROVE ~~ COACH LAWRENCE AND TWO MEMBERS OF TEAM WER PRESENT TO ACCEPT U. BRIEFINGS 1. Report on fire on Oakland Boulevard CHIEF FUQUA REPORTED ON SHORT AND LONG TERM SOLITTIONS TO IMPROVE RESPONSE TIMES FROM HOLLINS FIRE STA'I'~'.G. V. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to rezone 5 acres from R-3 to C-1 with conditions to allow commercial uses, located at the terminus of Burlington Drive adjacent to Friendship Manor, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority. (Trent Development) CONTINUED FROM MAY 28. 1996 (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) ~iCN MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE FOR 40 TO 90 DAYS TO ALLOW STAFF TO RESOLVE I TO ROAD ACCESS. ILI~~ TH ADVISED ISSUES SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY 9/24/96 2. Ordinance declaring Lot 2B, Shamrock Industrial Park (Tax Map No. 55.09-1-20.2) and a 1.656 acre portion of Shamrock Park (Part of Tax Map No. 55.13-1-2) in the Catawba Magisterial District to be surplus and accepting/rejecting an offer for the exchange of same with property owned by Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map Nos. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20) (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) ~~ 0-072396-9 SH MOTION TO APPROVE ORD WITH X2500 RECORDATION COSTS APPROPRIATED FROM ECONOMIC_ DEVELOPMENT FUND. ~~ 3. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting an offer for the sale of same; namely the Crestwood Park Well Lot, Tap Map No. 76.16-2-13. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) I,BE MOTION TO DELAY FOR 30 DAYS (,$/27/9 ~O ALLOW STAFF TO NEGOTIATE CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN OFFER TO PURCHASE ~~ W. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1, rover McLeod, 5533 Oakland Blvd Spoke on behalf of a group of ~~~dents from the Hollins area and expressed concern about response time from Hollins station to fire on Oakland Blvd Reauested additiona career f~fighters be hired for Hollins station. ? Chief Crozier from Hollins Fire Department spoke and accented n ibili~,y for response times and reported on efforts the station was taking to improve their res onse . 3 Patricia Proffitt., spoke and requested that the County consider havii2g all .paid firefighters. OTHER BUSINESS: BL.T VISED THAT HE WOULD NOTIFY MAYOR BOWERS RFGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ~Tlmv COMMITTEE. HCN NOMINATED PATRICIA MCKINNEY TO AT-LARGE APPOINTMENT TO SCHOOL FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE. is CONFIRMED BY UW. X. ADJOURNMENT BL T AD TOURNED MEETING AT 7.59 P M 13 0~ ROANp,~.~ ~ A z ~ ~ a 1838 C~~ixxtt~ .off ~a~xz~~~~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA JULY 23, 1996 r~rrr cx n¢ ecue xra~ 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. 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 maybe made. HE " ARD F > I'ER I R TEL ; ,1 F. T f~ T ERA KE .... VAS T ,~ ~ ,~~TA TE >TI.~' `T0 A T 2:00 P; .l ~` ~N T,II ~ F I~'KTH FL''' FEE ;F P'1VI ~ M ETT ITH A L E l LAT R '. 3:00 P.M. -AFTERNOON SESSION A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: Gardner Smith, Director Development Services 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE i ® Recycled Paper ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Supervisor Lee Eddy for being awarded the 1996 Dixon Award by the Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions. 2. Recognition of Treasurer Alfred C. Anderson for receiving the Victor E. Martinelli Outstanding Treasurer's Award. D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Authorization to extend sanitary sewer line to Clearbrook Elementary School. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) 2. Request for Approval of a County participation program Petition for Public Works projects. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) 3. Request from the Roanoke County School Board for additional funding to complete renovations to Fort Lewis Elementary School, Glenvar Middle School, Cave Spring Junior High, and William Byrd High School. (Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) 4. Request from Strauss Construction for 50% credit of the off-site sewer fees for the Polo Club Development. (Bob Benninger, Assistant Utility Director) F. OLD BUSINESS s G. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS I. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a day care center located at 5501 Florist Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Shining Stars Early Learning Center, Inc. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a religious assembly, located between 7425 and 7502 Old Mill Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of blister Sowder. 3. Ordinance to rezone approximately 5.5 acres from I-1 and C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct assisted living and elderly housing facilities, located approximately 0.1 mile north of the intersection of Route 460 and Daugherty Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richfield Retirement Community. J. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES K. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance for authorization to acquire necessary water and sewer line easements and property to construct the West Main Street Sewer Extension. (Bob Benninger, Assistant Utility Director) L. APPOINTMENTS 1. Metropolitan Transportation District Study Committee 3 2. Social Services Advisory Board 3. School Board Facilities Study Committee M. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Confirmation of Committee appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. 2. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Laurel Hills -Lot 6, Sewer Extension. 3. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. 4. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement for capital purchases for the Clerk of Circuit Court's Office. 5. Donation of sanitary sewer easement on Lot 9, Farmington Place, from Jeffrey Maronic, Inc., to the Board of Supervisors 6. Request from School Board for appropriation of funds from the Roanoke Valley Regional Board to the School Operating Fund. 7. Request for acceptance of St. Ives Court and portions of Sulgrave Road and Scotford Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4 N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS O. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS P. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -May 1996 5. Accounts Paid -June 1996 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 1996. 7. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program. 8. Bond Project Status Report. Q. WORK SESSION 1. Comprehensive Plan R. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (7) pending litigation, Roanoke County vs. GE, et al; 2.1-344 A (3) acquisition of real estate for public purposes; and 2.1-344 A (5) discussion concerning prospective business or industry. S. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION 5 7:00 P.M. -EVENING SESSION THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARIN AND 2ND READIN HA BEEN POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 24. 1996 AT THE REQUEST QF THE PURCHASER AND NEIGHBORS. Ordinance vacating a portion of the subdivision plat for Hunting Hills, Section 3 of record in Plat book 6, page 63, to remove the "well lot" restriction placed on Tax Map No. 88-13-3-28. T. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Glenvar High School Tennis Team for winning the State Championship. U. BRIEFINGS 1. Report on fire on Oakland Boulevard V. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to rezone 5 acres from R-3 to C-1 with conditions to allow commercial uses, located at the terminus of Burlington Drive adjacent to Friendship Manor, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority. (Trent Development) CONTINUED FROM MAY 28, 1996 (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning) 2. Ordinance declaring Lot 2B, Shamrock Industrial Park (Tax Map No. 55.09-1-20.2) and a 1.656 acre portion of Shamrock Park (Part of Tax Map No. 55.13-1-2) in the Catawba Magisterial District to be surplus and accepting/rejecting an offer for the exchange of same with property owned by 6 Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map Nos. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20) (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) 3. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting an offer for the sale of same; namely the Crestwood Park Well Lot, Tap Map No. 76.16-2-13. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) W. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS X. ADJOURNMENT JOINT MEETING WITH ROANOKE VALLEY LEGISLATORS 2:00 P.M. ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER FOURTH FLOOR TRAINING ROOM i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1996 RESOLUTION 052896-2 RECOMMENDING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES FOR THE 1997 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of state-wide concern to be considered by the 1997 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and ' WHEREAS, the Board has recommended these issues to its state- wide organization, the Virginia Association of Counties, for consideration in the adoption of its legislative program; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as part of the Legislative Program of Roanoke County for the 1997 session of the Virginia General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following legislative proposals are submitted to the Virginia Association of Counties for consideration in its 1997 Legislative Program. I. A. Education. Realizing that public education is the foundation of American democracy and the cornerstone of our future economic well being, the County urges the General Assembly to consider favorably the following actions. 1) The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia should be amended to provide that elected school boards may be 1 granted the authority and responsibility for taxation to support public education. 2) The General Assembly should enhance funding for public education, including increasing the funds available to the Literary Fund for local school capital construction or renovation projects. 3) Local school divisions should be authorized to establish opening dates for school. 4) Disparity funding should be based not only upon the number of students eligible for free or reduced fee lunches, but also upon the locality's local tax effort in support of education. Disparity funding should be based upon the composite index (which measures a locality's relative fiscal ability to provide its share of the cost of a local school system, that meets the standards of quality) and the locality's local effort in support of that school system. B. Roanoke County supports legislation amending the heart/lung/cancer presumption statute for Workers' Compensation to restore balance to the rebuttal process. Compensability shall be determined by establishing whether work or non-work related risk factors (life-style choices such as smoking, poor nutritional habits, lack of exercise, or obesity, or non-work related stress and familial history) are more likely the primary cause of the medical condition. In addition, Roanoke County opposes any further expansion of this statute. C. Roanoke County supports legislation relieving local 2 governments of the responsibility of meeting recycling rates on all wastes collected by private haulers and diverted from waste disposal facilities identified to receive such wastes as set out in the local solid waste management plan. This legislation should also require that private haulers diverting such wastes be held accountable and responsible to meeting the same recycling rates and requirements as the local governments. Section 10.1-1411 imposes a 25% recycling mandate on local governments. The 1995 session of the General Assembly adopted the Waste Hauler Displacement Bill which severely limited the ability of local governments to regulate the flow of waste. This proposal would relieve local governments of the responsibility of meeting this recycling mandate on all wastes collected by private haulers. It would also require that private haulers be subject to the same recycling mandates as local governments. D. Roanoke County supports additional new construction and maintenance funding for the Virginia Department of Transportation for secondary and primary roads. Additional funding for new construction projects will address critical transportation needs of all local governments. Additional maintenance funding shall be used for an expanded program to mow grass and weeds, and inspect and clean drainage pipes and culverts. E. Roanoke County supports allowing the disposal of land clearing vegetative debris (including tree stumps) in less expensive facilities in a manner not detrimental to the environment. This would require groundwater and methane gas 3 monitoring, financial assurances from the owner/operator, and local governing body certification of compliance with all local ordinances. F. Roanoke County supports legislation amending Section 14.1-46.0:1 to increase the salary supplement for the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from $1,800 to $2,500 per year. G. Roanoke County supports continued and increased funding for the Comprehensive Services Act, the Virginia Community Juvenile Crime Control Act, the Family Preservation Act, local police departments (HB 599 funding), and the Regional Competitiveness Act. H. Roanoke County opposes the provisions of H.B. 1513 (legislation carried over from the 1996 session) which would shift more of the costs of water and sewer facilities and operations from the homebuilders to the individual consumers. This legislation claims only to require "fair and reasonable" water and sewer connection fees, yet its practical effects are to shift costs and expenses to the existing utility customer, jeopardize new and existing revenue bond covenants, and impose a "one size fits all" mandate on local governments and water and sewer authorities. I. Roanoke County opposes any attempt to restrict or eliminate local sources of taxation, including personal property taxation and business and professional occupational licensing. J. Roanoke County supports authority to impose an additional one-half percent (Z%) local option sales tax. K. Roanoke County supports expanding local authority to create transportation districts, to impose local option motor 4 vehicle fuels taxes, and to expend these tax proceeds for local transportation improvements. II. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Virginia Association of Counties, members of the General Assembly representing the Roanoke Valley, and to the Town Council of the Town of Vinton, City Councils of the City of Salem and the City of Roanoke, and the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, and Montgomery counties. On substitute motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution with Section K amended, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. lien, CMC Clerk to the Board CC: Roanoke Valley General Assembly Legislators Virginia Association of Counties Mary Parker, Roanoke City Clerk Carolyn Ross, Vinton Town Clerk Forest Jones, Salem City Clerk Clerk, Bedford County Board of Supervisors Clerk, Botetourt County Board of Supervisors Clerk, Floyd County Board of Supervisors Clerk, Craig County Board of Supervisors Clerk, Montgomery County Board of Supervisors Clerk, Franklin County Board of Supervisors Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 5 I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 052896-2 recommending legislative proposals to the Virginia Association of Counties for the 1997 Session of the Virginia General Assembly, adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors REMARKS OF BOB L. JOHNSON Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors House Appropriations Committee Meeting Roanoke, Virginia Wednesday, July 10, 1996 8:45 a.m. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members -Good morning and welcome to the Roanoke Valley. We appreciate the time which you have given us this morning. Last night, the Board of Supervisors met and agreed on some concerns and requests which I have been asked to express to you today. We continue to be concerned about actions which the General Assembly takes which have severe impact on us as a local government. For example: BPOL Tax -The recent changes to the BPOL tax have created confusion and animosity between local governments and their taxpayers. Revenue from BPOL taxes and fees account for $3.25 million to Roanoke County, which equates to 3-1/2% of our general fund budget. We have used the State's formula to keep our position revenue neutral, but this unfortunately provides some dramatic increases for our smallest businesses and creates a dramatic disconti- nuity at the $100,000 gross receipts level. Please do not make any further changes to this tax, particularly without input from the local governments which are severely impacted by it. Personal Property Tax - As with BPOL, we urge the General Assembly not to make any changes in our ability to collect this tax. Roanoke County collects $17.8 million from the personal property tax, which represents almost 20% of our revenues. Any attempt to tamper with this revenue stream could result in severe financial implications for local governments. Utility Rates and Fees -Roanoke County also strongly opposes any proposal to limit the amount which we can charge for connection fees. In the past, the federal and state govern- ment often helped through grants and revenue sharing to pay for the cost of new infrastructure - but that is no longer the case. Water and sewer facilities are built entirely at the expense of local taxpayers, and therefore, the setting of rates should also be left to the local government. Obviously, to remain competitive, and help bring in new residents and industry, we need new infrastructure -and we also need to keep these rates as low as possible and balance the costs between new and existing residents. You cannot legislate a stronger incentive than the one we already have as we listen to the complaints of our citizens. We also have a legal and moral obligation to our bond holders who purchased revenue bonds based on a predictable revenue stream. Perhaps you do not realize, as you sit in Richmond, what it is like to provide direct service to citizens on the local level. We try to be fiscally conservative, and if you look at actual numbers, you will find that Roanoke County provides a high level of service at a low cost to our taxpayers. However, if our ability to spread the cost of service through a variety of taxes and fees is limited, we will be forced to increase real estate taxes to continue the provision of services, and we will be obligated to let our citizens know WHY we are doing so. For the next budget year, these are our specific requests: Funding for the Sheriff -The County requests that the state review its funding formula, along with the overcrowding in local jails and the increased volume of court activity, and appropriate sufficient resources to provide for security in our jails and court houses. We also request that the state provide 25 % of the true renovation cost of local jails as anticipated by State code, rather than removing equipment from the formula. Schools -The County appreciates the funding we have received this year, particularly in the technology and class size categories. We hope that the state will carefully review any changes to the standards of accreditation, particularly for hidden costs to the school system, and provide funding for heavy maintenance and renovation costs to aging buildings. Visitor Center on Blue Ridge Parkway -Roanoke County has worked hard to persuade the federal government to help construct a Visitor Center on the Roanoke River Parkway at the Explore Park. This is a cooperative effort, with the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton joining with the County to donate land for the center. In order to construct the facility, we will need $2.05 million in state and local funds over the next two fiscal years to help match the funding from the federal government. This is a very important project to Southwest Virginia, and we expect the Visitor Center to help bring many tourists off the Blue Ridge Parkway into Explore and the Roanoke Valley. Explore Park -Within the next year, Explore expects to have a variety of additional attractions in place and ready to open. The park does need assistance, however, in funding for infrastruc- ture to serve the new attractions. The infrastructure includes wastewater treatment facilities, parking lots, roads, trails and a visitor transportation system. In addition to the operating funds which Explore already receives through the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority, the park will need approximately $3 million to construct these needed projects. College of Health Sciences -the College of Health Sciences, as all of our institutions of higher learning, is not just a benefit to the residents of the Valley. It is also a regional economic development tool, bringing people here to learn, and providing, most importantly, skilled personnel for the region's hospitals, home health agencies, and physician's offices. All of Southwest Virginia benefits from the presence of the College, and the County requests restoration of $950,000 in transition funds in next year's Commonwealth budget. Thank you again for this opportunity to present these issues to you. We always appreciate the chance to communicate with our legislators. 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: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Supervisor Lee Eddy for being awarded the 1996 Dixon Award by the Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Fifth Planning District Commission recently announced that Supervisor Lee Eddy has been awarded the 1996 Dixon Award by the Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions. The award recognizes a VAPDC commissioner or executive director who has provided leadership and made outstanding contributions to the concept of regionalism in the Commonwealth. Supervior Eddy has been involved in the Planning District Commissions since the establishment of the Fifth PDC in 1969 and was the first President of the VAPDC following adoption of the Association's Charter and Bylaws in 1986. He will receive the award at the VAPDC annual banquet on Friday, July 19 in Virginia Beach. Respectfully s bmitted, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens Motion by: ACTION # ITEM NUMBER C - z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Recognition of Alfred C. Anderson for Receiving the Victor E. Martinelli Outstanding Treasurer's Award COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SU1I~IMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to recognize Alfred C. Anderson for receiving the Victor E. Martinelli Outstanding Treasurer's Award. This award is presented annually by the National Association of County Treasurers and Finance Officers (NACTFO), an affiliate of the National Association of Counties (NACo), to one person who has been an active member of NACTFO for at least two years and who serves as a leader in his or her home State and as a professional of the highest caliber in the operation of his or her own County office. The winner is selected by a panel of judges not affiliated with NACTFO, and the Award was presented to Mr. Anderson at the NACTFO Luncheon at the NACo conference last week. Mr. Anderson was nominated by the Director of Community Relations and the County Administrator in recognition of his many professional, civic and personal accomplishments over the course of his career as Treasurer of Roanoke County. ~- A 3 ( ~~ Anne Marie Green, APR Director, Community Relations . ~ ~ ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator x ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER A-0723 96-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to extend sanitary sewer service to Clearbrook School. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: It is apparent that this project is urgent and interim solutions will be expensive. We had planned to engineer this entire project for construction in phases. Because of the need to proceed we are bringing this to you at this time. It will take six to eight months to engineer and construct. It will benefit no other parcels because this is the most direct route to the school. It will not serve any other properties in the area, but it will provide the necessary link to do so in the future. If approved, I request permission to utilize School Board funds for the project. Until the project is completed we will proceed with the "pump and haul" method. BACKGROUND: In June, the Roanoke County Health Department conducted a soil and site evaluation for a septic system repair/replacement for the Clearbrook Elementary School. Attached is a letter from the Health Department with the results of the evaluation advising that the proposed alternate site is not suitable for a septic system, and recommending extension of public sewer to Clearbrook Elementary School. Until the problem is resolved, the school administration is pumping the sewage from the septic tank and hauling it to an approved disposal location at a cost of $290 per week. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Because of the immediate threat to health and safety, this project has been separated from the list of projects to be included in the public work projects. Due to the existing topography present along the Route 220 corridor between the Blue Ridge Parkway and Clearbrook Elementary School, it will be necessary to install two (2) sewage pumping stations and approximately 5,000 lineal feet of sewage force main (pressure Vi=i line). The force main would convey sewage from the pump stations north along the west side of Route 220, cross under the Blue Ridge Parkway and discharge into an existing manhole located in the Hunting Hills subdivision. It is estimated that construction of these facilities would require an expenditure of approximately $215,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Extension of the sewer line is estimated to cost $215,000. There are several sources funds available in the School Board budget to cover the cost. Funds could be appropriated from the schools general fund, the capital fund; or the School Board could use funds from the architectural and engineering account. These VPSA funds were received in the spring of 1995 and arbitrage rules require that they be spent in three years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because of the emergency nature of this project, staff recommends that the Board authorize extension of a sanitary sewer line to Clearbrook Elementary School, with funding appropriated from the School Board budget. Respectfully submitted, }~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve extension with School Board determining source of funds VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy ~ Harrison ~_ Johnson ~_ Minnix x Nickens ~_ cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent Gary Robertson, Director, Utility IJUL..-;0'96 (WED) 09:08 RK/VINT HLTH DEPT TEL~540 851 ~p°' ~~ ~+C~MM~~TW'EA~`.~'~ of VI~,I~v ~.~. In ~,op•~auan ,~~ ~ Roanoke County -r- V'intvn Health Department sma, cbNenma~ a Hoo,~h 227 $. POi.LARD ~ l'REIs`T P. 0. 80X 3i)7 ViNTCN, VIRCIN{A 241,9 July 8,199d Huiucr Dui plrcetor of Facilities and Opersiion5 Roanoke County Schools 3937 Cure Road Roaaalre, VA 24019 Dear Mr. Duff: Re; SepticRepair - C]earbrook lElementary Schl~l 12 .. ~C:. ~( ~~ At~MiNI6TRAT10N ns7 7900 p~,q~,cY 897-7902 tJl INlC AID NUP8ING l~sr79a ~yIRpNNEIVTAL HEALTH 867 7907 7DD y.gQf}92~1120 FAx eoi'~ The Roa~toke County >3ealth Deparwent ebnduCted a soil and site evaluation for asepticsystemrepair/rePlace:ncnt for the Clearbroolc Elementary Schoat.on June 2'1, 199b. Backlioc pits were e~~slnated on tha arhletie Feld tb the reax of the school with the following pbservations:. • ?he soil w~ls comgaCt dtu to previous extensive grading. • Natural Soil profiles arid.contowrs do longer exist because of grading. ' • '1"he presence of Ali w85 noted in all pits. • A seasonal water labia was sated at 5t) in . All of these conditions Confirm this site is riot suit8ble 3or a subsurface absorption ~YstG~ti. The area of the exisdn$ failing system in the front of the school was eva.tualed and high ~ w~' tablas wore ca7rf~rmed to be present. Water from springs is being piped to the Route 2Z0 toad ditch. Repair of the saplic in this area would have to be installed arr a greater depth thaw the existing syster>'~ This would result in increased rizc;raaC1-merit to the water table with a high probability of sewage. discharge to the road ditch. We wrongly zeco:amend the extansian of public sewer as along-term solution to the existing sewage disposal system malfunction. Please feet free to contact us if you have questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, , ~ ~-' Richard C. Tabb lruviruiuuental Health Mt,»Sagcr ah Enc. c: Molly I.. Rutltidge M.D., Health Director Charles Kennedy, Environmental Health Specialist, Sr. ,.u.~,1n, Nri aadllrrlnvi~orv~nl • t A-0723 96-2 Action Number Item Number ~ ~. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Request for Approval of a County Participation Program for Petitions for Public Works Projects BACKGROUND: Public utilities are adequately provided for with new construction. Contractors include water and sewer lines as part of the development and charge the costs to purchasers of new homes at the time of sale. Often lines are extended or oversized to accommodate future needs and this is paid by the County. There is no County plan for extension of utilities into older neighborhoods or neighborhoods that are beginning to have water or sewer problems. The current County Petition for Public Works policy was adopted almost eight years ago. Since then, it has been utilized on two occasions, once for water and once for sewer. There are a number of neighborhoods that have failing septic tanks and failing or marginal wells, so the need is well known. If there is a concern that extending utilities into these neighborhoods may cause undesired growth, that can be dealt with through the Comprehensive Plan and requests for rezoning, but existing neighborhoods do not need to be penalized. In a developing county such as ours, there will be times when we will be called upon to improve communities for the overall well being of the entire County. Such is the case when we make drainage improvements, install fire hydrants, and make road improvements. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A work session was held with the Board on June 11 to discuss various methods of allowing the County to advance funds for improvements in those neighborhoods where residents are willing to participate in the improvements of water and sewer projects. In most cases, property owners are willing to pay connection fees and on-going utility bills. They are receptive to reasonable costs for extension of lines to their properties. However, in many cases the cost is prohibitive if we consider only the people who live in the area at the present time. We need to find some way to extend utilities to those neighborhoods. When we do so, there is an improvement in the neighborhood, property values increase, and the entire County benefits. 1 ~ " :~, At the previous Board meeting, several of you asked that we provide information showing how a pay-back can be realized. Attachment A shows the average assessed value per acre and the revenue from three areas. As you will see, the Williamson Road area has an assessed value of $101, 355 per acre with an average annual revenue of $1,145 per acre. West Main Street, west of Salem, has an average assessed value of $26,802 per acre and an average annual revenue of $303 per acre. West Main Street has water but does not have sewer. The Clearbrook area, which is one of our highest priorities, has an average assessed value of only $13,523 per acre with average annual tax revenue of $153 per acre. This area does not have public water or sewer and is on one of the major highways through the Roanoke Valley. This gives you some idea of the advantage to the County of having utilities in these areas, over and above the improvement to the quality of life of those who live and work there. Attachment B is a copy of the Petition for Public Works Projects policy that you have received before. METHODOLOGY: It is our proposal that the policy be adopted by the Board and the funding be appropriated from the unspent interest on the 1993 general obligation bonds. This amounts to $603,515. The highest priority projects, which are included on Attachment C, will be further evaluated and brought back to the Board for approval before any funds are expended. Staff will do preliminary engineering to determine the cost, meet with individuals in the neighborhoods to determine participation, and, if the project meets the criteria established, we will bring the necessary documentation back to the Board for contract approval. If there is not sufficient interest from the property owners, we will proceed with the next highest priority project. County funds will be advanced for construction of the project. Those property owners who choose not to participate will be charged actual costs, plus interest, when they do choose to do so. Those funds will replenish the advanced account. As an alternative, the Board can choose to have mandated payments by those property owners who choose not to participate. I would recommend this only in the case of an emergency. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available from the unspent interest on the 1993 General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $603,515. 2 ~~ RECOMMENDATION: It is my hope that you will see the benefit of this policy to the neighborhoods and to the overall County. Request approval of the the procedure and funding. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to No Yes Abs Denied ( ) approve gram and funding Eddy _~ Received ( ) Harrison ~_ Referred ( ) Johnson ~_ To ( ) Minnix ~ Nickens ~_ cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Policy Manual 3 c~ W z ~~ S S S w o ~ ~a Ha w a ~ W M O N ¢a ~ ~ ~ w w ~ d' ~ 00 N ~ H P'r 6R3 A w ~W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~/~ Q ~ Q~ , ~ 69 ER z ~~ ~~ ~ S ¢¢ ~ ~ ~ w '~ oW U za ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N M O --~ O ~ ~ ~C~ ° ~~ o E"'~ zl N ~ N o0 N N ~. U a~ ~ H ~ a z O ~ ° Y ` ` U ~ " vi ' d O p ~ ~~ o Q ~ ~ ¢ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 Attachment A ~~ ~` ., Attachment B POLICY FOR COUNTY PARTICIPATION ON "PETITION FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS" Roanoke County will evaluate projects for participation and/or extent of the participation based on the following criteria: • County participation will be subject to available funding. Projects are to be approved and prioritized by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. • Projects should serve an existing developed area. • The project should alleviate animminent/potential health concern. (I.e., failing wells and/or septic systems, contaminated wells). • A majority of the property owners in the area should be in favor of the project. • The project would enhance the existing utility system or provide expansion capabilities to other areas. • The project should have a positive payback with 100 percent participation. The extent of County participation would normally be limited to advanced funding for properties that don't initially participate, upgrading lines to provide future growth, providing credits against portions of off-site fees and possibly assisting with construction difficulties that increase costs extensively. The off-site facility fee credits awarded to initial participants would range between 50% and 100% of the applicable off-site facility fee. This will be considered on a case by case basis and would be determined by construction costs of the project. Properties located in a special service area that connect at a later date would then pay the allocated construction cost plus the appropriate off-site facility fee. The off-site facility fee would be returned to the appropriate utility fund and the construction cost would be returned to the appropriate fund that advanced the construction cost. Attachment C o 0 Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,,,,,, Q O O ~ ~ O O O vi O O O O O O O O ,~ N o F„ i vi N vi vl [~ 00 ~ N O 'd' O O vi t~ v'i l~ vi l~ vi N o0 ~!1 ~n N vi ~ vi N O O O O M ~ A 69 bs 69 69 s9 bM9 es ~ 69 ~ 69 ~, bs 6M9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o W H V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '~ N i „ i H O ~ O O ~n ~ O O O O O O O ~ v i ~ O ~ O ~ O O O ~ O ~ O ~ O O O O M a/ N ~ M ~t O O l~ l~ [~ N O~ N l~ N O O ~ ~O ~ V ~ N N 00 00 M ,--. N ~ N ~ O O H a 6'9 69 69 69 69 b9 69 b9 69 6N9 _ 69 69 69 69 b 9 _ 69 69 w H O U A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 W 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o ~.i ~ ~ ~i ~ 0 0 0 0 .-~ o o vi o o_ 0 0 H 0 O ~ ~o ~ 0 ~ N M ~ ~ ~O M [~ ~ 60 N N ~--y ~O O O " V ~ O V F. H Gf3 69 69 b9 64 69 b9 69 b9 69 69 br9 69 69 69 69 Ei3 ~ W ~ aw a H~ o~ w H~ a ~ H ~ O w L fY W ° .~ ° ° ° a ~ W U O ~p m ~ o tIl o ~--~ N ~--~ ~--~ o oo ~ M oo ~--~ o N 00 M 0 oo 0 M 0 [~ ~--~ o oo c ~ .-+ C~ W r, ~ w z~ ~ a o H o N H ~ ~v ° ' ~ ~ ? • ~ ~,, , a ~ ; ~ ~ ~' w, ~ ~ ~., N N ai y ~ ~ ~ c~ r"' ~' h `~ ~ W ~ a ~ ~ 0 3 ~'" a ~ ~ 3 ~ ti o a~ ~ ~ .b ~, ~ ~ .~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, o O ~ , v, ~ p ~ .+ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q+ _y ~ M ~ y a~ ~ ,~ ~ N o ~ ~ ~ U o ~ 3 o x o o x ~ ~ o , ,,, ,// a~ p, ~ ~ '° ~ ~ ~ N ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ W . ~ ~ ~ a U ~ ~ ~ ~ * CA U C7 C7 ti U C7 f~ ~ a - x ?`~-~ ....~ A-072396-3 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: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the School Board to Appropriate Funds for Capital Improvements at Fort Lewis Elementary School, William Byrd High School, and Cave Spring Junior High School COUNTYADMINLSTRATOR :S COHMENT.S: The board may wish to separate these items and consider them individually. All three projects need to be done as well as many other improvements to County schools I recommend that all three requests be forwarded to the citizens committee for their revie-v prior to any action. The committee may choose to address short term issues first and then begin with the comprehensive plan. At least they will have had some involvement in the decision. However, there are some extenuating circumstances that need to be considered: 1. Cave Spring Junior High School: Tlie $500, 000 request for this school should be deferred The project has not been bid and there is no basis for this amount It is very likely that this project will require several million more dollars. When the full extent of this project is determined it should be supported 2. William Byrd High School: I prefer to hold this project until the County-wide study is completes But, if the Board proceeds with Fort Lelvis, I suggested this be done as welb 3. Fort Lewis Elementary School: Because of the extensive change and scope of this project, I prefer that additional time and planning be dons However. this project was initially funded by a literary loan which we have not yet received If it is deferred, we may loose the loin interest source of funds and the bid on the projeclf If the Board chooses to proceed with any or all of these projects, the funds should be taken from existing school accounts as outlined by the Finance Director. The order of priority should be as follows: (1) those funds remaining in the A&E account for a n~v high schoob I am recommending in another Board Report that some of these funds be used for a server line to Clearbrook Elementary Schoob (2) $487,000 interest income from the 1993 General Obligation Bonds. Debt service for these projects should be paid by the Schools as they have done in the past SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a presentation from the School Superintendent and the School Board. m:\finance\common\board\ July 19, 1996 E--~ At their meeting on June 13, 1996, the School Board adopted the attached resolution requesting additional funds as follows: Fort Lewis Elementary School $1,155,575 William Byrd High School 454,534 Cave Spring Junior High 500,000 Total 2 110 109 These projects are discussed in more detail below. A summary calendar of events for all three of these projects is included as Attachment A. Ft. Lewis ElementarX -This project has a budget of $1,300,000, to be funded with Literary Loans. The Board has approved a $500,000 advance until the Literary Loan funds are received in the Fall of 1996. The construction bids were opened on May 23,1996, and are good for 30 days. The Schools received an additiona130 day extension on these bid prices. The low bid was $1,954,800. The additional items needed in addition to the construction bid bring the total project to $2,455,575. This is $1,155,575 over budget, or 189% over budget. A further detail of the components of this project is shown as Attachment B. The construction bid cannot be awarded unless an additional source of funding is identified. The Literary Loan can be increased by an amount equal to an inflationary increase in the project. Ron Martin, the project engineer, estimates that about half of this increase can be attributed to inflation. The other half is the result of changes in scope of the project. William Byrd ftigh School -This project has a budget of $3,300,000, funded by Literary Loan Funds that are already available. The construction bid has been awarded once it was worked down to $3,086,405. Attachment C outlines other items that the Schools want to include that would bring the total cost of the project to $3,754,534. This is $454,534 over budget, or 114% over budget. Since the Literary Loan funds have already been released, it is too late to increase the loan. Alternate 1 on Attachment C for $248,000 is for a new technology education lab. This is a bricks and mortar addition to the building to house the Synergistic Lab (formerly taught as industrial arts). Cave Sig Junior -The project has a budget of $2,500,000, funded by Literary Loans that are already available. It has not been bid yet, however, after reviewing the changes caused by the new BOCA code, the Schools were told by Ron Martin, the project engineer, that this would not allow enough funds to air condition the auditorium. In order to include the auditorium, it would cost $3,000,000. This is $500,000 over budget, or 120% over budget. Since the Literary Loan has already been released it is too late to increase the amount. In addition, the School Board resolution, included as Attachment D, includes the request that the County Board pay the debt service on the above. m:\finance\common\boazd~ July 19, 1996 ~~,~ L..