Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/13/1996 - RegularO~ ~OAN~~F ~ •« 1838 Working document - su,~iect to revision ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA AUGUST 13, 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 assisfance or special arrangement in order fo parficipate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide of least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements maybe made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRE SENT AT 3:03 P M 2. Invocation: F. Douglas Sweetenburg Roanoke County Sheriff s Office 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH ADDED ITEM C-2, INTRODU TION OF PO ISH VISITORS I~CN ADDED EXECUTIVE SF SInN I M FI A D TO PO NTIA LITIGATION. 1 ® Recycled Paper C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of the 23rd District Court Service Unit for winning the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' award for Most Unique and Innovative Program. MICH FT A ,TTRI AND ANDY A D R~nN AC'CFPTED RF(~O TNTTTnN 2. Recognition of local government officials from Opole, Poland. F,C'H INTROD D T OFFI IA WA AT K, YNA ITIN T ROA_NOKE VAL . Fy D. BRIEFINGS 1. Results of the 1996 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. (Anne Marie Green, Community Relations Director) P F ENT .D BY AMG FOCUS GROUPS WI L BE 4 ABLI~HED TO .OOK AT OW RAD S FIRE AND RE TTF AND LIBRAR TAFF F FCO TNI7 D FOR HIGH GRADES IN T ~T TR VF,y E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request from the Fifth Planning District Commission to establish a Regional Steering Committee to examine provisions of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act. (Rick Morse, Public Policy Intern) R-081396-1 LBE MOTION TO ADOPT REDO A~1D A_MFNDED BY H N TO APPOINT B ®ND ECH TO ~ ERTN OMMIT 2. Request from Dixon Contracting, Inc. to appeal denial of request to withdraw bid for the Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main/Glenvar East Sanitary Sewer Project. 2 (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) A-081396-2 CONTI TFD TNTTT AF FPORT~ SH MOTION TO D NY APPEA TO WI RAW BID ~rRc 3. Submission to the FCC of subscriber complaints regarding the cable programming service tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke. (Joe Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) BOARD CONSF,N~TT. TO TA F N A TTON, T RFFnRF T)FC'T TwTwr TO SUBMIT COMP .HINT TO F . 4. Request to appropriate funds to VML/VACo for County share of assessment for American Electric Power Negotiations. (Amber Buckowsky, Roanoke County Intern) A-081396-3 EM MOTTnN TO APPRO~~' $9,75 EXP NDI TRF, ('H T FIND NF;CF„ ARY TND ~~ F. OLD BUSINESS NONE G. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS ECH S E T D WORK SFS ION WITH 1ViF'RI AN E E TR P WER IN SEP MB R. H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for public hearing on September 24, 1996 to amend the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Charter and Member Use Agreement to permit the Authority to engage in solid waste collection. (William Rand, General Services Director) EM MOTION TO T p TRT T(' ARINCT FnR 9/ 4/96 ~~ 3 I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a 10 foot gas line easement to Roanoke Gas Company across a portion of the Public Service Center. (John Willey, Property Manager) SH MOTTON TO APPRO 1ST RFA IN WITH CHAN F TOT ORD BY 2ND RE ADIN T 2ND - 8/27/96 ~~ J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel VIHA TO CONT T VIN FyNOI I)S 2. Industrial Development Authority BLT NOMINA D T RI HARD RANWFI T TO ANO R FO TR AR L FX I F 9/26/2000 3. Metropolitan Transportation District Study Committee DOHA TO REPORT BA K WHEN ROANO F CITY O TN['' MAK_FS THFTR APPOIN ,NT L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 4 ITEM 3 AND .ORRF(`TION T I M 1 ~~ 1. Approval of Minutes -June 11, 1996, June 25, 1996, July 9, 1996 (Joint Meeting with Roanoke City Council), July 9, 1996 (regular meeting) 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Social Services Advisory Board. A-081396-4 a 3. Request from the Sheriffs Department to accept and appropriate the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program A-081396-4 b grant. 4. Request for acceptance of Lost Drive and Lost View Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-081396-4.c M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS visor Ni ken (1) Presented an announrPmPnt that Orvis om~n~v mill be br~ng~g~nrograms to the Planned Comm rci~l Dev lop_ment on the Hammond props tv. Supervisor Eddv• (1~ ed what action had b Pry taken r gard~ng an e mcentwe nla H ~dvicnd that the I OP t am will develop gu~dehngs h program and will h hrrn ght h~~k to Board within 45 day~(9/24/9 (2~ k d about a policy for contrib ~t~ng to teams gong to national cor~pet~t~~ will bring a proposed p licy back in Veral month that will ah ~n Inde - ~ compete Re eived the newsletter to civi leagues and s o m orm community 1 aderc A~ red abo ~t the p~pose C'H e that this is a resnl of q ~arterly meetings with civic IeagneS MfT he distr~hntion list (4) Asked about nPgnty _~ations for the wad lant uugrade_ Gary Robertson upda a the Board ahrn~t the p~,ect• n un ~ e rom t stiff on nncerns r g ins the new w~mm~n~ Wool ordinance E H responded he knew of no complaints but would ch rtr with Ith Department and r port bark (~ Announc d t ere was an illegal S,¢n nner at the M Donald's at Oa rov Pla a that ha not yet been remov ~ Supervisor Minnix• 4nug ctad that the Rnar consider a firing rang to o bg 5 located in S outh Roa nnkp Uunty or Fra nklin C ounty th at would be in h,de all ocalities (co untie s• ci tipc a nd tow n )~ j ~cent to Roanok e County S~gg ctPd a committee~ e esta blis h d to ctn ..j oint fir ing rang e with u ltimate goal of regional uolice depart ment (~ wi ll work with o her (oca lities n e vah,ate potpnt;a~ ~;tpc S uperviso r Harriso n• (11 Ha s re~ pive d c alls fr om reSidp ntc on Tim b r vipw road co nce i hp i rn ng c ty' ~pl an for a fir ing ran ge at Carving C ove a nd r ed ,pl c, tyPd at t e city and county t ~ ~y th iss ,P (2) E~r est_ed aFpr e~iati on fo r set ting a wor ses ion with Fr ( ~) gro ~ght haw k ch arcoal from nps t~tp w p.,y York for Tim Gu bala. Su pervi sor T oh nsnn • (1 ) Re mi nded the Bo ar mem b rs ab o ,t the planning re re a o n an (2) F~r nress ed o ng oing conc ern abo ut the c ondition of th e m edian stri ps whe n c omp are d to ale m and Roa noke itv HC N agar ~ C a O nn a mt t p j y pf T yn c~, ~g t o a pp ho w th ey cond uct their mnwina an eau tifica tion eff ort F H d ccrih p ct r r nt plan s for b ea tifira tinn and mo w ing (3) Rece ive d Co rr SpQn den !•p f rom th e Bl u R idge Pa rkwa t hat the a ve rec eived lette r of s ~p por t to de plare t he B lue Rid e__ y Parkwav + an All American Road N. CITIZENS' COMI~~NTS AND COMM[LJNICATIONS NONE O. REPORTS MOTION TO F AN FI TW 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Status Report on Dixie Caverns 5, Acknowledgment from VDOT of the acceptance of roads in the Secondary System in July 1996. 6. Update on private property SSE/R Program 7. Status Report on the Comprehensive Plan P. RECEPTION TO MEET ROANOKE C.OUNTY'S NEW DEPARTMENT HEADS (4:30 P• M..~) Q. WORK SESSIONS 1. Cable Television issues a. 1996 Telecommunications Act TOE OB .N RAIN TO KEEP BOARD INFORMED ON FGTTi AT.IONS BEING FPA FD BOARD ON N TO ADD TO E ISLAT F iTFST T GOLTNTTF~ IN T ED TO RF~UIRE TELFCnMMTTNT(`ATinNc FRANCHI FS b. Status report on Cox Cable BPOL Tax c. Future programming options for RVTV DISCUSSION ON C TR FNT AND PO NTIA .PRO =RA_M4 B T I B = D YON DDITIONA . S AFF FOR RVTV GENERAL DI TT~~ION ON ROAD IMPROVEMENT AT M TOR INTERCHAN E R. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry; (~ potential litigation -FM MOTION TO O INT X T E ION FOLT (TWIN = RECEPTION AND WORK F44TnN IBC EXECUTIVE ESSION HELD FROM 7.15 TO 8.00 P M S. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-081396-5 FM MOTION TO ADOPT ERTIFICATION F O TRC T. ADJOLT]~NIVIENT TO SATLT_R_DAY, AUGi 1ST 24, 1996 AT 4.00 P M AT THE HOLIDAY INN-TANGi FWnn FOR PTTRP(~4F OF A PLANNIN(' FT F,AT_ BL.T .TO TRNFD AT 8.01 P M o~ ROANp~.~ ~ '« A z ~ a ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~.~Z.Q 1838 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA AUGUST 13, 1996 ruwrrr a' n¢ sure n>nr~ 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 (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements maybe made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: F. Douglas Sweetenburg Roanoke County Sheriff s Office 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CIIANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of the 23rd District Court Service Unit for winning the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' award for Most Unique and Innovative Program. 1 ® Recycled Paper D. BRIEFINGS 1. Results of the 1996 Citizen Satisfaction. Survey (Anne Marie Green, Community Relations Director) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request from the Fifth Planning District Commission to establish a Regional Steering Committee to examine provisions of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) 2. Request from Dixon Contracting, Inc. to appeal denial of request to withdraw bid for the Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main/Glenvar East Sanitary Sewer Project. (Joseph Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 3. Submission to the FCC of subscriber complaints regarding the cable programming service tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke. (Joe Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney) 4. Request to appropriate funds to VML/VACo for County share of assessment for American Electric Power Negotiations. (Amber Buckowsky, Roanoke County Intern) F. OLD BUSINESS G. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS H. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for public hearing on September 24, 1996 to amend the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Charter and Member Use Agreement to permit the Authority to engage in solid waste collection. (William Rand, General Services Director) I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 2 1. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a 10 foot gas line easement to Roanoke Gas Company across a portion of the Public Service Center. (John Willey, Property Manager) J. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES K. APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel 2. Industrial Development Authority 3. Metropolitan Transportation District Study Committee L. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of Minutes -June 11, 1996, June 25, 1996, June 9, 1996 (Joint Meeting with Roanoke City Council), June 9, 1996 (regular meeting) 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Social Services Advisory Board. 3. Request from the Sheriffs Department to accept and appropriate the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program grant. 4. Request for acceptance of Lost Drive and Lost View Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. CITIZENS' COMIVLENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 3 O. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Status Report on Dixie Caverns 5, Acknowledgment from VDOT of the acceptance of roads in the Secondary System in July 1996. 6. Update on private property SSE/R Program 7. Status Report on the Comprehensive Plan P. RECEPTION TO MEET ROANOKE COUNTY'S NEW DEPARTMENT HEADS (4:30 P•M.) Q. WORK SESSIONS 1. Cable Television issues a. 1996 Telecommunications Act b. Status report on Cox Cable BPOL Tax c. Future programming options for RVTV R. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (5~ discussion concerning a prospective business or industry; (3) discussion of the disposition of publicly held property, Crestwood well lot. S. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION T. ADJOURNMENT TO SATURDAY, AUGUST 24., 1996 AT 4:00 P.M. AT THE HOLIDAY INN-TANGLEWOOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PLANNING RETREAT. 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~! AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the 23rd District Court Service Unit for winning a national award for its Substance Abuse Program COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The 23rd District Court Service Unit Substance Abuse Program has won the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges award for "Most Unique and Innovative Program." The award is presented annually to one local, state or national organization for a unique and innovative project in the area of research, rehabilitation, detention, runaway programs, etc. The project must be new, original and innovative. The substance abuse program was chosen for the award because of the manner in which they dealt with substance abuse by involving the parents, the juvenile, and both the public and the private sectors in delivering the treatment services. The program also holds the juvenile accountable for his actions. Nearly 900 of juveniles appearing in court for non-traffic charges were either experimenting with, abusing or exposed to family members abusing alcohol and/or drugs. The local program was specifically designed to address this problem. Substance Abuse Counselor Sandy Alderson, who coordinates the program, accepted the award at the 59th Annual Conference held in Vail, Colorado in July. She will be at the August 13 meeting to receive the recognition. C/~~ ~ C''~' L Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens - , 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: August 13, 1996 SUBJECT: Briefing on 1996 Citizen Satisfaction Survey COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a briefing on the 1996 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. This is the third survey of this type which has been conducted recently. County staff was used several years ago to administer the question- naire; last year, the survey was conducted by Martin Research of Roanoke, and the 1996 survey was administered by BKW Research of Salem. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Overall, the results were outstanding and very similar to the two previous recent surveys. The questionnaire was expanded this year to include more County services, asking citizens to rank the importance and provide a grade for 26 services, as opposed to 19 last year. The grades improved, and County departments received 3 A-'s, 11 B+'s, 7 B's, 2 B-'s, and 3 C+'s. The three highest ranked services are fire, rescue and libraries, followed closely by the police department, while the three lowest are Planning and Zoning, road maintenance, and the Commissioner of the Revenue/ personal property assessment. Fire, rescue, libraries and police consistently rank very high in the surveys. This reflects well on the quality of the career/volunteer fire and rescue system, and the professionalism and training that our personnel have. The County library system continues to be the leader in the valley, using resources in innovative and imaginative ways to stay on top of the latest technology. The police department is also a leader in the Valley, and the high grades the department received are not necessarily typical in this type of survey. a ~~ I This year, space was included for open ended comments, which are quite interesting. A copy of the executive summary is attached. Overall, the results show a concern for education and services to the elderly. Our most popular programs are parks, libraries, fire and rescue and police protection. Almost all citizens - 82% -believe that services are about right, and 90% feel that County employees are always or usually courteous. Only 26% of the respondents currently have someone in their household in a county school. The results of the survey will be reviewed with the Department Heads, and used in the upcoming year as service delivery is evaluated. Staff will also address some of the issues which were brought up under the open-ended comment section and work with BKW Research to form some focus groups to discuss the reasons for the three lowest grades, so that those can be improved next year. ~1~ti~ ~ Anne Marie Green, APR Director, Community Relations ~~' ~X/ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ()Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ Harrison _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens cc: File ~_ i Roanoke County 1996 Citizen Survey Results Introduction This survey was designed to elicit opinions of Roanoke County residents regarding a variety of issues. The majority of the questions were copied from the survey conducted last year. The remainder of the questionnaire was written in consultation with Anne Marie Green, director of community relations for Roanoke County. Methodology A total of 521 respondents were interviewed between June 12 and 25, 1996. A random sample of residents of Roanoke County was drawn from telephone numbers purchased from a survey sampling company. Individuals 18 years old or older who were not employees of Roanoke County were considered. to be eligible to participate. Six attempts were made to contact a potential respondent before elimination of that phone number. A maximum of two call-backs were attempted on any given day,-with at least a one- hour interval separating the calls. A CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system was utilized to minimize error in data entry. The interviewers were trained in sampling procedures and CATI system operation prior to the interview process. We attempted to contact a total of 1,848 households. As stated above, 521 (28%) interviews were completed, 169 (9%) phone numbers were businesses or fax machines, 199 (11%) were non-working numbers; 382 (21%) households were not located in Roanoke County (a function of telephone exchanges overlapping political boundaries), 187 (10%) people refused to participate, 123 (7%) numbers were screened after reaching the six-callback limit, and 267 (14%) phone numbers had been attempted less than six times when the interviewing was completed. Organization of This Report This report is organized in four sections: this summary of the results and three appendices comprised of the questionnaire, frequencies for all variables and crosstabulated data for each demographic variable. ~-I Overall Frequencies Sample Characteristics We divided respondents into six distinct age categories to match data collected by the U.S. Census. Comparisons can be seen in Figure 1. Older residents were slightly oversampled, and younger residents were slightly undersampled. The distribution is fairly normal for survey sampling, as is the gender breakdown (60% female). Age Comparisons a a Age ^ Sample ®Census Figure 1. Comparison of Sample and Census Age Categories A large majority of respondents {81%) were registered to vote in the County, and 86 percent owned their residence. The plurality of those who participated in the survey (42%) had lived in the County for 20 years or longer. Only 24 percent had lived in the County for five years or less. Half of the households contacted were in the 24018 zip code. The next most common zip code was 24153 with 14 percent of the respondents. Just over one-fourth (26%) of the respondents said that someone in their household currently attends a Roanoke County public school. Half of those had a student in elementary school, 35 percent had a student in middle school and 38 percent had a student in high school. Of those households who did not have acurrently-enrolled student, 59 percent had at least one household member who had attended a County school in the past. 2 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ ~_i Use of Facilities and Services The usage of County facilities and services is summarized in Table 1. Residents were most likely to have visited a library (71%) or a park (58%), followed by visiting the County Administration Center (55%). Fewer than half had called for bulk or brush trash pick-up (48%), visited a county