+ ~ Board of Supervisors Page 3 July 19, 1996 FISCAL IMPACT: If the Board chooses to fund the requested school capital projects, there are several alternatives: Approximately $575,000 of the $1,155,575 additional cost for Fort Lewis can be funded by increasing the amount of the Literary Loan currently in progress. This is possible because Literary Loans can be increased for the amount related to inflation. 2. If the Board authorizes and increase in any or all of these projects, that amount can be included in the Fall 1996 VPSA sale along with the $1,300,000 that will be included for the Northside Gym/Auditorium completion. The debt service on the additional $2,110,109 will be approximately $200,000 annually. The School Board has asked the County Board to pay this annual expense. If the Board wishes to consider the use of existing school funds, there are two major sources that can be used: The 1995 Spring VPSA Bonds included money for the A&E work for the new County High School. The unused portion can be reassigned since this project is on hold. (Arbitrage rules require that this money be spent within three years.) Interest Income has been earned on the School portion of the 1993 general obligation bonds that has not yet been allocated to a project. (This interest income is usually used to cover cost overruns on bond projects, or used to reimburse ourselves for interest expense on the bonds and then reappropriated to other capital projects.) Total $1,250,000 487,000 $2-,o-7~~s- 1,737,000 The use of the above money would not require any additional debt service, but it has not been discussed with the School Board. m:\finance\common\board\ July 19, 1996 ~~ -~ -~ ) Board of Supervisors Page 4 July 19, 1996 SUBMITTED BY: Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) APPROVED: r~ ~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve funding as follows: (1) 1995 Spring VPSA A&E Funds 51,250,000; (2) Interest from School portion of 1993 GO Bonds X487,000: (3) Increase literarX Loan for Fort Lewis 5575,000 cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy ~ Harrison ~- Johnson ~_ Minnix ~ Nickens ~,_ m:\finance\common\boazd\ July 19, 1996 Attachment A ;~ ~_._-- .-- _ y~ ~.. _,1 Calendar of Events Fort Lewis June 28, 1994 Filed literary loan application for "classroom and gymnasium addition" for $1,300,000. January 1996 Plans filed with DOE and placed on First Priority List. February 13, 1996 Board approved advance of $500,000 on the project. May 23, 1996 Construction bids opened -good for 60 days. Fall 1996 Anticipated release of funds. William ~ rY d High School August 1991 Filed literary loan application for $2,000,000 for science room addition and building renovations. August 1994 Filed supplemental loan application for $500,000. June 8, 1995 Withdrew two loan applications and resubmitted literary loan request for $3,300,000. Plans already filed with DOE. September 1995 Placed on First priority List. May 1996 Literary loan released. rave Springy Junior High School July 1991 Filed literary loan application for $2,500,000 for building renovations. August 1993 Placed on First Priority List. March 1995 School Board requested advance from the Board of Supervisors -approved $500,000. March 28, 1996 Literary loan released. May 1996 Board of Supervisors votes to appropriate. M:\finance\commonUoan-cal.wpd June 21, 1996 Attachment B ~~GOUN~y e s~ 2 0 I~ ~ ~°~t 'c ~o~no~e ~CounL~ ~c~oo~s ~epar(amen~ of '~' aciliEies and Operations 6937 ~ove ~' 1`*T~ ]~oanoke, 'V~ 2019 TDD 540-562-3996 540-562-3800 Fax 540-562-3988 c.-' ~'? Fort Lewis Construction Project Budget $1,300,000 Bid 1, 954, 800 Energy Mgnt. 72,337 Utility Fees 45,606 Carpet 9, 940 Furnishings 40,000 Fencing 10,800 Storage Bldg. 6,500 Library 30,000 Cafeteria seating 8,800 A & E Fees 48,192 Testing Services 3,600 Asbestos 40,000 Kitchen Equip. 102,400 Alternates 1, 3, 4 42,600 Change Orders 40,000 $2,455,575 Balance Needed $1,155, 575 M:\finance\common\loan-cal.wpd June 21, 1996 . Jur-19-96 O3:13P Rko_ Co_ Scl-~_ Fac_ & Opr_ 540 5623988 A-L~2~//.~-r'~. S . /"I o I/~4~6cL= I~vP~ C_ .,s7a ~ G C cdo~ccES 1 z ~' X / z'' X ~d '' i~ G,G , O vim/ r?u1 ti i G~ g fZ-'~ ~!'1 ~?~4i`!i~/cz> p,c/ ht~o,aa X2,0 ,/JetdOeS~ A~ 72 ~ . 2¢ ~/t, L~9~ aF ~~ ~lasSitao~s ~~/ SAC ff D/S~l~y 0~4/ ,~ ~/.3 ~JtJErL /L/~ ~T' ff ~3 R~ (,9 ~i S~ ,S~d ~/,Q L ~v r, ~ev~z ,e,/~ ~ /Z ~- iz'~ ~,z ., ljd'' ~2" ..~1 ....... - --~~ ~i. . i 4~~ a~s~ ,tit ~~/gtC ~ . -- - -- ~z~ os ~ - ~ ~- --~! ....__... .--~-----~-~-~--------~--.... .._ ....._.f,J_/T~{ ,S/N~~- ~ ~/ZOdGa/f ~rV /~,UrY,~~dG /~t/ /,~tt~ /,3~0 '~~.' ~. ~ I ~C r 1 1 r OPC7^~ A ~3 ... • \ i~ f ~ ~ r r- 7~ ~g 0 ~, .~ c,~.~, A~G ~~t^/~ ~` fLC•~iuG o ~ c~c~s •-~ -L/~o o ~' ~s ~~v~ P_O1 ~~/~/~~ • ..7i]n- 1,9-96 03 : 13P Rka _ Co _ ScF~ _ Fac _ & Dpr _ 540 5623988 X ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f~0~ m N (j ~ ~ ~ a m>© m v ~-~ ~ V p N. ~ ~. .c~+t ~ ~ '~ 1 r ~, O ~~` t~ c~ ~~i ~~ ri ~~ ~~ G •'u p ~ ~~S °~ ~~o V • G G • m r ~~~ ~` 0 ~ ~ tI~ \ aa~ dzQ .J tai ~ m ~ W Q E" ~ W d W a ~ N ~ Q ~ W Q. 0 ~ 0 ~a°o P_02 ~, ~~_... .--- Z 0 m 1~ Nf /~ 1? N ~A dY 0 ~\ pE p~ ~. `~ ~~ p~ ~. ~p~ ~~ pe~ 5C LL Q 3 _ ~ U -r p~ Oa Oa Oa d~ Oa Oa. O a. rS Y Q ~ © ~ N O '° ~ N ~ N / 4 N I- O N N n O a oU c`~-- ~-- ,~i~ ao ... 1,o- ~ !n. !rr !rr lo- to eo- r `~ O ~ O ~ v ~ 4 O D O ~ C• ~ ~ z-- r =' ~9 .~ ~„ w ~,- ~ ~ d g M ,o a o ~s Q m ~ Jo T .9 ctr .'~ h ~ v .9 7' ~9 .~ ^~ -•9 u~ a ~ oa ~ oa • ~ ~ ~ r b ~- ~ N u~o lr1 ° a ~ ~~ 4 Z o ~ a ~ m ~ ~ _ N N N N ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ .~ O ~ ~ ~' { tr ' ~ _ ` _ C a ~ a ~ O ~ ~ c O V V G U V Q ~ •:- r o U ~ ~ U w ~ ~ ' ' ~ y ~~ O~ m~ ~ p~ ~7 } C.7 V.~ ~ Oy _U _Y ~ (~~ ~ r~ ~~(. V ~~~ ~ ... y '~ .- > (~ O m p ~ m 4 C o p d ` ~ ~ ~ m ¢ ~° ~ ~~ Q~ ¢ m Um :° ~o c ~ ~ , ~ ~ L Attachment C •' ;~~ 2o~~coUNrys~~ '~.oanoke ~oeanEy ~c~oo~s ~" - '~° G C DeparEmen~ of '~' aciliEies and ®peraEions ~ ~ 5937 ~ove ~ 1'*1dV 1EZoanoke, ~A 24019 'co~~-t £~~,-~ TDD 540-562-3996 540-562-3800 Fax 540-562-3988 William Byrd High School Construction Project Budget $3,300,000 Bid (adjusted) 3,086,405 Energy Mgnt. 123,829 Utility Fees 0 Carpet 12,000 Furnishings 0 Lab Equipment 180,000 Fencing 0 Storage Bldg. 0 Library 0 Cafeteria Seating 0 A & E Fees 18,300 Testing Services 5,000 Asbestos 3,000 Kitchen Equip. ~ Instructional Equip 16,000 Alternate 1 248,000 Change orders 62,000 $3,754,534 Balance Needed $454,534 M:\finance\common\loan-cal.wpd June 21, 1996 Attachme~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ON JUNE 13, 1996 WHEREAS, applications have been submitted by the County School Board and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, and loans have been approved from the Literary Fund for the construction/renovation projects at Fort Lewis Elementary School, William Byrd High School, and Cave Spring Junior High School, and WHEREAS, bid prices and other costs not included in bid have exceeded the amounts budgeted for the Fort Lewis project by $1,155,575, and for the William Byrd High project by $454,534; and WHEREAS, the budgeted amount for the renovation of Cave Spring Junior High is not sufficient to improve the auditorium, which will require an additional $500,000; NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County requests approval by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for funding in the amount of $2,110,109 for the Fort Lewis Elementary, William Byrd High, and Cave Spring Junior High School projects; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said school board requests that it be relieved of the debt service associated with the additional funding. Adopted on motion of Michael w. Stovall, duly seconded, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: William A. Irvin, III, Thomas A. Leggette, Marion G. Roark, Michael W. Stovall, Jerry L. Canada NAYS: None TESTE• Clerk c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt Mrs. Penny Hodge ~A,. .-- e_.-- M:\finance\common\loan-cal.wpd June 21, 1996 Z A-0723 96-4 ACTION # 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: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Request from Strauss Construction for 50% credit of the Off-site Sewer Fees for The Polo Club Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: p~ BACKGROUND: Strauss Construction has submitted a concept plan for approximately 50 residential lots that are proposed to be served by public water and sewer. This property is located on the Harborwood Road, south of the Green Hill Park (see attachment "A"). Providing public sewer to this development will serve other properties in this area including Green Hill Park. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The estimated cost of the off-site sewer line through Green Hill Park to this property is $58,375.00 and the total off-site fees for this development are expected to be $75,000. Based on a 50 lot development, the 50% credits would total $37,500 and would be applied to the construction costs of $58,375.00 Under the Roanoke County Off-site and Oversized Credit Policy, a sewer line designed to serve adjacent properties would be eligible for credits of up to one-half of the off-site fee. The developer has asked for credits of one-half of these fees, but not to exceed the actual cost of the line extension. The Utility Director can issue credits for the first 25% of the fee, but the second 25% requires Board approval. ,~ f I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a maximum of 50% of the off-site facility fees for this development be applied to the construction of the off-site line. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Rob son, P.E. Utility Di ector APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to No Yes Abs Denied ( ) ~pprwP with removal of Si,000 Eddy ~_ Received ( ) fc~r easement through Green Harrison _~ Referred ( ) Hi11 park __ Johnson ~_ To ( ) Minnix .~_ Nickens ~_ cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Z \~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ z • ~ ~ ~ O '~ ~ C~ C%~ ~~ ~~ o~'~w ~ ~ d~Wm ~ I E-~OW~d i' .-i O Z a ^~ ~ ~A' v I O O W O [~ U~ ' ~ I Zoo I ~ ~ ~~ ~ p-' W ~ O /~ qU I •a 0 °o o ~Q ~ >~~1~ ~ ~~~aH ~ Ao ~o ~ ~ Qp,~~~ ~~C ~ ~ O ~~ ~ O O d r~ O O ~ Crj O Z ~ti ~ U P I ~ O I d I~U'~O Nom ~d q5c ~ O ~ "~ x~~ Crjc~~ W~ tfJ ~ ~ .~ d ~~ NO~~ ~~ ~ -~~ O p; ~ I ~~,~ ~.-,O 0.W q~'O Cj rF •-~ CS -~, O ~ Ci c.i ~ O O O ~ O O n2 ~O ~i'J o ~ ~ I I ~ / o ~ C}- O O ~ II O ~ O tCJ ~ O O ~ ra ~i ~-- y~ I \ ~~ I \ °~ O 6~,~~ rr o ~ , o;.~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'o~ --~-~, ~ q ~ O ~ ~Do ~ o ~ ~ Q~~ ~~ ~, ~W~ ~ ~~ o ~~~ o v W ~ ~ ~ ~,, ,°2z~~ ~ ~~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~W ~ ~~~~ ~ ~, ~, ~~ o 2& ~ ff "~ ~n \, ~, ~~ . \ ~_ 00 o ~~~. ~ ~;t,w ~ N ~_ ~~~ ~: ~, ~ ~.~I~,~~ CONSTRUCTION Mr. Gary Robertson Utility Director Roanoke County 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, Virginia 24153 Re: Harborwood Road, Off Site Sewer Line '. L..~ June 11, 1996 As we have discussed, Strauss Construction Corporation requests a fifty percent (50~) credit of the facilities fees for the off-site sewer line that we will be extending through Green Hili Park. This off-site sewer line wiii serve our property as well as other lands within this drainage shed, including Roanoke County's Green Hill Park. Our development, known as The Polo Club, will consist of approximately 50 lots. The following is a break down of the preliminary costs to construct the off-site facilities. 1. 1850 LF of 8" sewer line with 6 manholes @ 27.50/LF $ 50,875 2. Engineering fees 4,500 3. Restoration work in Green Hill Park 2,000 4. Cost of easement through Green Hill Park 1,000 $58,375 Your positive recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the fifty percent credit helps ensure that the growth within Roanoke County follows a logical development pattern which incorporates public utility facilities as opposed to lands being developed with private septic fields. If I may answer any questions regarding the above, please give mr~ a_ call. Sincerely, teven S. Strauss harbonvd\sewrrem6.116 5100 BERNARD DRIVE SW POST OFFICE BOX 20287 ROANOKE VIRGINIA 24018 540/989-7060 FAX 540/989-7062 BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS ACTION N0. ITEM NO. S ~ - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for August 27, 1996. The titles of these ordinances are as follows: 1) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a day care center, located at 5501 Florist Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Shining Stars Early Learning Centers Inc.. 2) An ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a religious assembly, located between 7425 and 7502 Old Mill Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wister Sowder. 3) An ordinance to rezone approximately 5.5 acres from I-1 and C-1 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct assisted living and elderly housing facilities, located approximately 0.1 mile north of the intersection of Route 460 and Daugherty Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richfield Retirement Community. ~_, 2 MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'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 August 27, 1996. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1 through 3, inclusive, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, V Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney J Action No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by Eddy Denied () Harrison Received () Johnson Referred Minnix to Nickens ~- ~~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard Dr. _ P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 540 772-2068 FAX (540) 772=2108 For staff use only date received: received by: -21- r ~ application fee: P /E~ date: ~~t~. ~` F-6-5t/ placards i~ep d• BOS date: Case Number: ~~ ' i Check type of application fil (check all that apply): ^ REZONING L'~LJ SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: Sh`~`'t` 9 S~o`RS ~`~Y t_..2c~~CV~~r~c, Ce.v~'<e~(`S 1 Snc. Phone: 3(,~-ooa I ~f'~R>k 'R• So,.c~~le2 Zi Code: Address: P•0• ~o•x t'-} tai ~oa-~~ke~~~- a~v33-= ~~ a3 d~ VCZv.~ C.~r.,,~fc.~. e ~c v .go ~•e.c.y Phone: 310-593 ~ Owner's name: Rcv ~ -c;M Coo,\~iZ \ ~ 1 ~ /~ Address: 55 U 1 F ~c tt~ s ~ (~~. N.W - ~ oL`ri0 K2~ ~~ Zip Coder 0 Location of property: Tax Map Number: ~S, ~ ~ _ _-a ~ (~ `~`~G t 1 (oP,~s~' 1C,7 _ Q-"C•C~-a-'~~ f Magisterial District: - ~.l ~ O lti=S ,, C(~`~R~~ ~ ~`~' ~J ~ Community Planning Area: (~ ~ l ~,~,. s Size of parcel (s): a acres Existing Zoning: Pte' ~ Existing Land Use: ~nu2c(., sq.ft. Proposed Zoning: (Z-~ .................. .. ....... ~~ watt use o~ty Proposed Land Use: ~ C.~C.- C.,~,v'C~E- Use Type: Does the p cel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? ~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. YES Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria fcr the requested Use Type? YES _~ NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being pro~~ered with this request? YES NO Vari e of Section(s) 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. w v rvs v Consultation j5. X 8 1 /2" x 1 1" concept plan Application r'u Metes and bounds description ~1 Justification ~'`~U Water and sewer application ws v Application fee Proffers, if applicable Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the know/edge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature: ~.. . -. JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE IN USE OF THE PROPERTY: This property is the proposed site for the new child care center, Shining Stars Early Learning Centers, Inc. Currently, the Northview Church of God of Prophecy resides here. They are moving to a new location and wish to sell the property. The effect of changing the use of this property will be minimal. The church uses the building most days of the week. The day care facility would use the building on Monday through Friday with a slight increase in the traffic. The yard surrounding the building is used now for outdoor activities. The day care will have increased outdoor activity with use of fenced in playgrounds. However, the playground is somewhat isolated and enclosed on two sides by large trees and undergrowth and is situated on top of a hill away from the road frontage. This request to grant a Special Use Permit is being made to allow a day care to exist on the property, which is already zoned R-l. This request is consistent with the general purposes of the R-1 Zoning Ordinance in that a day care would provide a community service. to the single family residences located in and around the Sun Valley development. There are no other day care centers in the general vicinity to serve the families of Sun Valley. Quality day care is very much in demand and usually a welcome addition to any residential neighborhood. Shining Stars could serve up to 110 children at this location. This will include children from ages of two through twelve, with about 50% of the children being in the after school age group. " f .~ w ~ 4 WAITER & SEWETR S~' V2CE REQUEST FORM ., .-- D~ TE : ~ ; ~ ~ ., GJ ~ _ APPLIC~?`TT 1~FFORMATION . - (P3ease Type or P_ tint) _ 5~~~1~~ St~rS~~~ COIyLpLETE MA.TLZNG ~ O ~- I ~ pPLICANT : ~ ~ ~.~ 2s ~L ADDRESS . {~ ocw~ ~-P ~ c~ 3 PHONE: ~3~ ~- vo a l ~ (' (~~.a: -c- zv. e.~osi.. ~{ n p DRESS : 5 So I F ~, ~ ~. ~ _ ~ , ~J, Ojv-NER: ~Vo?~~,'~,.~ ~ul~.cl-~c~-- ~i-a~~`~ ~/ ALONE: ~~to~-5~38 ~.~(~oC-2_ ~l~ ~`~"~~~ .GENT: P~DRESS: PfiONE DEVELOPMENT NAME: L-CCATION (FURNISH COPY OF MAP): ~~s ~~~o, 1\ ~a ~Lk~ TAx MAP No .. ~ 8 j ~~ - l ~ a. ~ A CxEACE : a '. zoNED : Q - l ToTp~ UNSTS : 1 TOTAL LOTS : ~ . REQUESTED SERVICES WATER FACILITIES : COUNTY: / WELL .~'TWER FACILITIES : COUNTY: f SEPTIC SYS2TEM: S BUSLDII~TG TO BE SPR2I~7KL.ED ? -FLOW REQUZ'RED ? DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Include any SUeciiic Questions): G.P.M. C'(,~ - n SIC~TATURE OF APPLICANT ** APPLICATION MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY BEFORE IT CAN EE PROCESSED. ALL HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS MUST BE COMPLETED OR THIS FORM WILL BE RETURNED . _ . - SITE ~NFORMATIDN t ~, ~--~ ~_ tL') ~ ~ ti ~ ~ Q U O w F- W N /O f.i O a W z w U C~ Z z w J } J Q ~W A Q C~ z z_ zQ ~~ ~ aj Y cn O ~L 0 r F-- Z w w a m ~"' a a z _. ,_._ ..... ~- W z W U C7 z z w Q W A Q H c~ z z_ O ti w F- 0 w ^O i.i. NO f.i.. a zQ -~ ~ ai ~~ cn O ~L ~N _ L3.. 'L 'Lj Z 0 cW ~. G Q W J aW mZ c~ ti W J Q U i.L `W r Z W U ~ Z OZ ~ ~W Za ~~ -~> o~ ~~ w -~ ~ o aw ~ o Ova ~~ ~ ~ o a. Q `n H ~ C7 z _z ~_ ..`~ T ~~ ~-c--y _ ~ 1 ~ ,.~-.9~ 0 ~~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti~ ~ ~ Q 0 o ~~ o „o - ,4 .,o - ,a _ ~ ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~"" ~ ~ (V ~ ,.0 - .OZ - ~ ~..I W N ~~ w ~ W ~ ~ LL Z ~~ o~ ~ - ~W zQ cn -~ -a ~ o 0 } ~. ~ o W -~ u O N ~ ~ cn ~ '~ c aw ~ O cn ~- ~ a Q 11' ~ `r' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o .s-z .s-z -. v 2 !A ° , ~ .~~ o ' , T I I1 ..o-.z ~ s-s~ ~. ~s-,z' .o-.s PROPOSED SITE FOR SHINING STARS EARLY LEARNING CENTERS 5501 Florist Rd., N.W. --~- i _ Roanoke, VA - - -- so' 0 0 ~` ~d,~ $A ND 6 ~ ~ d X P~14~ ~, ~ NouS ~~ ~ rye F fly` ~,~ 5~v E ~ EQ~~~~ QL~~ b `~ ~ Q ~ ~ rRrr u~ _PARKING 28 RE~uLAR SP~9cfs' C.~ N,¢NDJ CAS ~ ti I~ 5 SCALE 35'=1" 2so~-o° _ ~~ . ' r'iwr.. = C ~k',~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~auw RD \- M1NOft ~'" I / I Y ~n ~w<Y~ ~ ~ rpm`' ~ yy/ ~`L 4 I\ ^\ `, ~~pa g o'• F ~ tl . -'.!'_ w~~F P Q 4 O IO y~AIF Gt^ •J '~O \ ~` C rw~ lpa*~.1- „rrnr _ -_.G. v~ -Ma ..~r~~.: r d .. 3~L W j~ - $ANTPL~ 1-. .k~r a -_~'t~'.~ CPr~hh~~ Q~t OM1F~wfM /^' Doa•~t ~E lA, 8lU' 1 n \Rfny~ 5 o prr~4T. ^ I ~ `cr`'~ - nrr.r. Q° u F: EI,MJFiinl~ wpp~'S ~. ~' s I +t.,?,R r:~~.ys}. * ~ ~ ~%FU ~-vlST~raGNTS _ y o err / otr O.! s'„~~~. 'sb ~ ~~ ~g7~` ~ wr ccv.q r9r` ~. F. ~~ o / ~, yn ' ~ ~ ~ ~`' ~ °i a ~~;^u~. sn ~ ~ ~~ g1~ 601 ~ / ,~ ~ .• ~'P~c K i ~~ ~M x'Ar - /~ T /~rFO rCN<p~+ ~: !°~"' A ~ ' ~o •^IRE~g r~ ~ 'prE~iDJ~ ~ •f>t7~ I / ..~~ r KEAC 3~ ~ TMr \ t 1T1C1?~1TY MAP n F~ NORTH a. .'. -I I t.• ,Zx ~. ~ e ' ` ^'~ 29 7- ' 30 ~~ `~ - 27 `` ~' 7 31 ` ~•~' 'J J s W f ~ ` '. ~'~~ '~ 1 w ~1 ++ - 23 S. t .+ s s* G _ ~ ~ 24 ~i ~''+, 36 - ~ 9 ~ ` ~+ .. . ~~, ~ pG rs 4 • ~ 22 V~ ~,~ ~ ~ 38 ~ `~ v ~ .. / ~ \ ~ ~ 'ice 'D " r '~ ~' ~ s l~ ~ ~ 1 ~\'~ 39 O / ~ i '~ p 25 ~~ / I o 9.82 Ae / ~ ~9 w C- • I ii 1 ~~ Il s f u ~ I ~r _ .- x ~~ I ui Q '',t C ' ~ i 2~' I .. _ JLJJ ~ S6tJ r7~ )~ _ ~ 8 26 1 J6ii O 1.02 Ac 7 ua _~ ~ 27 ~ JJ/•r \ 1 / _ of r M / \ / \ 'J ~I ~ ~ 19 . ~ ~ 29 \ 4 ~tT d . \ ". - 18 • s ~ \ 2 ~ rf ~ t,o „ - I~..,a.r. o..~ ~ C' '' \ . •.,c M 16 ''\ /f ~ IS \ 7 ~ if ' ~ 14 39 \ = !° 2.66At 'i \ 13 ~ • ri '' \ ~~ V - ~ ~~ \ V' t? G - ~ 11 y \` V IQ 38 e~ ~ u _ o ~~ * DEPARTME~I'I' OF PLA.NNII\'G AND ZONING .~ . . .,, SHINING STARS EARLY LEARNING CENTERS Ira SPECIAL USE PERMIT 38.11-1.-21- .. _..,,...a ~-- T For staff use only `-" " " COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 5--: 0' 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-21 08 date r - received by- appfic tion D PC/BZA oa~/~ J placards issued: ~ I 805 date: Case Number: ~ ,~ ~j I~ , Check type of application filed (check all that apply): D REZONING C~ SPECIAL USE ~ VARIANCE Applicant's name: ~~~~ ~~ ~° • -Sa~~~'e Address: G9~9 I`~a9~ ~i4/~y ~'d Est ~,tfo,~ a Q ~ Phone: 77y ~~6 y Zip Code: a Owner`s name: !~/ST~",~' i~,~c/~ S'otv.I>~~ •~ Address: ~1~89 ~f ~ `/~~/y ~'°/ ~'~ ~ oo' o c !~A o~~ Phone: ,7y GGG7 Zip Code: o~~o~~ Location of property: Tax Map Number: 95, 03-3 -~ ~PGr2T/one) B T S " _ , c ~v~rv 7ya. a Z ~ 7.s O /~ ~~/~ ~~ - Magisterial District: wiivOS~a2 ~1GG5 oa.Vo~ lyA o/ B' Community Planning Area: ~/~c~; Ck~~,~ Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: .ACS - ~ 3 acres Existing Land Use: 6 o sq.ft. ) ~ jam -GIs c, - :~:: Proposed Zoning: ~a / Proposed Land Usej~~/i~r~~ S f}55'erh6/c~ - CC 4iPc / ........................... For Staff use only use Type: .. Does the parce! 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 t..e requested Use Type? YES ~' NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. If rezoning request, are conditions being pro~~ered with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in er~er to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION. WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ~ Consultation Application Justification 8 1 /2" x i i' concept plan Metes and bounds description Water and sewer application rvs v Application fee ~< Proffers, if applicable Adjoining propery owners /hereby certify that l am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and cpnsegt of the owner ws v Owner's Signature: Fo~.Staff Use On/y: Case Number 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. ~'FC /'C941~ lUi// Ql9viGi./G-~Y ~~~i /~- ~ ~ f~yjGGl~1%Gj.~'2 G~QC~IS~~ Qy~Sa/~~r~- !~y// iz'f ~CrSc CdY1D~~'GSfiCYr in D~`~6/~ ~~-CCf ~t,.id u~i ~r~ v~ le ct ~ Grhac~i~~°ricfr~. ~ ~irf~ h~ ~e «r~a-~:r~i/~/, /~ $3~S~riG ~OGfr/~/C~i,?AS dr GI/YEIS Glii// ~G~~'~;~~ Gr cizL~cL2~U~lYI. 'Thy i~G~G,~s~ ~hla/ A/lam: ~~t S~rr~//-J~/c ~c~/o/~;i'~z"~ °F a c':v.~ use ~~/i,/~ wi~G, >~ ~as~r.,'~ ~~~mr~i~, Th-e ~:;,:>`'lo~m.~yrf Gi='ors ~ ~acc A a/~a~ or~~/ic ufi~/j~s, ~/iyia,~s Qssos-,rG~/~,iS q//oYl~ i~ ~c,c f~l- ~ Banc ~ 5~;~/ G~SC ~-s~i~ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guideiines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. 7h~ ~pr~i/OuG~ui~e. ~y, oL~d~'ra~.GS his a~-r...R ots !~~/aP•~~.~eys~,u~.>~j 1 ufcGn'S~ wt~c~ S-~'vC ~~ ~~ei ti ~~~ / Qom/ i V/ C~~~s SvcGr as' G~ y- / ~~cc~S/ Qit~ "i~'ca~ as ~~ri:~ ~%~ die l,,el'c/J ~` ~t`~s, . ~s/dey~~' ~ 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. ~ -~yocf G.,!' /Q~~C ~, (~ ACv~ ', /~' 9~a`rfed ~ it~7/ ~v/~ a//aLU .r c.rrc~r, --~ "" ii7~ a ~t-cu~ io/4cc. off' re/i' iaus Ossc~~s~y. ~ ~~~ary.~ . Sts-ucfzr~-c ccv// be dQQ~cc/~ A/~vs~ ~i~/rna~iu~~/ a~~ cd/i.~~y Q ~~s~~~x-sLf ~~ci/i4' w.Y/br ~~•a'1~' ~I// /'C9!///~fy~Llk O~ ~ ~rl~ G~</%ILtNI~ G!/i/~ ,6C rte/ C/CJ ~Ql2~S'~4~i~ p~trL!~~/, Cave ~/ ~TL'. Q~/d~ ~fl~Cf'~~S i/i~%/~'~CI~GG `ro i~~4cJ~ c~hci- ~`lrQ-~. z ~~/i l~~` tiis~ia/" /~ ~T% f~~idl~ ~~f a~a/ ~'~c~ crrP ~ a U~rilQlo%. /~~l~ ~Z ulri/ ~`i~cc 4 s~~'~ ixv~c /~ ~~c ivy ~ aid a~'~` .~r/~[ y ~'/~C~l/s~ Q~f~/ C'/ius~ C~ , So~~S Grs~ ~~~~•/~~r~Ci'a~7~o~Yi K// // !'70f ' ,GL' Lrf--r~tC~O ~ ~/C/C5Ci~G /SSN~S Gtii%/ dC G~/~~~c~ 4~-~~ ~~ 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. • - ~ T~ATER & SFtr~R S~VI~ REQUz'ST FORM =~ ~ zi.~G ~_!~,: ~ pPLLCa NT INr OR~IATION - (Please Type or Print) _ ....~--- ~•..~ CO~?'~TE M~L~TG ? ~nL.ICANfi: ~~~! GL~ ~.~SG~Yc~•~ ~-ODRESS : ~ ZOO ~oI2~0.~/~~ C/•~CC~ oNE : •~72 - q5~o ~~,~ r~ ~~i~ Cr~r?t~R: CU/S~ ~', Scx,til~~ p~DRESS : ~9~I ~~9C-~' I~AL/.~Y.P,C~ ~T P .ONE : 7'7~- ~olo(o ~7 aCHNT: ~Arj1~ ~ ~PL~/CifR/T~ FJ~RESS: P =ONE . ,P.~~n.,a,~.~ v~ 2~o~f3 SZ•~ ~ORMATSON t~='v~LOPMENT NAME : ~ ~l,C~ ~ ~l ~,rTf757 -COAT I ON (FURN~I SH COPY OF MAP) : ~f~ ~~i// ~~ ~ ~~x MAP No.. ^ 5,~ 3- 3- ~ A ~c-E : 3, D zoNED : ~~-_~-TOTS Tr UNSTS : TOTAL ;LOTS ~QrrESTED s~zvzc~s WA T~ FACSLITSES : coUNTY: ~ ~'"-~~ FACILTTT~,S : COUNTY: WELL : r/ sEPTZC sYsT~: S BUSLD?~TG TO BE SPRI~ED ? /1./D • FLOW REQUL~ED ? C-- . P .1~ . I DESCRIPTION OF WORK ~ (Include any Sped-i c Questions} T~7~1/JD/~f~ES~ ,~G~~ ~!2 ~~6 /c~~ ~5~.~.7~9F_3l Y ~ UG T74I~i~Z S~ ~9 ~c~ ~11.~r A OF APPL.~CA_TTT * * APPLSCATSON MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY BEFORE 2T CAN BE PROCESSED . ALL HTGHLSGHTED SECTSONS MUST BE COI~LE2ED OR THIS _ FORM WILL BE RETURNED . _ - ~'~.~ -~-X-~ .M~ ti / a 0 A ~S EK,~yp~R~~ e N y xs 9~ A` :~ N ~~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~ `~ .~ v f~,a~ .•!r~ ~ `~ ` , RESERVED F[3P I . I DEVELOPMENT ~ IOt. i~ ~ - ~ ~- I tt1 Q '~ n^i ~~ .~~• _. r_ `QO d3' c - ' - JL N. 3dvGL~R ' T,U/ 9509'j'~ J :~wE ,76'3 ~ ; 3B0 Ti ~ __~_ ~~, __, _ r ~z~a, ' - _ 25' S.Y. S. ' ~ - , N 8 ~ v `" N ' Co~vcEP1" PC.A~V Foy 50L ~D POCK BAPT/ST . • Sirc/ATED DNA R72T/0N OF TAZ MAP No. X5.03 - 3 ~ 9.1 R ~~ ~j j~ AND LOCATED DN THE OC.D 11 Jl~ ,LIB' Ll`~J- M/[L ROAD AREA OF /eDANOKE COUNTY- {~IRG~IY~A ANO ~SSOC7i.TE5.~G ~IUNE 2 f 1996 .SCALE ~ 1 = JCi7 JOB N0. R PLANNERS-ARCHITECTS ~ ENGINEERS ~SURVEYORS~ 1208 CORPORATE CIRCLE, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 772-9580 C1EFl ECTiNG TO.~onQO~^/ . \`\` . • ~ J~ ~~s .~ ~ ~~ 8 '' ~~ ``'_~ `'do-:. `~ ~~°~~ ~s3 ~i°Wo ~. I °`" ''§~ Ia `~` '3~"'8 ~` ~` h :$ ~-- 3 COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard fir. - P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ( 5L; 0` 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 Check type of application filed (check all that apply): REZONING -SPECIAL USE ^VARIANCE Applicant's name: RICHFIELD RETIRE1~iENT COM141UNITY Phone: 380-4500 Address: P.O. BOX. 1240, SALEM, VA Zip Code: 24153 Owner's name: SAME - °hone: Address: _ ' ~ Zip Code: i- Location of property: Tax Map Number: 55.09_1_20 .55.13-1-2(por 0 East of Daugherty Road, Magisterial District: Catawba between I-81 and U.S. Routes 11/460. _ Community Planning Area: "Core" Size of parcel (s): Existing Zoning: I-1, C-1 • 5.5 approxacres Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Zoning: C-2 (with special exception) ForStatfUse on~j. Proposed Land Use: Dementia Specific (Alzheimer's) Assisted Use Type: Living Facility Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? YES ~ NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. . -f rezoning request, are conditions being prey ~ ered with this request? YES X NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: N/A Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT 8E ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v ws v ws v Consultation ~ 3 1 /Z" x 1 i " concept plan Application fee Application '='Y'' .. Metes and bounds descripticn ".:-~ Proffers, if applicable Justification ~~. Water and sewer application Adjoining propertytyy owners l hereby certify that / am either am acting with the knowledge < Owner's Signature: of the property or the For staff use onlyuJ_ ~':r"~•• G z~-y~,~•- date rec ved: ' received by: ll'' applica ion ~G,q !i ~ / PC/BZA date: "/~ -'} / placards i ssue d : 805 date: ~~ _ Case Number: 's agent or contract purchaser and iorll f Larry ~V. Degen 1/i~fARTIN & ASSOCIATES , P , C , ~~~ 1-3 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY This application includes the property, an approximately 5.5 acre parcel of land, generally located on Daugherty Road, in the vicinity of U.S. Highways 11 and 460, West of Salem, Virginia within the Catawba Magisterial District, and recorded as parcel #~~~E19cQldx~c, 55.13-1-2 (portion) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. 55.09-1-20.1 ~ 20.2 TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Sec. 15. -491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-102-4 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner Richfield Retirement Community hereby voluntarily offers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the granting of a Special Exception Use for the above referenced parcel of land: 1. The petitioner agrees to maintain an on-site surface water detention facility, in accordance with the applicable ordinances of Roanoke County. 2. The Petitioner operates a full service retirement community on the adjacent, contiguous parcel. Within this community are the following levels of services: a.) A nursing center which provides skilled and intermediate care designed to meet all living as well as medical needs with the exception of surgery; b.) A convalescent living center providing residents with 24-hour sheltered care; c.) A variety of housing units which provide a full range of retirement housing options; d.) AI! ancillary structures and utilities required to operate and maintain the facility; and e.) Those commercial occupancies as required to provide supplemental support and services to the community residents. The purpose of this Petition is to obtain a Special Exception Use for the construction of two new buildings. In doing so, the Petitioner will supplement and augment the existing facilities with additional elderly housing structures, one of them being a dementia specific (Alzheimer's) assisted living facility, increasing the level and scope of services. The Petitioner believes that the intended use of the subject property is within the use defined and contemplated by the aforesaid Code definition and is consistent with the existing facilities on the property. Respectfully submitted, RICHFIELD RETIREMENT CO By_~~v ~ ~ V Larry W. Dege lA, CSI MARTIN & A IATES __---~ _ Fvr Staff Use On/y: Case Number :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..........:.:.:.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ~~ ,4 S :....... ,.~~Ift.~:~~Tt~~t~€3~~F~E~'f~~I~t~'~7t~ .............................t1...~:.~F.R~`f~"}~F'f~~~~S~';.:.:.:.:._.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:......:.:. Applicant RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COIvIb1UNITY The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification far the change in terms of public health, safety, and genera( 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 proposed land use conforms with the purposes of the zoning regulations~~ in that the property is near a major arterial thoroughfare (US 11/460), it is a service related use, will be compatible with adjacent land uses, and will serve the community and Roanoke County in general. Please explain haw the project conforms to the genera( guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning and special use. permit of the subject property is not in '.conflict with the comprehensive plan of the County in that it will allow the expansion of the Richfield Retirement Center, located on an adjacent 49.3 acre parcel. The Center performs a vital function in the community, this expansion will allow for the service of another portion of the region's population (those diagnosed with Alzheimer's). Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properies, 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 proposed facility is located so that it is served by adequate water (12" main) and sewer (currently under construction) facilities. The property is in very close proximity to the Fort Lewis Fire & Rescue Center. Due to the nature of the facility, a minimal amount of automobile traffic will be added to' Daugherty Road and there will be no impact on ,the school facilities. The residents of the facility will not leave the premises. ,' ~ ' ' ~ TvATER & SETr~ S~VI~ REQUEST FORM r,ATE: .6/26/96 ~ np_r, ; C.~ ~i T ~7~'OR~iATION- (Please Type or Prir_t) _ y CO~~TE 1~~L~TG ~~PLICANT:Richfield Retirement Ctr~~D~`SS= P.O. Box 1240 P~O~: 380-4500 Salem, VA 24153 O~~~R: (Same) ?BONE. :GENT: Martin & Associates, P.C. P~:ON~ : 989-9700 Roanoke, VA 2401 SITE ~T~'ORMATION DE"~LOPI~NT NAME: Dementia Specific Assisted Living Facility L-COITION (E'URNISH COPY OF MAP).: (See Attached) -~~,a. ~ ~~~ MAP NO.: 55.09-- 55.13-1-2 ortion .~ e - . 1_~ACE : 5.5 ZONED : C _2 Z'0= 3 T, UNT TS : _ _ TOT~~ LOTS : - - ~QiJESTED SERSTICES : . ;r~_~Z FACILITIES: COUNTY: X WELT,: ~~~ FACILITIES : COUNTY: ~ SEPTIC SYS_'~'M: .S BUTLD?~7G Z'O B.E SPR~T_-QED? Yes - FLO~r REQU~ ~ D? G . ? . M. ~~SCRIPTION Or WORK (Include any S~eci-ic Questions). SIC-3~TA ** APPLICATSON MUST RE FILLED OUT C01~LETELY EF,FORE IT C~.N PRO~SSED. ALL ~?IGHLIG~TED SECTIONS MUST EE COLLETED OR TEIS FORM WILL BE RETURNED . . ~~BRESS ~~DRESS: P.O. Box 20038 6-G2-9.' ~- ~ ~ ` A ` ' ' /, ~ ' /~ •6-G2-10 ~VFyP ~ 6-G -17 \ ~0 = 9.5 ' ~ `'j~ i ~ -' MANHOLE ABANOONOEO +~, 1 :\ I `, . ~N4, OF pOV ER) l ~. 1 N i • ` =N~ ~~ - SUBJECT . P ~ - ` Q~ a u i - ~ s~A `'` n - _ 1 a ~ .. .6 G2 ~ Z, ~ ,• ) ~ _ G.7.Z' ~...~ 0+ 328 ~ 1 ~- \-m ~ 6-G2-I1,7 lam- - -G2,16 p _ N~ ~ _ _ i - NG _ '. ` _ ~ y`~ ~ - r _ G Ga~ 5,5 \ ~ 9 i A PS - _ ~r .. - - T - ~ ~. \ `` G L ti ` \_ - C __ ,, ~,. .~ . F' ~. F ~ -- 1 M P ~- _ 5 _ - `~ i • i 5 .~ 2 8 5- ~:::: .. .~w - I -~ - - '-N -~ _ .:. :: .~,~; /,, 6 -- - l S N 6 O- °: - ' .' ~ - 2 _ t_. ~ .2, ~- - - - Q F. .G 8 - 'I 6 _- -- 0 = - _-_ :~ r ~• .... r . - - - F . ~` _ - ' {~E . _ ~ :~:::era:s~:-=t:a=:t:~~ . ~ - .. ... 1 LIBRARY ..~-(P / _ o ~s .-J~ ~ ~-• ~ ; •~ g'~ ~ .n ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o: ~z• ~ ~. i / ~~ ,N ~ . s.. '. `,\ ~~ ~' `. ~ _ ~F,Q-~' gyp; ~~~. !, ' ~ ` 1` ~ : ~ ~,C~2 ~ ,\ % ' ~ ~ ~ \ ~ i . a~ ~- ;:~ ~-,~. _ ::f:~ ::_.. ~~ ~i ~fFlicEi f '~ ~ ` ....... ~~~;f~ i ~~ ........ t 1 - C. --.f::ti'::::: _ - f' '\ - - ` 1 .....--... _' -- -f - .-..... ......................... _ ..................... .. - ~" - l r- ~ ~.. ~. -_ - .. f' - - .. \ ~. / i ~. - .......:::::::::::::: ............. ........ ... 'ti:,. W . ~ • I _ .~ ,- ~ ~ i t . _ .~ - ' 4 ' - l ~l `~~.'~'- r i ,~ i .~ - 1 - t N - _- - i - t - t nom: i •;T' I R• _ a s _ _ Nv i ~ I _~ - . ~ - •~ / , ~ / ~---- - ~1 - - - - - i ~ r . - -G,L.O . ~ ~, - ~ .. /ice - - ~~~_~-- _~~. '~, ~ '~, ~,.. - - - ~ _ ~ - - .,,~ ~ - _ o ,~yNnwwo~ ~ ~ai~a S ~ u~~a C~ o I _~ ~7 J ? W x - U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ,` ~ m i ~ ~ ~ ~~ U ~ o ~. W ~ ~ /~ g ' . '~ ~ w ~: X /, , i ~ . ~ o°t cn cn p ~ ~ ~. N vi - " , ~- ~ ~ _t - ~~ H 2 Q ,' ~ ~ . --- -- • - =r~`` ~~ ~~~• ~ I 1 ~ i~ ~ i S /t ~ A j ~ /, -:y ~~ •:-~ ~ _ ~ / ~' v Y``r (~ ~ ~ ~~ r'~~~~'Y ter.:. ~.c' ~ > ~ / ~ ~~ v ma ~ ~ I Z ~ Q J Vl ~ O x o~ i u ~! nog ~s -n o m ~ o W ~; Z o W Z J w ~-- ~_- w U Z ~ N N U 0 0 0 0 m ~~ ~~ o~ Z C ~- y N X ~ w~ 6~ A .: 200' , ~ Y!M , rw , y^,, K I /\` 1 ,` ~ ~~ti' wr. I ~ ~'1y,~ 1i/ y . v y ~ r 1Q. ~,-` ,.. ~ ~ ~ I / i c / ~ •~ \ t .. ~ .. , ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ / G - '`- ~ / ~ •~ \. ~ ! .,: ~~ , . - .. ~ Gam` ~5 \ O _ / ~ ~ 1 l ~' \ 4 ' t \ ~.. ~... ~a.a ` •. ~ r.... / .~ ~ t .I~ACI~ ~/ 3.73 Ac . w. / ~~02 ~ .16 ~ _ .2 J91~ I \ "~ - \ ~j36 \ '~~ \i 2 O l h6 ~ \ \ - RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY _ ~= DEPAF?T~SFN.. T OF PLA1'VNInG I-1, C-1 TO C-2.~ SPECIAL USE PERMIT -~ PND 7,ONII~+G 55.09-~]=20..1; 20.2 & plo 55.13-1-2 .~ -.,. - r ~ r +(-\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 ORDINANCE 072396-5 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY WATER AND SEWER LINE EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT THE WEST MAIN STREET SEWER EXTENSION WHEREAS, location plans for the West Main Street Sewer Submain Project have been completed and the project 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 West Main Street 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 July 9, 1996; and the second reading was held on July 23, 1996. 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 West Main Street 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 55.13-1-4 Lewis Gale Building Corporation 55.03-3-45 Albert Salem 55.03-3-46 William & Ruth McNew 55.03-3-35 Ronald L. & Trina W. Moran 54.04-1-10 City of Salem 1 54.04-1-14 Lucy Clark 54.04-1-15 and 16 Ruth Phlegar 54.04-1-18 Fort Lewis Baptist Church Trustees 2. That the consideration for each easement acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 400 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 Minnix to adopt the Ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 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: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of Ordinance -Authorization to Acquire Necessary Easements to Construct the West Main Street Sanitary Sewer Submain Project a 0~~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The West Main Street Sanitary Sewer Submain Project is being constructed as part of a Petition for Public Works. The Board of Supervisors has previously approved the petition for public works for this project. This project will involve acquisition of several easements. Staff is including a list of properties from which easements will.be required for this project. The first reading was held on July 9, 1996. This list of properties is as follows: TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY OWNER 55.13-01-04 Lewis Gale Building Corporation 55.03-03-45 Albert Salem 55.03-03-46 William E.& Ruth N. McNew 55.03-03-35 Ronald L. & Trina W. Moran 54.04-01-10 City of Salem 54.04-01-14 Lucy Martin Clark 54.04-01-15 Ruth Hill Phlegar 54.04-01-16 Ruth Hill Phlegar 54.04-01-18 Fort Lewis Baptist Church 54.04-03-01 Christian Life Fellowship . R K-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE NECESSARY WATER AND SEWER LINE EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT THE WEST MAIN STREET SEWER EXTENSION WHEREAS, location plans for the West Main Street Sewer Submain Project have been completed and the project 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 West Main Street 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 July 9, 1996; and the second reading was held on July 23, 1996. 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 West Main Street 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 55.13-1-4 Lewis Gale Building Corporation 55.03-3-45 Albert Salem 55.03-3-46 William & Ruth McNew 55.03-3-35 Ronald L. & Trina W. Moran 54.04-1-10 City of Salem 54.04-1-14 Lucy Clark agenda.realest.westmainsew . r I~~ 54.04-1-15 and 16 Ruth Phlegar 54.04-1-18 Fort Lewis Baptist Church Trustees 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. agenda.realest.westmainsew ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~ f -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ~ METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT STUDY COMMITTEE At the July 9 joint meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and Roanoke City Council, both governing bodies agreed to the establishment of a Metropolitan Transportation District Study Committee. The committee would promote the creation of a transportation district which must be approved by the General Assembly, and educate the public on the need for the district. Each governing body was requested to appoint three citizens. When the committee is formed, the membership will appoint a seventh at-large member. At this time the Board is requested to appoint three citizens to represent the County on the committee. 2~ SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD The four year terms of Robert H. Lewis, Vinton Magisterial District and Betty Jo Anthony, Windsor Hills Magisterial District will expire August 1, 1996. Ms. Anthony has served two consecutive terms, and is not eligible to be reappointed. Mr. Lewis is eligible for reappointment. ~ SCHOOL BOARD FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE This committee was originally comprised of two appointments ..,~ ,, ~ i -- ~ from each magisterial district appointed by the School Board and two appointments from each district appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The School Board has added an at-large member to this committee and offered the same option to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Nickens would like to nominate Patricia McKinney, 10125 Fortune Ridge Road, Bent Mountain, Virginia, to serve as the Supervisors' at-large member. If the Board agrees to this appointment, her name can be added to the Consent Agenda for confirmation. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen, CMC Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ Harrison _ Johnson _ Minnix Nickens _ ~~ ~ °~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 RESOLUTION 072396-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM M - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 23, 1996 designated as Item M - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of Committee appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Highway and Transportation Safety Commission and Social Services Advisory Board. 2. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Laurel Hills - Lot 6, Sewer Extension. 3. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission of the Arts. 4. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement for capital purchases for the Clerk of Circuit Court's Office. 5. Donation of sanitary sewer easement on Lot 9, Farmington Place, from Jeffrey Maronic, Inc., to the Board of Supervisors 6. Request from School Board for appropriation of funds from the Roanoke Valley Regional Board to the School Operating Fund. 7. Request for acceptance of St. Ives Court and portions of Sulgrave Road and Scotford Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items 1 .1 the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, with additional confirmation to Item 1, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections 2 . A-072396-6.a 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: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the Highway and Transportation Safety commission and Social Service Advisory Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The following nominations were made at the July 9 Board meeting and should be confirmed: ~ BIIILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Supervisor Eddy nominated Buford Butts to the unexpired four year term of Richard Evans, alternate member. His term will expire July 26, 1998. ~ HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COMMISSION Supervisor Eddy nominated Gordon Saul to serve a four year term as neighborhood representative. His term will expire June 30, 2000. ~ SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD Supervisor Eddy nominated Jan Dowling to a four-year term. Her term will expire August 1, 2000. It is recommended that the above appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board m-i Approved by, i~~~. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) approve Eddy ,~ Received ( ) Harrison ,~ Referred ( ) Johnson x To ( ) Minnix _~ Nickens ,~ cc: File Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals Highway and Transportation Safety Commission Social Services Advisory Board A-072396-6.b ACTION # ITEM NUMBER / " I - v2. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving Laurel Hills -Lot 6 Sewer Extension COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Laurel Hills -Lot 6 Sewer Extension, James K. Penn, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The sewer facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared by Balzer & Associates entitled Laurel Hills -Lot 6 Sewer Extension, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The sanitary sewer facility construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The value of the sanitary sewer construction is .$4,300. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the sanitary sewer facilities serving the Laurel Hills -Lot 6 Sewer Extension along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. /`1 ._. ~Op~'/ DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT THIS DEED, DEED OF EASEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT, made this 22nd day of May, 1996 by and between: James K. Penn hereinafter referred to as the "Developer," party of the first part; the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," party of the second part; and ELMER C. HODGE, County Administrator of Roanoke County, VIRGINIA, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits to accrue, the Developer does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER, with the covenants of GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE, in fee simple unto the Board all sewer lines, valves, fittings, laterals, connections, storage facilities, pumps, manholes and any and all other equipment and appurtenances thereunto, in and to the sewer systems in the streets, avenues and public utility, sewer easement areas that have been or may hereafter be installed by the Developer, along with the right to perpetually use and occupy the easements in which the same may be located, all of which is more particularly shown and described and designated as follows, to wit: As shown on the plan entitled Laurel Hills -Lot 6 Sewer Extension, made by Balzer & Associates and on file in the Roanoke County Engineering Department. O The Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that it will be responsible for the proper installation and construction of the said sewer systems including repair of surface areas affected by settlement of utility trenches for a period of one (1) year after date of acceptance by the Board and will perform any necessary repairs at its cost. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, party of the third part, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance of this conveyance pursuant to Resolution No. County, Virginia. WITNESS Z Developer: ~ By: As: adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke LLOWING signatures and seals: State of: ' County/City of: , to wit: The foregoing de d was acknowledged before me this: _~`~ day of ~~ 19 ~~ , By: as Duly authorized officer Title on behalf of otary Pu c My Commission expires: ~~Omm~ssion Expires March 31, 1999 ~~~ ~ ~~ x Approved as to form: County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia By County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge State of: County/City of: to wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledged before me this: day of 19 , by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Notary Public My Commission expires: - -- -- _ - \~ ~ \\~~ \~ \~ ~~_ \~ NOTE EX~/5T/N6 4'~CATf_,04C ~~PY/CE TO ~50L96P.4N0/N ~@? EX7.' /S NOT F/7TEL) W?N B4C,CFl~W P,?EYENTO~PS (~P FIELD /NVEB- nsar/ON) G~~nd ~ ~n ~ //O \ \ ~~ ___= ~~ ~~ ~. V `~SEp ~/gyp ~ ' ~O~' G rye 6o UREA yj~~S _i~t~~a` _ _ ` `'* \ ROANOKE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF SANITARY SEWER EYTENSION SERVING LAUREL HILLS ~1 ~vv. , _~ /NV. /, '~~p \ BEY. ~.•,~~ ~tx1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,~ -~ . ~-072396-6.c 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: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County applied for a Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. The Commission will match up to $5,000, any donation the County makes to qualified art organizations in the valley. In the FY 1996-97 Budget, The Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation of $3,000 for the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, $8,500 for Mill Mountain Theatre and $7,500 for the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Staff therefore, applied for the maximum grant allocation of $5,000. Roanoke County was awarded $4,000 for FY 1996-97. This amount is less than the maximum due to the budget cuts suffered by State agencies over the last several years. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommends dividing the $4,000 grant evenly between the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, Mill Mountain Theatre and the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Combined with the County's appropriation, the following amounts would be available to the organizations referred to above: County VCA Organization Appropriation Grant Total Arts Council $ 3,000 $1,333 $ 4,333 Mill Mountain Theatre 8,500 1,334 9,834 Roanoke Symphony 7,_500 1.333 8,_833 19 000 4 000 23 000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $4,000 to be distributed as indicated above. r /t /~ ~ l ~ {/ ~ Respectfully submitted, W. Brent Robertson Budget Manager Appro by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) approve Eddy ~ Received ( ) Harrison ~_ Referred ( ) Johnson ~- To ( ) Minnix x Nickens ~_ cc: File W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance A-072396-6.d ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER M - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement for capital purchases for the Clerk of Circuit Court's Office. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During the course of a fiscal year, the Compensation Board reimburses localities for specific expenses relating to the operations of the Constitutional Officers. Reimbursable expenses include salaries, fringe benefits, certain operational costs, and limited capital expenditures. At the close of some fiscal years Compensation Board budgets are not depleted and, upon request of the Constitutional Officer, may be reallocated to cover previously unbudgeted items. The Clerk of the Circuit Court has requested this reallocation of funds from the Compensation Board for the purchase of a replacement microfilm reader/printer. The Comp Board has approved this request (copy of approval attached). FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Approval of this request will increase revenue and expenditure budgets by equal amounts--$18,250. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends an appropriation adjustment to increase revenues from the state for Compensation Board reimbursement by $18,250 and to increase the Clerk of Circuit Court's budget by $18,250. Respectfully submitted, W. Brent Robertson Budget Manager Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approv d by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Hs Odell Minnix to approve /VI``t VOTE No Yes Absent Eddy ~_ Harrison x Johnson ~ Minnix x Nickens ~._ cc: File W. Brent Robertson, Budget Manager Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court .~ JUNE R.FUNKHOUSER CNAIgaIAN DANNY M. PAYNE W. J. KUCHARSKI ex.oFVtclo taetaeegs . „s- ~~.n w ~at++~' ®ldil~'~®1 `r ~~L ll~ll Y 1L ®~ U~ ll~~~l V Y~ COMPENSATION BOARD P. O. BOX 710 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23218-0710 July 8, 1996 The Honorable Steven A. McGraw, Sr. Clerk, Circuit Court County of Roanoke P. O. Box 1126 Salem, VA 24155-1126 Dear Mr. McGraw: DnN /~ `~ BRUCE W. HAYNES EXECUTIVE SECpETAgv JAMES W. MATTHEWS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECFETARV This is in response to your request dated June 19, 1996, and to inform you of Compensation Board action taken on June 27, 1996. The Board c n > d its approval of June 21, 1996 for FY96 as follows: The use of $18,250 in unexpended Office Expense funds to purchase a microfilm reader/printer for your office. Sincerely, . June R. Funkhouser Chairman Bruce W. Hayne Executive Secretary Copy to: Govemins Body Charlene M. Rollins, Srnior Fisal Technician. Cirwit Caurt Clerks Program Jame W, iNatthews, Assistant Exewtive Secretary Auditor of Public Accounts h:\wndocs\cccactn.696 kml-7/7/96 FAX (804) 371-0235 ADMINISTRATION (804) 786-0786 (VlTDD) (804) 786-0786 A-0723 96-6. e ACTION NO. ITEM NO. /~/) "" r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Donation of sanitary sewer easement on Lot 9, Farmington Place, from Jeffrey S. Maronic, Inc., to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This consent agenda item involves acceptance of the following easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors for a sanitary sewer easement in Farmington Place, Windsor Hills Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke: a) Donation of a sanitary sewer easement, varying in width, on Lot 9, Farmington Place, from Jeffrey S. Maronic, Inc., (Plat Book 18, page 89; Tax Map No. 76.20-9-9) as shown on a plat prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., dated June 20, 1996, a copy of which is attached hereto. The location and dimensions of this easement have been reviewed and approved by the County's engineering and utility staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this easement. Res ect~ully submitted, 1 ~ i, ~~ t ~ ~ l Vickie L. Huf n ~- Assistant Coufi y Attorney ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) approve Eddy ~- Received ( ) Harrison ~_ Referred ( ) Johnson ~ To ( ) Minnix ~_ Nickens ~_ cc: File Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Y C,11-` T ~ Cp>. 'INE tip~..- a '~ ~6 O 1 'S~,J X~ s ae i c lDT 8 0/ ` `V ~ `"~ r~T sA c~ /G ~/~ , G3, .S~A4g4 1 n ' ~_I ;_` ` LOT 9 O. GSG I~ ~~ ~~ SCALE I" = HOB ~~~ P H. !e ~i e,~ ~L~T 10 NORTp ACRE _ _.. _.i 1 l I l0T 7 ~ b ) ~ Y kl I II . h; ~ I - LOT 4 I ~ } I~ 7 1 I °If -- - _. 3 I rillr I o I;N NEw t.or s I rI1Q SA ITARY I Z~~~ 6WER L j I A EMEN7 _... _ ~- _. ~ ;~ (SEE rJOTE f+5) I I ~~..._ _„ _~', rn CENTEq Loi I I li 3 OF r•n E%I$TItJC; IJ Iux.E I F 11 ZII_~ _. -- -- - W I10 r WW Ile: M1 W M LOT 3 I ,~ a~ 3~?' "j _.... _. I } w . aI I A ~~ : w nor z I ~ r 1 ~I r t I N ~ ~ ~ ____.___.- .. E XISTIrJG ~-I ' 7 'M^,hJ Hoye t- I I; ` I NI ' r= -~~ rOY 1 I N O zi I ""-I :. wl __ _ N 11 ^ I 12' '~O q~l~ "41 N/F f W JEFFREY MA2pNIC tA,c it 7H. ~0 3 ~ 2 I.I OT ES 1. OWNtwR OF F~EGORO'~ JE FF REiY S. MAr40NIC, INC. E LEGAL FiEFE RENCf$ ~. RLAT D40K IE, pAOE gy 3. TAX MAP NUM(~ER ~~ 9G+2a-9-9 N. NO 'TITLE REPV RY KUQNISHEb 5 NEW SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CONTAINS 3G1 SQUARE FEET EA5EMENT PLAT FoR J~FFRE`r S. MARON I C SHOWINt~ NEW SArJ LTA R'( SEWER EASEL-'+E NT CRUS51r.JU L4T 9 FARE-II/JGT~N r•LACe PLAT WOK 18, PAGE 6'i W INb$OI~ 1-IILIS MAC+IST6R1.4L ptSTRIC'( ROANCfKE C[kJNTY V117GWIA JUIJE 20 I'lgr. X06 NUrnDE2 gtiOco5 -A CURVE CI O ~EpL7't( p~,L E ..yy~~ ~~~~~~~ ~ JOHN R. McADEN ~ N0.002002 ~.. 6-ao-96 a ~ OELTn' 4C° 2O' iii" RAPIU$° 1,167. HO ARC' GO. 00 tANGENT' 3G. q0 cf+ORc ' GC+. o0 _ pFARIhJG' Z n 1,.- -.: •~ ` 509 ~ 05' 5 k " W m 5'~ ~ti'~ ~., r ~ . z .. ~~12~ ~N~G Y IR IN'I ~~ 6 Tlw BALZER AND A680CIATEB, INC., 1206 CgRPORATE CIRCLE, ROANgKE, VIRGINIA 2016 41vU .\59C>C T ]rnOfa /iO~v 1 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 A-0723 96-6. f - ~0 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation to the School Operating Fund COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Roanoke Valley Regional Board has budgeted funds to pay Roanoke County Schools additional rent for class space at Cave Spring High School. This amount was determined by the Regional Board based on 965 square feet at $10 per square foot. ($9,650.00) FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of $9,650.00 to the School Operating Fund Je ry-- Elmer C. Hodge Director of Data And Budget Management County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix to No Yes Absent Denied ( ) ~~t`-~rnyP Eddy ~_ Received ( ) Harrison ~- Referred ( ) Johnson ~_ To ( ) Minnix _~,L Nickens x cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent ., ,. .. l ~~' ~ ~ ~~ FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON JULY 11, 1996 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE SCHOOL OPERATING FUND FOR CLASS SPACE AT CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Regional Board has budgeted $9,650 to pay the County School Board of Roanoke County additional rent for class space at Cave Spring High School; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County Schools will need to rent a mobile unit to provide said class space; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia requests an appropriation in the amount of $9,650 by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for rent payable to said school board by the Roanoke Valley Regional Board. Approved on the motion of Mr. Stovall and duly seconded, and on the following recorded vote: AYES: Jerry L. Canada, William A. Irvin, III, Marion G. Roark, Michael W. Stovall, Thomas A. Leggette NAYS: None TESTE: ' ~ ~ ~ % Clerk c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt Mrs. Penny Hodge ~,.,~ . THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 1996, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION_072396-6.g REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF ST. IVES COURT AND PORTIONS OF SULGRAVE ROAD AND SCOTFORD COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 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 Rec~uirements^ 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 Minnix Seconded By: None Recduired Yeas: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson Nays: None A Copy Teste: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation r, ~~' x 14' I r a. 4PQ ~ ~~A /~J tY HII.L.S~ KITIE ac 0 1wNDy,E,~ . O c v O ~U R~°FCgh, C,p R ~ - ~, . /{e ~ .~. 6 _ _ . ~ .-....VICINITY .MAP' ,~ ~~~ O ~P yr ~~°' ~ 3~ ' `, KENSINGTON OF CANTERBURY PARK s ,, -. _. .. -- - ~:' „~ ah ,~,°"1~,°~io;~'' ~ 31° -.. SECTION 9 (DES : 2 , 6 , 6 j .3z e 4c ~''J ~''•as ~ `~as9 ~ oel~a°~~ 8 7.47 Ac ....__.. - 13 12 .~siaJ j, I ~ . . ~~ ~ .75 bql x.3;5 ` .~ ~.'. o~ } ~~. e 5' * >>1 r°+~ • ~ a,~_ • ~~ I~ee .XW ~fi ~ . ~ .7991 1~ ~ • a ~ 3 ,:1~ ,° . s =r ~61?6 • ~ _ ••, 4 p'~n zrai ,y ! - ROANOKE COUNTY KENSINGTON OF CANTERBURY PARK, SECTION 9 ENGINEERING & WESTCHESTER OF CANTERBURY PARK, SECTION 10 STEEPLEHUNT OF CANTERBURY PARK, SECTION 6 INSPECTIONS DEPART~~iENT '_>•:, gab :. •4py /~ " a ~/^~. M •~•. ~ -~ ,Q• .' '-' ~Scotf '•.•, .., 17~~ ~ I8~ oY 9 S•: ~~..~ ~ ~ _~ ~ CGIlt '~ ~ ~~ ~ 1+2. .r . ! 1I.t/ ~ O- ,7G.,1 ,~1. . - ~4 p; l I7 . T :` 1.20 e o t -IvOQ~ .., a `"i 26 2~ ~ta ~t-~r~1 ts7.o 4.e .In~l :~ S ~ ~ ~5B<'. 0 fa~d,~ei 4.70 AC ~~-1' •~ I u , ~ 600'Z • . 5925 ' lai.! 4' ~ ' ie~-i16 °~~~' a !4 .." it ~ ~359~s • ~ ~' ~` Go~o~~e In _ _ .. ~~~ 1 '~~- -. ~ Apo °~ ~C' n .._..~icA3~_-. _±'~ ! STCHESTER OF CANTERBURY PARK, STEEPLEHUNT OF CANTERBURY SECTION ] 0 (DES • 3 , 4 f =ROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY • PARK, SECTIOAI 6 (DES: 11 DESCRIPTION: 1) Sulgrave Road - Frca Trinity Court to a point 87.92' north from the radii of Trinity Court. 2) Scotford Court -Frog the intersection with Sulgrave Road to a point 537.14' . west of the intersection o£ Sulgrave Road and Scoc£ord Court. 3) Scotford Court - Fromm the intersection with St. Ives Court to a point 174.37' east of the incerse_^_ion of Scotford Court and St. Ives. Court. 4) St. Ives Court - From its south cul-de-sac to the intersection with Scotford Court. 5) Sulgrave Road - From a point 87.92' north of Trinity Courc to the intersection with Scotford Court. 6) Scotford Court - From its eastern cul-de-sae to the intersection with Sulgrave Road. ' LENGTH: (1) 0.02 MILES (2) 0.10 MILES (3) 0.04 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 r~ET (2) 50 FEET (3) 50 FEET ' ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 30 FEET (2} 38 FEET (3) 38 FEET SERVICE: (1) 0 HCMES (2) 5 HOMES (3~) 0 HOMES LENGTH: (4) 0.06 MILES (5) 0.05 MILES (6) 0.06 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (4) 50 FEET (5) 50 FEET (6) 50 FEET ' ROADWAY WIDTH (4) 30 FEET (5) ~ 30 FEET (6} 30 FEET SERVICE: (4) 5 HOMES (51 2 HOMES (6) 6 HOMES >?' :', ~:, ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Acceptance of St. Ives Court and portions of Sulgrave Road and Scotford Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Boone, Boone & Loeb, the developer of Steeplehunt of Canterbury Park, Section 6, Kensington of Canterbury Park, Section 9 and Westchester of Canterbury Park, Section 10, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.02 miles of Sulgrave Road, from the radii of Trinity Court to a point 87.92' north of the radii, 0.05 miles of Sulgrave Road, from a point 87.92' north of the radii of Trinity Court to the north intersection with Scotford Court, 0.20 miles of Scotford Court, from the east cul-de-sac to the west intersection with St. Ives Court, and 0.06 miles of St. Ives Court, from the south cul-de-sac to the north intersection with Scotford Court. The staff has inspected these roads along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the roads are acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT• No county funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS• The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept St. Ives Court and portions of Sulgrave Road and Scotford Court into the Secondary Road System. M-7 f SUBMITTED BY: Arn~~Covey, Direct of Engineering & Inspections Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: ACTION APPROVED: <~s~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens M-~ .~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 1996, 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 A Copy Teste: By: Mary Allen, Board Clerk D r~ Iv-~~ °~ r °• V :'I ~•a 6 40 ~iJ° tea ° 38 d ~.~59 t ;~ 13 ~ 12 y '~ ;°J~ ,, ~ .J ~ ~ bZls •~` S ~ .~~• X03 '~~~. .~ 6 e ~ 4 any 8 `• y~ ~'~ ~et3e 6/) 5 n ~3 :~ • • 6/16 3 ~• •~ 4 • ~~ ar: _ KENSINGTON OF CANTERBURY PARK _ SECTION g (DES: 2,5,61 2 ~ 1.3 -. i°~ a T.47Ac - 3/ I ~ ~ ~ ~ - O~ ~ X71. •° '' • (',.. , ' 13 ,. s :xiQ ~~ ~ • i ~1', 12 ioa to • r I I - +~ ~a•. ..... ib •~ zrwi 4 . fi ~.} 17~i I8 3993 ~~''•~ o ~ -' 8: T'O Y ~ ~ ~. .~ `.''. ai ~ ~: p+sv rJw 2Iw/ " A-^ i ; s ac~a yay, 5 , • 16 - i rto.t~ w - ~ gojm4 •JS.en W a20 1~ - 8A `~- ~S .I '._ =r .J~-., ~ • ~. 7 ~. . coo ~ 16p23.~ ~ 161 : I'7 6011= t ~q .. t~¢: _u ~J •+u ~,~ a. ~~ ~ a - ,, + ~~ ', ~ x.'°26 2: 1.20 ~ .~1°.`~_`t,-~ ~st.o o.~ •h~i o~ s; 5e~ OZZ a Rey 4.70 Ac ~~_2 .~ :. , ~ 6~ ' ~ ~ SBZ3 ° a: ., STCHESTER OF CANTERBURY PARK, FROpOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY STEEPLEHUNT OF CANTERBURY SECTION ]0 (DES: 3,41 PARK, SECTI0~1 6 (DES: 11 DESCRIPTION: 1) Sulgrave Road - Frcm Trinity Court to a point 87.92' north from the radii of Trinity Court. 2) Scotford Court - From the intersection with Sulgrave Road to a point 537.14' west of the intersection of Sulgrave Road and Scotford Court. 3) Scotford Court - 'rca the intersection with St. Ives Court to a point 174.37' east of the intersection of Scotford Court and St. Ives Court. 4) St. Ives Court - Frc~ its south cul-de-sac to the intersection with Scotford . Court. 6) Sulgrave Road - rom a point 87.92' north of Trinity Courc to the intersection with Scotford Court. 6) Scotford Court - Fzom its eastern cul-de-sac to the intersection with Sulgrave Road. LENGTH: (1) 0.02 MILES (2) 0.10 MILES (3) 0.04 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 a ET (2) 50 FEET (3) 50 FEET ROADWAY WZDTH: (1) 30 FEET (2) 38 FEET (3) ~ 38 FEET SERVICE: (1J 0 F.OMES (2) 5 HOMES (3~) 0 HOMES LENGTH: (4) 0.06 MZLES (5) 0.05 MILES (6) 0.06 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (4) 50 FEET (5) 50 FEET (6) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH (4) 30 FEET (5) 30 FEET (6) 30 FEET SERVICE: (4) 5 HCMES (5) 2 HOMES (6) 6 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY KENSINGTON OF CANTERBURY PARK, SECTION 9 ENGINEERING & WESTCHESTER OF CANTERBURY PARK, SECTION 10 STEEPLEHUNT OF CANTERBURY PARK, SECTION 6 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ,~ ~- i GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1996 (unaudited) $7,176,332 7.92% Balance at July 23, 1996 $7,176,332 7.92% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $7,176,332 Reserve for R.R. Donnelly -Phase II (570,000) Potential Liability (1,200,000) $5,406,332 5.97% 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 1996-97 General Fund Revenues $90,565,107 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $5,660,319 Respectfully Submitted, ~~. Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance of General Fund Revenues M:\Finance\Common\Board\Gen96. WK4 ~~ cl~°. CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1996 (unaudited) $648,413.00 (Includes final payment from City of Salem which was received in June 1996) Balance at July 23, 1996 X648.413.00 I Respectfully Submitted, 1V ~-a.~-,.sz~ ICJ . ~~~x~T Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap96. WK4 f"° " RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 1996-97 Original Budget $305,313.00 Balance at July 23, 1996 $305,313.00 Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ~. ~~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board96. WK4 ACTION # C7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -June 1996 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ITEM NUMBER '~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 6/14/96 $608,815.18 $2,165,587.18 6/28/96 645,276.43 6/28/96 (533.91) void check 6/28/96 348.48 manual check 6/28/96 (421.41) void check 6/28/96 207.16 1,253,691.93 $3,419,279.11 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: ~~(.o.~r,Q ~ ~. ~l1 ~~,tSl Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance • ~ ti ~`' ._ --~ Approved Denied Received Referred To O Motion by No () Eddy () Harrison () Johnson O Minnix Nickens Yes Abs 6.....J 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: July 23, 1996. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy, as of June 30, 1996. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: CENTRAL FIDELITY 994,810.00 CRAIGIE 994,266.67 NATIONS 2,969,355.56 SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW 995,770.83 SIGNET 4,007,216.33 WHEAT 1ST 3,774,249.02 13,735,668.41 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN 100,000.00 CENTRAL FIDELITY 1,000,000.00 1,100,000.00 COMMERICAL PAPER: CENTRAL FIDELITY 1,988,638.33 CRAIGIE 1,980,396.11 CRESTAR 2,982,109.93 NATIONS 993,450.00 PAINE-WEBBER 1,988,403.33 WHEAT 1ST 972,145.83 10,905,143.53 FEDERAL CREDIT: PAINE-WEBBER 2,985,070.56 PRUDENTIAL 986,500.56 3,971,571.12 LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL FUND 10,133,736.91 RESOURCE AUTHORITY 1,538,660.30 11,672,397.21 REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: CENTRAL FIDELITY 1,000,000.00 FIRST VIRGINIA 5,634,000.00 6,634,000.00 INVESTMENT: COMMONWEALTH (RES. AUTH.) 5,223,311.22 5,223,311.22 MENTOR CASH MANAGEMENT FUND 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 TOTAL 54,242,091.49 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respe tful Submitted by Appr v y: -/- ~'.y-- ----- -------------- - --- ------------- - --- - red C. Anderson Elmer C. Hodge County Treasurer County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ()Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Eddy Received () Harrison _ _ Referred () Johnson To () Minna _ _ Nickens r ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER P AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Report of Claims Activity for the Self-Insurance Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with the Self-Insurance Program, Ordinance #61494-4, Section 2-86.C attached is the 4th Quarter (April, May and June) claims activity and status report. FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submit Approved by, /,/~J%~ ~----,~ Robert C. Jernigan( ~ Elmer C. Hodge Risk Manager / County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved 1 - Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( 1 Harrison Referred ( ) Johnson To ( - Minnix Nickens g:\riskmgmt\trustees\board.rpt ,^ r'I J ~ ~ ~~ I~ ~ m Z M O 00 O (D 6J O 00 LO O ~ h O W N (O 1~ _ O M O O I~ _ W n rY M W W W N M N W ~ M n W M O } (O M M N d' GO I~ CO O O M ~ Q r N N V N (O a O Q ~' N N N `~ y ~' `~ ~' `~ N ~~ a i E i a E i a E i a E a i E i a E a i E a i E a i E a i E Q y m m ~ ~ m `m m m m m m m m M M m m ~ O M M M ~ 7 ~ M J U Z Y y C C y C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U U O ~ U O U U • U U U U • U ~ 0 3 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q m 01 Y Y 01 Y O) O) O) Q1 O) m O) y y _N N O N O N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ C: ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H 'O -O ~ ~ "O ~ ~ "O "O -O 'O ~ 'D Q d N N O7 N U N N N N U7 N O N VJ N V7 (q (A N N N fA y N y O N O U O U O U O U o U O U o U O U o U O U o U O U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W N ~ H ~ ~ m Q ~ ~ a = o ~ M ~ W ~ Z O ~ LL ~ H ~ ~ ~ a Z O ~ a, W ~ U U r ¢ c a ~ ~ W } ~ U U > > y N 1- ~ ~ a~ r a~ ~ Z Vl ~ W > > t, y N U W O ~ N N y L N > H Z O U O 7 U U U N > U Q v ~ w ~ a~ Y ~ Y ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ a~ a Q U L t ~ O ` dj L ~ O C ~ j •+ N + + ~ C O d y {0 J Q ~ tq L y L * L > O L U fq ~ O N y Y U ~ Y U d N O p N U U O 7 ~ W Z ~ - ' L L ` y U 7 Y Y L y ` Y N lL Q O ++ o {'' ` ~'' ~ 7 O O N N ~ J 'O ~ E N E ~ y N ~ C N y 3 O N W fq O. N - ~ O ` O a ' U C ~ 3 C ~ w ~ m c ~ ~ m O) c m c C a~ ~ C Q1 c N c J Q Q7 ~ N U > , _ C _ C ~ N O C . F ~ ~ ~ (n OC O 00 U W H I- ¢ w (n F fn F H Z W O . O~ C H (~ q N C N ~ N ~ ~ m ~ ~ d d N N °~ ? ~ >• N N T N ~ O O O O C~ ~ (O •+' O O O ~+' O d a cn a w ~ a ~ a (n a ~ d F' ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n co cD cfl Z rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn m rn rn W Q H O ~ M N ~ l0 W N M M n Q ~ ~ ~ O '- N O ~ N O O O Q U U ~ ~ n o0 0o ao rn rn rn \ Q O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O ~ M 00 M tC1 I~ N ~ M W W W c O Q O O O O N N M M ~ t0 CO (O N J Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O> V d i~ 'J._ ~ O O M O cD O O W O ~ O 00 ~O W n to N CO M N 1, ~ n M n a O fA Q y cc ~ C C C C C C CC C L Q N m m a~ m `m ~ a~ m J ~ ~ 01 ~ 01 m O) ~ (~ ~ Y Y C Y C C C Y Q -~ -0 Y -~ Y Y Y -~ U7 N y ~ y _y y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ a~ ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ N o o a o 0 0 o a U U O U U U U O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 W N N ~ W W ~ H ~ ~ ~ a a = o ~ M ~ W 'p N 'O ~ Z ~ s m m ~ 0 rn f0 U t ~ N _ ~ fC ~ N ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d Z O Y ~ m U O c m ~ ~ UO U Y D. O Y ~ ~ d y ~ ` O Y U ` W ~ ° 'O ~ ~ O. N ~ ~ W ~ y Y U C ~~ U W H Z Y ` C Q1 U~ m Q Q Q v y ,~ E~ ~ ~ a E 'm m ~ J a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ° c ~ ~ ~ y fA O 7 , Y U U ~ O Y 3 y W Z F' ~ O ~ ~ U ~ ` C ~, U ~' ~"' Y v ` Y ,.., C ~ ~ ~ lL Q C O ++ O ~ C U +~ ` N O W W O ~ y ~ •~ ~ ~ .N ~ ~ N W O U L E N U N E N U ~ Q ?~ y ~ 'O U > O -o ~ r 7 y ` i U 00 Q ~ (n ~ > Q ~ (n OC ~ N W C G ~ Y i-~ Y N ~ C ~... y y y y y = W ~ -O ~ U "O "O U ° ° ° ° ° ° ° c n < n c n a c n c n ~ a ~ cp cn cp m co m co m W W ~ m ~ ~ ~ m ~ 61 H' (O I~ in ~ M n ~ O V Q N ~ N N O O ~ M U ° 0 o Q o O o o O o 0 Q O ~ m M O O ~ n N F J Z O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U7 U m ~ a (, } r-r~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o ro ~.. 0 0 0 0 0 o rn n o 0 0 0 o cfl Z O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ` ` O ~ l0 00 } .- N M Q a ¢ w O `o ~ y N Q fn N fA f/7 f/1 to t/1 N N N N ~~ N E 47 E N E N E N E G1 E d E ` a~ E E m a~ a`> m m m m a> m m a m m y Q ~ m rn ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ c ~ ~ J Z U- Y C C Y Y Y Y C Y Y ~ Y Y U . m m U U U U . m U U p U U o ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 ~ ~ 3 3 . 3 3 Q m m m m rn Y m ' m ' D m ' a~ " -O Y Y -O "O •O ~ N O D m D O N O y N N O U7 N O O N N (~ W ~ N (~ (~ (~ ~ (~ N m (A (~ fA H "O ~ 'D -O 'O ~ 'O 'O 'O ~ "O ~ "O Q U7 N N N N N N d N d N N 47 f/7 N (A N N y N N N fn N fn y U O O O O O O O _O O O O O O U U U U U U U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ W ~ W ~ ~ W Q ~ K o d M = W ~ ~ C ~ N LL ~ ~ Y C 01 m O 2 ~ a m O N °' a c ° ~ p Z m ° y L ~ m ~ ~ w } a °' ~ ~ rn to ~ 7 ~ U 07 N m 1- ~ } W > N ~ m ~ W ` W J H C N U L > N C Q O W t+ U m m J d 'C ~ U ~ pC J U U m m o ° ~ m io N ~ Z W Q L L U m 3 ~7 Y U d N L "O C W ~ Z °- m m a~ y a 2 a a ~ m f0 oC 3 U E N Y ~ N W U Y y m Y ~ Y h N N 'O ~ m m N tUp m m N N W N m _ U U d O C N O , N N ~ ~ N N ~ O N Q 3 U ~ - N ~ m ~ ~ 3 m U ~•+ ~ 2 n n 2 ~ (n D ~ ii U fn ~ ( ( O ~ N Z w ~ a~ m a~ m f' N N N Vl oC m m mm > W ~ ~ U ' T ' ' ? r Y T ~ O + + O O + + ~ ~ ~ ~ • • • ~ ' ~ ~ O a m a O cn ++ ~ O cn O cn +• > +~ > O to + > +~ ~ ~n ~n u~ ~n ~n ~n ~n u~ ~n ~n ~t co tD w W rn rn m rn m m rn rn m rn rn m m Q F' ~ ~ ~ t0 N N 00 N O I~ m N Q O ~ N M ~ ~ N N ~ N N N ~- V ~ _ _ _ _ (` U n n n n W 00 00 00 M O O) N 7 Q O O O O O O O O O O O O Ol C N LO t} 00 O ~ M M O d n M O Q O O O N N N N ~ d' 00 00 N J Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O> U d ,d. is J O O ~ ~ ~ O O W Z O O ao ~''~ W O M ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ Q a O v~ Q ~~ E E E Q N N f9 (0 N t0 ~ J V C D1 ~ ~ U ~ U 01 ~ ~ U Q1 ~ . D ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ a .~ ~ ~ Y -~ ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ h H ~ ~ ~ m a~ a~ ~ N p_ a O O a O O O U U O U O O O O O O W O O O O O O W ~ O O O O~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ Q ~ W ~ d o = M ~ W OC Z ~ ~ Y N O ~ ~ ~ x ~ w W ~ N ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ N = U p ~ a ~ ~ ~> W ~ ~ Z N L y tUil ~ O ~ E U C w J d O U ~ N O y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ oc W 3 a N o o g F, ~ o ~ > ~ N ~ ~ ~. W J ~ . N ~ ~' N Q Z Q W C ~ m U a~ ~ J Q U U C C N y ~ ~ ~ N Q O N ~ Z W C N C O N N Z J W 1D 01 ~ £ 3 a i ~ a 7 m ~ ~ W W () C 'c f0 C U O E ~ Y E f0 N H - a m - o OC 7~ C p C 7 1] a N J U ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ O t- oC ~' aC d to > ~- H Z w ~ ~ a~ N N ~ f0 f0 w ~v -o «• O 'Y ~Y O ~Y ~Y Z m ~ O) ~ ~ W W ~ M ~ O Q . ` O O U ~ Q o 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 41 O O N N N ~ ~ Z O .- N U ~ d ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~" 0 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Bond Project Status Report COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a time line for the projected/actual activity of the various work components (Attachment A) and a listing of projects that have been completed (Attachment B). Since many of the bond projects have been completed, this report will be provided on a quarterly basis instead of monthly. Reports will be given during the months of April, July, October and January. 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, Approv d by, ~~ e ~+ ~C.j~,b~ ,~ /~i ~hn M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. odge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by. ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Harrison Minnix Nickens ~y ~ ~~ ~o O .~ b~A ~ o ~ a~ ~ C7 ~ 0 "b O O U U N ~O a z 0 U U Q W H A U O aq O Q C Q O M O M O ~ O 0 ~~ N M sFr ~ bq ~o ~i a~ ~• W O~ .--i cri N .~' ~~-, O W O U a a w Az d U A z a ., a `' a d ., w A 0 z ~ F U O rn W h ¢ a a ., w A oa w z •a ¢ w z a ¢ w z a d w z a d w z a d w z a d A z a ¢ Q H Q F ¢ F Q F ¢ N Q H ~ F a a U d a a ~ d a a U d a a U d a a U d a w U d a a U d o o o az d ~ ~ z rn U U Z~ U ~ H~ Fa' ~ °" ~ w ¢a F-' ~~ h a 3 v~ 2 o ., ° d aoo aUA aA doC 0 dU 0 U a- v~U a aU o N c~ O .~ ~° 3". O .~ .~ 0 F ~ w O o U U ~ O pO pO O O S v7 O O `~ ~ bN4 U .O N a'' c~z~A ~a o ~~ ~~ ~~ S U W ~O a F A E-~ U O~~ a ~ '" z~N a1 d ~, x w U z 0 d H U O a w z A ti ~ a d a ~ W w d w A O z ,p F U O w a a ti w c7 ca ~ F"' ¢ d E" d ¢ Q a a a z 0 F 3w H a W F, O O ~ U U F 0 ti ... 0 ~3 U 0 ~. O 0 3 0 0 a~ ~. 3 ~, cti ti c~ ~. a~ A z 0 U tt r f `"` '. N 0 O O 3 ~ p v~i A ,-+ ~ O i.. ~ ~ ~ N ~ U .L1 ~'z~~ o ~ a ~ o W b ~ ~, 0 0 U U O ~, a w H A H U O~~ a ~ '~ A ~ N •--~ f~ d ~~-, O a a F W U a w c~ z A z ., x a d ~~ ~ ~II ~ z Q ., U W A O z ~ U O rn a w Q I~II~ H w A co z a ~ H ¢ z a ~ F ¢ z a ~ d z a`a. ~ d z d a ] Q a ~? z Q x ~ ~ w W U ~ ~ F F, N W '~`~ ~ H W F W W Z a0 Q z 0 v i z O Q F O ~U a z U ,~, ~~~ M ~~~A ~o~ ~ U .~ N ~ ~Q rQ z ~ ~ O ~ ~ RS w ~ O '~ Q O O U U N 'o ~. a a a x H x A F U a a w ~a A W F A F v o~~ a ~ '~ cYi U N ~ ~ ti y d ~ a d rn W w z W A 0 z U O ~, w ., :<: w oa Q F Q H Q ~ Q F ¢ F w A o ~ U Ey H '7 ~ ~ ~z U a~ a w w wH x Qz H z a H w ~U QO O O ~: O O O N b4 9, .~ 0 ~. a 0 U ,--i ,--~ ... +~.+ O ~. a~ z Q U ;" ` ° o ~ g °"~oo .~,_.,o~ C/1 M ~--~ ~ b4 d4 bA N ~~,, O ~ ~ ~ ~ 'b O z~~ co fti. U .b ~ c", O ~ U W U N O ~. a W F A H U O¢~ a ~ '~ A ~ N ~ ~ ti `~ a Q °' W ~ w a ti ~ W A h ~ o z W ~ U O a °~ W w F ~ ~ ~ ¢ o ., F W .'~. H ., w w w w w w a a a a a a w a z ¢ z ¢ z a z ¢ z ¢ z ¢ z ¢ z ~ z ] z ~ z ] z ] z ~ z ~ a Q a ¢ Q ¢ Q d a a a a a ¢ z az _U "~ O O z A ° H a H a cFiA v~ w ~z wax„ aW~ ¢ p ~ QvF' W W v~ ¢ ~ AvH W fit a .W.lz ~ W ~ W QQ ~ ~Oj v~ Oz ~ E¢-' vWiU aw aka t,y W rs: ~aaz Wt~ rxa U OF cd a ,~ ~. ~. e~"'C +r O O .. c~ a ~: ~~ w ~., .~ $ ~ ~o a~~ ~, o ~ ~ ~~A :b ~ rn ~ U ~ ~ yUj N O ,~ Q. atiW W F A F U 0 Q a~ A U ~_ Q E"~ O a a O d a U ~. ., `~ a d a III w z ., U W A 0 z ~ v 0 w ., ~ ~ ~ 8 .~. ~ .~-i 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ p f~ w w w a a a w a w a w a z d z d z d z a z d z d H F F H F z H Q Q Q Q ~ a U a U a U a U ,~ U ~ U a d a d a d a d a d a d w a a. ~, ~ ~ az H w ~ ~a w c°~Q z ¢ xW ~ o z d w ¢ ~~ Ha ~ m ~ rn rn 0 M ti .., a 0 ... i a 0 U b U N fL iC a~ b rid b b a~ a~ .n b .a bn ... H a 0 U i-i N U U O C/~ c~ .~ a~ z ~; f' i ~. To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission From: Pete Haislip Date: June 26, 1999b Re: Bond Project Finance Report As requested, listed below are projects that will be completed with remaining bond dollars. Projects with no remaining funds were not included in this report. Starkey- Unencumbered balance $42,231. Approximately $15,000 has been identified to provide sewer to this site. There maybe additional expenses at Merriman that will require funding. The remaining balance (as agreed to by this commission) was to go towards the development of new fields, lighting an existing field, or other improvements as agreed upon by existing Southwest County sports groups. I anticipate meeting with these groups in the late summer to prioritize projects for the remaining funds. Bonsack- Unencumbered balance $645. These funds will be used to reimburse the Parks division for operating funds spent on the V-~alrond project. Vinyazd- Unencumbered balance $25,044. These funds will be used to complete a restroom/concession stand in the pazk. Garst Mill- Unencumbered balance $18,871. These funds will be used to complete the greenway. Whispering Pines- Unencumbered balance $9,471. Planned projects include a well and water lines for the pavilion and ballfields, dugout pads and/or landscaping, parking and playground improvements. Green Hill- Staff are erecting traffic control barrios for the polo and special event azeas. The materials have just been purchased and received. Goode- Unencumbered balance $20,613. These funds will be used to complete a restroom/concession stand. Tennis Courts- Unencumbered balance $399. These funds will cover cost overruns on the Mt. Pleasant and Bent Mt. projects. ~i •-- Fencing- Unencumbered balance $14,134. There is $2,000 from the Vinton azea that will be used on the Vinyard restroom, $6,130 is left for fencing projects in North Roanoke. Staff will work with the North Roanoke Rec. Club to prioritize projects. There is $4,I301eft in South County. Staff recommend improving the backstop at Oak Grove field. Ground Cover- Unencumbered balance $434. The remaining funds will be used for mulching playgrounds. Walrond Office- Unencumbered balance $2,259. The funds will be used for constructing A.D.A. trails in the park. A.D.A. Access- Unencumbered balance $3,179. These funds can be used to Delp fund the greenway trail system in Garst Mill Park. Merriman Soccer Complex- Unencumbered balance $4,496. These funds will be used on additional electrical needs and other pazk oriented requirements. °oS >ooo ~~SS ~..~~ o ~, Q~~ z~'A o~,~g ~ o °~' b U O Q U ~ a i W O i.-i a W H pA~ 7 F U a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ M U N ti F U O a a 0 ti `~ a Q W w z Q ti w A 0 z ~p F O a W ti °~ ~ d :<:: ~, ss: W C7 R1 H F Q a'"~. d a d Q w W F W i U a v i w O , F F U °" d oz a o d U Q H cd b 0 M .., b O U N ..-~ .,-~ 3 -d 0 .~ U ~i O U Y~ ~..~ C; N O ~. ~" .,.., N U '~ c~ O 3 a~ .~ C", 0 F W O U t..~_ ~ . O ~ r'~ 0 ,~ ~ M i-i yg .~~ ~ ~ ~~~ z pq A ~ o o ~ d ~ .., G a~ W ~1 A ~+ G O x U 0 ti i~ 0 b ~. 0 0 U U ~O a W F A H U a z Pa ~o o~ M N >, ti -•a 0 x U x x x 0 w A ~I W C/1 x a ., Q ~ a d a w w a ., W A 0 z H U O rn W h Q a ., ~ m ~ m F (i1 O ~ O ~ A r . . ~ r . -. ~ P~1 ~ H z a ¢ a w 0 Q az H as ~ ~: cd ~. a~ 0 U ...~ .~ c~ b .~" ~i 0 ..r a.+ U N .O H H z 0 U r ~ ' P-g BOND PROJECT UPDATE Attachment B July 23, 1996 BOND PROJECTS COMPLETED DRAINAGE: Mt. Vernon Heights Sierra Drive/Fenwick Drive Green Valley Mason Creek Phase I Wolfe Creek 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 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 Groundcover FIRE HYDRANTS NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY VALLEY TECHPARK ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. APPE CE REQUEST _ . _ _ .A.___._.~.~..._. ..___ _ .._. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~.~ ~, CITIZENS COMMENTS __ ~.