school (47%), attended a recreation program (29%) or visited a recreation center (24%). Not surprisingly, few citizens had called for fire or rescue emergency assistance (12%), called the police with an emergency (11%) or had requested specialized services for a child or adolescent (7%). Table 1. Frequency of Service Use 1. Visited Coun libr 71.2 28.8 2. Visited Coun Park 58.4 41.7 3. Called or visited Coun administration center 55.2 44.9 4. Called for bulk/brush ick-u 47.5 52.5 5. Visited a Coun school 47.2 52.8 6. Attended a recreation ro am 28.5 71.5 7. Visited a recreation center 24.6 75.4 8. Fire and rescue emer enc assistance .11.8 88.2 9. Police -emer enc assistance 11.3 88.8 10. Re uested s ecialized services for chiid/adolescent 6.8 93.2 Importance of Services and Grading of Performance The responses in this section are summarized in Table 2. Not all respondents graded each service; some felt they were unable to answer these questions because they had not utilized the service. There are really no surprises here. A majority of residents said that each listed service was important with the exception of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, which was rated as important by 48 percent. The only other services rated as important by less than 70 percent of the respondents were social services (57%), building inspections and permits (58%), planning and zoning (60%), recreation facilities and programs (61 %), the Commissioner of the Revenue (61%), bulk/brush trash pick-up (65%), and the County Treasurer and tax collection (66%). Similarly, residents are generally satisfied with the performance of these services. A majority graded each service with at Least a "B." The smallest percentage of "A"s and "B"s were received by road maintenance (58%), planning and zoning (61%), flood controUstorm drainage (62%), personal property assessment (62%), and street lights (68%). 3 ~- CU '~ N v v b . ,..~ O U O ~G, N .r Rt H ~~'~f r' e, IFi ' ~ J V •.:. j X11 ~ ~ ~ MMf' W TT~~~ V MM~ W MM W ~ Q MM W ~~..//~~ W ~M~r/1 ~ W 'MM' Y~ /M~~ W MM~ W ~M.~/~ W //y~r~~~ FBI ~ /M~~/~ W ~M./~ W MM~" W (~~ U ~~\ U M w ~ .'.~y'~ W M~ CC1 /~~" CG ~r ~: /. a''9 6~ .~~ [~ l~ eF ~O ~ N [~ N N n V'~ e*1 0o cr ~t ~+ M O M ~O ~O O N M v> ~t r~i i M M M N M M M M M N M M N M M M M M M N N M M M M M b tt ~~ cr ~O ~O O ~t N O\ .--~ O~ ~O l~ et v~ 00 =t er N O\ M O\ N + M M to ' O\ i .~ 1 ,~ •~' • ^-+ •-~ ~t M d' ~G U1 00 ~O t~ l~ I~ 00 00 ""' ... N .-i M ~ r r+ O .-. CV .-. d .-~ r .-. v ... ?'~' M r1' N M M N l~ ~ O O ~t oo cf V7 0o N t~ [~ .-~ oo N '; .xi . r+ N cV ~O ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo D\ O N ~--i N M N ~Ci N N N ~G N et N O~ N •-+ M C M ~' M Oi M .-~ C ~ .+, . # i V1 M O O M (`~ [~ \p [~ O O Ol ~ ~-+ ~ N O C~ N N ~O 0 0 'cf N l~ 00 O\ [~ O\ l~ O\ M Ol 00 00 l~ 00 M 00 M CO 00 [~ 00 l~ ~ l~ V' l~ M n N ~ .-+ ~ OO ~ V1 ~ fit' ~ CV ~ ~ Q\ V'1 00 t/7 l~ ~ •-•~ ~ 00 d' M ~?' q ~ ~ ~ y O ~ ~ ai • O ~ ~ o O ~ ~ s~ ~~y ^yap~yi O ~ ~ ~ VOA :J+ ..~; 1~' > ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ p '~ ~ ~ k f? ~ ~ v N '~ O ~ ~ a~ > yy ~ ~ Ny U f~~y ' VJ ~ • • ~ ~ O 7ti .~ ~ > ~ o va ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ y C~ " y 3 ,.~ O :' ~ y j y -~ .L; V •U `~ O ~ V ~ "" U 'v ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ •y ~ a`~i o ~ c, O O O ~ O y ~ i ~ 3 i0„ ~ ;= ..O c~ ~ ~ '~ .~ O y O .~ O ~" O ~ ~ O O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~'~' p ~ 1' O w + w a O u; c7 ~ 3 S O > .4 " ~ c~ CJ tr ; O v ..., m n O t~ . .. ? v , a a v~ v~ v~ c a v~ aa N a a t ~ N M !h try ~O t~ 00 a; ~ ~ .N.., 'M., ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ O N .-: N fV N M N '7' N vi N ~C N ~-- Although we were unable to probe for reasons for these "low ratings," the reasons seem to be somewhat self-evident. Many of the services in this category are often seen as problems by any resident in any municipality (i.e., taxes, building permits), and relatively few citizens utilize the services provided by the Extension Service or Social Services. A special note should be made of the high marks received by the police for both crime prevention (87% "A"s and "B"s) and traffic enforcement (83%). They may not be shocking, given that 97 percent of the residents always or usually feel safe in their home and neighborhood and the demographic characteristics of Roanoke County, but figures this high certainly are not routine in all police departments. A large majority of respondents (82%) felt that the level of services provided by Roanoke County was about right. Only 10 percent felt the level was too low, and seven percent said it was too high. Only four percent said they were dissatisfied with the services provided by the County. A majority also said that County employees are always (53%) or usually (37%) courteous. Only seven percent said the employees are only courteous sometimes, and one (disgruntled!?) respondent said they are never courteous. Sources of Information Residents employ a variety of sources to search for news about Roanoke County. The most commonly used sources were The Roanoke Times (88%), local television news (86%), local radio news (70%), and the County Parks and Recreation Program Guide (55%). Fewer than half had utilized The Salem Times-Register (13%) or The Vinton Messenger (7%) as sources of County news in the previous year. Fully 84 percent of the respondents have cable television in their homes, and 64 percent of those responding had watched Channel 3. Of those who had watched Channel 3, 61 percent reported watching at least part of a County Supervisors' meeting (32% of all respondents), and 38 percent said they had seen "Roanoke County Today" (20% of all respondents). Important Issues Facing Roanoke County A strong plurality of respondents (44%) said that local schools would be the most important issue facing Roanoke County in the next five years.. The only other response mentioned by more than 10 percent of the citizens was taxes (13%). These and other responses are summarized in Table 3. 5 ~_ i Table 3. Most Important Issue Facing Roanoke County in Next Five Years 1. Schools 43.6 2. Taxation 12.5 3. Don't know 10.3 4. Consolidation /annexation 6.5 5. Traffic /new roads 5.1 6. Po elation owth 4.6 7. Crime / dru s 4.4 8. Other 4.4 9. Economic develo ment / 'obs 4.0 10. Water /sewer 2.4 11. Zonin 2.4 Registered voters (48%) were much more likely than those not registered (26%) to mention schools as the most important upcoming issue. Location within the county .also affected this variable. Those living in the 24018 zip code (55%), not surprisingly, were most concerned with schools. Those in the 24179 (18%) and 24153 (15%) zip codes were the most likely to see consolidation or annexation as emerging issues. 6 ~- i Roanoke County 1996 Citizen Survey Hello, my name is and I'm calling on behalf of Roanoke County. We are doing research on citizen attitudes, and your phone number was randomly selected. Your opinion is important to the County, so I'd like just a few minutes of your time to answer some questions. First, is your residence located in Roanoke County? [if no, NOT ELIGIBLE] [if yes, continue] Are you or anyone in your household employed by Roanoke County? [if no, NOT ELIGIBLE] [if yes, continue) May I speak to the person in your household who is 18 years old or older and most recently celebrated a birthday? In the past 12 months, about how many times have you done each of the following things? Never Once or twice More than twice Called the police for emergency assistance Called fire or rescue for emergency assistance Visited a county park Attended a Recreation Program Visited a Recreation Center Called or visited the County Administration Center Visited a County library Called for bulk/brush pick-up Visited a County school Requested specialized services for achild/adolescent 2. Are County employees who you have encountered courteous and polite? Always Usually Sometimes Never Don't know/Refused Survey 1 ~_ i 3. For each of the following services, please tell me how important they are to you using a 5-point scale in which 1 means not important at all and 5 means very important. 4. For each of the services that you view as important, I'm going to ask you to grade how well the County provides that service using a grading scale of A, B, C, D and F. Police--Crime Protection Police--Traffic Enforcement Fire Protection Emergency Medical Services Garbage Pick-up BrushBulk Trash Pick-up The Library System Park Facilities Recreational Facilities and Programs Public Schools Planning and Zoning Services Water and Sewer Services Building Inspections and Permits Social Services " Voter Registration Public Health Services Virginia Cooperative Extension Services/4H Road Maintenance Storm Water Drainage/Flood Control Street Lights Sheriff/Court Services Treasurer/Tax Collection Commissioner of the Revenue/Personal Property Assessment Clerk of the Circuit Court Commonwealth's Attorney Services for Special Needs Children/Adolescents Are County em~Myees you have encountered courteous and polite? ways 't Survey 2 ~-i 6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the services provided by Roanoke County? Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 7. Do you feel safe in you home and immediate neighborhood? Always Usually Sometimes Never 8. Now, I am going to list several sources of information, for each please indicate if you have used it in the last year to receive information about County government. Yes No Local television news Local radio news Tlie Roanoke Times The Vinton Messenger The Salem Times-Register County Parks and Recreation Program Guide Do you have cable TV in your home? (if yes) Cable Channel 3, the government access channel Part or all of a County supervisors meeting on Channel 3 The program "Roanoke County Today" on Channel 3 Survey 3 -' 9. What do you think will be the most important issue facing Roanoke County in the next five years? [categories were not read] Schools _ Population growth Crime/drugs Economic development/jobs TrafficJnew roads Taxation - Water/sewer Consolidation/annexation Zoning Other Don't know 10. What is the one aspect of the Roanoke County Government that needs improving the most? 11. What is the one thing that 12oanoke County Government does the best? 12. Does anyone in your household currently attend a Roanoke County public school? (ifyes) How many attend... Elementary school Middle or junior high school High school (if no) Has anyone in your household ever attended a Roanoke County public school? 