___. __ _ __ l = SUBJECT: ,~ G~/c'../ ~~~/--ff~~ lx,%~~,~? /~-'L~!u~ ~~~j -_ ' 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 s Baker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment P speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will whethe - decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ot~the Board to ; __ do otherwise. ^ Speaker 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. c ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments ; with the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. __ • • . PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK • • • ._ ,,~. _ __ • . fittttttttittttitttttttttitttfttittttitttttiittittttnttttitttttttttitiittttttttttttttttt~~ttt~ttttttmittttttittiitttittittitttt~ ~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~„~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - AGENDA ITEM NO. _ - - APPE CE REQUEST ' _ - __ _ _ .._ .r,4 _ . «_.w_._..~.~...~..~. ~-~-_ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~ ITIZENS COMMENTS ..~_r,a._ _ ..._ . _ y ~ ..._.~ - SUBJECT. ` ~ • ~ l 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 - decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, ; and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to __ do otherwise. - ^ Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their oint of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the C~airman. Debate between a recognized c ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. . __ speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments __ with the clerk. ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. -_ . PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ,_ , - -- _ , . , - , .~ , i NAME ` `~~ c C ~-~? Q- ~-~ / ~--- ~ ~ ~~'+- _ ' v~ , _ ~ , _ ; ? ~` ADDRESS ~~ L/ ~ /~ ~ ~~~-; ~l~T -, ~_ /~~~`7. ~ ~~/_ ~ -~s ~, ., G PHONE ~ C~ 7 "~l _. __..__ __ fittiiitttr~tttttrirtttttttiiittiiiiiiti~ii~tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttf~t~tttttrtnttttttttttttttttttttttttttt~ 1 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER f • • AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -May 1996 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: Payroll: 5/3/96 5/3/96 $669, 896.77 24.94 602, 303.61 610,731.61 Manual Check $3,735,010.74 5/17/96 5/31/96 1,882,956.93 $5,617,967.67 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~~~~.~~ Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator • / ~ ~- Approved () Motion by No Denied () Eddy Received () Harrison Referred () Johnson To O Minnix Nickens Yes ~~ Abs • 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD CENTER ~~~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Worksession on Comprehensive Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The purpose of this worksession is to keep the Board apprised and involved in the Comprehensive Plan update process. Planning Commissioners Martha Hooker and Don Witt plan on attending the worksession. Topics to be covered include timeline for plan completion, final membership composition of the CAC, Comprehensive Plan content (Outline), and an overview discussion of conclusions that can be drawn from the demographic analysis. Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board of Supervisors hold a worksession on the Comprehensive Plan on July 23, 1996 Respectfully Submitted, i /l .~ Terrance L. Harrin on, AICP Director of Plan ng and Zoning Approved, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator '" 2 Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens Q- ~ July 17, 1996 1996/97 Comprehensive Plan Worlc Schedule Gene ral Milestones Schedule 1. Prepare Project/ Resource Plan Dec.-March 1996 2. Assemble Citizen Advisory Committees July 1996 3. Coordinate With County Departments May-July 1996 4. Research and Prepare Profile of Existing Conditions May-Oct. 1996 5. 1st Round of Community Meetings Oct.-Nov. 1996 6. Draft Goals, Policies & Objective Dec.-Jan. 1997 7. Assessment & Preparation of Draft Plan Jan.-May 1997 8. 2nd Round of Community Meetings May 1997 9. Revision of Draft Plan June-Sept. 1997 10. Planning Commission Public Hearing Oct. 1997 11. Plan Adoption Nov. -Dec. 1997 Q- ~ Proposed Outline Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan ft is proposed that the Comprehensive Plan will be composed of multiple sections or elements that would be prepared and printed separately ,but combined in a three ring binder for distribution as the full plan. This format will allow distribution of the individual elements separately and allow sections to be updated easily. The individual sections are comprised of those items that are in bold type. • Executive Summary - (Listing of all Goals and Objectives) • History, Regional Setting, and Past Planning Efforts I. Regional Setting & History (prepared, maybe, by Deedie Kagey) A. Introduction B. Regional Setting C. History D. Summary II. Planning History (prepared, maybe, by Gubala or other person) A. Introduction B. Purpose and Legal Basis for Comprehensive Planning C. Past Comprehensive Planning Efforts E. Summary III Process for Plan Development A. Vsioning Process including overriding themes and clear statement that the vision process is the basis for the entire comprehensive plan) B. Citizen Participation IV Roanoke County Community Planning Areas (including old areas and new areas reflecting an evaluation early in the process) • Demographic Trends I. Introduction A. Population 1. Historical Trends 2. State, Regional, and Local Trends 'I June 4, 1996 C~ B. C D. 3. Migration Factors 4. Family/Household Characteristics and Comparisons 5. Age of Population -Population Pyramids 6. Elderly Population 7. Population Distribution 8. Future Trends related to the Comprehensive Plan Housing 1. Building Activity/New Housing Construction 2. Housing Projections 3. Persons per Household 4. Number of Dwelling Units 5. Building Activity by Type of Structure 6. Housing Values 7. Water and Sewer Disposal 8. Vacancy Status 9. Substandard Housing 10. Affordable Housing 11. Distribution of Housing Units Income 1. Components of Income 2. Per Capita Income 3. Changes in Income 4. Adjusted Gross Income Employment 1. Non-Agricultural Civilian Employment 2. Labor Force and Employment 3. Regional Labor Pool 4. Employment by Sectors of Local Economy E. Economic Analysis 1. Basic vs. Non-basic Employment 2. Unemployment/Underemployment Trends 3. Education Levels of Work force 4. Average Weekly Wage 5. Personal Income of Residents by Industry 6. Median Household Income 7. Grouped Resident Employment 8. Industry of Employed Residents 9. Occupation of Employed Residents 10. Labor Force Participation Rates 11. Poverty Status 12. Commuting Patterns 13. Retail & Commercial Activity 14. Industrial Activity 15. Tourism 16. Agricultural Activity -Trends 2 June 4, 1996 c~ - i II. Issues III. Summary (conclusions) • Resource Management I. Environmental Quality, Natural Resources & Open Space (with strong link to vision process) A. Introduction B. Technical Analysis (TC has information on this) 1. Geology/Topography 2. Soils -Prime Agricultural Soils 3. Groundwater 4. Surface Water 5. Flood plains 6. Forest Resources (including champion trees) 7. Wetlands 8. Steep Slopes 9. Flora 8~ Fauna C. Scenic Attributes -Views and Vistas ,hillsides and ridgetops, (Janet: Parkway, Limits or boundaries -how high can development occur?) D. Open Space Preservation (Rural character, area, agric. preservation) 1. Greenways E. Issues 1. Tree Preservation F. Goals & Objectives G. Implementation Strategies H. Summary II. Historic and Cultural Preservation A. Introduction B. Issues 1. Incorporate Historical Survey C. Goals & Objectives D. Implementation Strategies E. Summary 3 June 4, 1996 ..-. ~-i • Transportation A. Planning Role of VDOT and the County 1. The Role of Citizens in Planning Road Improvements 2. Tools available to local governments (including official map) B. Roads & Highways 1. Functional Road Classification -Existing Transportation Network 2. Commuter Patterns 3. Traffic Volumes, Trends, and Capacity Analysis 4. Safety 5. Proposed Secondary Road Improvements -The 6 Year Plan 6. Proposed Primary Road Improvements 7. Private Roads (including paper streets and need for design standards 8. County Designated Scenic Roads and Virginia Byways C. Alternative Transportation Modes 1. Bus Service 2. Taxi Service 3. Rail Service 4. Air Transportation 5. Pedestrian & Bicycle paths 6. Other D. Issues E. Goals & Objectives F. Implementation Strategies G. Summary • Community Facilities I. Introduction II. Major Issues and Themes III. Existing Policy Guidelines IV. Review of Existing Facilities V. Water & Sewer Provisions A. Background Information B. Issues (including central vs. package and on-site systems) VI. Storm Water Management A. Background Information B. Issues VII. Administrative Services/Space A. Background Information B. Issues 4 June 4, 1996 VIII. Fire & Rescue A. Background Information B. Issues IX. Libraries A. Background Information B. Issues X. Parks and Recreation A. Background Information B. Issues XI. Greenways A. Background Information B. Issues XII. Public Safety A. Background Information B. Issues XII. Schools and Educational Resources A. Background Information B. Issues XIII. Technology A. Background Information B. Issues XIV Solid Waste Disposal -Regional Authority A. Background Information B. Issues XIV. Goals & Objectives XV. Implementation Strategies XVI. Summary • Growth Management and Land Use I. Overview A. Growth Management Concepts B. Fiscal Impacts of Growth C. Regional and County Growth Trends D. Urban & Rural Service Boundary E. Neighborhood Identity II. Rural Service Area 5 June 4, 1996 c~-i A. Introduction B. Assessment of Key Issues and Trends 1. Land Productivity and Ownership 2. Rural Housing & Residential Development 3. Rural Commercial & Industrial Uses 4. Preservation and Open Space 5. Additionallssues C. Ru 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ral Preserve Issues Goals and Objectives Implementation Strategies Future Land Use and Zoning Design Principals Summary D. Rural Village 1. Issues 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary E. Village Center 1. Issues 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary III. Urban Residential Areas A. Introduction B. Assessment of Key Issues and Trends 1. Housing Trends and Affordability 2. Neighborhood Revitalization 3. Housing Density and Land availability 4. Infill development 5. Additionallssues C. Neighborhood Conservation 1. Issues 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary D. Development 1. Issues 6 June 4, 1996 -i 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary VI. Urban Commercial and Industrial Areas A. Introduction B. Assessment of Key Issues and Trends 1. Everything in it's Place-the separation of uses 2. The Strip 3. Commercial and Industrial Retention/Recruitment 4. Commercial and Industrial Revitalization/Redevelopment 5. Additionallssues C. Transition 1. Issues 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary D. Core 1. Issues 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary E. Principallndustrial 1. Issues 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Future Land Use and Zoning 5. Design Principals 6. Summary V. Other Areas A. Introduction B. Highway Corridors C. Roanoke River Corridor D. Tourism Sites (BRP & Explore) E. Neighborhood Commercial Areas 7 June 4, 1996 . . ~ . ~-i F. Interchange Locations (I-81 & BRP) Implementation A. Introduction B. Implementation Strategies C. Implementation Schedule D. Bench marking- Developing a Report Card to measure accomplishments E. Summary Appendices (if needed) $ June 4, 1996 AGENDA WORK SESSION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JULY 23, 1996 Introduction (Terry Harrington) 2. Citizen Advisory Committee Roster (Jon Hartley) 3. Work Schedule (Jon Hartley) 4. Comprehensive Plan Outline (Jon Hartley) 5. Summary of Demographic Analysis (Gary Mitchell) e • ROANOKE COUNTY Map IV ® Stf LO 4L.4 36.5 to 38 ® 35.9 to 36.5 ® 34.6 to 35.9 ® 0 to 34.6 ~-/ ROANOKE COUNTY Map V - A ® LVVV W JVVV 1500 to 2000 p 1000 to 1500 p 750 to 1000 ® 0 to 750 ROANOKE COUNTY MapV-B ® i eau iv ~~uu C7 750 to 1250 p 500 to 750 ® 250 to 500 ® 0 to 250 ROANOKE COUNTY Map VI 1000 to 2000 p 250 to 1000 100 to 250 ® 0 to 100 ROANOKE COUNTY Map VII . ~ . ~~ ~~~ 601 to 750 p 451 to 600 ® 301 to 450 ® 151 to 300 ® 0 to 150 ROANOKE COUNTY Map X 45000 to 50000 40000 to 45000 ® 35000 to 40000 ® 30000 to 35000 ® 0 to 30000 ROANOKE COUNTY Map XI ® .7VVVV lV JJVVV p 45000 to 50000 ® 40000 to 45000 ® 35000 to 40000 ® 0 to 35000 ROANOKE COUNTY Map XII 20000 to 25500 p 17500 to 20000 ® 15000 to 17500 ® 12500 to 15000 ® 0 to 12500 4-/ 4~ L~ v . ~, ao 0 o~ Q 'N 1~1 Q' bA .,.., O N ~.~J .~ c~ O U N N 0 ..,, U '~., O -~' 0 U a~ x 0 0 '~ 0 ~~~-~.++ ?-~1 • --~ 4~ C/~ r--1 ~o ~~ O V U •~ a~ ~ ~ ago ~, o ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ Q .;. N i U 'N KJ 0 C!~ ~-. N ~ ~ f {'~"3' ~;'a .N f ~` 7.'. `' O O ~ ~ .~ O ~ ~ .,~ ,~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ O Q ~ can ,~ ~ ''-~ ~ ,~ • u ~ O ' ~ ~ '~ bA c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ •~ c~' ,S *~ ~ u ~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o (~ ~ o E-i ~ H ~ ~ H '~ W ~ C-~+ ~ N di 0 •N Q~ a~ ~ ° aA ~ o ~.~.., ,~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ •,~ O ~ .+~ ~ • ~ .-G'~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a~ ,~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~" -~ .~ ~~°' ~~ 0 0'~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ V ~ O ?~ '~ ~ ~ ,~ v~ -~' ~ ~ ~, o ~o~ o~ o ~ ~ ~'' ~ U ~ ' ~' ~ ~' .~ ~ ~ O ~ -~-+ ~' ~' ~+ ~ .~ ~ •~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .;. a~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~o O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ a~ .~ ~ Q~ ~ ~~ .~ a~ ~ +' '~ o •~ ~ ~ ~ bA ^O^ r~ o ~~ •~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ °' ~ o o ~ ~ °~ V c~ ~ ~ ~ O .~ ~ ~ ~ r--~ ~ ~ ~ O X ~ ~ ~~~~ .;. .;. N U O '~ ~ O U~ ' ~' o ~ •~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° U ~' 4~ O ~: 0.1 -1.i U 4.~ :~ a ~ Y U o aF c ` ~ L ~ ~ w 0 0 R is > > a a a cQ z 0 a s ~ m 0 r O N O O N O O O N Q1 O> l~ y d ~ } Q1 0 0 0 0000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000. Q1 00 I~ t0 If1 ~7 M N r of;e~ndod •:i ;i;x •SSS:ii3!!i 'ti:{:?:s::i 3 : S i :iii: S SS ::iiiS :~ss: s x:x S::SS xxxxx ::: x:xsi3 ~xx 's is ii~i iiii~~i Fx~~x: i~ifii~ii s'sF~i iiii3si~i~~ S ~~ SF • ~~~~i `SSF{•S {2i~~j SSS•SS ~sx~~~i{ .. •SS•{{ xi ~~~~~i#~~ S2 't#~~~ SSi{{SSSSSF{ ~~if~~§$4~1 i s ~~i~ x•'s i ~ St~i s ~{{g~~I ~~;~ i ~ s ~ 'i ~x {~ i i '' =~x:{~ x•. ~.:F~ N .. 'N -1--~ •~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ r-.~ •~ ~ N ~ N ~ O .~ ~ ~ V ~ .~ ~.., O 0o a~ °~ ~ '~ o ~ ~ o •~ ~ N .~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .O O •~ ~ N ~ ~ O O ~ ~ • ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ +, .;. ~-+ `~' O O O ~{ ~ r-1 ~----I bA '~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ bA '~ a~ ~ ,~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ p v ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~0 0 ~ ~ V ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ .~ ,~ O ~n ~ ~ ~ u ~ .-, -~ ~ ~ bA ~ ~ cn ~ b.A ~ O O a~ ..~ ~-' ~ O .;. .;. a~ N 0 z 0 U W U O N C/~ ~ O v~ *~ cn ~ .,-, cn • *-, ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .° ~ ~ ~~~~ O ~ ~ N U ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ ~, o~.~~ ~ ~ ,~ O c~ O •~+ o " ~ °~ ~ ,~ . , ~ .'..~ o-~ ~~~-+ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ o °' ° ~ ~ o ~ ° --~ U ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~~ a~ ~ a~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ .;. .;. O N ~ ~ ,~., ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o • ~ o~ ~ a~ o a~ V ' *"'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 'ri O ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~+ ~ ~ ~, .~' ~ •~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~ U ~' ~ ° ~, ~ -~ o ~ o ~ ~ o U ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ °~ °u o ~ .~, ~ ~ ~ o :~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o o ~ N .;. .;. N ~. o~ a 0 4~ i-~ h--~1 U V . ,,.,.~ a 0 U -1~ c~ .;~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ a O *~ O ~ ~ ~ -N H • too •~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o U ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o aA o ~ ~ ~, C'~ ~---1 r---1 O . ~, N ''t~ C~ ~ .~ y.~ O r~ ?--1 O •O H ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ -N ~ ~ ~ ~- N ~ '"~ , ~ ~ ~ a 0 oho Q~ H w '~ 0 0 0 H . ~..~ C~ U '~ c~ 0 C/1 0 . r.., 0 U .~ O O O 0 d~ O .;. U 0 CCU ~-1 O O O O d~ 0 C~ a -~-+ a~ U ~-~-~1 -N O -~~-~ Cl~ -N O c~ .;. Q~ O 0 .~ a 0 ~ ~ O ~ ¢., u ~+~-, ~ O ~ bA ~ c~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O i, U N O U O 4~ cry ~ ~ O .~ -~ ~ ~ ti N ~-.~ c a Y Y ~ R ~ C ~ C t _~ ~ h ~ Y 0 0 r n O Y _ Y ~ vi 0 rn m O Y Y °~ ~ ~ O Y Y ~ rn o ~ v DY Y ~ - o~ ~ ~ DY rn Y ~ O N N O Y Y ~ o ~ r Y ~ ~n Y u~ v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 t0 d' N O O tD 'st N O N r r r r r N 0 `~ 0~ ems. O ti 4~ 4~ Q U 'N Q. ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~~-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-'+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ O ~ ~ L_(~ ~ ~ ,, ~ . ~ O ~ . ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U ~ Q~ ~ 0 C~ ~ ~ (~ ~ r-~ C~ C~ ~.~--I ~ ~ 1-~ -~ 1~--i ~ ° ~, U ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ .~ ,.x ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O •~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:. .:. N 0.~ C~ ti U ` N ~ ~ ~ O '~ ~ ~ ~ ~`' V ~ ~ c~ O ~ ~ U ~ o x ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ,~ aA ~ ~ .~ . a~ ~, N .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c-~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r--~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~~ a~ ~ ''"' c~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ 'L~ .;. v~ V t'~ .~ c~ V c~ . r.., . ~, ~ - .-~ ~, ~ ~ .~ O ~U ~ °' O ~ ~ • f-.~ O ~ •~ r--~ .;. N N e~ 4~ L~ C/~ 'N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .-~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ c~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~, ~ cn O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ O oO ~ .~ ~ •~ ~ ~ c~ ~ .O ~ ~~ . *..~ r-+ . *..~ ~ •~ ~ .~ :~ ~ ~ O ~ F-+ ~ O .;. ~..+ ~ CC$ .~ .~~.+ O ~ ~ ~ o • r+ .,..,, ~ ~ ~ N ,~ .~-, ~ ~ .,.~ d~ ~ ~ ~ ''~ ~ O ~ ~, .~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ • *V-+ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ ~ .,.., ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ •~ r-' O '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H .;. C!~ .O bA O -~' ~ • V •~ ''"'' ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~' C/~ ~~.~ Q~ ~ -~--~ 4~ `~ V Q ~ ~ O ~ ''"'' ~ •~ O ~ '~ c~ ~ .;. N c~ r-+ N N ~ ~ x ~' c~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ V '"' ~i ° ~ N ,~ , V ~ -N ~ O ~ ~ ~ 't~ ° N ~ .~ ~ ~ bA r., ~ ~ bA ~ ,~ .~' ~ N V *V '"~ ~ ~ ° ~ N ''(~ ~ ~ O ~ '~ ~ '"~'' : n ~i c~ cCS O ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ° ~ ~"' ~ ,~ ~ N ° v v ' ~ ~ O -+~ ~ O ~, "~ ~ ,, v '~ w ~ bA O •,--, o ~ ~ ~ x ° V ~ ~ ~ v 0 ~' .,.., N O .~ O .~ '~ .~ O .~ V '~ .,.., .,.~ 0 H .;. U 0 N Q ,' Q•1 Ww ~H W F~1 O ~ ~ ~U~~4N --, W ~, ZA~-~ d oz~ UN ~~ O~ ~U ~i a U H ~ ~ 2S ZT ZS ZT b~ U~ >~ !~ >~ Q ,~ ,~ >~ >~ >~ x s~ x ~ rd ~ .~ ~ •ri •ri f-a ~ -r-I •r-I ~ ~ •r•I O ~ O •r•I O 3-a O U1 rd Ul ~ [!1 H rtf ~ f.~ ~+ s~+ s~ ~ ~ ~ Q, l-1 ~ O ~ N ~ Q ~' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~'~ oa oa o 0 3 ~ C ~ N E N O N O O~ O cd +~ +~ +~ ~ UU Uu uU ~~ ~~ ~~ U U UU M N d' CO t` In Ol i d' I '~' N d' a' ~ ~ w ~ ~ 3x 3 3x [~ N M Ln r-I M l0 d' N M l0 M N Ln e--I Ol N LC1 ~--1 r•I \D N pp M~ ~ .--1 M O 1~ N al O W rn ~ o d' d' d' co Lcl ~ M rl z I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 o ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ x ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~N ~ 'p, M l~ dl l~ Q1 l~ 61 d' M d' M z~ x a ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ >~ • ~ ~ ~ Q ~ H a ~ O ~ H co N co r-I co N ~ 'd d' ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ s~ N ~ ~ o ,-i ~; ~ o rn oin U~r [~~ x~r ~-+~ 3o Nd' ~d' ~+~ ,'3 e-1 •rl N N N x~ O d• N N its N '~ d- x d' 3 ~ m ~ •rl rl N N ~ O N N ~ ~ U] ~ N O O O O O ~ O O O O O N m m xx ax ~x w ~ ~x xx Ux o s~ W ~ O O O N O O O U O x in O N s~ r >; co ~ rn s~ o s~ oo F~ o s~ +~ Q M ri M f~ '--~ R3 M (~ M O l!'1 ((S N RS l0 !l~ N~. d' (~ M O rn O ~ O c0 O ~ O M O to O rl •,.~ ~ MUl Ma Na era I~c~ ~a ~•a ~a ~~ a w as ~ z z a o o -- --. z x • • ° ~ 3 x a w ~ ~ h x H o o i v a N U 3 v ~ z w ~ H ~ Q w ~ ~ a ~ Q O ~ r ~ ~ HN W H F i ~ Fj ~ Q v W ~ ~ ~. H U ~ a U H U H a H H A N ~:" •,~ w W z 0 x a w a A Q w z ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ N~ N N N r--1 -ri r--I •ri rl rl r-I ~ ro ~ ro ~ ~~ ~ > x~ x~ x N x x ~ ~ ~ ~o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ N aL ro ro ro ro ro U ro U ro~ ro 3-a ~ O S-r O 7-i ~ S-i ~ N~ N~ N U •~ ~ 3 3 3 3 3~ 3~ 3> 3~ N N r-I N ro ro ro ro ro O ro O ro~ ro~ ''O +~ b +~ 'z7 ?G ''~ b r-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ N ~ N +~ N •1-~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ 0o roro roro roro roro ror+ ro~ •~v •~a~ •~+ro •~+•~+ xr~ UU UU U~ U~ Uc7 UC7 304 3c~a Sal 33 3x ~... u x v 3x v v CO l~ d> CO CO d' M f~ ~-I lO N O In rl O N d' M lfl M d' l0 r-1 ~D W H (~ l11 r•i d' [~ e-~ lp CO l!1 l11 lC) LCl N Ln l0 lU l~ lfl N N O d' d' O l~ M M d' 'cM d' V' l~ O t!1 Ol Ol Q1 N d' d' W 00 CO CO CO CO CO N N CO l~ I~ M M M M M M M Ol Ol Ol Ol I~ I~ T3 a a, 'C3 In a w ~o ~n •~ ~r r-I b Z3 O ro N N ao •~+o ~ •~ ~ •oo roo moo, ~ x~ 3 a •~ +~~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ar .a..~o o roM roM a ISM u~o O•~ Do 0 i-1 ~-1 d' r-I d' ,C'.. Ln .~ tf) M M t!1 d' }~. ro d' QI ~r 7r d' O N N N N i-1 N H ~ L(7 c--I rl .~ N ~ N N rl N ro Nro ~ro ~ ~ ~ o ~m oo roar ~a~ xo z3 03 ~ ~ ~ ~ o w~ ~o ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-1 ~ N (~ O ro rl N ~ Q1 O O ~ d' ~ 01 ~ Ol ~ e-iJ"., M .}~ M a-7 l~ ~--I l0 r-I O r-I Q r--i N ro H ~.~' O ro N ro N•rl Oro v~ro ~ro ~ro ~ro ro ~o NO vo .-+o e-I 'J 10 U CO U M (J1 M U] CO C!~ Q.~ CA M a Ol Ct1 I~ a N a W z H a cn ~ x ~ c~ z x H a w ~ z v ~ ~ w ~ ~ 3 3 x a a ~ w N o o z z H w `~ ~' ° ~ z a o z o a o ~+ ~ as z ~ a o w a ca w ~ o o w H ~ a a o w a 3 a a x h ~ w c~ ~ o a U H U H a H cn H A U' x w w z 0 x a W a A a w z N N ~~ ~~ .~ .~, xx ~ ~ O O N N '~ .O ~ ~ 33 rn .,~ o~ ~o ~ ~r N N b O d1 U ,k O rn ~ ~~ M O ~a z 0 H a w x a a H x Q- ~ - Roanoke Count Y Demographic & Economic Profile Summer 1996 • • D W G"W ff ~ ProfiCe g6 i• Table of Contents Sections ~ Paae No. List of Charts 3 List of Tables 5 List of Maps g Introduction 7 Population g Growth & Projections 8 Median Age 12 Change by Age Groups 14 Under 18 and Above 65 Population Groups 15 Birth & Death Rates, Sex Distribution 16 Population Distribution/Density 17 Population Mobility 1 g Racial Profile 2p Persons Per Household 2p Housing 22 Number of Housing Units 22 Persons Per Housing Unit 23 Age of Housing Stock 24 Owner, Renter & Vacancy Status 25 Average Household Size 26 Projected Housing Units 26 Water & Sewer Supply 26 Housing Costs 27 Substandard Housing & Poverty 27 Economic Analysis 30 Introduction 30 Employment Base 30 Basic 8 Supporting Employment 30 Crude Diversity Index 32 Labor Analysis 33 Labor Force Participation Rate 33 Educational Attainment 34 Labor Characteristics 36 Industry of Employed Residents 36 Occupation of Employed Residents 37 Grouped Resident Employment 39 Unemployment 39 Commuting Patterns 40 Regional Labor Pool 40 Work Source Analysis 41 Jobs in Roanoke County 41 Page - i ProfiCe g 6 • Income 8~ Poverty Personal Earnings 39 Household Income 39 Family Income 41 Adjusted Gross Income 42 Average Weekly Wages Per Capita Personal Income 44 Effective Buying Income 44 Consumer Price Index 45 Poverty Status -Persons 46 Poverty Status -Families 47 Economic Development 39 42 48 Number of Businesses by Industry 48 Taxable Sales 49 Retail Activity 50 Wholesale Trade 51 Recent Economic Development Trends 52 Agricultural Trends 54 Tourism Trends 55 Conclusions Appendix 1 Appendix 2 57 1 Page - a ProfiCe g 6 • Income & Poverty 42 Personal Earnings 42 Household Income 42 Family Income 44 Adjusted Gross Income 45 Average Weekly Wages 45 Per Capita Personal Income 47 Effective Buying Income 47 Consumer Price Index 48 Poverty Status -Persons 49 Poverty Status -Families 54 Economic Development 51 Number of Businesses by Industry 51 Taxable Sales 52 Retail Activity 53 Wholesale Trade 54 Recent Economic Development Trends 55 Agricultural Trends 57 Tourism Trends 58 Conclusions 60 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Bibliography Page - 2 Profiee g6 • • • List of Charts Population Chart 1.1: Historical Population Growth for Roanoke g Chart 1.2: Greater Roanoke Valley Population Growth 9 Chart 1.3: 5th Planning District Commission Population Growth 9 Chart 1.4: Comparisions of Total Population By Groupigs - 1960 to 1990 10 Chart 1.5: Populations Relationships - 1970 to 1995 11 Chart 1.6: Percent Change of Population of the Members of the Roanoke MSA 1990 to 1995 11 Chart 1.7: Comparisions of Population Projections for Roanoke County, Roanoke MSA, Greater Roanoke Valley & 5th Planning District 12 Chart 1.8: Median Age - 5th Planning District 13 Chart 1.9: Median Age 13 Chart 1.10: Percent Change of Population by Age Groups - 1970 to 1980 14 Chart 1.11: Percent Change of Population by Age Groups - 1980 to 1990 15 Chart 1.12: Birth and Death Rates 16 Chart 1.13: Sex Distribution -Roanoke County - 1970 to 1990 17 Chart 1.14: Population Density 17 Chart 1.15: Population Mobility by Place of Residence -Roanoke County 18 Chart 1.16: Racial Profile of Roanoke County - 1990 20 Chart 1.17: Persons Per Household Roanoke County & Virginia - 1970 to 1990 21 Housing Chart 1.18: Number of Housing Units -Roanoke County - 1970 to 1990 22 Chart 1.19: Roanoke County Housing Units Authorized by Permits - 1990 to 1995 23 Chart 1.20: Persons Per Housing Unit -Roanoke County 24 Chart 1.21: Percent of Housing 27+ Years Old 24 Chart 1.22: Median Housing Values -Roanoke County & Virginia 25 Chart 1.23: Housing Units Owned, Rented & Vacent in Roanoke County 25 Chart 1.24: Average Household Size -Roanoke County 26 Chart 1.25: Indicators of Substandard Housing -Roanoke County 28 Economic Analysis Chart 1.26: Basic vs. Supporting Employment -Roanoke County - 1980 30 Chart 1.27: Basic vs. Supporting Employment -Roanoke County - 1990 31 Chart 1.28: Labor Force Participation Rate -Roanoke County 33 Chart 1.29: Labor Force Participation Rate -Roanoke County By Sex 34 Chart 1.30: Percent of High School Graduates 35 Chart 1.31: Percent of Persons 25 Years and Over with College Education 35 Chart 1.32: Roanoke County's College Educated Population as a Percentage of Roanoke MSA's College Educated Population 35 Chart 1.33: Roanoke County's College Educated Population as a Percentage of the 5th Planning District's College Educated Population 36 Chart 1.34: Employment Distribution of Roanoke County's Residents - 1980 & 1990 37 Chart 1.35: Occupation of Employed Residents -Roanoke County - 1980 & 1990 38 Chart 1.36: Roanoke County Grouped Resident Employment - 1980 & 1990 39 Page - 3 ProfiCe g 6 • Income 8~ Poverty Chart 1.37: Median Household Income 1980 & 1990 43 Chart 1.38: Household Income Distribution by Percentage - 1990 43 Chart 1.39: Median Family Income - 1980 to 1990 44 Chart 1.40: Family Income Distribution by Percentage - 1990 45 Chart 1.41: Adjusted Gross Income for Married Couples -Roanoke County 45 Chart 1.42: Average Weekly Wage -Roanoke County 1980 & 1990 46 Chart 1.43: Per Capita Personal Income - 1970 to 1990 47 Chart 1.44: Number of Persons Below Poverty Level 50 Chart 1.45: Number of Families Below Poverty Level 50 Economic Development Chart 1.46: Number of Business Establishments in Roanoke County By Industry 52 Chart 1.47: Number of Business Establishments in the Roanoke MSA By Industry 52 Chart 1.48: Per Capita Taxable Sales 53 Chart 1.49: Additions of Square Footage for Industrial Use as a Result of Ecomonic Development Initiatives 55 Chart 1.50: Average Annual Additions of Square Feet by Use - 1990 to 1995 56 Chart 1.51: Employment Opportunities Created Through Economic Development Initiatives 56 Chart 1.52: Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold -Roanoke County 57 Chart 1.53: Breakdown of Farm Income 58 Chart 1.54: Traffic Counts Along Blue Ridge Parkway in the Roanoke Valley 59 Page - 4 ProfiCe g6 • List of Tables Population Table 1.1: Population Growth g Table 1.2: Population of Surrounding Localities 1 p Table 1.3: Median Age of 5th Planning District Commission 13 Table 1.4: Population Change By Age Groups 1970 to 1990 14 Table 1.5: Population Under 18 & Above 65 Years of Age -Roanoke County 15 Table 1.6: Comparative Natural Increase and Net Migration 1980 - 1990 18 Table 1.7: Roanoke County Geographic Mobility by Residence in 1965 19 Table 1.8: Roanoke County Geographic Mobility by Residence in 1975 19 Table 1.9: Roanoke County Geographic Mobility by Residence in 1985 20 Housing Table 1.10: Housing Types ~ Table 1.11: Housing Permits Issued in Raonoke County 2g Table 1.12: Average Household Size 26 Table 1.13: Water Supply of Housing Units in Raonoke County 1980 to 1990 27 Table 1.14: Sewage Disposal of Housing Units in Roanoke County 1980 to 1990 27 Table 1.15: Indicators of Substandard Housing 28 Table 1.16 A: Indicators of Substandard Housing & Poverty Status for Owner Occupied Units 28 Table 1.16 B: Indicators of Substandard Housing & Poverty Status • for Renter Occupied Units 29 Economic An alysis Table 1.17: Basic vs. Supporting Employment - 1980 & 1990 32 Table 1.18: Labor Force Participation Rate - 1970 to 1990 33 Table 1.19: Industry of Employed Residents 37 Table 1.20: Occupations of Employed Residnets 38 Table 1.21: Commuting Patterns 40 Table 1.22: Labor Drawing Area - 30 Mile Radius 41 Table 1.23 Total Employment in Roanoke County by Industry - 1980 & 1990 41 Table 1.24: Total Personal Income by Industry in Roanoke County 42 Income 8~ Pov erty Analysis Table 1.25: Average Weekly Wage in Roaoke County - 1980, 1990 & 1994 46 Table 1.26: Median Household Effective Buying Income 48 Table 1.27: Historical Growth of the Consumer Price Index 49 Economic Development Table 1.28: Percent Change in the Number of Business Firms 51 Table 1.29: Retail Sales for Roanoke County - 1982 & 1992 53 Table 1.30: Retail Sales for the Roanoke MSA - 1982 & 1992 54 Table 1.31: Wholesale Activity for Roanoke County - 1980 & 1990 54 Table 1.32: Farm Characteristics in Roanoke County - 1982 & 1992 57 n U Page - 5 ProfiCe g6 • List of Maps Map I: Population • • Page-6 ProfiCe g 6 Demographic Trends & Analysis Introduction This report provides public officials, local citizens, and others interested in Roanoke County with basic information on past trends, and current conditions, for the County. This report is part of the County's Comprehensive Plan and serves as a profile of economic, population and other demographic data used in the development of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The information in this profile is to provide a general overview of the County. Roanoke County has experienced increases in population, housing, and employment. From 1970 to 1980, the County's population increased from 53,817 to 72,945 which represents a population growth rate of approximately 36%. During the 1980s, the population growth rate slowed to 9%. The County's total population reached 79,294 according to the 1990 Census. As of April of 1996, the Weldon-Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia, released provisional estimates of population. According to these estimates Roanoke County has a total population of 83,100. This is an increase of 4.8% since the 1990 Census, which represents approximately 1 % per year for the past 5 years. The population will continue to grow at a similar rate well into the next century. The economic strength of the County has also seen significant increase. The County's median household income continues to rise at a steady rate. The 1970 Census reveals that median household income was $10,484. By the 1980 Census it had risen to $20,458. The latest Census indicated that the County's household income was at $36,886. Since 1980, this represents an increase of over 80%. • Total employment in the County has grown steadily over the last 20 years. According to the 1970 Census, Roanoke County had 27,722 total employees. By 1980, this had increased to 35,004 employees. The 1990 Census reveals that the County had 42,577 employees which is an increase of over 21 %. From 1970 to 1990, the total increase in persons employed is 14,855 or 54%. The economy has become more diversified over this time period, with increases in employment in the Service, Wholesale and Retail Trade, and Manufacturing sectors. Finally, it should be pointed out that the data presented in this document came from a variety of sources. Data from the following sources were used in preparing this document: Census Bureau, Roanoke County Building Inspections, Roanoke County GIS and Real Estate Assessor, Weldon-Cooper Center for Public Service, Virginia Statistical Abstract, County Business Patterns, Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). However, these varying sources of data have little effect on the overall results of the analysis and the conclusions drawn from them. u Page - 7 Prof%Ce `g 6 • Population Growth & Projections The following tables and charts represent the population trends for the area. While Roanoke County grew at a lower growth rate as compared to the rest of the State during the 1980s, it's population increased by 9%. Examining population projections, Roanoke County will maintain a steady growth rate, approximately 1 % per year, well into the next century. Table 1.1, illustrates the historical population growth as well as future projections of Roanoke County, the Greater Roanoke Valley, 5th Planning District Commission, Virginia and the United States. Chart 1.1, illustrates the historical population growth of Roanoke County. The Greater Roanoke Valley is composed of the counties of Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, Roanoke, the Town of Vinton, and the cities of Roanoke and Salem (Map I Appendix 2). The historical population growth of the members of the Greater Roanoke Valley is revealed in Chart 1.2. The Planning District is composed of the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Roanoke, and the cities of Clifton Forge, Covington, Roanoke and Salem (Map II Appendix 2). The historical population growth of the Planning District's members is presented in Chart 1.3. Table 1.1: Po ulation Growth • u 'Indicates projected population, 1995 is estimated provisional population. Discrepancies in projections and estimates reveal that growth rates are taster than anticipated. Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, UVA. Year Roanoke Count Greater Roanoke Valley 5th Planning District Commission Vir inia United States 1960 61,693 220,857 223,623 3,966,949 179,323,175 1970 53,817 231,316 230,942 4,648,494 203,302,031 1980 72,945 260,082 252,783 5,346,818 226,542,203 1990 79,294 268,513 253,807 6,187,358 248.709,873 1995 83,100 277,900 259,900 6,551,400 260,350,000 2000* 83,559 274,666 254,624 7,023,300 274.634,000 2005" 85,492 276,805 255,133 7,173,858 285,981,000 2010" 87,424 278,940 255,641 7,827,900 297,716,000 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, UVA. Population decline in ~97U is due to annexation ny [ne Cities of Roanoke and Salem. Page-8 ProfiCe g6 • I• Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, UVA. Chart 1.3: 6th Pt~rvrinp Di~triet Comm4don Popul~tlon Growth 9~lom Chy ___ _. Roonoko County Ro~nolu dty 0 1990 Crraip County ^ 1990 Covinpmn City ~ 1970 dltmn Forgo dty 9ot~murt County Abphmy County 0 20.000 40,000 60,000 80.000 100,000 120,000 Source: weioon Cooper Center for Public Service, UVA. Table 1.2, illustrates the historical population of the surrounding localities. The surrounding localities are those jurisdictions which do not fall within the boundaries of the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which is composed of the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton, Roanoke County and Botetourt County (Map III Appendix 2). It is important to note that many of the surrounding localities may be experiencing faster rates of growth than Roanoke County. Additionally, many of the workers for businesses in the Roanoke MSA come from these outlying communities. As the employment opportunities increase in the Roanoke MSA, the populations of surrounding localities will be an important source of labor as well as a market for new businesses and their products. By 1990, the total population of the 5th Planning District and the Surrounding Localities was over 400,000. The population relationships among the 5th Planning District, the Greater Roanoke Valley and the Surrounding Localities are illustrated in Chart 1.4. Page - g ProfiCe g 6 • Table 1.2: Population of the Surrounding Localities Localit 1960 1970 1980 1990 Alle han Count 12,128 12,461 14,333 13,176 Bedford Cit 5,921 6,011 5,991 6,073 Bedford Count 31,028 25,242 34,927 45,656 Botetourt Count 16,715 19,193 23,270 24,992 Clifton For a Cit 5,501 5,268 5,046 4,679 Covin ton Cit 11,062 10,060 9,063 6,991 Crai Count 3,356 3,524 3,949 4,372 Flo d Count 10,462 9,775 11,563 11,965 Franklin Count 25,925 28,163 35,740 39,549 Mont ome Count 32,923 46,813 63,285 73,913 Roanoke Cit 97,110 105,637 100,220 96,509 Roanoke Count 61,693 53,817 72,945 79,294 Salem Cit 16,058 21,892 23,958 23,797 Source: U.S. Census 1960, 1970, 1980, 8 1990. Chart 1.4: Comp~ri~iort~ of Toth Popul~uon~ by Oroupinp~ - 1960 to 1990 • • ® 6wroundlnp Loulltioo ^ 6th POC ^ On~br Ro~nok• Vdby Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, UVA. Chart 1.5 illustrates the populations of Roanoke County, Roanoke MSA, and the 5th Planning District. Since 1970, Roanoke County has been increasing in its share of the total population in both the Planning District and the MSA. By 1995, Roanoke County's share of the MSA and Planning District's total population was 36% and 32% respectively. Page - io 1960 1970 1980 1990 ProfrCe g 6 • source: weiaon cooper center ror Public Service, UVA. The population of the Roanoke MSA has increased since the 1990 Census. The MSA has gained 6,508 new people over the past 5 years. Of this increase, Roanoke County has gained approximately 58% or 3,806 new people. Botetourt County gained approximately 37% or 2,408 new people, while the City of Salem gained only 5% or 603 new people. The City of Roanoke lost approximately 5% of its population during this same time period. These results are illustrated in Chart 1.6 below. This same trend exists in relation to the total population increases within the Planning District, with Roanoke and Botetourt counties representing the vast majority • of the total population increase since 1990. source: vveiaon cooper center for runnc service, uvA. The projected populations for Roanoke County, Roanoke MSA, Greater Roanoke Valley and the 5th Planning District are depicted in Chart 1.7. The trend of the population projections appear to be relatively stable for the next 15 years. However, as illustrated in Chart 1.6, Roanoke County tends to gain population while the larger geographic region has a net loss in population. This trend is expected to continue during the next 15 years. The continued net • population gain for the County has many policy implications for the County's future growth and development as well as provision of services. Page - ~l Profi:Ce g6 • ® 1895 ^ 2000 2010 Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, UVA. Median Age The median age of Roanoke County has cha ged drastically since 1980. At that time the County had the youngest median age. According~to the 1990 Census, the County has the fourth highest median age in the Planning District. Only the cities of Clifton Forge and Covington and the County of Alleghany had higher median age levels. • The changes in median age for Roanoke C unty and other jurisdictions as well as regional comparisons are illustrated in Table 1.3 and Charts 1.8 8~ 1.9. The median age for Roanoke County and the 5th Planning District in 19 0 was 37.3 and 37.8 respectively. The Greater Roanoke Valley has a median age of 36.3, wh le the State of Virginia has a median age of 32.6. Based upon the median age levels of the P anning District and the Greater Roanoke Valley, as compared to the State, the increase of th elderly population is more of a regional wide trend, with Roanoke County receiving a large shade of this population segment. There are several factors that may be contributing to Roanoke County's higher median age. The first is that like the rest of the nation, the Co~nty's population is aging. However, to go from one of the youngest populations to one of the of est in a single decade must be driven by other factors. A second factor is that in 1970 the lelderly population (age 65+) composed approximately 7% of the total population or 4,567. Byl 1990, this segment of the population had increased to 10,706 or 13%. In examining the grown rate of this segment of the population, since 1970 the elderly population has grown by 131%, while the total population has only increased by 48°/D during this same time period. Therefore, not only is the elderly's share of total population increasing, the growth rate of elderly population is also outpacing the total population's growth rate. This implies that there is a net in-migration of elderly people into Roanoke County. Another factor in this increase is that the cost of housing in the County has substantially increased over the past 10 years. As a result, younger families who work in the