13. How long have you lived in Roanoke County? Less than one year 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years 12. Do you own or rent your current residence? Survey 4 ~' 1 13. In which of the following age categories do you fall? 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older 14. What is your zip code? 24012 24014 24015 24017 24018 24019 24020 24070 24153 24179 Other 15. Are you registered to vote in Roanoke County? 16. Gender (observed) Survey 5 ~-I Open-Ended Responses Other Issues: Drainage and flood control (3) Youth programs (2) Bond referendum (2) Assessments (2) All employees need to be judged equal Better control of development, need more services Education, health (especially birth to adolescence) Getting along with other counties/cities in valley Have enough money to pay for needed programs Keeping quality of life as primary concern versus industrial development Landfill problems Need more, safe low income housing Open-mindedness Prices of utilities Recycling Snow removal Social services Social services far abused/neglected children Open-Ended 1 ~^ What is the one aspect of Roanoke County government that needs improving the most? Schools (84) Taxes and tax assessments (59) _ Don't know or unsure (42) Consolidation or cooperation with other local governments (22) Roads (15) Water and sewer (17) Board of Supervisors (12) Communication (8) Zoning (8) Crime (7) New industry (7) Nothing (7) Spending habits (7) Police (6) Traffic (6) Planning (5) . Coordination between Board of Supervisors and School Board (4) Snow removal (4) Rescue Squad (2) School Board (2) Social services (2) Trash collection (2) Ability to give better housing to lower class Ability to make decision on their own Allocation of resources efficiently Animal control is a useless service/no value Be more honest Be supportive of human services Better job explaining taxation and expenditures Brookfield Drive SW never been paved in 30 years Brush and bulk pickup Building inspections Building inspections Building permits Children's programs for after school Children's services Cost of living Country personnel attitudes Courts Don't charge $1.25 in RADAR fare, charge less Don't fuss so much and look into it Don't take complaints seriously Drop auto tax Open-Ended 2 ~-i Elected officials need to be better informed Elections Elmer Hodge do not agree with Ensuring that neighborhoods don't deteriorate Follow up on sewer/flooding complaints General public Government is too big Handling of juvenile crime, murder cases, etc. Have more for youth and the elderly Health needs for seniors Heip the poor Higher teacher pay Improve police department's customer service skill Improved Christian attitudes Increase fire department due to population growth. Information for new comers on county taxes, etc. Jails Library- uncoordinated Listen to needs of people Looking after senior citizens--money for hospitalization More openness to change " More recreation for children More responsibility to young people More services to homeless Need bus service in county for elderly Need for health care Need more parks Need more police protection in east roanoke county Need school bond for Glenvar junior high new wing Need to be professional Need to pave roads not just put tar and gravel Need to start leaf collection again Ninth graders need to be in high school for college Once voters have voted, act on the vote don't revolt Open-minded toward the youth as the future Parks and recreation Pick up leaves and branches Police response time too slow-no communication Politicians that listen to screamers not voters Public works, drainage Recreation programs Response time by police and others and fairness Road maintenance on Bent Mountain Road on 220 Self-reliance Open-Ended 3 ~- i Someone who cares Southwest and northwest county Special education services/mainstreaming Speedup their services _ Spring Hollow Superintendent of schools Supervisor listen to all districts Teachers need better attitudes Things for teens to do. Great place for small kid Too much building new construction-cutting all the trees Transportation Water and sewer in Catawba Widening of 460 west Work to eliminate duplicate services with Salem Open-Ended 4 ~-I What is the one thing that Roanoke County does best? Police protection and safety (87) Education/schools (53) Fire protection {34) Don't know (29) Trash collection (27) Collect taxes (22) Parks and recreation (21) Road maintenance (20) Emergency Medical Services {i9) Everything done well (16) Provide clean environment (10) Raise taxes (9) Communication with residents (8) Spend money (8) Provide services (6) Responsive to citizens (6) Maintain standard of living (5) Nothing (5) Promote the county (5) ' Utilities (5) Seeks input from citizens (4) Libraries (3) Snow removal (2) About half All equal Court services Day to day general operations run smoothly Economic development Family orientation Gives a good impression, beautiful area, safe Greenways -grass and trees along roads Have natural beauty, just don't ruin it Leaves people alone Like the peace and quiet and like it to continue Like to blow own horn Maintain good facilities Make people want to leave Managing well Marketing No specifics Pay some of the employees entirely too much Positive outlook toward itself Programs for the visually impaired Open-Ended 5 ~i Protect Blue Ridge Parkway, develop explore park Provide arts Provide for the citizens Runs smoothly Several things Small children services Stays invisible -that's good Supervisors do good job Support for communities They try hard with what they have Vote for school board officials Waste our tax dollars Won the top city award in the country Wonderful county Working to keep everything even among residents Open-Ended 6 ' ,.. ~W. ,. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996 RESOLUTION 081396-1 IN SUPPORT OF THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION'S ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1996 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT. WHEREAS, Chapter 26.3 of the Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (the Regional Competitiveness Act of 1996) calls for the creation of regional partnerships; and WHEREAS, the regional partnerships created by the Regional Competitiveness Act are to be based on planning district boundaries; and WHEREAS, each regional partnership is to develop a regional strategic economic development plan that identifies the critical issues of economic competitiveness for its region; and WHEREAS, each regional partnership shall issue an annual report describing the region's progress with respect to median family income and job creation and its progress in addressing the critical issues of economic competitiveness identified in the regional strategic economic development plan; and WHEREAS, each regional partnership shall identify existing and proposed joint activities between and among the governments of the region; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission is an association of the Cities of Clifton Forge, Covington, Roanoke and Salem; the Counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke; and the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has encouraged local governments to work together for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District has carried out a variety of programs to improve the economic competitiveness of the region including the preparation of overall economic development plans; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission monitors and reports on major trends and conditions within the region and maintains a familiarity with existing and proposed joint activities within the region; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has expressed a willingness to coordinate the creation of a regional partnership in the District, and has allocated staff time for coordination and administration; and WHEREAS, the regional partnerships created by the Regional Competitiveness Act are to be approved by the local governing bodies of the region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors expresses its support of the Fifth Planning District Commission in establishing a regional steering committee to define the process of developing a regional partnership for the District and to identify and address key areas of interest to the various localities. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the resolution, amended by Supervisor Nickens to appoint Supervisor Lee Eddy and County Administrator Elmer Hodge to the Steering Committee, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• ~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board cc: File Lee Osborne, Chairman, Fifth Planning District Commission Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission • s ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER EETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Fifth Planning District Commission to establish a Regional Steering Committee to examine provisions of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act and to appoint members to the Steering Committee. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACRGROUND: In 1995, Roanoke County was one of a number of localities that participated in the Urban Partnership. The Urban Partnership was formed by the state Chamber of Commerce and these localities in an effort to promote efficiency in local government through regional cooperative efforts. Monetary incentives based on a point system were proposed for localities that work together on a regional basis to deliver services. After a year long study, the proposal was forwarded to the General Assembly for authorization and funding. The General Assembly approved the proposal and established a fund of $3 million to be used throughout the state. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: To be eligible for consideration of these funds, localities are required to develop regional strategies and economic development plans, and identify potential cooperative efforts. Any two or more adjoining localities (one must be a city) may establish a partnership. Cooperative projects for schools, public safety, public transportation, solid waste disposal, etc. could be evaluated by the local partnership; and if they meet the criteria, forwarded to the state for funding. The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) is the agency that determines how partnerships become qualified. The Fifth Planning District Commission has offered to be the local coordinating agency for this effort. Attached is a request from Fifth PDC Chairman Lee Osborne to Board Chairman Bob Johnson asking for support of this request. They are requesting that the Board of Supervisors adopt the L.--_ ~. attached resolution stating that Roanoke County supports the establishment by the Fifth PDC of a steering committee to examine the process of developing a regional partnership. The Fifth PDC is also requesting the appointment of an elected official and the chief administrative official to serve on the steering committee. Roanoke County, in cooperation with other local governments in the Valley, has formed a number of significant cooperative programs that would have qualified had this plan been in effect in the past. There are also a number of cooperative ventures being studied at this time. One is regional collection of solid waste. The sooner we get this regional agency in place the more likely we will be able to qualify for a portion of the state funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached resolution requested by the Fifth Planning District Commission be adopted. It is further recommended that the Board of Supervisors appoint an elected official to serve on the steering committee. These appointments need to be made by August 31, 1996. Respectfully submitted, ,'~ ~~~~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Harrison Referred ( ) Johnson To ( ) Minnix Nickens DISTq~~~~ L ~ ,~ w~~G~~ ~~ L A'~ ~ ~ . `. ~~~ FIFT!-~ F'~.,~~:'~~1~!~ ~ISTRI~T ~~MM1SSlON ~, '._ .~ ~ ; i ~ Lucl: Aacnl~~, S~,V i ~ l '~', _,. _ ~ Post Ottir r' fi~>~ ?_ih`_? ~ ~~`^ Y T -_~~ 15-t~~ ,;~} 3_ i~~ I - ~9 i,ix ! ,-+n~ ;-t ~- -t 1 (~ August 1, 1996 Mr. Bob Johnson, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 6628 Northway Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Johnson: On June 14, I wrote to you stating the PDC's interest in establishing a regional partnership for this Planning District under the auspices of the Regional Competitiveness Act adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1996 (a copy of this letter is enclosed). After some discussion at the Planning District Commission, it was felt that our next step in developing the partnership is to establish a regional steering committee composed of one commission member from each local government in the District and the chief administrative official from each government. The purpose of the steering committee is to recommend an organizational structure for the proposed regional partnership, and to identify and address key issues of interest to various localities. If this Planning District moves quickly to organize its partnership, it is likely that we can influence the criteria adopted by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) governing how partnerships become qualified. The PDC is asking for your support of this effort in two ways. First, to show your community's support for this process, we are asking that your Board adopt the enclosed resolution. The resolution states that your community supports the establishment of a steering committee to examine the process of developing a regional partnership. (The adoption of the enclosed resolution at this time does not commit your community to participation in the partnership once it is formed.) Second, we are asking that you appoint one elected official that iepreseritS your c~riLiii.ir~ity on the Plan:.ing District Commission and your chief administrative official (or a designee) to serve on the steering committee. The appointment of your community's representatives by August 31, 1996 would help keep this process on track. Some local officials have expressed concern about the small amount of initial funding in the Competitiveness Act (about $3 million). It is hoped that these funds will be significantly increased by the General Assembly in the future. Once a regional partnership becomes qualified to receive incentive funds, the local governments participating in the partnership are eligible to receive funding for five years. Those regional partnerships that qualify for funds in fiscal year 1997-98 will be eligible for funding through fiscal year 2001-02. Serving Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Cli~`tc~ Forge, Ccving±on, Craig County, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salern, and the Town of Vinton ~-) Page -2- The steering committee will hold its first meeting in early September 1996. At that meeting, we intend to have a representative from VDHCD to answer questions about the Regional Competitiveness Act. To hasten the formation of the proposed regional partnership, the steering committee will prepare a recommendation on the structure of the partnership by November 1996. If local governments find the recommendation acceptable, the partnership would be formed early in 1997. The PDC has allocated staff time to help in coordinating the formation of the partnership and assist the proposed partnership in the preparation of documents required for participation in the Regional Competitiveness Act. Ttie PDC encourages your community to adopt the resolution of support and to appoint a representative to serve on the regional steering committee. We need to have all member governments participate on the steering committee. Please feel free to call me (982-0234) or Wayne Strickland (343-4417) if you have any questions. Sincerely, J. Lee E. Osborne Chairman Enclosures cc: vElmer C. Hodge, Jr., Roanoke County Administrator ~~\N DIS7R/CT ~ ..w 1 ~~~%~ ~ ~~~-~ ,„_~~~_ FIFTH P~.Ai~~IIN~ C~ISTRiCT COMMISSION I ~- ._ ~ ~~~ 313 Luck Avenue, SW `~-'~ ~ Post Office f3ox 2569 ~'°~, ~ "~-~- `~ Roanoke, Virginia 24010 °°'"'"`'~°, i3-+0) ;43-441' ~ tax f540) 343-4-116 June 14, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Chief Elected Official, Fifth Planning District FROM: J. Lee E. Osborne, Chairman SUBJ: Formation of a Regional Partnership Under the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act The Fifth Planning District Commission is interested in establishing a regional partnership, as authorized in the Code of Virginia Section 15.1-1227.1 - 15.1-1227.5. (This legislation is known as the Regional Competitiveness Act.) The purpose of the Act is to encourage counties, cities and towns to work together for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the Commonwealth. The Act establishes state incentive funding for those regions that join together to plan for regional economic development and propose to carry out services jointly. The Code defines a "region" as a Planning District; however, by agreement of the localities of the Planning District, localities which are not part of the District may be added to the region if such a locality's governing body, by vote, agrees to be part of the region. A fewer number of localities which compose a Planning District may form their own region if: (1) the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) approves this regional configuration; and (2) the region contains a city (unless a city chooses not to participate). The Fifth Planning District Commission proposes to establish a regional partnership which would encompass the entire Planning District: the Counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke; the Cities of Clifton Forge, Covington, Roanoke and Salem; and the Town of Vinton. The General Assembly appropriated $3 million for fiscal year 1998, plus up to $5 million from the Governor's Economic Opportunity Fund, to be used to further the goals of the Regional Competitiveness Act. In order to be eligible for funding, four criteria must be met: (1) there must be an active regional partnership in place, (2) there must exist a regional strategic economic development plan, (3) annual reports concerning economic progress toward achieving the plan must be provided, and (4) the joint delivery, totaling 20 points on a weighted scale, must be achieved to be eligible for funding. Serving Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Clifton Forge, Covington, Craig County, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, ~Ium, and the Town of Vinton ~-~ f At a very minimum, the regional strategic economic development plan must include an economic analysis of family income, job creation, income disparity, and provide a list of critical issues involving economic competitiveness of the region. The Fifth Planning District Commission has already allocated staff resources in its FY 1997 Work Program and budget to: (1) coordinate the meetings of the regional partnership; (2) collect and analyze appropriate economic data to accommodate the requirements of the Regional Competitiveness Act; (3) prepare the regional strategic economic development plan; and (4) submit the plan and appropriate materials to DHCD for approval. The strategic economic development plan must be in place by July 1, 1997 in order for the regional partnership to be considered eligible for funding in FY 1998. Another aspect of eligibility for the incentive funds involves receiving 20 points on a weighted scale for existing and planned multi jurisdictional cooperative activities. The Planning District Commission staff is in a good position to analyze such activities, and, in fact, has ;~Jready rrep~--ed s~:ch a report for state agencies in she Yast. As can be, seen from the enclosed copy of the Regional Competitiveness Act (see the last page), existing and/or future functional activities involving economic development, regional revenue sharing, and education receive higher weighted points on the scale. Additionally, high points are also assigned for cooperative efforts in the area of human services, land use, and housing. Local governments in the Roanoke Valley and Alleghany Highlands already have a number of cooperative agreements in place which would provide enough points to be immediately eligible for the incentive program. Funds provided through the incentive program are based upon the percentage share that the population of the participating governments in the region represent, figured as a percentage of the total population of all regions that qualify for funding under the program. Any incentive funds which maybe provided the region will be distributed based on an acceptable formula established by the partnership. Once a region becomes eligible for funding, funding is guaranteed for five consecutive years based on the annual appropriation from the General Assembly. The Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to modify the method of funding. As the PDC pursues the development of a regional partnership under the Regional Competitiveness Act, we would like to know more about your concerns and interests in the formulation of the partnership. Over the next month, the staff of the Fifth Planning District Commission will. be contacting local government officials to determine a_n appropriate date to meet to discuss the formation of a regional partnership and to answer questions about the Regional Competitiveness Act. Thank you for your assistance in this cooperative effort. We look forward to working with member governments, the business community, and citizens as we pursue the formation of a regional partnership for the Fifth Planning District. Enclosure ec: Board of Supervisors and/or City/Town Council Members County Administrators and/or City/Town Managers 24 ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION'S ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1996 REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT. WHEREAS, Chapter 26.3 of the Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (the Regional Competitiveness Act of 1996) calls for the creation of regional partnerships; and WHEREAS, the regional partnerships created by the Regional Competitiveness Act are to be based on planning district boundaries; and WHEREAS, each regional partnership is to develop a regional strategic economic development plan that identifies the critical issues of economic competitiveness for its region; and WHEREAS, each regional partnership shall issue an annual report describing the region's progress with respect to median family income and job creation and its progress in addressing the critical issues of economic competitiveness identified in the regional strategic economic development plan; and WHEREAS, each regional partnership shall identify existing and proposed joint activities between and among the governments of the region; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission is an association of the Cities of Clifton Forge, Covington, Roanoke and Salem; the Counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke; and the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has encouraged ~- ~ local governments to work together for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District has carried out a variety of programs to improve the economic competitiveness of the region including the preparation of overall economic development plans; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission monitors and reports on major trends and conditions within the region and maintains a familiarity with existing and proposed joint activities within the region; and WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has expressed a willingness to coordinate the creation of a regional partnership in the District, and has allocated staff time for coordination and administration; and WHEREAS, the regional partnerships created by the Regional Competitiveness Act are to be approved by the local governing bodies of the region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors expresses its support of the Fifth Planning District Commission in establishing a regional steering committee to define the process of developing a regional partnership for the District and to identify and address key areas of interest to the various localities. 081396-2 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~~ °1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Dixon Contracting, Inc. appeal of denial of request to withdraw bid for Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main/Glenvar East Sanitary Sewer Project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This issue is larger than it may appear at first reading. We value the business relationships with contractors who do work for us and would never knowingly cause any of them harm. I have reviewed this in great detail with the staff to be sure that our bid documents were complete and would not cause any misunderstanding on the part of Dixon Contracting. Based on my review, I believe that Dixon, during the bid opening, realized that he had substantially underbid his nearest competitor. From a financial position, Dixon prefers to lose the $16,130 bid bond penalty rather than the difference between his bid and the next lowest bid. ff I were convinced a mistake had been made, I would suggest that we adjust for the mistake. I do not believe that to be the case. To simply allow Dixon to withdraw opens the expectation for every bidder to be allowed to do the same if they find they make less money than expected. Recommend denial of Dixon Contracting's request to withdraw. BACKGROUND: On July 17, 1996, Roanoke County opened bids for sewer line construction of the Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project. This sewer line project involves s-10 property owners as well as the County Utility Department. Dixon Contracting, Inc. of Fincastle, Virginia, a responsible bidder, submitted the apparent low responsive bid for this project (Bid No. CP95-71) in the amount of $326,202.00. This bid was lower than the next lowest bid submitted by Marshall Construction of Danville, Virginia by $107,852.25. On July 18, 1996, Dixon Contracting, Inc. delivered a letter to Procurement Services claiming a mistake in their bid for this project. Their original work papers were submitted with this letter. section 11-54 of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 17-59 of the Roanoke County Code permit withdrawal of a bid only for a clerical error which must be either an unintentional arithmetic error or an unintentional omission of a quantity of work, labor or material. The law requires that such error or omission "be clearly shown by objective evidence drawn from inspection of original work papers, ." "' Respectfully submitted, I ~Tosep B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney -------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Motion by: Supervisor Harrison No Yes Abs Denied (X) to deny a.~peal to withdraw Eddy _ ~ _ Received ( ) bid Harrison _ ~ _ Referred ( ) Johnson _, ~ _ To ( ) Minnix _. ~ _ Nickens _ ~Y _ CC: File Elaine Carver, Procurement Joe Obenshain, County Attorney Gary Robertson, Utility Department ~"'r^ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In its letter of July 18, 1996, Dixon Contracting, Inc. claims omission of seven items from its bid calculations. Mr. Wayne Dixon met with County staff representatives on July 18th and 30th to review his firm's work papers and to analyze the basis for his claim of mistake in preparing this bid. It is the conclusion of County staff that the claim by this bidder does not comply with the standards for withdrawal of a bid for several reasons. First, the original work papers do not substantiate that this was merely a clerical error as opposed to a mistake in judgment in evaluating and including necessary components in the preparation of the bid. Second, the items claimed to have been omitted do not "clearly" appear not to be included in the itemized segments of the bidder's work sheets. Some of these claimed omitted items, such as paving and rock excavation costs, are itemized on the formal bid sheet itself. Finally, even accepting Dixon's claim of unintentional omission of the seven items listed only accounts for approximately $22,000 or about one-fifth of the total discrepancy between their bid and the next low bidder. County staff involved in this evaluation unanimously feels that the bidder has not carried his burden of establishing that the mistake in his bid was a clerical error based upon an unintentional omission of work, labor or materials. Therefore, permitting a bidder to withdraw his bid under these circumstances would significantly impair the County's ability to require strict compliance with competitive bidding procedures in the future. FISCAL IMPACT: Granting permission to Dixon Contracting, Inc. to withdraw its bid due to clerical error would deprive the County of the bid bond penalty amount of $16,130.10 (5% of $326,202.00). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ALTERNATIVES: 1. Permit Dixon Contracting, Inc. to withdraw its bid on Project No. CP95-71 on the basis of a clerical error due to an unintentional omission of a quantity of work, labor or material. 