Roanoke MSA live outside of the County and commute into the region for employment. Housing prices in the surrounding Counties are lower due mainly to land costs. The number of people receiving Social Security benefits in Roanoke County increased by 33% from 1980 to 1990. This increase was more than three times the State's average. This • large increase in the number of Social Security beneficiaries indicates that a number of older people moved into the area during the 1980s. Additionally, the availability of specialized Page - 12 Chart 1J: Compr,rir.on~ of Popl~tion Porj~eUom for Rotmok~ County, Ro~riok~ MSA, OrsN~r Ro~nok~ VdNy, end the 5th %~rrinp Dinriet ProfiCe g 6 • medical services and other specialized facilities are contributing indicators that a large number of retirees moved into the area during this time. Map IV (Appendix 2) illustrates the change in median age for Roanoke County by Census tract between 1980 and 1990. As the map shows the greatest change has occurred in the _ area od the County while the area with the least amount of change is found in _ section of the County. Table 1.3: Median Aae of 5th Planning District • r~ J Source: US Census 1970, 1980, 1990 Jurisdiction 1970 1980 1990 Alle han Count 27.7 32.4 37.4 Botetourt Count 30.3 32.5 36.8 Clifton For a Cit 33.9 44 41.9 Covin ton Cit 31.8 37.7 39.9 Crai Count 32.2 32.8 36.4 Roanoke Cit 32.7 32.6 35.2 Roanoke Count 28.3 32.3 37.3 Salem Cit 29.4 32.9 37.1 Vir inia 26.8 29.8 32.6 Source: US Census 1970, 1980, 1990 Chart 1.9: Median Ape 40 35 30 25 20 ^ repo 15 ~ teeo 10 O tefo 5 0 Roanoke Greater 5th Virginia County Roanoke Planning Valley District rurce: US Census 1970, 1980, 1990 Page - ~3 ProfiCe `g 6 • Change By Age Groups By examining Table 1.4 and Charts 1.10 8< 1.11, one can see how Roanoke County's population has changed by specific age groupings. This information further clarifies and illustrates the influx of elderly population groups into the County over the past 10 years. Additionally, this information reveals increases in specific age groups over each decade. Those persons between the ages of 40 to 44 and 45 to 49 fell by 6% and 3% respectively, between the 1970 and 1980 Census. Whereas, these 2 age groups increased substantially during the 1980s, resulting in a 53% increase of the 40 to 44, and a 29% increase for the 45 to 49 population segments. Also take note of the decrease in the numbers of people in the age groups of 10 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29 based upon the changes reflected in the 1990 Census. These increases or decreases are in part due to the fact that as time passes, younger age groups move into older age groups. However, significant increases in a particular age group reflect in-migration. An example is that in 1970, the 30 to 34 year age group consisted of 4,713 people. Twenty years later in 1990, this age group had moved to the 40 to 44 year age group which consisted of 7,152 people. The only explanation for this type of increase is migration into Roanoke County. Table 1.4: Po ulation Chan e B A e Grou s 1970 to 1990 C~ • Census Under 5 5 - 9 10 -14 15 -19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 1970 2,888 6,934 7.339 6.033 4.508 5,024 4,713 4,751 4,986 1980 3,959 5,347 6,544 6,474 5,426 5,361 6,944 5,861 4,680 1990 4,310 4,978 5,139 5,766 4,748 5,334 6,251 6,925 7,152 Census 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 - 70 80 + 1970 4,456 3,430 2,716 2,209 1,786 1,259 786 826 1980 4,306 4,394 3,896 2,711 2,280 1,896 1,365 1,501 1990 5,573 4,439 4,073 3,938 3,587 2,606 1,941 2,572 Source: US Census 1970, 1980, 8 1990 and VA Statistical Abstract 19945 Edition source: us Census 1970 8~ 1980 Page - Iq ProfiCe g6 Source: US Census 1980 d~ 199U The Under 18 and Above 65 Population Groups The total number of people below the age of 18 in 1990 was 17,827 or 22.5% of the County's total population. The distribution of this age group was spread out relatively even in each of the magisterial districts in the County amounting to approximately 20% of the population. The Catawba District had the largest number of people under the age of 18, with 3,750, while Hollins was the smallest with only 3,218. The number of people over the age of 65 in 1990, was • 10,706 or 13% of the County's total population. The distribution of this population group was similar to the younger group with approximately 18% of the population in each magisterial district being above the age of 65. The Hollins District had the largest number of people above the age of 65, with 2,748, while Windsor Hills was the smallest with only 1,852. In comparison to 1980, there has been a tremendous shift in these two age groups. The under 18 age group represented 27.4% or 19,979 of the County's total population in 1980. This age group decreased by 4.9% between 1980 and 1990. The distribution of the younger popu-ation in 1980 was concentrated in the Vinton and Catawba magisterial districts. As compared to 1990, when the distribution was relatively equal through out the County, the Vinton District had the largest number of people under the age of 18, with 5,034, while Hollins had the smallest with only 2,517 in 1980. The number of people over the age of 65 in 1980, was 7,028 or 9.6% of the County's total population. This group increased by 3.4% between 1980 and 1990. The distribution of this population group was nearly equally distributed in each magisterial district with approximately 14% of the population being above the age of 65. The Catawba District had the largest number of people above the age of 65, with 1,706, while Cave Spring was the smallest with only 1,130. Table 1.5: Population Under 18 and Above 65 Years of Aae -Roanoke County u Magisterial District 1980 Population Under 18 1990 Population Under 18 % Change 1980 to 1990 1980 Population Above 65 1990 Population Above 65 % Change 1980 to 1990 Catawba 4,798 3,750 - 21.8% 1,706 2,252 32% Cave S rin 4,028 3,697 - 8.2% 1.130 1,900 40.5% Hollins 2,517 3,218 27.9% 1,531 2,748 98.2% Vinton 5,034 3,547 - 49.4% 1,515 1,954 29% Windsor Hills 3,602 3,633 0.9% 1,146 1,852 38.1% Coun Totals 19,979 17,827 - 10.7% 7,028 10,706 52.3% Source: us census 7980 S~ 1990 Page - i5 ProfiCe g6 • As illustratred in Map V (Appendix 2) the census tract with the largest number of elderly population is _ while the tract with the least number of elderly people is _. Tract _ has the largest segment of the under 18 population while tract _ has the least number of people below 18 years of age. Birth Rate, Death Rate, and Sex Distribution • • The birth rate for Roanoke County decreased from 11.4 in 1980 to 10.9 in 1990. The rate for the Planning District increased from 12.7 to 13.4 in 1980 and 1990 respectively. Birth rate for the State also increased from 14.7 in 1980 to 16 in 1990. Since the Planning District's birth rate is increasing, while the County's is decreasing, this further supports the conclusion that elderly people are moving into the County. Additionally, this also supports the conclusion that as housing prices have risen in the County over the past decade, more and more young families are buying homes outside the County and commuting into the Roanoke MSA for employment. The death rate for Roanoke County increased from 7.3 to 7.7 between 1980 and 1990. The Planning District's death rate also increased during this period nearly a full percentage point from 10 to 10.9 in 1990. The State's death rate dropped from 7.9 to 7.7 between 1980 and 1990. Again this supports the conclusion that an older population is moving into the County. These rates are illustrated in Chart 1.12 below. Chart 1.12: Birth end Death Retes (per 1000) 18.00 14.00 12.00 10 00 . ®Romob 8.00 ^ ViryMi~ 8.00 ^ 5thPDC 4.00 2.00 0.00 Jj' 1980 Birth Rate 1980 Deeth Rate 1990 Birth Rate 1990 Death Rate aaurce: vN. uept. or neaitn, wiai ~iansucs 199(! The percentage of females to males in Roanoke County has grown over the past 20 years. In 1970, the County's population was 51% female and 49% male. By 1980 this had increased to 52% and 48% respectively. According to the results of the 1990 Census, the percentage of females increased to 53% and males fell to 47%. This information is revealed in Chart 1.13 below. Page - 16 ProfiCe `g 6 Source: US Census Data 1970, 1980 8 1990 Population Distribution/Density Chart 1.14 shows that the density of population in Roanoke County has increased since the 1980 Census from 291 people per square mile to 316 people per square mile. This is an increase of 9%. The Planning District population density has remained steady at 155 people per square mile while the State has increased by 16%, going from 135 to 156 persons per square mile. Roanoke County's population is 51% denser than the State and the Planning District. Map VI (Appendix 2) shows the greatest increases in population density, by census tract, for Roanoke County based upon the 1990 Census. According the the map, the tract with the highest density of population is _ while the tract with the least amount of density is _. Chart 1.14: Population Demity (per sq. mile) Pwpl~ ® 1980 Popul~don Gn~iry ^ 1990 Popul~Uon D~n~iry Source: US Census Data 1980 8 1990 Page - ]7 Roanoke County 5th PDC Virginia ProfiCe g6 • Population Mobility Tables 1.7 to 1.9 and Chart 1.15, illustrate the geographic mobility of the County's population from 1965 to 1985. (This information is tabulated by the Census in 1970, 1980, and 1990.) Based upon the 1970 Census, a large portion of the out of state residents that moved into Roanoke County came from the midwest and northeast during the 1960s which was approximately 4,700 people. Using the 1980 Census, a large portion out of state residents moved into the County. These new residents came from the south and the northeast, approximately 4,943 people. Finally, using the 1990 Census, a large portion of the out of state residents moving into the County came from the south and the midwest, approximately 5,401 people. Of these new residents in 1980 and 1990, the majority were from the south, approximately 87% and 73% respectively. The number of people moving into Roanoke County from other counties in the State of Virginia during the 1960s was 12,417. In the 1970s the number of new residents within the State, moving into Roanoke County was 16,809 and during the 1980s this pace slowed to 15,710. It is evident from these figures that migration into the County for the past 20+ years has followed a national trend of moving to the south and west. This trend is further supported by Table 1.6, which reveals that the County has experienced an in-migration rate of 77% between 1980 and 1990. While the County has experienced a high in-migration rate, the Planning District has an out-migration rate of 78%. The population gains of Roanoke County has offset the population losses for the region as a whole. During this same time period the State experienced an in-migration rate of 51 %. It is expected that this trend will continue to occur well into the next decade. • source: Us census ly7U, 7980, ~ 7990 1.6: Com arative Natural Increase and Net Migration 1980-1990 Net Net Increase Migration as or Decrease Natural Percent of Net a Percent of Location (Net Change Increase Net Change Mi ration Net Chan e Roanoke 6,349 1,481 23% 4,868 77% 5th PDC 1,027 4,738 - 22% - 3714 - 78% Vir inia 842,379 410,847 49% 431,533 51 • Source: Weldon-Cooper Center for Public Affairs, UVA -1990 Census Page - 18 Prof iCe g 6 • • • Table 1.7: Roanoke County Geographic Mobility by Residence in 1965 Ori ins Number Percenta es All Persons 5 and Over 61,748 100% Same House 32,920 57% Percenta es Different House in U.S. 26,326 43% 100% Same Count 7,698 29% Percenta es Different Count 18,628 71% 100% Same State VA 12,417 67% Percenta es Different State: 6,211 33% 100% Northeast 1.093 18% Midwest 3,608 58% South 381 6% West 348 6% Abroad 125 2% Source: US Census 1970 Table 1.8: Roanoke County Geographic Mobility by Residence in 1975 Source: US Census 1980 Ori ins Number Percenta es All Persons 5 and Over 68,830 100% Same House 37,069 54% Percenta es Different House in U.S. 31,326 46% 100% Same Count 7,726 25% Percenta es Different Count 23,600 75% 100% Same State VA 16,809 71% Percenta es Different State: 6,791 39% 100% Northeast 1,459 21 Midwest 1,307 19% South 3,484 51% West 541 8% Abroad 435 6% Page - Ig ProfiCe g 6 • Table 1.9: Roanoke County Geographic Mobility by Residence in 1985 Ori ins Number Percents es All Persons 5 and Over 75,011 100% Same House 41,913 56% Percentages Different House in U.S. 32,662 44% 100% Same Count 9,598 29% Percents es Different Count 23,024 70% 100% Same State A 15,710 68% Percents es Different State: 7,314 32% 100% Northeast 1,288 18% Midwest 1,483 21 South 3,918 54% West 625 9% Abroad 476 7% source: us census ~aau Racial Profile • The population of Roanoke County and Roanoke City is predominately white. The portion of the County and City population which is made up of minorities is 3% and 25% respectively. The racial composition of the County is illustrated in Chart 1.16 below. Chart 1.16: Racial Profile of Roanoke County - 1990 source: us census Data 1990 Persons Per Household Nationally, the number of people per household has been decreasing since the 1970s. • This trend is also evident in Roanoke County. Chart 1.17 shows that in 1970 the persons per Page - 20 Pro, fife `g 6 • household was 3.31 in Roanoke County as compared to 3.2 for the State. By 1990, these figures had fallen to 2.37 for Roanoke County and 2.61 for the State. The implication for this trend is that while the total population is increasing and household size is decreasing, more housing units will need to be provided. This trend has far reaching implications for the County's future land use policies. More housing units often lead to additional demands for services while not providing enough tax revenue to off set these services. Additionally, housing styles as well as neighborhood development patterns may need to be revised to meet the requirements of these smaller households. Also, as the "baby boom' generation ages, housing with low maintenance costs and designs for handicap accessible features within new homes will need to be encouraged. Finally, group quarters which offer health, social, and recreational services will need to be increased. While many of these factors can be addressed by the forces in the housing market (private sector), the County needs to ensure that its policies are designed to be flexible enough so as to meet the future needs of its residents • Source: U5 Gensus 1970, 19SU, S~ 1990 • PQge - 21 ProfiCe g 6 Housing Number of Housing Units Table 1.10, Chart 1.18 and Map VII (Appendix 2) illustrate the growth in the number of housing units over the past 20 years. The number of housing units in Roanoke County in 1970 was 21,224 and by 1980 it had increased to 26,750. By 1990 there were 31,689 total units in Roanoke County. Between 1970 and 1980 the number of total housing units increased by 5,526 or 26%. As compared to an increase of 4,939 or 18% between 1980 and 1990. The fastest growing segment of the housing market between 1980 and 1990 were mobile homes which increased by 62%, as compared to 18% for single-family housing and 14% for multi-family housing. However, mobile home only represent slightly over 3% of the total housing units in the County. Mobile homes have become more attractive to consumers, because as housing costs have increased, many new or first time home buyers were priced out of the market. Therefore, mobile homes offer an affordable alternative to the traditional housing unit. Additionally, the improvements in the construction and design of mobile homes as well as recent legislative actions by the General Assembly have made mobile homes more marketable and attractive to a wider segment of the housing market. Table 1.10: Housin T es • Source: US Census 1970, 1980, 81 1990 Type of Housin Number in 1970 Number in 1980 Percent Change 1970 to 1980 Number in 1990 Percent Change 1980 to 1990 Sin le Famil 18,530 21,149 14% 24,995 18% Multi-Famil 1,845 4,985 170% 5,699 14% Mobile Homes 849 616 - 27% 995 62% Total 21,224 26,750 26% 31,689 18% Since 1990, the number of single family housing permits issued in Roanoke County is 2,263, which averages 377 new permits annually. This brings the total of single family housing units to 27,258, and represents an increase of 9% since 1990. The result of this is that Roanoke County is matching the percent of growth, in new housing construction, which occurred during the 1980s. This information is illustrated in Table 1.11 and Chart 1.19. Chart 1.18: Number of Housing Units -Roanoke 1970 - 1990 • V vul a.G. VJ VCIIJYi IJdld IJ/ V, IJO V, Ot ID~V PQge - 22 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 ProfiCe g6 • • Location 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Sin le Famil Units 366 403 439 354 370 361 Multi-famil Units 18 8 4 6 149 12 Table 1.11: liousin Permits Issued in Roanoke Count Source: Data is valid as of 121-95, County Building Permit Reports & Va LocalEconomles 1996 Update, Weldon- Cooper Center The number of new multi-family housing permits issued in the County is 197. This averages 33 permits per year. In past years the number of multi-family units has been much higher than during the first half of the 1990s. From 1985 to 1989 there were 496 permits issued for multi-family units in Roanoke County. During this time the average number of permits was 83 per year. The number of permits issued in the Planning District as a whole has seen a similar fluctuation. From 1990 to 1995, the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County represented approximately 89% of all multi-family permits issued in the entire Planning District. The only other jurisdictions in the Planning District that issued permits for multi-family units were the City of Salem and Botetourt County. These two jurisdictions issued a total of 54 permits from 1990 to 1995 which represent 11 % of all permits issued during this time period. Multi-family housing construction based upon the number of permits issued has been relatively flat during the first half of the 1990s. The only exception is in 1994, when 149 permits were issued. Chart 1.19: Roanoke County Housing Units Authorized By Permits 1990-1995 450 400 350 300 250 ~- cin0i. hmily uniq 2OO ~ Multl-0.mily Unit. 150 100 50 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 source: rcoanoKe coun[y inspecuon ua[a b va Local tconomles 1996 Update, Weldon-Cooper Center As illustrated in Map VII (Appendix 2), the census tract with the largest increase in the numbers of housing units between 1980 and 1990 is _. While the tract with the least amount of new housing units is _ Persons Per Housing Unit Chart 1.20 reveals the number of persons per housing unit according to the 1980 and 1990 Census of Roanoke County. Nationally, the number of people per housing unit is declining and this trend is also occurring in Roanoke County. Upon further examination of the data it reveals that the persons per unit in rental housing units actually increased slightly from 1980 to 1990. In 1980 there were 1.9 persons per rental housing unit and in 1990 this increased to 2.05. Page • 23 ProfiCe g 6 • • ...... v... vv vcala Ya VAIa 1.-!VV Ol IJJV Age of Housing Stock The median year of construction for Roanoke County's housing stock is 1972. Slightly over 45% of the County's housing stock is 27+ years in age whereas, 62% of the housing stock in the Roanoke MSA is 27+ years in age. The percentage of houses in the Planning District and the State, which are more than 27+ years in age are 63% and 50% respectively. --•--• .+.. •.... YU. .rl ~aaY Ulall.al hula Aaa IJ74-7~ CDIIIOfI Page - 24 ProfiCe `g6 • Source: US Census 1970, 1980, 8 1990 Additional information to be placed here from review of assessor's records. Map VIII (Appendix 2) illustrates the vlues of housing in Roanoke County by census tract. The tract with the highest housing value is _ while the tract with the lowest housing value is _ . The highest values housing is located in the _ section of the County while the higher valued housing is located in the _ section of the County. • Owner, Renter and Vacancy Status • The percentage of owner and renter occupied housing units was approximately 75% and 22% receptively in the 1980 and 1990 Censuses. The vacancy rate in each census was 4%. The consistency of these percentages represents a stable community, economy, and housing market during this period of time. As Roanoke County continues to grow and its economy continues to diversify, this trend should remain constant well into the next century. Chart 1.23 illustrates the percentages below. Source: US Census 1980 8 1990 Page - 25 ProfiCe g 6 • Average Household Size The Weldon-Cooper Center for Public Service provides the following information as to the average household size for Roanoke County. Average household size is the average number of persons per occupied housing unit. In 1970, the average household size was 3.31 and by 1980 this had declined to 2.80. Based upon the results of the 1990 Census this declined further to 2.54. Between 1970 and 1980, the decline was 0.51 and between 1980 and 1990 the decline was 0.26. This represents a decline of approximately 50% of the previous decade's total decline: 0.25/0.51 = 51 %. Using this trend we are projecting the average household size to be 2.41 in the year 2000. If this trend continues by the year 2010, the average household size would fall to 1.71. Table 1.12 and Chart 1.24 illustrate this trend projection below. Table 1.12: Average Household Size • Location 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Roanoke Count 3.31 2.80 2.54 2.41 1.71 Source: Roanooke County Planning Department Chart 1.24: Average Household Size -Roanoke County 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 JOUrCe: YyelOOn-1:00per l:enler UaLa 1L GOUniy YfO~eCtIOnS Projected Housing Units This projection is based on the forgoing trends that have been identified thus far in this report using the following types of data: population projections, average household size, building permit data. Housing construction has been brisk and steady for the first half of the 1990s, closely matching the pace of development during the 1980s. Using the average number of permits issued in the past 6 years, we estimate that an additional 3,773 single family units and 200 multi- family units built over the next 5 years. When these new units are added to the existing housing stock, there will be a total of 35,661 total housing units by the year 2000. Water & Sewage Supply Tables 1.13 and 1.14, summarizes water source and sewer disposal for housing units in the County for 1980 and 1990. The number of housing units being served by public water increased from 19,675 to 23,759 or 20.7% between 1980 and 1990. The number of housing • units being served by public sewer increased from 17,574 to 21,059 or 19.8% during this same time period. The number of homes being served by private sewage disposal systems increased by 19.7% or 1,718 units. Page - z6 ProfiCe `g6 • The number of units served by dug wells and "other" sources of water declined substantially between 1980 and 1990. A similar type of decline occurred for other types of sewage disposal systems. The "other" category for sewage disposal systems represents either alternative systems, which by ordinance are not permitted in the County any longer or pit privies which are "grandfathered-in." Table 1.13: Water Su I of Housing Units in Roanoke Count 1980 to 1990 Water Su I 1980 Percent of Total 1990 Percent of Total Percent of Change 1980 to 1990 Public 19,675 73.55% 23,759 74.98% 20.76% Drilled Well 5,692 21.28% 6,877 21.70% 20.82% Du Well 459 1.72% 430 1.36% - 6.32% Other 924 3.45% 623 1.97% - 32.58% Source: US Census 1980 8 1990 Table 1.14: Sewage Disposal of Housing Units in Roanoke County 1980 to 1990 Sewage Treatment 1980 Percent of Total 1990 Percent of Total Percent of Change 1980 to 1990 Public 17,574 65.70% 21,059 66.46% 19.83% Se tic 8,723 32.61 % 10,441 32.95% 19.70% Other 453 1.69% 189 0.60% - 58.28% Source: US Census 1980 ~ 1990 It is interesting to note that while total units served by private or public sources for water • and sewer increased, the percent of representation by these different methods of water supply and sewage disposal remained the same. Housing Costs There were 16,889 owner occupied housing units in Roanoke County in 1980, of which there were 12,468 or 72% had a mortgage. The median monthly owner cost associated with home ownership was $340 which represent 19.9% of household income. Of the 23,469 owner occupied housing units in the County in 1990, 14,550 or 62% had a mortgage. The median monthly owner cost associated with home ownership in 1990 was $675 which represent 17.5 percent of household income. Of the 6,886 renter occupied housing units in Roanoke County in 1990, the median gross rent was $420 per month. This represents 21.8% of the household income. Substandard Housing & Poverty Based on the 1980 Census, 2.10% of the housing stock in Roanoke County is classified as substandard due to the lack of complete plumbing, and 1.53% due to lack of complete kitchen facilities. By 1990 the Census reveals that these figures had decreased to approximately 1% for both plumbing and kitchen facilities. Additional factors to include in determining if housing is substandard is the lack of a telephone, a vehicle, source of water supply, and sewage disposal. These factors are illustrated in Chart 1.25 as indicators of substandard housing. Additionally, substandard housing usually is a good indicator of poverty status. Tables 1.15 and 1.16 A and B, illustrate the relationship between the presence of substandard housing and poverty status. • Map IX (Appendix 2) illustrates that Census tract _ has the largest number of substandard housing while tract has the lowest number of substandard housing units. The majority of the Page - 27 ProfiCe g 6 • substandard housing units in the County are located next to the City or in our rural portions of the County. wu~a.c. V.7 LrC11DUJ 1.70V Ot 1~.7V Tal]IP_ '1 _'I S' InrliCatn rc of Cnheta nrl~rrl unn~inn • Indicator 1980 1990 Lack of Com lete Plumbing 562 176 Lack of Com lete Kitchen 408 128 No Vehicle 1,130 1,331 No Tele hone 700 416 No Heat 17 25 Wood Heat 1,988 1,386 Du Well 459 430 Other Water Su pl ~_ ~ ~~ 924 623 - - --- -- ------- ---- - •--- .......,.. ,..a..,..,.a, ,,.,.,ua,.. ~~~~-~, Gu,l~Vl~ Tahle 1.16 _ D• Inriir'atnrc of Cnhc4~nrl~rrl LJn~.nini. D ~,...,...., 0a-. a... • --- Housing Units Below Poverty Level •~ 1990 Total Owner Occu ied Units Below Poverty Level 825 With Public Assistance Income 75 With Social Securit Income 502 Mean Household Income Deficit $3,096 Built 1939 or Earlier 56 Lacks Com lete Plumbing 69 No Vehicle 97 No Tele hone 49 Page - 28 Pro, fife `g6 ~J Table 1.16 - B: Indicators of Substandard Housing 8~ Poverty Status Source: US Census 1990 Total Renter Occu ied Housin Units Below Povert Level 851 With Public Assistance Income 142 With Social Securit Income 377 Mean Household Income Deficit $2,974 Built 1939 or Earlier 81 Lacks Com lete Plumbin 45 No Vehicle 262 No Tele hone 80 By comparing the data in the above tables and Map IX the following observations have been made relating poverty to substandard housing: • The total number of all housing units which lacked complete plumbing in Roanoke County in 1990 was 176. By combining renter and owner occupied housing units, below poverty level, there were 114 housing units which did not have complete plumbing. This represents 65% of all housing units without complete plumbing. • When comparing the lack of complete kitchen facilities, the County's total for 1990 was 128. Using a ratio between the number of occupied housing units lacking complete plumbing and lacking complete kitchen facilities, resulted in 75 units which did not have complete kitchen facilities. This is approximately 59% of all housing units in the County which do not have complete kitchen facilities. • The total number of all housing units without a telephone in 1990 is 416. Again using the above combination, 129 housing units do not have a telephone. This represents 31% of the total housing units in the County without telephones. • According to the 1990 Census, the total number of housing units built before 1939 is 1,798. Using the above combination, 137 housing units were built before 1939, which represents 7.62% of all units built before 1939. • Finally, the number of housing units without a vehicle available in Roanoke County in 1990 was 1,331. The combination of renter and owner occupied units below poverty level without a vehicle was 359. This represents 27% of all housing units without a vehicle. These observations provide some of the key linkages between substandard housing and poverty. In the development of future policies for the County, these linkages as well as others need to be fully explored and their impact determined prior to the implementation of such policies. • Page - 2g ProfiCe g 6 Economic Analysis Introduction The purpose of this section is to study the County's economy and identify important changes and trends which are occurring locally. The two basic indicators of how well a local economy is performing are employment and income. There are five specific analyses included in this section. First, the County's Employment Base is considered, identifying those jobs producing goods and services for sale outside the County. Second, is an examination of Economic Diversity of the local economy in relation to the national economy. Third, is a Labor Analysis, which includes the types of jobs that residents are employed. Fourth, a Work Source Analysis, which indicates the number and kind of local jobs available. Finally, an Income and Poverty Status Analysis is provided. Employment Base Basic and Supporting Employment The County's employment is divided into basic and non-basic or supporting employment. Basic employment industries sell most of their goods and services outside the County. Industries such as manufacturing, farming, and the federal government are considered basic industries. These industries are subject to national and regional demands. The supporting sector markets its goods and services locally. These industries are wholesale and retail trade, construction, finance, insurance, real estate, services, and local and state govemment functions. Most supporting industries rely upon the basic industries and local economy rather than regional and national markets. Chart 1.26: Basic vs. Supporting Employment -Roanoke County 1980 890 ® B~~iC Employment ^ Supporting Employment 92°Yo Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Data & County Business Pa Kerns To determine basic employment for Roanoke County, a comparision was made to the Roanoke MSA employment level, by specific industries, for the years of 1980 and 1990. Data for this comparision was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and County Business Patterns, a publication by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All employment above • the average level of the Roanoke MSA per capita employment in each industry, other than government, was considered basic. The remaining employment was considered supporting. Page - 30 ProfiCe `g6 • By this method, approximately 92% of Roanoke County's 1980 employment was considered basic. In 1990, the level of basic employment decreased to approximately 89%. This is illustrated in Charts 1.26 and 1.27. This is a relatively small decrease in relation to national trends in the loss of basic employment. In comparison to 1980, the 1990 the level of basic employment revealed a shift, with the following sectors experiencing increases employment: Service adding 2,735 jobs; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate adding 1,832 jobs; Transportation, Communications, and Utilities adding 83 jobs; and Construction adding 65 jobs. The following sectors experienced a decrease in basic employment: Manufacturing lost 1,609 jobs; Retail Trade lost 788 jobs; and Wholesale Trade lost 25 jobs. Despite the loss of some basic employment, overall the economy became more diversified. These changes in employment levels by industry are illustrated in Table 1.17. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of supporting jobs increased, there were shifts among the other sectors as well. The most pronounced shift was in the loss of 189 jobs in the Manufacturing sector while the Service sector added 743 jobs. Additionally, the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sector and the Retail Trade sector saw increases of 119 jobs and 75 jobs respectively. Finally, the Construction sector increased by 22 jobs. The results of these changes is that the County still has a large amount of its employment residing in the basic sector (89%). Jobs falling into the basic sector produce or provide services which brings money into the County's local economy. The shifts in basic jobs by industry, reveals that Roanoke County is providing many more services to outlying areas rather than manufactured goods. Continued development in this area will improve the local economy as well as the quality of life for the County's residents. Additionally, the shifts in supporting employment levels among industries shows that the County is more dependent upon imports, while the demand for services in the local economy has • increased employment in this sector. This is based upon the increase of 743 supporting jobs in the Service sector and the loss of 189 supporting jobs in the Manufacturing sector. Finally, the net result of the job losses and gains by sector reveals that the economy is becoming more diversified. The increased diversification provides for a healthier and stronger local economy. Chart 1.27: Basic vs. Supporting Employment -Roanoke County 1990 1196 ®i~~ie Empoymont ^ 6upponlny Employment 89% source: rsureau or tconomlc Anaiysls uata s, county t~usmess Patterns • Page - 31 Prof~.le g 6 • Table 1.17: Basic vs. Supporting Employment 1980 8~ 1990 Industries 1980 Number 1980 Percenta a 1990 Number 1990 Percenta e Employment in Count 16,120 100% 19,175 100% Basic Em to ment 14,768 91.6% 17,048 88.9% A riculture 60 0.41% 127 0.75% Minin 129 0.87% 60 0.35% Construction 1,590 10.77% 1,655 9.71% Manufacturin 3,733 25.28% 2,124 12.46% Trans., Comm., 8 Utilities 558 3.78% 641 3.76% Wholesale Trade 1,027 6.96% 1,002 5.88% Retail Trade 4,133 27.99% 3,345 19.62% Fin., Insur., 8~ Real Estate 1,338 9.06% 3,158 18.52% Services 2,201 14.90% 4,936 28.95% Supporting Em to ment 1,352 8.3% 2,127 11.1% A riculture 0 0% 0 0% Minin 5 0.37% 0 0% Construction 56 4.14% 78 3.66% Manufacturin 400 29.59% 211 9.92% Trans., Comm., 8< Utilities 22 1.63% 29 1.36% Wholesale Trade 40 2.96% 44 2.07% Retail Trade 433 32.03% 508 23.88% Fin., Insur., 8~ Real Estate 69 5.10% 188 8.84% Services 326 24.11% 1,069 50.30% Source: BEA Date & County Business Patterns Economic Diversity The Crude Diversity Index Diversity is an attribute to be valued in any economy. If a local economy has all its eggs in a very few baskets it is particularly vulnerable when hard times hit its key producers. In a diversified economy, it is more likely that declines in some industries will be balanced out against gains in others. The Crude Diversity Index (CDI) is one of the many different tools available to measure quantitatively the diversity of a local economy. The Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) lists 8 major sectors of the economy. In a perfectly diverse economy, each sector would be equally represented. This would result in total employment of a locality to be evenly spread out across each of these 8 major sectors. Thus, each sector would contain 1/8 or 12.5% of the work force. In the total national economy, which should be more diversified than any of its components, only 5 of the 8 sectors have 12.5% or more of the total national employment. In determining the • crude diversity index for a local economy, we add up the total number of sectors of the economy which have 12.5% or more of the total employment and divide by 5. The result for Roanoke Page - 32 ProfiCe g6 • County in 1990 was that our CDI was 0.60. This means that Roanoke County's economy is 60% as diversified as the national economy. Any measure above .50 is considered to be diversified and represents a healthy economy. Labor Analysis Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force refers to the number of people, 16 or over, who are either employed or seeking work. In Roanoke County, according to the 1990 Census, 43,620 of the 63,710 people 16 or over were in the labor force, for a civilian labor force participation rate of 68.5%. The labor force participation rate for the County was above the 5th Planning District's rate of 64.4% but slightly below the State's rate of 68.9%. Of the 43,620 people in the civilian labor force, 950 were unemployed which is a 2.7% unemployment rate. Ninety-three people were employed in the Armed Forces. This information is illustrated in Table 1.18 and Chart 1.28. • course: ua census ~yiu, iyssu, a ~ayu Table 1.18: Labor Force Participation Rate 1970 1990 Work Force 1970 1980 1990 Total, 16 Years and Over 45,973 55,794 63,710 Labor Force 28,320 36,376 43,620 Armed Forces 72 38 93 Civilian Labor Force 28,248 36,338 43.527 Em to ed 27,722 35.004 _42,577 Unem to ed 526 1.334 950 Unem to ment Rate 1.86% 3.8% 2.7% Not in Labor Force 17,653 19,418 20,090 source: u~ c:ensus 797v, 79HO, ~ 1990 This same potential work force pattern is seen for both males and females. The participation rate for male and females in 1990 is 68.5%. The participation rate of County males was 78.4%, and the County's female labor force participation rate was 59.9% in 1990. This was above the Roanoke MSA and the 5th Planning District's participation rates for females of 57.8% • and 56.6% respectively. However, the County's female participation rate was slightly below the State's average of 60.7%. The participation rates for Roanoke County are illustrated in Chart 1.29. Page - 33 ProfiCe `g 6 Chart 1.29: Labor Force Participation Rate -Roanoke County 1990 ® Prrrwm 16 end Owr ^ In 4bor fora V vu14.c. VJ Vc11.l YJ IJJV In addition to the people who are not currently working, a major labor source are recent high school graduates. In Roanoke County, the average number of high school graduates annually from 1990 to 1994 was 953. Educational Attainment • Comparing 1980 to 1990, Roanoke County has increased in overall education levels in relation to high school and college graduates. In 1980, of the residents 25 years and over, 70% were high school graduates and 23% had a college education. In the 1980 the percent of high school graduates for the Roanoke MSA and the 5th Planning District was 62% and 60% respectively. The percentage of high school graduates for the State was 62%. While those residents with a college education, located within the MSA and the Planning District, amounted to 19% and 18% of the respective populations that were 25 years and over. The result is that Roanoke County had a higher percentage of overall educational attainment than the MSA, the Planning District, and the State. In 1990, of the residents 25 years and over, the percent of high school graduates for Roanoke County increased to 79%, while approximately 36% had a college education. The residents of the Roanoke MSA and 5th Planning District that were high school graduates rose to 74% and 73% respectively. The percentage of high school graduates for the State rose to 75%. Those residents of the MSA and Planning District which obtained a college education increased to 30% and 29% respectively. ~J Finally in 1990, Roanoke County had a higher percentage of high school graduates than the MSA, Planning District, and the State. Additionally, the percentage of the population with a college education was higher in Roanoke County than the MSA, Planning District, and State. In 1980 and in 1990 Roanoke County had higher educational levels than the MSA, Planning District and the State. Page - 34 Male Femak Total Prof~.Ce g 6 Chart 1.30: Percent of High School Graduates ^ t99o ^ t99o JuufGe: YN atausucar HASrlaCi 7JJ4-JO b 79K.Y trllLOnS Chart 1.31: Perxnt of Persons 25 Years end Over with College Education ®teao ^ 1990 atwtt:t:: vH ~tausucarstosrracr ~ay4-yo a ~ytsa tmuons Chart 1.32: Ro~no k~ County'• Eduard Popul~uon u ~ P~runtaq• of ttr Ro•nak• MSA'• Cobq• Eduea ad Popul~oon 42% ® Ro~nok• County ^ Oth•r Juri•6etlon~ -MSA 58% • ~ vv~r ~~. •n J/auJU Car MUJ{/acl r77Y-~~ d, 170y COIUOgS Page - 35 Roanoke 5th State MSA Planning District Roanoke 5th State MSA Planning District ProfiCe g6 • Cb~rt 1.33: Roonoko County'• Colbpe Eduatod Population ~~ ~ P~rc~nup• of tho 5th Pl~nninp Di~triet'• Coll~pa Educ~ud Population 976 ® Roonoko County ^ Otho Juri~dietlono - POC 61 Source: VA 5tatisiica/Abstract 1994-95 8 1989 Editions Labor Characteristics The Bureau of Census classifies the resident labor force in two different ways. The first is by the industry in which they are employed, such as agriculture, manufacturing, and services. The second is by occupation; managers and clerical workers, for example are employed in a number of industries. . This data provides information about Roanoke County's residents but not the location of their employment. A County resident could be a manager in the manufacturing sector but be working in Bedford County. This data is important because an existing industry or a new industry moving into Roanoke County is concerned about the available work force. New local industries could attract those commuting workers for employment within the County. Industry of Employed Residents • Table 1.19 and Chart 1.34 show the growth and change in employment by industry for 1980 