2. Deny the request of Dixon Contracting, Inc. to withdraw its bid on Project No. CP95-71 and authorize County staff to proceed with action to forfeit Dixon's bid bond in the amount of 5 percent of the bid amount in the event that this bidder refuses to execute the Contract or furnish the required bond within ten (l0) days. Staff recommends Alternative # 2. Phone: (703) 473-3170 Fax: (7033 473-2340 DIXON CONTRACTING, INC. General Colrtractor • Specralrzrng iu ulilrty and bea:y corrsh•uctron P. O. BOX 108 . FINCASTLE, VA. 24090 August 6, 1996 Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Re: Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No. CP 95-71 Dear Ms. Allen: ____ ~~ '~~°i ' 7 !GCS ~, ~" k Ea ~~ ~' We wish to appeal the attached decision by the Roanoke County Department of Procurement Services. Please allow some time for this matter on the agenda for your August 13, 1996, meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, ayne A. lx , P.E. resident WAD/src Enclosure cc: Don Karnes, Roanoke County Robert C. Fronk, P.E., Roanoke County AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 2 ~ Z a ~L.~.. vim,' 1 3 ~Y~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ PROCUREMENT SERVICES ELAINE CARVER KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB DIRECTOR BUYER DONALD R. KARNES EVE F. WIRT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR July 31, 1996 BUYER Mr. Wayne A. Dixon, P.E. Dixon Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 108 Fincastle, VA 24090 REF: Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No. CP95-71 Dear Mr. Dixon: The Roanoke County Utility Department received bids on July 17, 1996, for the subject sanitary sewer project. Dixon Contracting, Inc. submitted the apparent low bid in the amount of $326,202.00, which was $107,852.25 less than the next lowest bid submitted by Marshall Construction of Danville, VA. Roanoke County has received a letter dated July 18, 1996, from Dixon Contracting, Inc. requesting that its bid be withdrawn under the applicable provisions of Code of Virginia, § 11-54 and Roanoke County Code §17-59. Enclosed with the letter were original work papers utilized in preparation of the Dixon Contracting, Inc. bid. Your letter claims a mistake in the bid due to omissions in the bid calculations. Specific omissions cited include the following: 1. Special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project. 2. Special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required. 3. Additional labor and mark-up associated with Items 1 and 2 above. 4.. Additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project. 5. Survey construction stake-out. 6. Paving subcontractor cost. 7. Rock excavation material costs. Roanoke County staff representatives from Procurement Services, Utility Department and County Attorney's office met with you on July 18th, and the Utility Department staff again on July 30th to review your work papers and to discuss your bid preparation methodology relative to your mistake in the bidding claim. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2061 FAX: (540) 772-2074 ® Recycled Paper County staff appreciates your candor and openness during our discussions. However, it is felt that insufficient justification exists to allow withdrawal of your bid. Consequently, it is the intention of Roanoke County to award the contract for bid No. CP95-71 to Dixon Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $326,202.00. Upon receipt of the written "Notice of Award" from the Roanoke County Procurement Office, it is required that the contract be executed and the required bonds be furnished to the County of Roanoke within ten days. As stipulated in the "Instructions to Bidders", should you, as the successful bidder, fail or refuse to execute the Contract or furnish the required bonds within the stipulated time (ten days), the Bid Security shall be forfeited to the County of Roanoke as liquidated damages. Should you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact me at 772-2063. Sincerely, ~~ 7'(,,~i8- Don Karnes Assistant Director of Procurement Services drk cc: E.Carver, Procurement B. Fronk, Utility B. Benninger, Utility P. Mahoney, County Attorney _,/~ • ~ ROANOKE COUNTY BID FORM ~-~ - PROJECT: Fort Lewis Sub-Main, West Main Street Sub-Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No. CP95-71 In Compliance with your Invitation to Bid dated June 23, 1996, inviting bids to be received until July 17, 1996, the undersigned _ hereby proposes to famish the plant, labor, materials, and equipment and perform all work Cor the above described project in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, including all addenda thereto, and the Drawings, in consideration oC the prices set forth in the Schedule of Prices, and agrees, upon receipt of written notice oC an award of the Contract that he will execute the Contract in the form stipulated, in accordance with this bid as accepted, and will furnish to the OWNER a performance bond and a payment - bond with good and sufficient surety or sureties, as required by the Contract Documents, at the time the Contract is executed. SCHEDULE OF PRICES ITEM NO. 1TEM DESCRIPTION _ APPROXIMATE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1. 12-Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line* 3,530 L.F. 30.00 105 , 900.00 2. 10-Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line* 10 L.F. 28.00 280.00 3. 8-Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line* 1,263 L.F. 26.00 32 838.00 4. 8-Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line Replacement* 2,257 L.F. 32.00 72 224.00 S. 7.25-Inch HDPE Sewer Slipline* 346 L.F. 30.00 10 380.00 6. 6-Inch PVC Service Lateral with Cleanout * 14 EA. 650.00 9 100.00 7. 24-Inch Diameter Sampling Structure 4 EA. 700.00 2 800.00 8. 4-Foot Diameter Manhole * 266.5 V.F. 150.00 39 975.00 9. Watertight Manhole Frame & Cover 29 EA. 290.00 8,410.00 10. Type 2 Manhole Vent 8 EA. 450.00 3 , 600.00 I1. 24-Inch Steel Casing -Bore & Jack 71 L.F. 125.00 8 875.00 12. 16-Inch Steel Casing -Bore & Jack 80 L.F. 105.00 8 400.00 13. Stream Crossings 1 EA. 1 500.00 1 500.00 14. Pavement Replacement 680 S.Y. 19.00 12 , 920.00 15. Rock Excavation 200 C.Y. 16. Select Backfill Material 500 C.Y. * Unit prices for sanitary sewer line and manhole installation shall include required costs for testing and temporary by-pass pumping between manholes. BID FORM BF - 1 BASE BID PRICE S 326,202.00 BASE BID IN WRITTEN FORM: THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWO AND No/100------------------------------------------------------DOLLARS ' 1. The Bidder agrees that all unit prices include installation complete. ~••-, ~ ~C 2. The Bidder further agrees that if awarded the Contract, Bidder will commence the work within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of written Notice to Proceed, and that Bidder will complete the work within - a total contract completion time of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days. Bidder agrees that contract time shall commence on the date of receipt of the Notice to Proceed stipulated in the Contract r Documents. 3. The Bidder fully understands that if this bid is accepted, the failure or refusal to execute the Contract with and furnish to the County of Roanoke the required Bonds, within ten (10) consecutive calendar days from the receipt of written notice from the Office of the Department of Procurement Services, the Bid Security shall be forfeited to the County of Roanoke as liquidated damages. - 4. The undersigned agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to pay as liquidated damages the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day to the County of Roanoke for each consecutive calendar day in excess of the stated time required for substantial completion of the work. . ADDENDA: Receipt of the following addenda to the Contract Documents are hereby acknowledged: Addendum No. One (1) Dated 7-15-96 Addendum No. Dated - Addendum No. Dated _ Registered Virginia Contractor's Number 17883 F1 N ONT CT NG, INC. B Wa ne i n Title President Business Maiiing Address: ~ P.0. Box 108 City ~'incastle State VA Zip Code 24090 - Business Street Address: Route 220 North City Fincastle State VA Zip Code 24090 Telephone No. (540) 473-3170 FAX No. _(,540 47 -2~go SID FORM BF-2 Phone: (703) 473-3170 Fax: (703) 473-'390 DIXON CONTRACTING. INC. ' - - `' ' ~ ~`'- "~~ General ContraUor • SpeciaG~i,rg iu r~tility and heavy constr~lron~-; ~... ~i,.. .I~ P. O. BOX t 08 . FINCASTLE. VA. 24090 July 18, 1996 Ms. Elaine Carver, Director of Procurement Services Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Fort Lewis Sub-Main, West Main Street Sub-Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No. CP95-71 -Bid Dated 7-12-96 Dear Ms. Carver: Based on the Code of Virginia Mistake in Bid Law, we are claiming a mistake in the above referenced bid. Due to omissions in our bid calculations, several items of major expense were not included. The items omitted are as follows: 1. The special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project. 2. The special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required. 3. The additional labor and mark-up associated with 1. and 2. above. 4. The additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project. 5. The survey construction stake-out. 6. The paving subcontractor cost. 7. Rock excavation material costs. AN E62UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~.~~'" Cont. Page Two - Ms. Carver Due to the above documented omissions in our bid, we are requesting that we be released from our responsibility associated with the project and that our Bid Bond be returned. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause the County, but it is obvious from the bid results, that we made a gross mistake. Our original work papers are enclosed as required. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Wa e ~ .E. President WAD/src Enclosures .,~ The following evaluation were made in response to Dixon Contracting July 18, 1996 letter outlining the omitted items. This evaluation was performed by reviewing the project bid-form and work papers submitted by Dixon Contracting. The items are addressed in the order presented in that letter. 