and 1990. During this time period, total employment rose by 21.63% and all except the Mining and Agriculture sectors of the economy had a net increase in employment. The distribution of employed residents changed during the 1980s, with a lower percentage of workers in the Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, Transportation, Utilities, Communications, and Government sectors. The Agricultural, Wholesale & Retail Trade, Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate, and Service sectors increased in their percentage of total workers. Approximately one-third of Roanoke County's working residents were employed in the Service sector of the economy. Additionally, nearly a quarter of the working residents were employed in the Wholesale and Retail Trade sector. The Manufacturing sector was the third largest employment source for County residents with 2,387 employees or about 15%. Transportation, Utilities, and Communications ranked as the fourth leading employment sector for County residents, representing about 10% or 4,346 workers. Finally the fifth leading sector of the economy providing residents employment was Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, which represented about 9% or 3.923 of the County's residents. Page - 36 Profrle `g 6 CJ • • Table 1.19' Industry of Emnloved Residents ndustries 980 Total 1980 Distribution 990 Total 1990 Distribution Percent Change 1980 to 1990 Total Em to ment 35,004 100% 42,577 100% 21.63% Agriculture, Forestry 8< Fishin 325 0.93% 434 1.02% 33.54% Minin 78 0.22% 72 0.17% -7.69% Construction 1,990 5.69% 2,378 5.61% 19.95% Manufacturin 6,381 18.23% 6.506 15.28% 1.96% Transportation, Comm., 8~ Utilities 4,125 11.79% 4,346 10.21% 5.33% Wholesale Retail Trade 8,198 23.42% 10,502 24.67% 28.10% Finance, Ins., 8~ Real Estate 2,725 7.78% 3.923 9.21% 43.96% Services 9,612 27.46% 12,840 30.16% 33.58% Government 1,569 4.48% 1,567 3.68% -0.13% source: ua ~enws iauu ~ ~yyu ~uurce: ua census ~aau a ~yyu Occuoation of Emoloved Residents According to the 1990 Census, approximately 19% of Roanoke County's residents are employed in professional and technical occupations. In 1990, there were 8,099 such workers in the County. The second largest occupation group consisted of 7,941 clerical and kindred workers. This group, which includes all administrative support occupations, accounted for 14% of working residents. The next 2 large groups were managers and sales representatives. These groups represented 15% (6,287 workers) and 16% (6,808 workers) respectively. The representation of other occupation categories are illustrated in Table 1.20 and Chart 1.35. Page - 37 ProfiCe `g6 Source: US Census 1980 8 1990 Table 1.20: Occupations of Employed Residents • Occupation 1980 Total 1980 Distribution 1990 Total 1990 Distribution Percent Change 1980 to 1990 Total Em to ment 35,004 100% 42,577 100% 22% Professional 8~ Technical 5,998 23% 8,099 19% 35% Mans ers 5,098 15% 6,287 15% 23% Sales 4,709 13% 6,808 16% 45% Clerical 6,798 19% 7,941 19% 17% Craftsmen 8~ Foremen 3,895 11% 4,175 10% 7% O eratives 2,285 6% 1,984 5% -13% Laborers 1,201 3% 1,361 3% 13% Transport 8~ Material Movin 1,474 5% 1,713 4% 16% Farming, Forestry, 8~ Fishin 214 1% 344 1% 61% Service 3,332 10% 3,865 9% 16% source: ~a census ~yuu a ~yyu Since 1980, only the operatives and kindred category has actually decreased in both net and in percentage of total workers. The operatives category lost 301 workers, which is a decrease of 13%. The occupation groups which have increased the greatest amounts since 1980 are the sales representatives gaining 2,099 workers (45%), professional and technical gaining 2,101 workers (35%), and managers gaining 1,189 workers (23%). Farmers and related occupations increased by the greatest percentage since 1980, growing by 61 %, but this category of workers still represents only 1 % of the total work force of County residents. Page - 38 ProfiCe `g6 • Grouped Resident Employment The occupational groups are summarized into four basic groups. These groups and their percentages of the County's work force are illustrated in Chart 1.36. The chart shows how the occupational groups have shifted in the ten years between the censuses. While there has been net growth in all 4 occupations, employment has drifted away from blue collar occupations and moved toward white collar occupations. The service and farm workers have remained constant between 1980 and 1990. Approximately 22% of Roanoke County's residents were engaged in blue collar jobs in 1990. This is down from 28% in 1980. Those occupations include precision production, craft, repair jobs, operators, fabricators, and laborers. White collar occupations, which include managerial and professional specialty occupations along with technical, sales, and administrative support positions, comprised 64% of the County's employed in 1980. This increased to 68% or 29,135 by 1990. • Source: US Census 1980 8 1990 The even distribution of the work force across many occupations and industries represents a well diversified economy. Diversified economies are important because any job losses in one sector of the economy can be offset by gains in another sector of the economy. Unemployment Roanoke County's unemployment rate is the lowest within the 5th Planning District. The County's 1990 unemployment rate was 2.2%. The Roanoke MSA and the 5th Planning District unemployment rates were 3.7% and 4% respectively. The State's unemployment rate was 4.5%, and nationally the unemployment rate was 5.5%. While these rates change annually, the trend has been that Roanoke County maintains the lowest unemployment rate of the jurisdictions comprising the MSA and the Planning District. The County's unemployment rate, like other areas, varies with the seasons. The rate is highest in the winter months and lowest in the summer and fall when the construction, tourism, and agricultural industries are their busiest. • Page - 39 ProfiCe g 6 • Commuting Patterns According to the 1990 Census, 29,758 or 68% of the 43,620 workers 16 years and older in Roanoke County were commuting outside the County for employment. Of these commuters, 27,503 or 92% were commuting within the Roanoke MSA to the communities of Roanoke City, Salem City, and Botetourt County. Additionally, there were 2,255 commuters going outside the Roanoke MSA for employment. The majority of the in-commuters, 9,927 or 64% were from within the Roanoke MSA. In- commuters from outside the MSA totaled 5,639 or 36%. Of the 5,639 in-commuters from outside the MSA, 48% were coming from Franklin and Bedford counties. Since there were 29,758 out-commuters and 15,566 in-commuters, Roanoke County experienced a net loss of 14,192 commuters in 1990. The largest portion of the loss was to other communities within the MSA. This information is illustrated in Table 1.21 below. Table 1.21: 1990 Commuting Patterns LJ • Source: VEC State Data Center from 1990 Census Data Jurisdiction In-commuters from Out-commuter to Net Roanoke Cit 6,323 20,797 -14,474 Salem Cit 1,466 6,193 - 4,657 Botetourt Count 2,138 583 1,555 Mont ome Count 984 526 458 Franklin Count 1,110 224 886 Bedford Count 1,600 131 1,469 Bedford Cit 0 103 -103 Richmond Cit 0 74 - 74 Radford Cit 0 65 - 65 L nchbur Cit 0 62 - 62 Pulaski Count 0 51 - 51 Crai Count 432 0 432 Flo d Count 293 0 293 Frederick Count 227 0 227 Berkele Count , WVA 92 0 92 Rockbrid a Count 82 0 82 Other Locations/States 819 1,019 - 200 Total 15,566 29,758 -14,192 Regional Labor Pool Information on the regional labor pool, provided in Table 1.22, shows the labor markets within a 30 mile radius of Roanoke County. This table looks at the labor supply in terms of total population and age as reported in the 1990 Census. The total population is 410,311, while the population above the age of 16 was 324,889. The labor pool within the 5th Planning District, which is included within Table 1.22, has a population of 203,832. This includes 94,678 males, and 109,154 females. Of those, 69,273 males and 61,893 females were participating in the labor force, for an average rate of 64.4%. Page • 40 ProfiCe `g6 Table 1.22: Labor Drawing Area 30 Mile Radius Jurisdiction Ma isterial District 1990 Po ulation "Alle han Count All 10,775 Bedford Cit NA 6,073 Bedford Count All but Jefferson 33,696 "Botetourt Count All 24,992 "Clifton For a Cit NA 16,064 "Covin ton Cit NA 6,991 "Crai Count All 4,372 Floyd County Courthouse, Little River, 8< Locust Grove 7,279 Franklin Count All 39,549 Mont ome Count Mount Tabor, Shawsville"" 11,236 Blacksbur Town NA 34,590 Christiansbur Town NA 15,004 "Roanoke Cit NA 79,294 "Roanoke Count All 96,509 "Salem Cit NA 23,797 Total Po ulation 410,311 Total Population Under 16 Years of A e 324,889 'Note: Indicates Jurisdictions within the 5th Planning District. "Note: Portions of population within Blacksburg 8 Chrlstlansburg not Included. Work Source Analysis Jobs in Roanoke Countv • As reported by the BEA, in 1990 Roanoke County had 19,175 jobs (Table 1.17), which rose from 16,120 jobs in 1980. Between 1980 and 1990, the County experienced a 18.95% increase in available jobs. Table 1.23 shows a comparison of Roanoke County's total employment changes by industry for 1980 and 1990. Of the 19,175 private employment jobs in Roanoke County in 1990, approximately one-third, 6005 jobs were in the Service sector. This is a 137.6% increase in the available jobs in this sector between 1980 and 1990. One-fifth of the jobs in Roanoke County were in the Retail Trade sector in 1990. However, since 1980 employment in the Retail Trade sector fell from 4,560 to 3,853 or 15.5%. The Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector provided 17.5% of the jobs in Roanoke County in 1990. This represents an increase of 137.8% since 1980. The number of jobs in the Manufacturing sector dropped by 43.5% since 1980. The largest employers by industry in Roanoke County in 1994 are: Table 1.23: Total Emplovment in Roanoke Countv by Industry • Indust 1980 Em to ment 1990 Em loyment Percent Change 1980 to 1990 A riculture 60 127 111.6% Minin 134 60 - 55.2% Construction 1,646 1,733 5.3% Manufacturin 4,133 2,335 - 43.5% Trans., Comm., 8< Utilities 580 670 15.5% Wholesale Trade 1,067 1,046 - 2.0% Retail Trade 4,560 3,853 -15.5% Fin., Insur., 8~ Real Estate 1,407 3,346 137.8% Services 2,527 6,005 137.6% Source: BEA Data Page - 41 ProfiCe g 6 • Income 8~ Poverty Analysis Personal Earnings Total personal income by industry for Roanoke County is represented in Table 1.24. From that table, we can see that total personal earnings increased between 1980 and 1990 in every sector except those with suppressed data. Overall incomes rose by 106.9%, while employment rose by 18.95%. The non-farm sector earnings rose by 106.5%, and the private sector posted a 95.6% increase. Total farm income and employment increased between 1980 and 1990. The industries with the largest income increase are: Agriculture (which includes Forestry and Fishing) up 291.5%; Services up 174%; Finance, Insurance and Real Estate was up 144.5%; and Construction posted a 104.8% increase. Manufacturing had the smallest increase of only 60.6%. Table 1.24: Total Personal Income by Industry in Roanoke County L~ • Indust 1980 Income 1990 Income Percent Change 1980 to 1990 A riculture $3,124 $12,232 291.5% Minin D $11,442 Construction $104,610 $214,241 104.8% Manufacturin $371,628 $596,717 60.6% Trans., Comm., 8~ Utilities D $324,485 Wholesale Trade $141,414 $263,961 86.7% Retail Trade $196,844 $382,873 94.5% Fin., Insur., 8~ Real Estate $100,012 $244,562 144.5% Services $301,081 $824,911 174% Source: BEA Data - US dollars, D indicates suppressed data. Household Income According to the 1990 Census, the median household income for Roanoke County residents was $36,886. The corresponding state median was lower at $33,328. The Roanoke MSA median household income was lower than the County by $2,473 or 7%. Roanoke County's median household income is the largest in the 5th Planning District. Since 1980, the County's median household income has increased by $16,428 or 80%. Chart 1.37 illustrates the comparisons among Roanoke County, Roanoke MSA, Planning District, and the State. Page - Q2 ProfiCe `g6 i source: us census ~aau a iysu The Consumer Price Index (CPI), used as a means to measure the increase in the County's median household income, increased by 58.6% between 1980 and 1990 while median household income increased by 80%. The growth of median household income has outpaced the growth in the CPI (by 21.4%), revealing that the County's households are becoming more affluent. Chart 1.38, illustrates the distribution of household income for Roanoke County, Roanoke MSA, 5th Planning District, and the State in 1990. The chart reveals that 9°/D of • Roanoke County's households had incomes below $10,000. The Roanoke MSA and 5th Planning District had 15% of their households with incomes below $10,000. Whereas, the percentage of households with income below $10,000 for the State was 12%. In Roanoke County 30% of the households had incomes of $50,000 or more, while the MSA and Planning District had 21 % and 20% respectively. The State's percentage of households with incomes greater than $50,000 was 29%. Generally, Roanoke County has the highest household income in the region with 50% of its households having an income above $35,000. Additionally, 45% of the County's households have an income above $40,000. This equates to 13,723 of Roanoke County's 30,266 households in 1990. Chart 1.38: Household Income Distribution by Percentage • 1990 20% 18% 16% 14% O Roonok~ County 12% Roonoko MSA 10% gc~, ~~ 5th PD 6% ~$~ Vit0lni~ 4% 2% 0% <5K 5.1K to 10K to 20K to 30K to 40K to 50K to BOK to >100K 9.9K 19.9K 29.9K 39.9K 49.9K 59.9K 99.9K avu~~.c. va ~.enaus iaau Page - 43 ProfcCe g 6 • Map X (Appendix 2) illustrates the Census tracts with the largest increases in household income between 1980 and 1990. Tract _ had the learest increase while tract _ had the least amount of increase. Familv Income J • According to the 1990 Census, the median family income for Roanoke County residents was $42,223. The corresponding State median was lower at $38,213. The Roanoke MSA median family income was $7,281 or 20.8% lower than the County. Roanoke County's median family income is the largest in the 5th Planning District. Roanoke County's median household income has increased by $19,653 or 87% since 1980. Generally, Roanoke County has the largest median family income in the region. This information is illustrated in Chart 1.39 below. Chart 1.39: Median Family Incom• - 1980 to 1990 •46,000 (40 000 , 136 000 , 130,000 125,000 ^ iaso 120,000 O taco 116,000 110,000 15,000 f0 Roanoke County Roanoke MSA 5th PDC Virginia wurce: ~a census iyuu a iayu The Consumer Price Index (CPI), used as a means to measure the increase in the County's median family income, increased by 58.6% between 1980 and 1990 while median family income increased by 87%. The growth of median household income has outpaced the growth in the CPI, revealing that the County's families are becoming more affluent. The distribution of family income is revealed in Chart 1.40. The chart shows that 4% of Roanoke County's families had incomes below $10,000. The MSA and the Planning District had only 8% of their families with incomes below $10,000, while the State was 7%. In Roanoke County, 32% of the families had incomes over $50,000, as compared to the MSA with only 25% and the Planning District with only 24%. Whereas, the percentage of families with income above $50,000 for the State was 28%. Page - 44 ProfiCe `g6 • source: us census 1990 Map XI (Appendix 2) illustrates that Census tract _ had the largest increase in median family income between 1980 and 1990. This tract is located in the _ portion of the County. While tract _ had the smallest increase which is located in _ portion of the County. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for Married Couples The AGI for married couples in Roanoke County has steadily risen over the past 15 years. In 1980, the AGI was $23,869 and by 1990 it had increased to $39,847. This represents a 66.9% increase. In comparison, the CPI rose by 58.7% during this same time period. • Roanoke County's AGI outpaced the CPI by 8.3%. By 1993, the AGI had risen to $43,082, which is 8% higher than the 1990 AGI. From 1980 to 1993, the average annual growth rate of the AGI was 4.7%. The annual increases in the AGI is illustrated in Chart 1.41 below. avurce: ~ay.t vH A~i zzna ta~uon, weioon cooper center for Public Service Average Weeklv Wages According to the Virginia Employment Commission i1/EC), the average weekly wage • paid to workers by Roanoke County industries during the last quarter of 1980 was $245. By 1990 this had increased to $413, which represents a 69% increase. The CPI during this time Page - 45 ProfiCe g6 • increased by 58.6%, resulting in an increase of 10.4% for Roanoke County's workers. By December of 1994, the average weekly wage paid by all industries in Roanoke County had risen to $442, or an increase of 7%. The top 4 highest paying industries in 1980 included: Transportation, Communications, and Utilities ($401); Manufacturing ($326); Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ($272), and Wholesale and Retail Trade ($246). In 1990, the 4 top industries included: Transportation, Communications, and Utilities ($550) up 37%; Manufacturing ($529) up 62%; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ($439) up 61%; and Construction ($384) up 62%. By 1990, Wholesale and Retail Trade ($275) up 12%, had fallen out of the top 4 and was replaced by Construction. In 1994, these top 4 industries included: Manufacturing ($644) up 22%; Transportation, Communications, and Utilities ($571) up 4%; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ($521) up 19%; and Construction ($480) up 25%. Table 1.25 and Chart 1.42 reveal the average weekly wages for all sectors of the economy. Table 1.25: Average Weekly Waoe in Roanoke County 1980. 1990. ~ 1994 • Source: VEC 1980, 1990, 8 1994 data Industry 1980 1990 1994 Percent Change 1980 to 1994 Agriculture, Forestry, 8~ Fishin $196 $269 $397 103% Construction $237 $384 $480 103% Manufacturing $326 $529 $644 98% Transport., Comm., ~ Utilities $401 $550 $571 42% Wholesale 8~ Retail Trade $246 $275 $347 41% Fin., Ins., 8~ Real Estate $272 $439 $521 92% Services $188 $335 $346 84% Government $209 $366 $457 119% Average $245 $413 $442 80% ~uurce: vct,, iytsu, iyy~, a. '1y74 aaia Page - 46 ProfiCe `g6 • Per Caoita Personal Income Based upon the 1970, 1980 and 1990 Census Chart 1.43 illustrates the increases in per capita personal income. In 1970, the per capita personal income was $3,247 and by 1980 it had increased to $8,266. This was an increase of 155%. By 1990, per capita personal income had grown to $16,979, representing a 105% increase. In 1970, the County's per capita personal income was 11 % or $312 higher than the Roanoke MSA ($2,935). By 1980, the MSA per capita personal income had risen to $8,985 or $719 higher than the per capita personal income of Roanoke County. However, the 1990 Census reveals that the County had regained its leadership by $2,661, with a per capita personal income level of $16,979 as compared to the MSA's $14,318. The County was higher than the State's level of per capita personal income in each of the Censuses. In 1970, the County was $234 higher than the State and by 1980 it was $788 higher than the State. By 1990, Roanoke County's per capita personal income was $1,266 more than the State's $15,713. Relating this to the CPI provides a means to measure what these increases really mean for the residents of the County. The CPI increased by 112% between 1970 and 1980. Whereas, the per capita personal income increased by 155%. The CPI increased 58.6% between 1980 and 1990 as compared to the 105% increase in per capita personal income during the same period. In all the income comparisons presented in this report, the income levels have outpaced the CPI increases substantially. • JOUfce: US (:eI15U5 '1970, 79tlU lf. 7990 Map XII (Appendix 2) illustrates the distribution of per capita income by census tract based on the 1990 Census. Tract _ has the highest per capita income while tract _ has the lowest. The tract with the highest income is located in -- portion of the County while the tract with the lowest is located in the -- section of the County. Median Household Effective Buyinq Income (EBI): Effective buying income is a measure that "detaxes" the census income data, taking into account the variation of tax rates by income level. Year-to-year changes are estimated from • data on employee earnings by county, and the resulting income estimates are adjusted so as to add up to separately derived estimates of disposable income for states. Page - 47 ProfiCe g 6 n LJ In 1995, the median household EBI for the Roanoke MSA was $33,455, while the EBI for Roanoke County was $39,609, which is $6,154 higher than the MSA's EBI. Roanoke County's EBI is $11,978 higher than the EBI for the City of Roanoke. Table 1.26 illustrates the Effective Buying Power for the localities that make up the Roanoke MSA, as prepared by Sales and Marketing Management. Table 1.26: Median Household Effective Buvin4 Income Localit 1981 EBI 1990 EBI Percent Change 1981 to 1990 1995 EBI Roanoke Count $23,101 $32,776 41.8% $39,609 Botetourt Count $16,996 $26,490 55.8% $37,157 Roanoke Cit $16,760 $21,050 25.6% $27,631 Salem Cit $22,193 $24,750 11.5% $35,155 Roanoke MSA $19,135 $25,345 32.5% $33,455 Vir inia $20,287 $30,430 50.0% $39,463 Source: "Survey of Buying Power," Sales and Marketing Management, 1980, 1990 8 1995. Using Table 1.26 above, the EBI has increased by 71% in Roanoke County between 1981 and 1995. The amount of increase for Roanoke City has been 64.8% during this same time period, while the increase for the MSA has been 75%. Since 1990, the EBI for the County has rose by 20.8%, while the City and the MSA, EBI rose by 31.3% and 31.9% respectively. Consumer Price Index The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is an index measuring the change in the cost of typical • wage earner purchases of goods and services expressed as a percentage of the cost of these same goods and services in some base period of time. The CPI is often referred to as the cost of living index. In 1980 the CPI was 82.4, and by 1990 it had risen to 130.7. This is represents an increase of 58.6%. By 1995 the CPI had risen to 152.4 or 16.6% above the 1990 level. The historical growth of the CPI is illustrated in Table 1.27 below. • Page - 48 ProfiCe g 6 • • Table 1.27: Historical Growth of the CPI Year CPI Avera a Annual Percent of Chan a Percent of Change 1970 to 1980 Percent of Change 1980 to 1990 Percent Change 1990 to 1995 1970 38.8 1971 40.5 4.4 1972 41.8 3.2 1973 44.4 6.2 1974 49.3 11.0 1975 53.8 9.1 1976 56.9 5.8 1977 60.6 6.5 1978 65.2 . 7.6 1979 72.6 11.3 1980 82.4 13.5 112.4% 1981 90.9 10.3 1982 96.5 6.1 1983 99.6 3.2 1984 103.9 4.3 1985 107.6 3.5 1986 109.6 1.9 1987 113.6 3'.7 1988 118.3 4.1 1989 124.0 4.9 1990 130.7 5.4 58.6% 1991 136.2 4.2 1992 140.3 3.0 1993 144.5 3.0 1994 148.2 2.6 1995 152.4 2.8 16.6% Poverty Status -Persons The 1980 Census revealed that Roanoke County had 4,121 persons below the poverty level. This represents 5.8% of the County's population. The Roanoke MSA and the Planning District had 23,704 and 27,390 persons below the poverty level respectively. The State had 611,310 persons below the poverty level representing 11.8% of the population. The 1990 Census, revealed that the poverty level has fallen significantly since 1980. By 1990, Roanoke County had 957 less people below the poverty level which represents a decrease of 30%. The MSA declined by 13% or 2,675 people and the Planning District declined by 11% or 3,047 people. A similar trend occurred at the State level. The trends of the County, MSA, and Planning District are illustrated in Chart 1.44. Page - 49 ProfiCe g 6 • Chart 1.44: Number of Persons Below Poverty Level 6th Planning District Roanoke MSA Roanoke County 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 ^ taso ^ taeo Source: US Census 1980 8 1990 Poverty Status -Families In 1980, the number of families below the poverty level in Roanoke County was 867 or 4.2%. The MSA and the Planning District had 5,098 and 5,879 families below the poverty level, while the State had 128,974 or 9.2% of its families below the poverty level. By 1990, the number of families below the poverty level decreased greatly. For the • County the number of families below the poverty level dropped to 634 which represents a 27% decrease. The MSA decreased by 639 or 13% and the Planning District decreased by 695 or 12%. The State followed this same trend. The trends of the County, MSA, and Planning District are illustrated in Chart 1.45. wrce: us census 19~SU b lyso • Page - So ProfiCe g 6 • Economic Development Number of Businesses By Industry In 1984 Roanoke County had a total of 1,005 business establishments. By 1990 the number of establishments increased to 1,260. This is an increase of 255 or 25%. The industry group with the largest increase during this time was the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) which increased by 47 new firms, representing a 73% increase. The second largest increase was in the Transportation, Communication, and Utilities industry which increased by 11 new firms or 50%. The Wholesale Trade industry ranked third in terms of new firms, with an increase of 29 new businesses which represents an increase of 40%. Manufacturing ranked fourth with an increase of 24% which represents 9 new firms. The following industries had less than a 25% increase in the number of new firms: Services (21% or 69 new firms); Retail Trade (17% or 40 new firms); Construction (17% or 31 new firms); and Agriculture (3% or 1 new firm). When compared to the top paying industries, based upon the average weekly wage, three of the top four growing industries identified above were also ranked in the top four highest paying industries in 1990. These industries are: Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, ranked as number 1; Manufacturing ranked as number 2; and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate ranked as number 4. The number of firms in the Roanoke MSA in 1984 was 4,454 and in 1990 it was 6,453. This represents an increase of 1,999 new business establishments or 45%. The industry with the largest growth in the Roanoke MSA was Agriculture with 35 new firms or 65%. The Retail Trade industry ranked second with an increase of 585 new firms or 59%. The Transportation, Communications and Utilities industry had the third highest amount of growth with 82 new businesses which represents an increase of 56%. The Construction and the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries were tied for fourth, with an increase of 43% or 195 and 166 new • firms respectively. The remaining industries and their growth rates are: Services (33% or 501 new firms), Wholesale Trade (33% or 146 new firms), and Manufacturing (28% or 66 new firms). The percentages of change for the County and the Roanoke MSA is reflected in Table 1.28. Charts 1.46 and 1.4T reflect the numbers on businesses by industry for Roanoke County and the MSA. Table 1.28: Percent of Chance in the Number of Business Firms Indust Roanoke Count Roanoke MSA A riculture 3% 65% Construction 17% 43% Manufacture 24% 28% Trans., Comm., 8~ Utilities 50% 56% Wholesale Trade 40% 33% Retail Trade 17% 59% Fin., Ins., 8< Real Estate 73% ~ 43% Services 21% 33% auurce: vt~-c:overea tmpioyment and wages in Vrginla by 2 digit S/C Industry for the 2nd Quarter ending June 30 1984 6 1990. u Page - gl Profi.Ce g 6 • 1I l1 u S~rvic~t Fin., Int., & R~~I Estsu R~ui TwM Whol~~aM Trade Tani., Comm., & Ufilitit M~nuf~eturirp Construction Apricultun Chart 1.46: Number of Business Establishments in Roanoke County By Industry 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ^ 1890 ® 1994 ruutae: vea. ueta wutcc: vc~ uata Taxable Sales Taxable sales are those transactions covered by the State sales tax. Most items sold at the retail level are subject to this tax. In addition, taxable sales include hotel and motel receipts. In 1982, Roanoke County had approximately $238 million ($238,308,000) in total taxable sales. By 1990 Roanoke County had approximately $471 million ($470,783,955) in total taxable sales. This represents approximately a 98% increase over 10 years. The CPI increased only 57% during this same time period. Since the taxable sales increased at a higher rate than the CPI, and income levels outpaced the growth of the CPI, the disposable income of Roanoke County's residents increased during this time period. Taxable sales per capita showed a similar increase rising from $3,229 in 1982 to $5,937, in 1990. This represents an increase of 84%. When related to the increase in per capita personal income of 105% further supports the conclusion that the disposable income of Roanoke County's residents increased during this time period. Illustrated in Chart 1.48. Page - 52 Profile g 6 • ~.......... ..-. v•o•..~•~•.u~ rauau aa.a ~aoi, IAC7Y-J.7, IJJO-J( CalUOl15 By 1994, total taxable sales had increased to approximately $524 million ($523,704,517). This represents an 11 % increase since 1990. In 1994, the taxable sales per capita was $6,426 which is an increase of $489 or 8.25% since 1990. This represents approximately 2% per year increase, and over the course of the second half of the 1990s would result in approximately 17% growth in per capita taxable sales. When one looks at the total taxable sales by Planning District, the Fifth Planning District was the second highest in the State at $9,353. Only Northern Virginia had a higher per capita taxable sales level of $9,695, which is only $342 or 3.6% higher than the 5th Planning District. • Retail Activity By examining sales of retail businesses over 10 years one can obtain a sense of the trend in retailing for a local economy. Table 1.29, represents the sales for retail businesses located in Roanoke County between 1982 and 1992. Building/Gardening Supply stores have increased its sales the greatest percentage during the 1982 to 1992 time period. Food stores have increased their sales substantially also during this time period. Eating and drinking places have the third largest increase in sales during this time period as well. The fourth largest increase is in the furniture and home furnishings types of stores. Due to suppressed data, it is not possible to determine the increases for many of the other types of stores. However, using the Table 1.30, based on the increases of retail sales in the Roanoke MSA, the growth trends for the various types of retail stores are evident. Table 1.29: Retail Sales for Roanoke Cnunt~ ~ aR~ a.,.~ ~ oar u T e of Store 1982 Annual Sales 1992 Annual V . Sales v Percent Change 1982 to 1992 Buildin /Garden Su lies $8,516 $77,293 808% General Merchandise D $247,851 NC Food $77,168 $158,175 105% Automotive Dealers D $237,022 NC Gasoline Service Stations $33,317 $36,750 10% A arel Sa Accesso $18,446 D NC Furniture/Home Furnishin s $14,515 $22,474 55% Eatin 8 Drinking Places $20,330 $34,273 69% Dru Sa Pro rieta $9,323 $17,677 90% Miscellaneous $8,141 D NC Page - 53 ProfiCe `g6 • Table 1.30: Retail Sales for the Roanoke MSA 1982 and 1992 Type of Store 1982 Annual Sales 1992 Annual Sales Percent Change 1982 to 1992 Buildin /Garden Su lies $41,740 $120,165 188% General Merchandise $116,017 $247,851 114% Food $265,685 $392,513 48% Automotive Dealers $148,739 $336,007 126% Gasoline Service Stations $94,244 $151,940 61% A arel 8~ Accesso $57,028 $67,838 19% Furniture/Home Furnishings $52,998 $118,123 123% Eatin 8~ Drinkin Places $99,439 $183,123 84% Dru 8~ Pro rieta $40,841 $83,831 105% Miscellaneous $91,892 $239,923 161% Source: VA Statlstlcal Abstract 1987 and 96-97 Editions. Sales in 1000s of dollars. D =suppressed data, NC is not computed due to suppressed data. The Roanoke MSA retail sales data has not been suppressed and will provide a clearer picture of the trends in retailing in the community over a 10 year period. Referencing Table 1.30, the trends in retail sales for the MSA are shown. Many types of stores have experienced more than 100% increase in total sales between 1982 and 1992. Building/Gardening Supply stores have shown the largest increase in sales, a 188% increase between 1982 and 1992. Miscellaneous retail stores have the second largest increase in total sales rising by 161%. Automotive Dealers have the third highest increase in sales rising by 126%. The Fumiture and Home Furnishings stores have the fourth highest gain in total sales rising by 123% over a 10 year span. General Merchandise stores have seen an increase of 114% during the 1982 to 1992 • time period. Finally, Drug and Proprietary stores have the sixth largest gain in sales with a 105% increase. It is interesting to note that the top retail store types sell major purchase items or durable goods such as furniture, appliances, home improvement goods, and automobiles. The higher growth rate in total sales for these types of goods, provides further evidence, that the residents of Roanoke County have a substantial disposable income. Finally, the 1993 National Survey of Buying Power revealed the Roanoke MSA ranked 20th in the nation for retail sales per household ($26,894). Roanoke ranked higher than the following major metropolitan areas: Orlando, Florida; San Francisco, California.; and Chicago, Illinois. Wholesale Trade By examining sates of wholesale businesses over 10 years one can obtain a sense of the trend(s) in wholesaling for a local economy. Table 1.31, represents the sales for wholesale businesses located in Roanoke County between 1980 and 1990. During this time the amount of sales rose by 116%. Employment rose by 481 or 58% during this same time period. The number of establishments rose from 63 to 100 reflecting a growth rate of 59%. Generally, the wholesale sector of Roanoke County's economy has seen impressive increases in the past 10 years and continues to be an important sector of the local economy. Table 1.31: Wholesale Activit for Roanoke Count 1980 8~ 1990 Year No. of Establishments Annual Sales Em to ment 1980 63 $233,213 823 1990 100 $503,993 1,304 sources: vEC-Covered Employment and Wages in Virginia by 2 digit S1C Industry 1980 8 1990. VA Stalistical • Abstract 1987 8 1996-97 Editions for annual sales. Note: Sales are 1000s of dollars Page - 54 ProfiCe g 6 • Recent Economic Development Trends Roanoke County's economy is linked closely to that of the region and to the Roanoke MSA. Economic development announcements in any one of the communities in the area have impacts to all the surrounding communities. Economic development does not occur in a vacuum, but rather the synergy of all economic development efforts improves the regional economy. In the past year Roanoke County has attracted several new businesses as well as seeing many existing businesses expand their operations. One way to measure the impact of new businesses and expansions is to examine the amount of square feet added to the inventory of the County's commercial, office, and industrial buildings. There was an additional 173,782 square feet of industrial space added to Roanoke County's economy in 1995. This brought the total square footage of industrial projects to 1.9 million square feet. Chart 1.49 below illustrates the growth rate of industrial square footage built in Roanoke County since 1989. Also there was an additional 222,486 square feet of office space and 714,839 square feet of commercial space added to Roanoke County's economy in 1995. This brings the total amount of additional square footage to 606,486 in 1995 and the total since 1989 rose to 4.5 million square feet. Chart 1.50 illustrates the additional total square footage (all uses) added to the County's inventory due to economic development initiatives. In Appendix 1, is an Office Building Survey for facilities located within in Roanoke County, which are over 10,000 square feet. The survey provides the approximate available leasable space, percent occupied, and rates per square foot. Chart 1.49: Additions of Square Footage for Industrial Use as a result of Economic Development Initiatives • ~~.....~. .,..a..~..~ wwny cwrrvnnc uevrrvprnenr s+cuvrry Kep0(iS 7yyV io 7y9b • Page - 55 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ProfiCe g 6 • r~ L • Source: Roanoke County Economic Development Activity Reports 1990 to 1995 Another way to measure economic development trends is to examine the number of new jobs created by recent developments. There were nine new firms and eight expansions of existing firms during 1995, creating over 600 new jobs for Roanoke County residents. A third indicator of economic vitality is the amount of investment created by the business development in the community. The total investment represented by these developments in 1995, exceeds 1.9 million dollars. Chart 1.51 shows the amount of employment generated from economic development initiatives from 1989 to 1995. Chart 1.61: Empbyment Opportunities Created Through Economic Development Initiatives 900 800 700 800 500 400 300 200 100 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 source: rtoanoKe counry tconomic ueveiopmenr Acuvlry Keporis 7990 to 1995 The results of economic development initiatives have been an increase in employment opportunities, a larger tax base, improving standard of living and quality of life for Roanoke County's residents. Recent developments illustrate that the County is committed to continue with a variety of economic development initiatives as well as continuing to diversify its economy. Page - g6 ProfiCe g6 • Agricultural Trends Roanoke County has continued to lose more of its agricultural heritage during the 1982 to 1992 time period. The number of farms decreased by 11 %, which resulted in a 25.5% decrease in farm land. Additionally, the average farm size decreased by 17 acres or 15.6%. Table 1.32 illustrates additional changes in Farm Characteristics for Roanoke County. Table 1.32: Farm Characteristics in Roanoke County 1982 & 1992 • Farm Characteristics 1982 1992 Percent Change 1982 to 1992 Total Number of Farms 306 272 -11.11 Total Land in Farms 33,475 24,924 - 25.54% Average Farm Size (acres) 109 92 -15.60% Harvested Cropland (acres) 6,269 2,667 - 57.46% Orchards (acres) 459 256 - 44.23% Source: US Census of Agriculture 1982 & 1992 The market value of agricultural goods sold has remained relatively flat between 1978 and 1992 (Chart 1.52). There was a slight increase in 1987 with a similar decrease in 1992. Overall the market value of goods sold by Roanoke County farms has remained constant over the long term. The impact of inflation makes farming less desirable in such economic conditions and is probably a contributing factor in the general decline of agricultural practices in Roanoke County. Often land that is most desirable for industrial and residential development (relatively flat topography and well drained soils) is land that is identified as prime agricultural areas as well. As development pressures increase, along with flat prices for agricultural products one can see the reasons for the continued loss of farm land in Roanoke County. Chart 1.52: Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold -Roanoke County L~ E1,800 al,aoo a1,2oo al,ooo 5800 ssoo 5400 5200 SO 1978 1982 1987 1992 --t- roc.i s.i.. ~~ Awn°• iu Frarm Source: US census of Agriculture 1978, 1982, 1987, 8. 1992. 510005 of dollars The average income from farms in Roanoke County in 1982 was $31,760 and total farm income was $9.7 million. The breakdown of total farm income shows that $1.1 million was from crops, including nursery and greenhouses, and 8.6 million was derived from livestock and poultry (Chart 1.53). Of the 306 farms in the county, only 64 had total annual sales of $10,000 or more. Also, only 97 of the 306 farms in Roanoke County were operated by people who reported that their primary occupation was farming. This represents 32%. Therefore, 68% of the County's farms are operated by people who do not view their primary occupation as farming. Page - 57 ProfiCe g6 • The average income from farms in Roanoke County in 1992 was $47,327. Total farm income in Roanoke County was $12.8 million in 1992. The breakdown of total farm income reveals that $2.3 million was from crops, including nursery and greenhouses, and 10.5 million was derived from livestock and poultry. Of the 272 farms in the County, only 66 had total annual sales of $10,000 or more. Additionally, only 112 of the 272 farms in Roanoke County were operated by people who reported that their primary occupation was farming. This represents 41 %. Therefore, 59% of the County's farms are operated by people who do not view their primary occupation as farming. Chart 1.53: 9rrr~kdown of Firm Ineom~ f 12,000,000 tlo ooo ooo . , te,ooo,ooo ® 1862 t 6,000,000 ^ 1992 000 14 000 , , 12 000 000 , , t0 Croprr Uvrr~took 4 Pouluy • Source: u5 (:ensUS or Agriculture '19SZ ~ 799Z The average farm income rose by 49% between 1982 and 1992, while the CPI rose by 57%. Therefore, the CPI outpaced farm income growth by 8% during the period. However, the number of farms in the County with annual sales above $10,000, increased by 3% (2 farms). While the people who operated the farms as their primary occupation increased by 15%. Tourism Trends Tourism in Roanoke County provides an average of $47 million of expenditures per year (based on 1990 to 1994). This equates to an annual per capita expenditure of $545. There are 784 jobs directly related to tourism in Roanoke County, with an annual payroll of approximately $12.5 million. Roanoke County receives 1.3 million in local taxes from tourist related expenditures. Much of the expenditures for tourism in Roanoke County is a result of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Parkway is a scenic highway famous nationwide for its fall foliage and scenic vistas. The Roanoke Valley region has five entry/exit points along the Blue Ridge Parkway. These entry points are: U. S. Route 460 East (NE Roanoke); Virginia State Route 24 (E of the Town of Vinton); Mill Mountain Road; U. S. Route 220 (S of Roanoke); and U. S. Route 221 (Adney Gap). The traffic generated by these entry points aoounts for 46.2% of all the vehicles visiting the Parkway in Virginia. In the Roanoke Valley there were 147,264 vehicles that traveled along the Blue Ridge Parkway in 1995 (Chart 1.54). The estimated annual number of visitors to the Blue Ridge Parkway in the Roanoke Valley is 3.2 million. The County Economic Development Department estimates that approximately $90 million is added annually to the local economy due to the visitors along the Parkway. • Page - 58 ProfiCe g6 u The majority of the visitors to the Parkway are from outside the Roanoke Valley region, with the northeastern states providing the greatest number of visitors to the Parkway. The majority of visitors from outside the area spent between $50 to $99 per day. Visitor statistics recorded at the Visitor Center indicate increasing visitation to the area in both numbers and diversity from different sections of the Country and foreign countries. Based upon the results of the Tourism Situation Analysis, prepared for the Roanoke- Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, there are an average of 2.7 million visitors annually to the Blue Ridge Parkway in the Roanoke Valley area. • Located along the Parkway is Virginia's Explore Park, which is a 1,300 acre living history museum and nature center. The Park is designed to provide a unique educational and cultural experience to its visitors and eventually become a major tourist destination. Since the Park opened in 1994, the annual attendance has increased by approximately 46%. The total attendance since the Park's opening in 1994, has been over 58,500 visitors. In early 1998, with the completion of the Roanoke River Parkway, the Park expects its attendance to increase greatly. Tourists cite Roanoke's scenic beauty most often as their reason to visit. However, since Roanoke serves as a regional center providing: shopping; financial; medical; and transportation services. Many of the visitors come here as a destination not as just pass through traffic. Studies reveal that 50% of the visitors also visit the Blue Ridge Parkway, 33% visited Skyline Drive, and 32% visited Washington, D.C. Thus one conclusion is that the typical Roanoke visitor is regionally focused and exploring the Parkway as well as the scenic sites, cultural attractions, and sportive events that Roanoke offers. • The tourist segment is an important element of the local economy, and only by preserving the natural beauty found in the Roanoke Valley can the tourist industry continue to flourish. Page • 59 • Conclusions • • i ~ ProfiCe g 6 Conclusions Population • Between 1980 and 1990 many of the localities boardering Roanoke County experienced a faster growth rate in population than Roanoke County. This is due to the smaller base of population found in each of these localities. • Since 1970 the majority of the population increase for the 5th Planning District and the Roanoke MSA are a result of the increasing population of Roanoke County. As a result, Roanoke County's population growth has tended to offset the loss of population on a regional basis. Roanoke County went from having the lowest median age to having the highest median age in the MSA and the 4th highest in the Planning District in 1990. • Since 1970, the elderly population in Roanoke County increased nearly three times faster than the increase in the total population. The increase in elderly population is a regional trend with Roanoke County receiving a larger share of this population group. This has lead to Roanoke County having more than three times the State's average of people receiving Social Security benefits. • The under 18 years of age population group has decreased by 10.7% between 1980 and 1990. The above 65 years of age population group has increased by 52.3% during this same time period. • Hollins was the only magisterial district to experience growth in both the under 18 and above 65 years of age population groups between 1980 and 1990. Possible reasons for this trend is that there have been several new moderately priced subdivisions in the Hollins District, which are more affordable for young families. Additionally, the Hollins District has experienced growth in senior citizen housing facilities during this same time period. • A result of an older population is that the County's birth rate has decreased while its death rate has increased between 1980 and 1990. • The population density (people per square mile) of Roanoke County is 51% higher than that of the State and Planning District. The 1990 Census reveals that approximately 5,400 people moving into Roanoke County came from the South and Midwestern regions of the nation. Housin Average household size in 1980 was 2.8; in 1990 it was 2.54; and projected to decline to 2.41 and 1.71 by the years of 2000 and 2010 respectively. This decline in the number of persons per housing unit is following a national trend. As total population increases and the average household size declines, the result will require more housing units to accommodate the same number of people. • Smaller household size and an aging population will change the demands for the types of houses being constructed in the private sector. Page - 60 ProfiCe g6 • The construction of new single family housing units in Roanoke County is on a pace similar to the growth that occurred during the 1980s. • Single family homes represent 78% of all housing units in Roanoke County. • The percentages of owner and renter occupied housing units reflected in both the 1980 and 1990 Censuses, remained the same - 75% owner, 22% renter, vacancy 4%. This reflects a stable housing market and growing economy. • While more homes in Roanoke County are receiving public water and sewer service, the ratio of public service vs. private service has remained constant since 1980. • The are 31,689 housing units in Roanoke County, of which only 176 lacked complete plumbing facilities. • In 1990 there were 1,331 occupied housing units in Roanoke County without a vehicle. Economic • In 1990, almost 70% of Roanoke County's residents were employed in white collar occupations. • Based upon the Crude Diversity Index, Roanoke County has a highly diversified economy (see page 32). • 68% of Roanoke County's workers commute outside the County for work -with 92% of those commuters remaining within the Roanoke MSA. • The populations of the outlying localities are an important source of labor as well as a market for new businesses and their products. A 30 mile radius of Roanoke County provides a regional labor pool with a population of 324,889. • Roanoke County has the highest educated work force in the MSA and Planning District. Income and Poverty • The growth in Median Household Income, Median Family Income, Adjusted Gross Income for Married Couples, Average Weekly Wages and Per Capita Personal Income for Roanoke County have all greatly outpaced the growth of the Consumer Price Index between 1980 and 1990. • Based on the 1990 Census, three of the top four fastest growing industries in Roanoke County, were also ranked in the top four highest paying segments of the job market. • Poverty Status of persons and families decreased between 1980 and 1990 for Roanoke County. Economic Development Trends • Recent economic development efforts have resulted in creating an average of 500 new jobs each year over the past 6 years and adding over 4.5 million square feet of commercial and industrial space. • Taxable sales in Roanoke County outpaced the growth in the CPI by 41 % between 1982 and 1990. Page-61 ProfiCe g6 • Roanoke County is a member of the 5th Planning District which has the second highest per capita taxable sales in the State. The Northern Virginia Planning District has the highest per capita taxable sales. The types of retail stores with the highest increase in sales between 1982 and 1992 are those stores which offer durable goods such as furniture, appliances, home improvement goods, and automobiles. The higher growth rate in total sales for these types of goods, provides further evidence, that the residents of Roanoke County have a substantial disposable income. • The 1993 National Survey of Buying Power revealed the Roanoke MSA ranked 20th in the nation for retail sales per household ($26,894). Roanoke ranked higher than the following major metropolitan areas: Orlando, Florida.; San Francisco, California.; and Chicago, Illinois. Agricultural Trends • Between 1982 and 1992, the County lost 8,550 acres in farmland. The average farm size is 92 acres which represents a decrease of 15.6% or 17 acres. • In 1992, nearly 60% of all the farm operators in Roanoke County did not view their primary occupation as farming. • Average farm income grew by only 49% as compared to the growth in the Consumer Price Index of 57%. . Tourism Trends • Tourism is a major segment of the local economy providing over 780 jobs and generating an average of $47 million in expenditures per year. Tourist's cite Roanoke's scenic beauty as the major reason for their visit. • The Blue Ridge Parkway has five entry/exit points in the Roanoke Valley, which accounts for 46.2% of all the vehicle counts along the Parkway in Virginia. • Roanoke offers the typical visitor a vast array of attractions: eco-tourist sites, cultural and historic events/sites, sportive events, arts/crafts festivals, and a variety of shopping opportunities. Page - 62 • ~ .~ • • r X '~ Q Q. Q Q Q o ~ Q o ° 0 ° o ao ° 0 0 0 ° 0 0 ~ o ° 0 0 z z o <i z o 0 o ~ ~n oo 0 o O on o 0 o o ~n N cfl ~ d' ~ c'7 n ~ ~ ~ tA ~ ~''~ O ~ O ~ ~ r- O ~ d ~ N N N t? N N N {A N N pY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O m m m m N O ~ 0 0 0 O ~ O O - ~ '- N ~ N ~ C'7 .- tS') N O r i? N N i? N i/f N N rn ~' O N .- O m m rn O N m m rn O Ch O ln d a' ~ W ~t M ~ ±~ tLo j co O) 00 M 0~ M n M a~ M rn M n M o0 M 00 M rn M n M n M n M o0 ~ rn M rn M rn M n M o0 07 n M n M o0 M n M 00 T d ~- 7 m d ~ m •- r '-- .•- ~ r .- .- ~ r ~ ~ r- .- r .- r ~ ~ ~ .-- '- .- r ~ c ~ ~ ~E ~.. 'O ~.. ~ O O c0 CO O ~ O O d' O O 00 d ~ O ~' O '~t ~ CO ~ et N C d C ~ 0 0 07 ~ O M O T O O O n n 00 O M O 00 f`7 M CO w n d a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ .- r- ~ ~ ~ ~ y a U ~ y a U ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co N o N o m rn n o n ~ n y y O ts) O O O m n ~ N n 0 ~ n 07 c'7 CO O O N 00 ~ CO CO .- 00 O c'') n ch CO O t,c1 ~o ~ m To ~ co •- •- ~ ~ m ~ to N N ct to O ~ ~n O +.+ - • +• - . N ~ ~ M F- > F- > Q Q o 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ` 0 L ~ y 'n L ~ y 'a N V i O t m ~ ri O o •- ri m n C . r- 6 r ~ o ~ ~ 3 ~ m .- ~ r- ~ ca O v O O v O .- N rn O o 0 o N 0 Lc") O O o0 c0 ~ tc) M O N O X 0 0 0 c0 cD O O O O cD O r- 0 0 ~ ch N t7 •- n 0 0 0 a~ 0 0 0 00 y y N 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca O n oo n 0 0 oo ~ ~ ca O O N a7 ~ O ~ ~ Ln n rt ~ c") N 00 ~ N N N N ~ 0 0 0 ~'t 00 t,c~ O'1 n d' O ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ N N ~ N N Ln to ~ r N N '- C'') Ltd N N f"7 C'7 N N L!7 [r N O N O co iy tC {y d J ~ L a~ J d L w ~p r ~p Z a' Z c GA Cn r ~ C Q1 C w C ~ C ~ ~ O) m Q m U ~ W LL L m ~ d d Y V d x L O ? Y Y Y Y Y Y O ~ 7 n .~ a ~„~ L L L ~ L t0 L CO L (0 L f0 V (O c Y L m O O V ~ V a ~ C - Y - Y C N U O U N U O U d U 0 U U c 'O ~ d U y ~ ~ ~ p y V V ' ~ ' ~ e r O i O p U l~0 U f9 f6 ~ ~- w ~ w w ~ t0 ~ -,, •~ O O y ~ a a~ ~ ai ~- 0 ~ o d n- X 0 0 0 0 0 0 y p m c H ~ a ~ ~ c C f° a y ~ c°'i ~ ;~ c c c c c c ~ a .` ~ ~ ~ t° ~ a~ 1° eo c n a o ~ ~ c ~_ ~«= O o 0 0 0 0 0 ;c o co x 3 Z m ~ Z 5 E E o U o f °' ~ 0 0 c o ~ ~ ~ -`v a -`o O U a. ~ O w o c oj U o ~ - m ~ ~ ~ ° o ~ cv ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ y ~ - o 0 N C o a~ ~ o ~ o 0 °r ~ f0 c c z oZ3 df o2f oZf oZS oZf ~ ~ . a 3 ~ w • '~ ~ c o . ~ U y a i n i :° c c E 3 = o 0 o L .c c c c c c ~ c mac, ~ ~ ~ t0 CL h Q ~ Q O m cq m O m ~ U U U U 7 t~ ~p ~ fC ~ cD u. iv ~ c6 ~ co ~ ~ Y 0 C a. O ~ 7 tn C F- C ~ ;, d • ~ .~ • • Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z O ~ ~ O M O ~i ~ cri c~i ~,, w N N N N N d ~ ~ ~ M e- 00 M M M CO O CC ~ !~ M O ~ M M 00 M 01 00 a~ 7 M M rn m M M rn 67 Q1 m r r ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r 0 0 0 of o~ 0 0 ° ° c .°_' o o ~ o n rn ci ~ a ~ ~ O 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 A ~ C D M ~ M O t.C) O CO co ~t 1~ ~ M ~ C'1 ~- .- M N ~ Q p O O O O n O n 00 ~ y cD O N 00 M C _ •C. ~ ~ r O'I O 3 v •- ~- N O ~ O N ~ o o o M O O OO ~t I~ O O O O N M ~ CD y c~ O O O cD O cD M N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t et 1~ et Q) Q7 N M ~ . ,. ~ ~ t1') N M ~ ~ ~ Ln N .- ti ~ J ~ i M d (Q Z Q ^ '' v/ ~" C C x o ~ -a w ~ ' d U ~ " a E ... o c ~ m L a~ m ~ o c U ~ c c ~; w 3 U o Y ~ ~ c ' ~ p c c LL N ~ no o cn ~ . ~ d a ~ ~, ? ~ E c o ~ a~ a i a ,~ C ~ ~ f6 Z m ,~ +. Z Z o Z ~ C Y ~ ~ ~ ~ Y .Y ~ Q ,~ N d c6 f9 U ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ L o L t U U w ~ Z H F- N d~ 'l d ProfiCe `g 6 Bibliography 1992 Census of Agriculture Volume 1 Geographic Area Series: Virginia -State and County Data. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, April 1994. 1982 Census of Agriculture Volume 1 Geographic Area Series: Virginia -State and County Data. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, April 1994. 1970 Census of Population: Characteristics of Population, Volume 1 Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. 1980 Census of Population: General Social and Economic Characteristics, Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population: Detailed Population, Social, Housing and Economic Characteristics, Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Commuting Patterns -Virginia Cities and Counties. Virginia Employment Commission, Economic Information Services Division, Labor Market and Demographic Analysis Section. 1992 County Business Patterns: Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, September 1994. 1991 County Business Patterns: Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, September 1994. 1990 County Business Patterns: Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, September 1994. 1989 County Business Patterns: Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, September 1994. 1980 County Business Pattems: Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, September 1994. 1992 County Business Patterns: Virginia. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, September 1994. Covered Employment and Wages in Virginia. Virginia Employment Commission, Economic Information Services Division, Labor Market and Demographic Analysis Section, Quarterly. REIS: Regional Economic Information System 1969-1994. CD-ROM, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Measurement Division, June 1996. Roanoke County Annual Inspection Reports 1989 to 1995. Roanoke County Inspections Department. 1993 Virginia AGI: 22nd Annual Edition. Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University of Virginia; January 1996. Page Bi - 1 Profile `g6 Virginia's Local Economies: Statistical Update 1996. Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University Of Virginia; March 1996. Virginia Population Projections 2010. Virginia Employment Commission, Economic Information Services Division, Labor Market and Demographic Analysis Section, June 1993. Virginia Statistical Abstract. Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University of Virginia; 1987 Edition. Virginia Statistical Abstract. Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University of Virginia; 1989 Edition. Virginia Statistical Abstract. Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University of Virginia; 1992-93 Edition. Virginia Statistical Abstract. Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University of Virginia; 1994-95 Edition. Virginia Statistical Abstract, Weldon Cooper Center For Public Service, University of Virginia; 1996-97 Edition. Page Bi - z S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 RESOLIITION 472396-7 CERTIFYING E%ECUTIVE 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 Jorinson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session e ~ .•r _... f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 RESOLUTION 072396-8 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, athletic competitions are an important and integral part of the high school experience, providing the opportunity to improve physical coordination and to learn team work and good sportsmanship; and WHEREAS, the sport of tennis, in particular, teaches eye/hand coordination, concentration, and strategy, and WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Tennis Team has exemplified the ideal of high school athletics, with a variety of team accomplishments, including a 1996 record of 11 wins and 5 losses and winning the state semi finals against West Point High School 5- 4; and WHEREAS, the team roster includes: Josh Williamson (All-Region and All-State; Tommy Lasperance (All-Region and All-State); Ryan Teague; Erik Johnston; Pankil Patel; Mandy Wimmer; Mem Mauney; Perry Taylor; Brian Sasnacht; Casey Kanode; Coach Art Lawrence; and Assistant Coach Jim Mauney; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Tennis Team won the state championship in 1996 for the fifth straight year, defeating George Mason High School 5-4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby commend the GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS TEAM AND ITS COACHES for outstanding performance in athletics; and 1 ~; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its sincere congratulations to the Team on becoming the State Champions for the fifth consecutive year. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc File Resolutions of Appreciation File Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent 2 '_ ,, --T- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, athletic competitions are an important and integral part of the high school experience, providing the opportunity to improve physical coordination and to learn team work and good sportsmanship; and WHEREAS, the sport of tennis, in particular, teaches eye/hand coordination, concentration, and strategy, and WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Tennis Team has exemplified the ideal of high school athletics, with a variety of team accomplishments, including a 1996 record of 11 wins and 5 losses and winning the state semi finals against West Point High School 5- 4; and WHEREAS, the team roster includes: Josh Williamson (All-Region and All-State; Tommy Lasperance (All-Region and All-State); Ryan Teague; Erik Johnston; Pankil Patel; Mandy Wimmer; Mem Mauney; Perry Taylor; Brian Sasnacht; Casey Kanode; Coach Art Lawrence; and Assistant Coach Jim Mauney; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar High School Tennis Team won the state championship in 1996 for the fifth straight year, defeating George Mason High School 5-4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby commend the GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS TEAM AND ITS COACHES for outstanding performance in athletics; and 1 t ' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its sincere congratulations to the Team on becoming the State Champions for the fifth consecutive year. 2 ITEM NUMBER LL AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Structure Fire at 5444 Oakland Boulevard COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Improvements to fire and rescue buildings will be a priority in next year's capital improvement budget. We must have these improvements to provide the extended coverage at most of our stations. RY OF INFORMATI Fire investigators were able to establish that the fire started in the ceiling area above the couch in the den. The exact cause was not determined. The fire went undetected for a period of time before it was reported. This was substantiated by the information given by the first 911 caller who advised there was smoke coming out of the bedroom windows. The bedroom area is located on the opposite end of the house from the den where the fire originated. A former volunteer firefighter with Hollins went into the house to see if the occupants were out of the house. He reported to me that there was heavy smoke throughout the house and one of the interior walls seemed to be completely burned out. While the response times from Vinton and Read Mountain stations were acceptable, the response from Hollins was not. A check of calls for service did not indicate that Hollins Fire was on another call and thereby should have responded to the call sooner. Hollins Rescue was on another call at the time which would explain their delay in responding to the call. I have met with the leadership of Hollins Fire and requested they develop a short term solution and work on a long term plan to provide coverage during volunteer hours. The organization has met twice since the incident to work on a solution. Amy Shelor, volunteer coordinator, will be working with the Hollins unit to assist in recruitment efforts. The leadership has met with several citizens from the community to discuss concerns and how they plan to address the issue. This past weekend the Hollins unit responded to at least two structure fire reports in a little over four minutes on each one. They also staffed an additional pumper and ladder truck for these calls. u-~ I will continue to monitor the situation and will assist where necessary. SUBMITTED BY: ~ C'. ~ T. C. Fuqu Fire Chief APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: Eddy Johnson Harrison Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs ~irrnrn,rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr11r11r111r11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~ .~ _-___ _._ __ AGENDA ITEM NO. • c = APPE CE REQUEST _ D PUBLIC HEARING O . I ANCE ~ITIZENS COMI~~NTS - ~ ry~ , ro i~~, i~eys ~~~~ c SUBJECT: S.S ~~ ~t~c~ ~~~~., o~ `~~L~y ~,1g9~ .,-.~ . I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ervisors to reco nine me during the P g . 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: c ^ Each s Baker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment P whethe speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority ofgthe Board to do otherwise. - ^ Speaker 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. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments _ vnth the clerk. ; ^ INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK c ,.. - -- _ - . - _ . NAME t~r~~cz~ ~7 -~/)~i~`?~ ".Y ~ __ . ~ ~ . ~ ~~K.e , ADDRESS~~~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ,C~G4 ,~~~ r _ . _ . c PHONE ~'yG ~~ ~~ ~ - 4~~~~ . . __ . mllllllili111illllllllllt111~llllllilllillllltlll11111111111111illlllllllllilllillllllllflll~Hillln11111111111111111111111111i~ K' , ~ AUTHORIZATION We the citizens submit authorization to: to represent us as citizens of Roanoke County and speak for us in this presentation on July 23, 1996. ~~ ~, ',d i . ~. Y- 1 Roanoke County Department of Planning Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Terrance L. Harrington Director of Planning DATE: June 20, 1996 RE : Proffers Listed below are the proffers to be submitted for the IDA/Trent rezoning petition. I expect a signed copy of these proffers to be received prior to the start of your public hearing on June 25th. Please let me know if you have any questions. IDA/TRENT PROFFERS In conjunction with the development of this property, Burlington Road shall be improved to VDOT standards unless; 1. The property is developed in conjunction with the adjoining property (Tax Parcel #'s 27.13-5-3, and 27.13-5-4) that fronts on Peters Creek Road; and, 2. The adjoining Peters Creek Road property as described above is developed with an access point that aligns with the Alpine Road median cut. Any improvement to Burlington Road required by these proffers shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any development on the property. Y IN RE: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY PROFFERS In conjunction with the development of this property, Burlington Road shall be improved to VDOT standards unless; 1. The property is developed in conjunction with the adjoining property (Tax Parcel #'s 27.13-5-3, and 27.13-5-4) that fronts on Peters Creek Road; and, 2. The adjoining Peters Creek Road property as described above is developed with an access point that aligns with the Alpine Road median cut. Any improvement to Burlington Road required by these proffers shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any development on the property. ~~~ al rent Bill Branch, Chairman, Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia PETITIONER: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRENT DEVELOPMENT) CASE NUMBER: 15-5196 Planning Commission Hearing Date: May 7, 1996 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 23, 1996 A. REQUEST Petition of Industrial Development_Authority (Trent Development) to rezone 5.0 acres from R-3 to C-1 to allow commercial uses, located at the terminus of Burlington Drive adjacent to Friendship Manor, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission inquired about using Peters Creek Road as an access and road improvements. Mr. Harrington commented as follows: if Burlington Drive is not used, the applicant would need to obtain an easement from the adjoining property owner to access Peters Creek Road and Roanoke County will require curb and gutter if a new access road is constructed. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1) If the five acre tract is developed in conjunction with adjoining commercial property which has access onto Peters Creek Road (using the Alpine Road curb cut), no improvements will be required to Burlington Drive and Burlington Drive could be used as a secondary access. 2) If property is developed without access to Peters Creek Road, then improvements to Burlington Drive shall be required as specified by VDOT and the Roanoke County Department of Engineering and shall be designed to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase of any commercial development on the site. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition with the proffered condition. The motion failed to carry with the following roll call vote: AYES: Witt NAYS: Hooker, Robinson, Thomason ABSENT: Ross Mr. Witt pointed out that a lot of multifamily residential land is being lost to commercial/industrial development and consideration needs to be given to retaining some R-3 land for apartments. Mr. Thomason concurred. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE Ms. Hooker expressed concern with using Burlington Drive even as a secondary access for commercial use. She said she could not support the motion. Mr. Robinson reluctantly agreed with Ms. Hooker and said that any improvements made to Burlington Drive could offset ariy impact on the existing residences. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Terrance arringto ecreta Roanoke County Planning Commission ~~. STAFF REPORT PART I PETITION: Trent Development Co. FILE NO.: 15-5/96 PREPARED BY: T. Harrington DATE PREPARED: May 1, 1996 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an R3 to C1 rezoning request submitted by the IDA of Roanoke County on behalf of the property owner, Trent Development. Significant issues associated with this request are the rezoning request's incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, and the property's inadequate access as it relates to the design and capacity of Burlington Dr. B. DESCRIPTION 1. This is a rezoning petition of the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) of Roanoke County. The petition, filed on behalf of Trent Development Company, requests that a 5.0 acre parcel of land located at the terminus of Burlington Drive, in the Hollins Magisterial District be rezoned from R3 to C1 to allow the commercial development of the property. No specific use of the property is proposed at this time. C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. R3 is amulti-family zoning district that allows a variety of residential use types at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. C1 is an office commercial district that allows a wide variety of residential, civic, and commercial use types. (See Section 30-53 for complete listing of uses permitted by right and special use.) 2. Site Plan approval will be required prior to the commercial development of this site. A VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. .~ _ i PART I I A. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. The site is generally characterized by rolling topography. Vegetation on the site is varied, with a mixture of grassland and wooded areas. 2. No dwelling units or other structures are on the property. 3. The surrounding neighborhood is generally characterized by large parcels of vacant land. The property is bordered on three sides by vacant land zoned R3 or C1. A single family house on Burlington, also shares a common property line with this parcel. Current access to the site is limited to the terminus of Burlington Drive. Burlington Drive is a short, sub-standard state secondary route with a pavement width of 14 feet. There is no cul-de-sac or public turnaround area at the end of Burlington. Land uses on Burlington are varied. Several small office-type businesses are located at the intersection of Burlington and Airport. These businesses are zoned C1 The remaining properties on Burlington are developed as several single family homes. These properties are zoned R3. B. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Because no specific use for the property is proposed, a detailed analysis of the development is not possible. Given the location of this property vis-a- vis other large adjacent vacant tracts, it is possible that this property would develop in conjunction with these tracts. Public water and sewer are available to most of the property. However, public sewer may not be available to the southeastern corner of the property due to the terrain of the site. The Fire and Rescue Department has advised that rezoning of this property will not impact the ability of the Department to provide fire and rescue services within established standards. 2 File No.: . y' `_' C. CONFORMANCE WITH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This property is designated Development in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation establishes areas of the County where the bulk of new residential development should occur. A variety of housing types and densities are encouraged to locate within Development areas. Office type uses are not encouraged to locate within Development areas, except as part of a larger planned unit development. PART III This property is a 5.0 acre tract targeted by the IDA as suitable for commercial development. No justification has been submitted other than the commercial zoning of this property would allow the property to be marketed in association with the adjacent C1 parcel that fronts on Peters Creek Road. A letter supporting the joint development of this tract has been received by the staff and has been attached to this report. Burlington Drive, due to its inadequate width, and condition is not suitable for levels of traffic associated with a five acre or larger commercial development. In evaluating the suitability of this site for commercial development, the Commission should also consider the site's suitability for residential development, including the types of multifamily development allowed in R3 and R4 districts. Roanoke County does not have a large inventory of vacant R3 and R4 properties. Successive rezoning of multifamily tracts to commercial or industrial designations will result in Roanoke County not being able to provide a suitable inventory of land for this important housing type. Commercial zoning/development of this property should not be considered unless the applicant proffers in writing that either: 1. Burlington Drive shall not be used for vehicle access to the site. or, 2. The developer shall fund and make improvements to Burlington Drive from Airport Road to its terminious at the property. These improvements shall be as specified by VDOT and the Roanoke County Department of Engineering, and shall be designed to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first phase of any commercial development on the site. 3 File No.: COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT . OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3738 6rambletcn ~,ve. S`r'/ P.O. 6ax 2°800 Roznofce, VA 24018 (703) 772-2008 FAX (703} 772-2030 a~; y-z-~~ ~~ r'Cr Sicfi• USe Grly ..- Z~rii a;icn f`/~~ I PCiO~ ~~~/~~ 005 c'a;e: Case ~Vu~:;ho~t •~~-= =~i ~~`~~ Chec4c type of application filed (checfc all that apply): ® REZONING ~ SPECIAL USE D VARIANCE Applicant's name: Industrial Development Authority of Roano'.<z County phone: ~~04) 77!~- 1197 Address: P.O. Box 20068, 1919 Electric Rd. , Roano'.< VA Zip Code: 2018 hone: ~ ' . s name: Owner See attached sheet Zip Code: Address: Locatio f pr erty: ~ f, Tax iv ap Number: See attached sheet isterial District: I - See attached sheets a ac s ~ 1 Community Planning Area: (s}: Size of p~ xisting Zoning: See attached sheets ~ (See ~ acres Existing Land Use: See attached sheets attachment~.ft. =•~~: . ~-: :lam .~~• .. ..: Proposed Zoning: See attached sheets -i' ~ roe StaN Use On/y Proposed Land Use: See attached sheets ~ .~ j' use Type: Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirer;,ents 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~~ered v~ith this request? YcS NO Variance of Sections} of t~'le Roanc'~ce Ccur,ty 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 INCOMPL_ i E. ws v ~' ws V R's v Consultation ~ ~ 8 1 /2' x 1 1 ' concept plan ~~ Application fee :::J. ~< Application -'= Metes and bounds description '.~ Proffers, if applicable Justification `?%~ Water and se~n~er application Adjoining property owners l hereby certify that / am either the owner of the p~Gperty or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge~d c,-olnseent oft a ov~ne~. Owner's Signature: •'LG~GG~~~ ~ ~~ Edward A. Natc, Counse n uscrial uavelu-mC~ ~ ~ ~<<~Ly~: of Roanoke County, Virginia ' T ~~~ SITE NAME Trent Development SITE LOCATION SITE SIZE EXISTING LAND USE SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA TAX MAP # MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 27.13-5~~ ~ Hollins End of Burlington Drive, adjacent to Friendship Manor Lakeview Property 5.00 Vacant EXISTING ZONING R 3 PROPOSED ZONING C 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION Development WATER SERVICE 8-inch water service through site SEWER SERVICE Existing 10-inch sewer service in area to be upgraded as part of County FY1995-96 CIP ROAD ACCESS Frontage on Burlington Drive ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY COMMENTS 1992-94 Strategy calls for recognition and zoning of office sites as an implementation goal for the finance, insurance, real estate economic sector ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATIONALE FOR REZONING Adjustment of zoning district lines to create large marketable commercial office site in Peters Creek Road corridor (in conjunction with ~ ~~ Douthat). PLANNING COMMITTEE/IDA SUBCOI~L~IITTEE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION 4 ~ w~RMOUN c~jO~~.R''F+REGf~'FtW 9a P ~~++ R£5 s \ ° C" ~~,A ENE ? \ ~H~ T o ~ PNO~~ a Z ,~oQc, ti• ~$ -Y"\ ~ C 2 h \ HMPJ. '7j. .. ~-}~S NY' °d OH I LL51~ ~ ~ Isu i .say cua~e y z~ r+oxn+ G -~ ~re~ ~ ~ 117 Z ip~r °Ma ale ~ a ~s~,p~ NGR ar+a ao Site name: Y- ~~ Peters Creek Corridor 115 X~~)~S~I'rent . ~/ ` l , 11 ~- v ~. _5 . \: ~ y \ZT + • ~~ `~. >• ~ r~~ 20 ~f ~ ' `, 21 , ~~ff / ~ ~~ 3 •~'t •`d 2 • r 26~~ $4 ``\ i 23 \ ~ ea' y . \ \ • ~ `F / ~ / \ `~ ., ~ \ f ~' ~ 33 '' G~ y 2.0.1 ~e e s ~,t~ a'' P'~ „ s ~ °~ n ~' 2s u `e~ •\S, ~ `, w' 36 ~' eft pttGf s 2Y ~ •1\J .\ ,.,"'\ .. \~,l ~ \ a \ 1 \~ it ~a \ u ~. ~ ~ y ~O ~ 25 f c ~\ 33\ : .i\ ~'~ ~ afr 9 3 292 loo ~ •~\ 66' \N \ f '• I \ • .a< \ \ \ ~\ \ \ \ \ ate.. \ \ \ \ T e~'' \\ \ \\ \ \\ ~ ~\ ~ r ~ ~ . \ \ \ \ \ 2 ejE,. \Y J \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ , \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 4 \ \ \ ,\\ \ - ~ faff \\ \ \ 7no•a \ \ \ ,\ \ ace ac \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ ; \\ \ \ \ \ //O 27.17 -4-13 \ \ \ \ I"- 100' \ \ \ \ \ 2 ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~~ \ ed ~ \ \ ~ O~' \ o \ \ \ ~o `~„o \ \ ate' \ ,. \ \ ' \ ,. / 1• 9 •i C Tax Map Numbers: Request: I D A /TRENT D E V E L O P M E N 27.13-5-5 Rc,~xRcx3x~c~Xlx x x x x x x~C ~~ x---- -- - x~;x~x~C ~ Rezone R-3 to C-1 5.00 ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 5.0-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF BURLINGTON DRIVE ADJACENT TO FRIENDSHIP MANOR (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-5-5) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-3 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANORE COUNTY (TRENT DEVELOPMENT) WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 23, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing was continued on May 28, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing was held June 25, 1996; and, continued to July 23, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 7, 1996; 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 5.0 acres, as described herein, and located at the terminus of Burlington Drive adjacent to Friendship Manor, Tax Map Number 27.13-5-5) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3, Medium Density Mutli-Family Residential District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County (Trent 1 v~... i Development). 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) In conjunction with the development of this property, Burlington Road shall be improved to VDOT standards unless: (a) The property is developed in conjunction with the adjoining property (Tax Map Nos. 27.13-5-3 and 27.13-5-4) that fronts on Peters Creek Road; and (b) the adjoining Peters Creek Road property as described above is developed with an access point that aligns with the Alpine Road median cut. (2) Any improvement to Burlington Road required by these proffers shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any development on the property. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, located in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, containing 5.0 acres according to plat of survey dated October 31, 1980, by Raymond C. Weeks, and according to which said property is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a concrete monument at the southwesterly corner of Lot 20 as shown on the map of R. E. Dillard Farm, made by C. B. Malcolm, SCE, dated June 18, 1937, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 2, Page 106; thence N. 26 deg. 02' W. 352.94 feet to an iron pin; thence N. 63 deg. 58' E. 700.0 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 26 deg. 02' E. 271.54 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 57 deg. 52' W. 234.66 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 57 deg. 04' W. 470.08 feet to the Place of Beginning, and being the southerly portion of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, according to the above described map of the R. E. Dillard Farm. 2 V 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. zoning.trent 3 r 1j_~ ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 ORDINANCE 072396-9 DECLARING LOT 2B, SHAMROCK INDUSTRIAL PARR (TAX MAP NO. 55.09-1-20.2) AND A 1.656 ACRE PORTION OF SHAMROCK PARR (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 55.13-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTINGfR~Ee'~i~@ AN OFFER FOR THE EXCHANGE OF SAME WITH PROPERTY OWNED BY RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (TAX MAP NOS. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20) 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 properties, having been made available and deemed unnecessary for other public uses, are hereby declared to be surplus; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on July 9, 1996; and a second reading and public hearing was held on July 23, 1996, concerning the exchange of a 3.214-acre parcel of real estate known as Lot 2B (Tax Map 55.09-1-20.2), and a 1.656 acre parcel of real estate (a portion of Tax Map 55.13-1-2) Shamrock Park, for approximately 3.00 acres (being all of Lot 15, all of Lot 16, and the western 70 feet of Lot 14 as shown on the recorded map of Fort Lewis Estates, of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book 3 at page 51) owned by Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map No. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20); and 3. That an offer having been received to exchange said properties, the offer of Richfield Retirement Community is hereby 1 accepted ; and 4. That a twenty (20') foot sanitary sewer and water line easement along the highway right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 643 as shown on a plat entitled "Easement Plat for County of Roanoke showing new sanitary sewer and water easements through properties west of Salem" prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, dated March 5, 1991, revised, July 27, 1995 and of record in Plat Book 18, page 107, in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, is hereby specifically reserved and retained by Roanoke County, together with the right to provide maintenance to any existing or future facilities located within the easement area, and together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road; and 5. As a condition of this exchange, Richfield Retirement Community has agreed with the County to jointly plan for a common access, parking area, and storm water management area to serve the County's Glenvar Library property (a portion of 55.13-1-2) and Richfield's proposed Alzheimer's project on the property to be acquired (55.09-1-20.2 and a portion of 55.13-1-2)and their adjoining parcel (55.09-1-19); and 6. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrators are authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the property exchange, specifically including the conveyance and acquisition of respective properties, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. Further $2,500 2 is appropriated from the ~~~-s--Fe~~}~g~e~ez-F-~t~- for survey, recordation, and other related costs associated with these transactions. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the Ordinance with $2,500 recordation costs appropriated from Economic Development fund, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Director Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment 3 c• . ~° ~ Y Y' '~. , / , •~ ~~ x~soo x rsoo 61 A~~ C ! C• • _~ ~`~~\S~ " ~ ~ `~ ~~''~ 714 ~"+ \ • 9'13 ~' x r7oo _ ¢~~ a° Hl~RG 0 S -'~~ spy v ~~ i ~ ~ ~ j, 3 1 ~,• ~~~ p ~y tR]7xNOB 6 F. ~ ~\ •, ~ Rae s..ctA ~~ ~' `- QUAIL ~ ~~~ ~ 869 ~~ 7$7 7 CROSSIN ~ S~H~oRO gRO~ E ! 3 ~ _ ~ ~EXq~`~0 Q l ~ ~ p xE•R rT~641 ~ F'~! ~a L ~~ ~~ m :;~,. ~, U N T Y - s-NLE ~~• $ ~~ 5~'~~P ~ LA~ p ~~ •.~;;;°~ ~ ~G~ '• '~ ~~, 640 ~E~ER~~ ~P~ ~, R°~ ~'' ~, WE WARD LAKE NOR-(H ~'~ tiE ~ . ~:::~~~~""~': i'S-4y~~ '•s? cF \ ! ~ 643 640 ~ ~ ~~Q~`t 6 0 ~ cR~ •~,~~•~' SAS ~~ IND~ N <( 1 E ~ ? ~~ pR ~ _ q iROa~ ~ EKE ~` ''' S ~ t ~ GRAS IVl 640 - .°N~` ~ o ~ w AR ~ N~ • o GA ENS ;. ~:y;"..'' pp o 0 ~ •~ Gov ~ SHELOR A . :~'• ~ - c1~'`E`'~a R ~:' . a x E ~~ o~ c`R' c\~, ~ ~ ~ ~ •: .~ wES E { H" ',r :;rat 5 ~~c •r R GEN TT ~ ~ . ~" ~ ENVAR •~~~•. 4 ROCK ~~ LE I L E. :.':., 1 ~ EAST ° `~ c~4' `J. ~ ° 5 v. pv. FO .EWI •..\. ti1GNLAY~ER ~ ~ ~ J ~A ~ ~~~ p Fo ~ VILt roR.t.:, PRE~~ ~ c ~`.:;~ ::;; ~ ~ H 3 P° ~ y~ ~ sr4F .~ oR W E ~ \~G G VAR ~ ARK ~ Q 1`~~L~p A` N S~ '•:~' ~ '`•., :::... •. .. /~ ~~•~`•c.ELOrt ~~ SHAMRO~ 6 R Gt '~ t+~~~ W M ~` , ,R`(~ '~'`' ;~ . .::,•:''. SQi/AR RFT~F _ ~~' dRT .::~ti:•iieii+ LEVY! Pas a~ ~ MMF r ••- • AS Location of 3 acres owned _ P~ce . -~ .• ! by Richfield r Location of 4.87 acres ~ °~~•~F ~pR1,1 N°s~ • 4 . y -o owned b Roanoke Coun ~. ~ ~~ G£a SOJ~ • ~~ ~os6 Y tY _ a o rn v ~ ~ K~ MPa ~. Cp ~ ~ R~ 4f3Rrp~~v~ ~ ~ y~ ~~ I~OPP[R. ~0~ ~ 11 ~ ~NOUS^T !ES \ ' ~ tg ~ ~ d R N HILL ~ TERRAC i <M v ~ ` ~Q. {GLENVAR RT6j ~ ~ '~ _ DA ./• r~ _~ -, ATTACHMENT A ITEM NUMBER y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Request to declare Lot 2B, Shamrock Industrial Park (Tax Map Parcel 55.09-1-20.2) and a portion of Shamrock Park (55.13-1-2)in the Catawba Magisterial District to be surplus and accept/reject an offer for the exchange of same with property owned by Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map Parcels 55.03-1-18,19,20) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• Staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors declare a 3.214 acre tract of real property located in Shamrock Industrial Park on Daugherty Road and identified as Tax Map Parcel 55.09-1-20.2 and an approximate 1.656 acre tract of Shamrock Park and identified as Tax Map Parcel 55.13-1-2 (part) to be surplus property and to consider authorizing the exchange of this property for 3.00 acres of land owned by Richfield Retirement Community and identified as Tax Map Parcels 55.03-1-18,19,20. The Shamrock Industrial Park property is the remaining acreage of an approximate 10 acre parcel that was acquired by land exchange with Richfield Retirement Community in 1986 and rezoned to industrial use in 1989. Transkrit and Medeco are located on parcels developed to the north. The other Shamrock Park parcel (1.656 acres) is a remaining portion of former Shamrock Park and includes a gravel parking area. V "~ t FISCAL IMPACT• The property exchange will be between properties valued at $113,200 for the County and $100,000 for Richfield. The estimated costs of $2,500 for the survey and recordation costs associated with the transaction are available in the Board contingency fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors declare Tax Map Parcels 55.09-1-20.2 and a 1.656 acre portion of 55.13-1-2 to be surplus and to approve the second reading of the attached ordinance authorizing the exchange of this property with property owned by Richfield Retirement Community. Staff further recommends that $2,500 be appropriated from the Board contingency fund to pay for the survey and recordation costs for that property exchange. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Timothy W. Gubala, Director Economic Development Department Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Eddy _ Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens Attachment 1 ' ~ ~, ONS ~ i ' • t ~g ~~ ~ ~ ~ P~~ / I /'~; ~ x1600 QA~..~ , ~ ~~ , i _ OJ~~ ~ ` ¢ ,~ ~; ~ ' ~ -x `. 993 ¢~ x noo _ ~ r ~\~ ~ ~~. o, ~ ~E~~\'~~ \~ 869 ~~ \~ 787 7 CROSSING 0 `O y t~' IP a ~ _ ~ ~EXq~,~O x ~ j ~ Bp HER t~641 ~ F9! ~~ U N T Y 1 s-TYL'E ~~' ~R~S~~ ~ER~~ ~9fh,~'• ~, v~ 640 6E •(N -qyc ~WE \ WARD LAKE S NOR ~ e ~ ~ 1~643~ 640 ~,~ ~',~p~~ 9 6 0 poi ~nD~ ~ ~R ~ xE ~~ ~' s L t Q GRAS Ivl 640 i or.~ WAR ~A ~ ~ GN N~ •v GAENS .:;.: `:~~~''~'~ i .~ c S rVva R?9 E~P~ ~~P `. ~ ~ ~ • _ : '7aT 5 \Ec 'c R' GE . ~~. ~ q ROCK ~~ LE I'~I L i ENVAR ~ V~~ ~~ x 1300 ~ 1 ,\ g -- 714 EIGHGTS ~M spy IR~.TO'190 B 2 ~ \ I~S~kFOR~D BRpC . y ,R•• -SA~i D R. ~ ~SOjER~ A ~ / EAST G G~Ei• ~ G .~ pV• FO EWI ~. HIGHLANDS G c \ ~ ~o ~~..~ Q~\y' ti~E.• S p Fp ~ VIL~z ~~R.t`.' PRE~~ R ~ 8~ GLH Location of 4.87 acres owned by Roanoke County _ ~ ~W ARRIQR v ~ ~ ~~ I\~•. s1 ~~ iGLENVAR R/ Lam';:", •. t INC• SHAMRO~ ~ R/ ~7RT ~o ,::: ...::::: LEVY! AA~aa. M,yF r •'' A Location of 3 acres owned STATE Qc~LrcE • ~` •' - ! by Richfield ~GCc~F GA¢~ N~Rf ~ o 9o y~'O~~ KR~~Pprn 50~~~ •ti~~' ~ioss ~~ COM ~o~~ ~" 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ` 1 ,~ _ pR .~c ~-t~ // i ATTACHMENT A TERRAC i ~~ . ~~ V-.. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 ORDINANCE DECLARING LOT 2B, SHAMROCK INDUSTRIAL PARK (TAX MAP NO. 55.09-1-20.2) AND A 1.656 ACRE PORTION OF SHAMROCK PARK (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 55.13-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING/REJECTING AN OFFER FOR THE EXCHANGE OF SAME WITH PROPERTY OWNED BY RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (TAX MAP NOS. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20) 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 properties, having been made available and deemed unnecessary for other public uses, are hereby declared to be surplus; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on July 9, 1996; and a second reading and public hearing was held on July 23, 1996, concerning the exchange of a 3.214-acre parcel of real estate known as Lot 2B (Tax Map 55.09-1-20.2), and a 1.656 acre parcel of real estate (a portion of Tax Map 55.13-1-2) Shamrock Park, for approximately 3.00 acres (being all of Lot 15, all of Lot 16, and the western 70 feet of Lot 14 as shown on the recorded map of Fort Lewis Estates, of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Plat Book 3 at page 51) owned by Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map No. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20); and 3. That an offer having been received to exchange said properties, the offer of Richfield Retirement Community is hereby accepted/rejected; and 4. That a twenty (20') foot sanitary sewer and water line agenda/ realest/ shamrock.ord v ~. easement along the highway right-of-way of Virginia Secondary Route 643 as shown on a plat entitled "Easement Plat for County of Roanoke showing new sanitary sewer and water easements through properties west of Salem" prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, dated March 5, 1991, revised, July 27, 1995 and of record in Plat Book 18, page 107, in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, is hereby specifi- cally reserved and retained by Roanoke County, together with the right to provide maintenance to any existing or future facilities located within the easement area, and together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road; and 5. As a condition of this exchange, Richfield Retirement Community has agreed with the County to jointly plan for a common access, parking area, and storm water management area to serve the County's Glenvar Library property (a portion of 55.13-1-2) and Richfield's proposed Alzheimer's project on the property to be acquired (55.09-1-20.2 and a portion of 55.13-1-2)and their adjoining parcel (55.09-1-19); and 6. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Adminis- trators are authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the property exchange, specifically including the conveyance and acquisition of respective properties, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. Further $2,500 is appropriated from the Board's Contingency Fund for survey, recordation, and other related costs associated with these transactions. Agenda.realest.shamrock.ord 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. V "" ~..) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: July 23, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE CRESTWOOD PARK WELL LOT, TAX MAP NO. 76.16-2-13 'S COMMENTS• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is the second reading of an ordinance to sell a surplus well lot, in response to the receipt of offers for same. On October 25, 1994, the Board adopted a policy for the sale or disposal of surplus real estate. Many of the parcels identified as surplus are well lots to be abandoned with the completion of the reservoir and the water transmission lines. This procedure provided for the annual advertisement and publication of the surplus real estate list, inviting bids from the public. This notice and list of properties were advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 9, 1995. Notice of the sale of this well lot was also published on July 14, 1996. Notice has also been mailed to the adjoining property owners. The offer received for this well lot is within the guidelines established by the Board of Supervisors. The County Attorney has prepared an appropriate ordinance for first reading, which constitutes notice that a bona fide offer has been received, and that other written offers may be received until noon on the Friday preceding the next Board meeting. The identity of the offerors) and the amount, terms or conditions of the offer(s) or bid(s) will be kept confidential until the second reading. At second reading the Board may accept the best offer received or reject all offers. Y E r~ ....% The County received an offer for the following surplus real estate: Crestwood Well Lot - Tax Map No. 76.16-2-13 The proceeds from the sale this real estate will be deposited into the water fund in accordance with the trust agreements of the 1991 water revenue bonds. It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance. Respectfully submitted, / ~ r~ Paul M. Mahoney 'i County Attorney i L/ Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens agenda.realest.surplus.crestwood.rpt Y°3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND AN ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE CRESTWOOD PARR WELL LOT, TAX MAP NO. 76.16-2-13 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 and July 14, 1996. Notice has also been mailed to the adjoining proprty owners. 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 July 9, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing was held on July 23, 1996, concerning the disposition of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows: Crestwood Park Well Lot Tax Map No. 76.16-2-13 4. That offers for said property having been received, the offer of property for the sum of accepted/rejected. is hereby 5. That the purchase price for the property will be paid to purchase this 1 v-. upon delivery of a deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate will be deposited into the water fund in accordance with the trust agreements of the 1991 water revenue bonds. 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 will be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance will be effective on and from the date of its adoption. realest.surplus.crestwood.ord 2 IoiJ _ .~ _~ ` ~~ 3/3? - Un~1e0 Slolas~ Pos1o/ Service '' •~~~ ~ ~ , ~^° 6 7 ° 3/3/ P V n B` 8 ~~• F A` , ' -' R. C. B S. ,~5 18 N \ 5 ~ ~, .P noke nJy L/bory 2.60 Ac ° O I9 ~ 320J M2.52 Ac nC~ ~ 6y c 3207 ="~ v 1,° ~~ ~ S~ ~ CECAa pp,NT • ~ bh` a 3~ 6~ 691 ~ •P•RTME'+1S J 20 ~ ~p?~ ~~~ •0DaE55E5 2 IT ~ `r •RE Cfi BERRY ~« O 1 6:6; e, X32// re s~ 3 a 1 ~ ~ 32/0 `•0 3' S ~ 6, ,~~ °'r~ 32/7 'm ~ J 1-PT , . ' ~ 22 , , 21 ~''~ ~ z " 23 ~ ~ s 3220 3/s~ .DJ (.:P1 TD. 751 24 - ~ 32/3 "'t ~, , 9a 3?~y 1e 15 j J??S ~ ~OOd ~y ~~ 5 o `• Ong r n 3??6 ~o ~. 315 c 2~~ 3235 ~" ~ ~o ~" ~ 1 ` „ ~ a ' 3227 yy G 14 . s - 3'58 9 ~ ` , \ 32/2 \ye ~ 0, 3234 e ~~ ~ 0 33 .35 ° ~°~ ~ >P`~ i i 2 30 ;, 32/ 32 ~ 0 ^' 0 3226 "~ ~ ~ 1 31332 13 ' $ O t0 ~ se y6 36 O o 3242 _ T C ~ ?g 9 ° ~ 3236 ~~ ~ e °y~TO, ~J 9s2 J 3139 $ '12 s m ... A ~js ~ yzyZ a- a sJ~~ 37 ~ J3250 •0 319 `oe. N 9 l W ~5 / ~ .°~ 28 ~ ~ 3 m .~ ~ °~ 3246 42 ,°tl 41 ~ s ~ ~ ;3256 e t9 ;~6s Zoe ~ •~ ~ ~S 9 ~ ~ 3260 a ~ N 40 '.°. ~ s , N 9.+ `.o~ ,c _~• - • so~~ o ~ `e ,, N 39 ~ ~ti` .y / 3308 ID s ; ~ ., i~ 3266 ~ ~`p 0 ` 9BJ~ b 3274 3280 ~~~~~• 'D 3i 6T N.9d ,a~ n~_ a/ a.S/~Qn, 68.jj ~ 5724 {T 7B ~11 '~ `' ~ ZSr3' Glt'ti ~` %o `~~6' 's Road ~~, ~ ~ ?; ,~~ •. ~ ,.. o~ POANp,I.~ ti' r ~ ~ ~ ~~ rasa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 July 25, 1996 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 Ms. Betty Jo Anthony 6225 Hidden Valley Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Anthony: The members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their sincere appreciation for your years of service on the Social Services Advisory Committee. Allow me to personally thank you for the time you served on this Board. Citizens responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. Roanoke County is fortunate indeed to have benefited from your unselfish contribution to our community. As a small token of appreciation, we enclose a Certificate of Appreciation for your service to Roanoke County. Sincerely, Bob L. Johnson, (Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Hollins Magisterial District BLJ/bjh Enclosure cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services C~a~xx~#~ ~#~ ~~~x~~~e ® Recycled Paper ~o 0 ~~ ~' O O '~ .±' G7 N W \~+ ~e 0 z 0 0 z~ y ~ ~ ~ C O~ r~ ~ ~ C n~ ~~ ~~ do Cy ~ x H 0 70 o~ y y ~c 0 z y x 0 z ~c y z T v 0 n n v 0 2 m n `N z 0 Z 0 Z m G~ Z a "`~. n ~o ro ~titi. O~ AOANp~.~ a /~ '_ . A 2 ~ o a? 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 C~~ixxt#~ a#' ~~~x~~~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 July 26, 1996 Mr. Gardner W. Smith Director, Development Services P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Gardner: (540) 772-2005 On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, July 23, 1996. The Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. With kindest regards, Bob L. Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ® Recycled Paper O~ POANp~~ j > ,a• ~ , z' ~ rasa P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE MARY H. ALLEN, CMC ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401$-079$ CLERK TO THE BOARD (703) 772-200') ' FAX (703} 772-2193 July 25, 1996 Mr. Jan Dowling 3126 Garst Cabin Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Dowling: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you a,s a member of the Social Services Advisory Committee representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Your four year term will expire on August 1, 2000. 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 rior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked 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, ..~ • ~-- Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Steven A. McGRaw, Clerk, Circuit Court ® Recycled Paper 0~ ROANp~~ , > A i 2 L7 az ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~x~xx~.~ rags 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 July 25, 1996 Mr. Buford E. "Bud" Butts 5138 Carriage Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Butts: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as an alternate member of the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals to serve the unexpired four year term of Richard Evans. This term will expire on July 26, 1998. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. 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 this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered, and Mr. McGraw has asked 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. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures cc: Joel Baker, Building Commissioner Steven A. McGraw, .Clerk, Circuit Court ® Recycled Paper ~F POANp,,~~ .a ~ ~~ ~ z c~ ~ s °v a 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (7b3) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 July 25, 1996 Mr. Gordon E. Saul 7409 Marie Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Saul: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as the neighborhood organization representative to the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission for a four-year term. Your term will expire on June 30,2000. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflicts of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board bjh Enclosures cc: Carol Broadhurst, Secretary, RCTSC Office of the Public Defender 209 First Street, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 C~.~~t~~~ ~~ ~~~t~~~e of Supervisors ® ge~yded pyp~ N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: Dr. Deanna Gordon From: Mary H. Allen `~''~-~'~ Subj: Appointment to Schools Facilities Committee Date: July 24, 1996 At their meeting on July 23, 1996, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors appointed Ms. Patricia McKinney to serve as the Board of Supervisors' at-large member to the Schools Facilities Committee. Her address is 10125 Fortune Ridge Road, Bent Mountain, VA 24059. Her telephone number is 929-4345. CC: Board Reading File ~/L.~~~~ M ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~v ~~-~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~..~~s ~~%~ ..~ ~~ i7 iw ~r n ~. V C~( r~ p (~ ~ V,A Z ~'~ j ~'~-_ Q- r~i(..~- ou-~a~a/ o---a~J 7- ~ 3 i'~A2 ~ A ~ / ~ ~,~ ,^~ L-~,,~~~~~ u.F ~T 1~~~ ~'r.~ c-~D j,~1,~~ ~ p c~ ~:~_,~ car ~ D~ v1 ; ~-, ~v~iT ~ ~4PP~ t-s ; ~ A!~ ~~~ V~4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~f~ 7- ~3 - MEMO - 7/8/96 To: Supervisors From: Lee B. Eddy, Subject: Appointment to Highway & Transportation Safety Commission If there is no objection I would like to nominate the following man to the Neighborhood Organization position on the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission: Gordon E. Saul 7409 Marie Drive Roanoke VA 24018 Tel: (H) 989-0562 (W) 986-1800 Mr. Saul is on the faculty at National Business College, is currently president of the Back Creek Rural Village Civic League, and has maintained a continuing interest in transportation issues. Please let me knout if you have any questions or objections. copy: Elmer Hodge Mary Allen y ~~~/ n o rn ~~~-~ o ,-~ C ,~ ti .... 4 ~~ ~~ j~ ,,~ ~...~~ /' ~~-~_ 1 primed by Mary Allen / ADMO1 h/1~~/96 From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Brenda Holton / ADMO1 Subject: Glenvar Tennis team --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ Ms. Lawrence (the coach's wife) called. She said that Art Lawrence will be at a camp all next week. The earliest the team can be recognized is July 23 at 7 p.m. So we have set that date and he thinks he can get all the kids to attend. SOOO, take this off the 6/25 agenda and I'll move to 7/23 agenda 2:17pm • "7'~~-..3 9 ~a Jyi r. 1_a._ ~ re....~ c. ~. ~.v : // ..steal ~~ n -rho ~ ~ c.~-.,,-~ ~ 5 Page: 1 ~~~ ~ . Coach Art Lawrence finally called. He wants to be recognized at 7 p.m. on 7/23. Coach: Art Lawrence Assistant Coach: Jim Mauney Plovers: Josh Williamson Tommy L~perance Ryan Teague Erik Johnston Pankil Patel Mandy Wimmer Mem Mauney Perry Taylor r Brian f~'asnacht r Casey Kanode tati s i Record: 11-5 Won semi finals against West Point HS - 5-4 Won championship against George Mason HS - 5-4 Fifth straight state championship -won 92,93,94,95,96 Both the first state championship and 1996 championship played at Suffolk High School. Josh Williamson and Tommy Lasperance were both named all-region and all-state. ~.i:nted by Mary Allen / ADM01 --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Brenda Holton / ADMO1 Subject: Glenvar Tennis team ===NOTE________________________________ Ms. Lawrence (the coach's wife) called. She said that Art Lawrence will be at a camp all next week. The earliest the team can be recognized is July 23 at 7 p.m. So we have set that date and he thinks he can get all the kids to attend. 5000, take this off the 6/25 agenda and I'll move to 7/23 agenda ~..."o a ccly - '6/19%95 2:17pm i r~ ~'~ m-~ss~. '~ ~ ~ ~ Page: 1 Brenda: Left messages for Northside Golf Team coach Jim Wolf and Glenvar principal Al McClearn. If they call: Want to recognize the team on June 25 at 3 p.m. Need to know: info for reso -how many games they won, who they played in state championship and score, when aild where was state championslip, and names of players, coaches, etc. Ask if they will be present to accept reso, and if they can bring their players. ~./ tee .. C~ / ./ ~g - •D ,' 3d a ~~S 9:50 - 6/18 t t ~- /.l ~ " ®'~„ /~/ '- °° ~9 ~/ CI1 YC~~''` C..OQ C.~ ~4 r t ,L.A ,rte r'~'-~G. o ~~, ~ i -~. C'o~- //~ ~~~ /'~5 C1i ~Cu /~a0 -moo r 7-2.3 ~ /v-~/~9:o0a++~~ C G h ~~ r M GL~ GcJ i ~~ ed a ~ ~ ~.c~ i- ~~. G.~. // ca...i,~ J JUNE 18, 1996 9:17 A.M. MA Ruth Wade called to say that Northside Golf Team and Glenvar Tennis Teams are only teams that they know who won state championships. ~trY1 As for contact, she suggested calling the schools and asking for athletic directors, _ - +Gr ®tf ~ C ''tom`' C.e.7o 1 ~ NS principal Alan Journall 561 8155 """""""""'" S - Glenvar principal Al McClearn 387-6536 - TE. N tit ~ t~g' Mr. Eddy: RE: Appointment to Social Services Advisory Board I contacted Betty McCrary regarding Betty Jo Anthony's reappointment to represent the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. She said that Betty Jo is NOT eligible to be reappointed because she has served two consecutive terms. Our records did not denote that. Also, Betty Jo has not been a very active member, so she is pleased that she cannot be reappointed. Mary Allen 7/8/06 ~^ ~ ~ Printed by Mary Allen / ADM01 r From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 Subject: fwd: Legislators meeting --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====6/21/96=11:17am== ECH called in a little while ago. He said that 7-23 for legislators meeting is O.K. - I assume it will be between the afternoon and evening sessions. Is that correct? Fwd=by:=Sue=Patterson=6/21/96=11:19am== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... I thought we said 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Fwd=by:=Mary=Allen=/___________________ Fwd to: Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 ....................................... Whoops - you are right. Let's wait until Monday to finalize. The note I left for ECH said between the sessions. My mistake! 6/2.1/96 . 11:33am Page: 1 Printed by Mary Allen / ADMOl 7/11/96• 11:28am --------------------------------------- r From: Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 To: Mary Allen / ADMO1 Subject: fwd: Did BofS adjourn to --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====7/11/96==9:43am== Did BofS adjourn to 7/23/96 at 2:00 to meet with legislators? Fwd=by:=Mary=Allen=/==7/11/96=10:09am== Fwd to: Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 ....................................... No, I don't think so - check with Paul and see what they did at the end of the meeting. If not, I think all we have to do is send a press release out. Fwd=by:=Sue=Patterson=7/11/96=10:10am== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1, Paul Mahoney / ADMO1 ....................................... Fwd=by:=Paul=Mahoney==7/11/96=10:58am== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1, Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 ....................................... No, they just adjourned. Send out press release. Fwd=by:=Sue=Patterson=7/11/96=11:24am== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ................... .. ...........i'm assuming you will do this - okay Fwd=by:=Mary=Allen=/==7/11/96=11:25am== Fwd to: Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 ....................................... Yes, I'll do it early next week - when preparing the agenda. Could you send me a copy of whatever you will use as an agenda, so I can attach it to the press release? Fwd=by:=Sue=Patterson=7/11/96=11:27am== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADMO1 ....................................... pmm does not want an agenda - they will review 1996 session and discuss upcoming 1997 session Page: 1 t O~ ROANp,~-~ ~ ~( ll.J~~~ ~ ` ~1 ~ p z +7 rags ~ ~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PAUL M. MAHONEY ' COUNTY ATTORNEY / JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY //~~ VICKIE L. HUFFMAN 17 June 1996 / ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY The Honorable john S. Edwards P. O. Box 1179 Roanoke, VA 24006 The Honorable Malfourd W. "Bo" Tru bo P. O. Box 448 Fincastle, VA 24090 The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith P. O. Box 1250 Salem, VA 24153 The Honorable Clifton "Chip" Woodrum P. O. Box 1371 Roanoke, VA 24007 The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell P. O. Box 459 Vinton, VA 24179 The Honorable A. Victor Thom 1301 Orange Avenue, NE / Roanoke, VA 24012 Gentlemen: r' On behalf of the and of Supervisors of Roano e County, Virginia, I would like to invite you to meet brie y with the Board to discuss Roa oke County's legislative program for the 1997 session the Virginia General Assembly nd the review the 1996 session. The Board ealizes how busy your schedule island, therefore, we suggest a brief meeting, no to er than 30 - 45 minutes to discuss your views on the 1996 and 1997 General Asse ly session and the County's legislative initiatives. `P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2007 ® Recycled Paper Page Two 17 June 1996 The Board of Supervisors will hold a meeting on Tuesday, July 9,1996 at 3:00 p.m. I propose that this legislative meeting begin at 5:30 p.m. after the conclusion of the Board's meeting. Please contact my legal assistant, Sue Patterson-Bane, in the near future to confirm if this date and time meets your schedule. ry truly yours, 'C-`~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney PMM/spb cc: Board of Supervisors Elmer C. Hodge Mary H. Allen legis.meeting.911 woRK sESSION-vw 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Statement of Estimated Revenues and Expenditures as of February 29, 1996. 5. Accounts Paid -February 1996 6. Additions to the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System in February 1996. HCN ASKED FOR UPDATE ON VIlVYARD PARK ACCESS ROAD. 7. Update on legislation during the 1996 Session of the General Assembly. REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION AT BUDGET WORK SESSION Q. WORK SESSION 1. Budget Work Session a. Update on legislation during the 1996 Session of the General Assembly. BOARD CONSENSUS TO CONSIDER EMPLOYING LOBBYIST DURING J'~ e" GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION. ~ BOARD CONSENSUS TO SET UP MEETING WITH ROANOKE VALLEY LEGISLATORS IN JUNE OR TULY TO DISCUSS ISSUES. STAFF TO BRING BACK BPOL PLAN THAT WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL HCN REQUESTED THAT DR RUTLEDGE ATTEND WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS HEALTH DEPT. BUDGET. s o~ ROANp,Y~ z .A . ~ C~.~~~~ ~.~#~ ~~xx~.~.~.~ o ~. J `a lass OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE PAUL M. MAHONEY ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 COUNTY ATTORNEY FAX (540) 772-2089 ~5"'~ 772-2007 27 June 1996 The Honorable John S. Edwards P. O. Box 1179 Roanoke, VA 24006 The Honorable Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo P. O. Box 448 Fincastle, VA 24090 The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith P. O. Box 1250 Salem, VA 24153 The Honorable Clifton "Chip" Woodrum P. O. Box 1371 Roanoke, VA 24007 The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell P. O. Box 459 Vinton, VA 24179 The Honorable A. Victor Thomas 1301 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA 24012 Gentlemen: JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2071 Due to a conflict with the Appropriations Committee meeting in Roanoke on July 8, 9, and 10, the meeting with the Board of Supervisors and you has been rescheduled to July 23, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. My legal assistant has contacted each of your offices and has confirmed thls date. The regular Board of Supervisors' meeting will begin at 3:00 p.m. As I stated in my earlier letter, this meeting is to discuss the County's 19971egislation program and to review the 1996 session. PMM/spb cc: Board of Supervisors Elmer C. Hodge Mary H. Allen legis.meeting.911 Very tru~ yours, ~ , ...E ;, ,, ~ ~~ ; ~. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ® Recycled Paper Printed by Mary Allen / ADMO1 6/21/96. 11:i7am --------------------------------------- From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Sue Patterson-Bane / ADMO1 Subject: Legislators meeting --------------------------------------- ===NOTE________________________________ ECH called in a little while ago. He said that 7-23 for legislators meeting is O.K. - I assume it will be between the afternoon and evening sessions. Is that correct? Page: 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on July 23,1996, at the Roanoke County Administration Center at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR HUNTING HILLS, SECTION 3, OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 63 TO REMOVE THE "WELL LOT" RESTRICTION PLACED ON TAX MAP N0.88.13-3-28. 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 at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney -Roanoke County Publish on the following dates: July 9,1996 July 16,1996 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 /:~~P ~ Attn: Ms. Mary Allen PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on July 23, 1996 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 and second reading on the following: ORDINANCE DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING/REJECTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF SAME; NAMELY THE CRESTWOOD PARR WELL LOT, TAX MAP NO. 76.16-2-13 All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. Inquiries should be directed to Paul M. Mahoney at (540) 772- 2007. Bids will be received until noon on July 19, 1996. Bids may be addressed to Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, VA 24018. 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: July 14, 1996 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ~. n ,_, ,.. __ ~~ Z~,vz~M ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN CORRECTED PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on July 23, 1996 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: ORDINANCE DECLARING LOT 2B, SHAMROCK INDUSTRIAL PARK (TAX MAP NO. 55.09-1-20.2) AND A 2.16 ACRE PORTION OF SHAMROCK PARK (PART OF TAX MAP N0. 55.13-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT TO BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING/REJECTING AN OFFER FOR THE EXCHANGE OF SAME WITH PROPERTY OWNED BY RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (TAX MAP NOS. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20) 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: June 23, 1996 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ATTENTION: MRS. MARY ALLEN w To: Legal Ad Department Fax #: FACSIMILE Re: Public Notice Date: June 20, 1996 Please replace the Public Notice send this morning on this item with this notice -the meeting date has been changed from July 9 to July 23. Thanks. From the desk of... Susan M. Patterson-Bane Legal Assistant County Attorney -Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 540-772-2007 Fax: 540-772-2089 FIFTH PLAI~!NI~~.~ ®ISTRICT ~OI~i1MISSION 313 Luck Avenue, SW Post Office Box 2569 Roanoke, Virginia 24010 (540) 343-4417 ®fax (540') 343-4416 July 15, 1996 Mr. Elmer Hodge, Jr., County Administrator Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA. 24018-0798 Dear Elmer: On behalf of the Fifth Planning District Commission, I am proud to announce that Mr. Lee B. Eddy will be awarded the 1996 Dixon Award at the upcoming annual conference of the Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions (VAPDC} at Virginia Beach. The Dixon award is intended to recognize a VAPDC commissioner or executive director who has provided leadership and made outstanding contributions to promoting the concept of regionalism in the Commonwealth. Mr. Eddy will receive his award during the annual banquet on Friday evening, July 19. The Fifth PDC is very pleased that Lee Eddy will be the award recipient since he has been a faithful supporter of the PDC and the concept of regionalism since the inception of the Fifth PDC in 1969 ~Mr. Eddy was a founding member of the PDC}. It should be noted that he was the first President of the VAPDC following adoption of the Association's Charter and Bylaws in 1986. The PDC will be sending out a press release on Monday, Juty 22. I thought you might like to announce Mr. Eddy's recognition to the Board of Supervisors at the Board's next meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, w- Way .Strickland Executive Director Serving Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Clifton Forge, Covington, Craig County, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Saiem, and the Towrn of Vinton July 11, 1996 MA: ECH says please put these two reports on next agenda: [1] Report from TCF about Oakland Boulevard fire. Also, please let JMC know that this report from TCF is due. [2] Report from Bill Rand on recycling. MH Elmer: I talked to Bill Rand re the Report on Recycling. He said that you told him ,you didn't want to do a Board Report and make the info public because it would reflect poorly on Nancy Bailey's record keeping. You told him you were going to put it in the Board Reading File, and then quietly let the Board know why the figures are so much higher. How do you want to handle. I told Bill I'd call him back today. Mary Allen 7/16/96 Printed by Mary Allen / ADM01 7/18/96, 9:37am From: Mary Allen / ADMO1 To: Paul Mahoney / ADMO1 Subject: fwd: 7-23 agenda --------------------------------------- ===NOTE====------=====7/18/96==9:30am== Anything for executive session? So far, I have nothing. Fwd=by:=Paul=Mahoney==7/18/96==9:37am== Fwd to: Mary Allen / ADM01 ....................................... ECH has not identified an issues. I believe that h nt to discuss economic developme (Kroger). have sent memo to BofS on me ' xie ~'ali.~rns PRPs. (2.1-X44,_, pending litigation, RoCo vs. GE, et a / ~-~. ~ Page: 1 DRAFT - 7/1796 -12:00 NOON ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA JULY 23, 1996 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. 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 tv the Board at (703) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements maybe made. 7'HE ~OA~D ()F ~~IPF. ~I~~' ~ tiV.ILL HE.E~` WITH T~I~..N .:ALLEY TATT LE I LAT R 'AT 2• P: 7 THE`F 'RTH __ FLO(~:R ~'QNFF,RENCE R003I 2•QO ~.1VI~..~~T'II~CY;VFrI'rH Ri~OI~ ~~.~1~~'~' ~~~~r~ST~ 3:00 P.M. -AFTERNOON SESSION A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: Gardner Smith, Director Development Services 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. i B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Supervisor Lee Eddy for being awarded the 1996 Dixon Award by the Virginia Associatio of Planning District Commissions. ~~ a. D. BRIEFI ~~~ U ~~Y~ E. NEW BUSINESS ~ 1 1. Request from the Roanoke County School Board for additional funding to complete renovations to Fort Lewis Elementary School, Glenvar Middle School, Cave Spring Junior High, and William Byrd High School. (Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent) I 2. Request for funding for County Participation in "Petition ~ for Public Works" projects. (Elmer C. Hodge, County C, Administrator) 3. Request from Strauss Construction for 50% credit of the off-site sewer fees for the Polo Club Development. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) F. OLD BUSINESS G. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS a I. J. K. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to operate a day care center located at 5501 Florist Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Shining Stars Early Learning Center. Inc. 2. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to construct a religious assembly, located between 7425 and 7502 Old Mill Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of blister Sowder. 3. Ordinance to rezone approximately 5.5 acres from I-1 and C-2 to C-2 and obtain a Special Use Permit to construct assisted living and elderly housing facilities, located approximately 0.1 mile north of the intersection of Route 460 and Daugherty Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richfield Retirement Community. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance for authorization to acquire necessary water and sewer line easements and property to construct the West Main Street Sewer Extension. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) L. APPOINTMENTS 1. Metropolitan Transportation District Study Committee 2. Social Services Advisory Commission ~+~ r ~~ 3 r • M. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Confirmation of Committee appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. 2. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities serving Laurel Hills -Lot 6, Sewer Extension. 3. Acceptance of the Local Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission of the Arts. 4. Appropriation of Compensation Board reimbursement for capital purchases for the Clerk of Circuit Court's Office. 5. Donation of sanitary sewer easement on Lot 9, Farmington Place, from Jeffrey Maronic, Inc., to the Board of Supervisors ,fir v N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS '~-e-~- C l'~ ~~ ~~ O. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS ~' P. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 4 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts Paid -May 1996 5. Accounts Paid -June 1996 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investments and Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 1996. 7. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program. 8. Bond Project Status Report. Q. WORK SESSION ~~po~ 1. Comprehensive Plan `to GO MC. R. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A (3) c ~ S. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:00 P.M. -EVENING SESSION THE FOLLOWIN PUBLIC HEARING AND 2ND READING HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO SEPTF,MBER 24.1996 AT THE REQUEST O THE PURCHASER AND NEIGHBORS. Ordinance vacating a portion of the subdivision plat for Hunting Hills, Section 3 of record in Plat book 6, page 63, to remove the "well lot" restriction placed on Tax Map No. 88-13-3-28. T. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS s • a 1. Resolution of Congratulations to the Glenvar Tennis Team for winning the State Championship. Cx a v ~'fo U. BRIEFINGS ?O ~' ~ 1. Report on fire on Oakland Boulevard C ,, V. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to rezone 5 acres from R-3 to C-1 with conditions to allow commercial uses, located at the terminus of Burlington Drive adjacent to Friendship Manor, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Industrial Development Authority. (Trent Development) (CONTINUED FROM MAY 28, 1996) 2. Ordinance declaring Lot 2B, Shamrock Industrial Park (Tax Map No. 55.09-1-20.2) and a 2.16 acre portion of Shamrock Park (Part of Tax Map No. 55.13-1-2) in the Catawba Magisterial District to be surplus and accepting/rejecting an offer for the exchange of same with property owned by Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map Nos. 55.03-1-18, 19, 20) (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) 3. Ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate to be surplus and accepting an order for the sale of same; namely the Crestwood Park Well Lot, Tap Map No. 76.16-2-13. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) W. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS X. ADJOURNMENT 6 Elmer: Sue P-B would like to reschedule the legislators meeting to 5:30 p.m. on July 23. Is that O.K. with you? It will be scheduled between the afternoon and evening sessions of the Board meeting. ary c 6/21/96 ~Z 0 dK , +~ ~ , ~. ,