1. ~~The special by-pass Dumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project." The bid-form included line items for installation of the new 8" sanitary sewer pipe(#3) and replacement of the 8" sanitary sewer pipe(#4). These items were separated in order to allow an appropriate increase to account for the by-pass pumping equipment cost since all other aspects of the installation of the two items are similar. Dixon's bid-form had a $6.00 per linear foot increase($15,618.00 for 2,603 l.f. of items 4 & 5)between items 4 and 3 which would be attributable to the by-pass pumping cost. The next lowest bidder (Marshall Construction) actually had an increase between items 3 and 4 which could be contributed to owning the by-pass pumping equipment increased quantity between items 4 and 3, or other factors. 2. "The special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required." The submitted bid-form from Dixon included line item unit prices of $125.00 per linear foot for the 24" bore and jack item #11) and $105.00 per linear foot for the 16" bore and jack item #12). Although these unit prices are lower than that of the next bidder, both are within the range of industry standards for these items. 3. 'The additional labor and mark-up associated with 1. and 2. above .'~ The increase for labor and mark-up seems to have been addressed in the unit prices for these items. 4. 'The additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplininq portion of the project." The submitted bid-form from Dixon included a line item total price of $10,380.00 ($30.00/l.f.) for the slipling work. Again the total price is lower than that of the next bidder, but within the range of industry standards. There is a subcontractor quote in the supplied work papers from Dixon of $6,700.00 for materials and installation of the slipling work. There appears to be a sufficient increase between the subcontactor's quote and the line item total price to cover by- pass pumping and markup. -" 5. ~~The survey construction stake-out.~~ Since stake-out is not a separate bid item, it is hard to identify this item in the bid-form. Normally stake-out is included in the pipe items at a cost of about $0.50 per linear foot of pipe. For the total amount of pipe involved in this project this cost would come out to $3,703.00. 6. ~~The paving subcontractor cost.~~ The submitted bid-form from Dixon included a line item unit price of $19.00 per square yard for the pavement replacement. This unit price is lower than that of the next bidder and only slightly low compared to the industry standards. However, the total price difference between Dixon and the next lowest bidder for this item is only $4,080.00. 7. ~~Rock excavation material costs.~~ The submitted line item unit price from Dixon was $25.00 per cubic yard for rock excavation. This unit price is lower than that of the next bidder, but close to the industry average for the quantity of rock excavation of this project. Comments: The above omissions claimed by Dixon are not as significant as claimed nor substantiated by the submitted documents or bid-form. The total price difference between Dixon and the next lowest bidder by comparison of the bid-forms for the items claimed is $21,922.50. This price difference between bidders is not unreasonable for a project of this size. Competitive bidding practices vary between contractors depending on the need or desire to perform the project. Variations between the line item unit prices are common and expected. These variations would account for the contractor owning instead of renting equipment, having materials on hand, location of the project so that crew housing and meals are minimized, efficiency of the crew, and numerous other factors. ,~. ~! V w O a W W N Q W z w J H N Z ~y W~ N ~ ?~ m w~ J ~_ ~ m 'J W Q U O O O O ~ N O O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ a Ll i N ~A M di N (C ~ A N O~ O 0 C 0 I~ N ~ r O 0 1~ d' O 0 C 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ r r (p 0 00 N r M O N O N ~A 0 0 0 ~ ~ CO r CO r M ~ ~ C1 r ~ ~ M r ~ M N W V Z f" W O O ~.A O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Z U ~~ ~ A N t A M f~ ~ O 00 N ~ 0 O 0 ~C1 0 ~A 0 ~ 0 C 0 1~ 0 C 0 O 0 t0 0 O 0 ~ W ~ a c c t r O M I~ N M M Ln ~ 1p ~ 0 ~A r ~ r r 0 '~ W Q U O O O O 11') N O O p M 0 O 0 O 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t/~ Z 0 a' a to N ~A r I~ (p O Op N n. O 0 O 0 ti ~ to N O O N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O F" O ~ ~ N N M ~ (O d~ OD C> tp 0 0 0 0 V tOA ~i ~ ~ ~ M M O .N- ~ ~ M ~ OO CO J r a = f'" W O O S 1'f O N O O O O O O O O O O O ~ Z U ~~ O N N r f~ O O G N r 0 O 0 ~ A 0 ~ A 0 1 A 0 C 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q a et ~ ~ ~ ~ t C/ 0 r~ 6~ r N M O (D a o e~ ~ r O O N ~ r r .-- M O J W Q U 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O Z H ~a' a O O O OO OO M ~ N C 00 O 0 C 0 ~A 1~ 0 r 0 0 0 1~ 0 pp 0 O 0 N 0 O 0 O V f" ~ N 00 N M r CO ~ ~ (O M CO O !F Ln Q! O O to O N M N P- O ~ O N O M OO O OO r N ~ ~ ef z V ~W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o Z ZU o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~~ a O M OO N ~C N (V M O ~"I O ~ C O O ~ GO N O ~ Hf ~ M O O ~O Of r ttA N CO 0 N H z ~ u. ~ ~ u: Q d ~ d d LL ~ Q ~ ~; ~ ~ J _I J J J W W > W W J J W d~ C> U ~ O M O r M N f~ N M ~ ~- ~ tA ~ O N CO ~ h O oD r 0 O 0 N 0 ~ ~ ` M r N N t C tt Z a d J J F- U W z F- g _ z ~ (~ t~ ~ J W Z J S` _ W J U C9 'J 0 O U Z W Q -~ Q -~ ~ O W OC > ti Y n ~ fA W > ~ Z - d = Z Q atS W > = W W ~ U Z Q K U m (n f ~ N Q = ~ ~ ~ ~ N W ~ W a » a U a U a ~ U a Q N g ~ F- wa m m ~ ~ Y v O w ~ (V r O r - CO - CO N 1~ - tO d, N 'st ~ } F- d' N jC ~ F- fn Q d d' W (n W ~ N Y CO a ~ ~ O N (' ~ Z Y~ ~ J y t) s` J Q Q W N ~ O g~ ~ (.~ O ~ LL W F- O eV J N ~ Q r 1-- O~ F- O O O N W V ~ N Z W ~ w a ~ u... p d~ o. ~ a Q~ti ~ O W ~ O~ J G I- Y Q u ~? H H ~ ~ Z W ~ o Q aW~~ ° ~g~~~ a o co w Q W ~ ~ ~ fn a~ W M I~ W j c ~ 00 - ~} ~ ~ mLLa ~ =OaV O ii H W Z ~ a ~C>> Y ~ Q W ~Z o ~x a F-F,=~ Z~ C~Z~Z O O~ f- ~Q y o f AW ~~ ~~ n' QW ZZ H _ c~n~~~ ~! ~!- z O O W - t~m~0 U ~l The following evaluation were made in response to Dixon Contracting July 18, 1996 letter outlining the omitted items. This evaluation was performed by reviewing the project bid-form and work papers submitted by Dixon Contracting. The items are addressed in the order presented in that letter. 1. 'The special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project." The bid-form included separate line items for installation of the new 8" sanitary sewer pipe(#3) and replacement of the existing 8" sanitary sewer pipe(#4). These items were separated in order to allow an appropriate increase in the unit price to account for the by-pass pumping equipment cost since all other aspects of the installation of the two items are similar. Dixon's bid-form had a $6.00 per linear foot increase($15,618.00 for 2,603 l.f. of items 4 & 5)between items 4 and 3 which would be attributable to the by-pass pumping cost. The next lowest bidder (Marshall Construction) actually had a higher unit price for installing new 8" pipe than replacement of the existing 8" pipe. This could be contributed to owning the by- pass pumping equipment,increased quantity between items 4 and 3, or numerous other factors. 2. "The special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required." The submitted bid-form from Dixon included line item unit prices of $125.00 per linear foot for the 24" bore and jack item #11) and $105.00 per linear foot for the 16" bore and jack item #12). Although these unit prices are lower than that of the next bidder, both are within the range of industry standards for these items. 3. "The additional labor and mark-up associated with 1. and 2. above." The increase for labor and mark-up appears to have been addressed in the unit prices for these items. 4. "The additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project." The submitted bid-form from Dixon included a line item total price of $10,380.00 ($30.00/l.f.) for the slipling work. Again the total price is lower than that of the next bidder, but within the range of industry standards. There is a subcontractor quote in the supplied work papers from Dixon of $6,700.00 for materials and installation of the slipling work. There appears to be a sufficient increase between the subcontactor's quote and the line item total price to cover by- pass pumping and markup. n 5. "The survey construction stake-out." Since stake-out is not a separate bid item, it is hard to identify this item in the bid-form. Normally stake-out is included in the pipe items at a cost of about $0.50 per linear foot of pipe. For the total amount of pipe involved in this project this cost would come out to $3,703.00. 6. "The paving subcontractor cost." The submitted bid-form from Dixon included a line item unit price of $19.00 per square yard for the pavement replacement. This unit price is lower than that of the next bidder and only slightly low compared to the industry standards. However, the total price difference between Dixon and the next lowest bidder for this item is only $4,080.00. 7. "Rock excavation material costs." The submitted line item unit price from Dixon was $25.00 per cubic yard for rock excavation. This unit price is lower than that of the next bidder, but close to the industry average for the quantity of rock excavation of this project. Comments: The above omissions claimed by Dixon are not as significant as claimed nor substantiated by the submitted documents or bid-form. The total price difference between Dixon and the next lowest bidder by comparison of the bid-forms for the items claimed is $21,922.50. This price difference between bidders is not unreasonable for a project of this size. Competitive bidding practices vary between contractors depending on the need or desire to perform the project. Variations between the line item unit prices are common and expected. These variations would account for the contractor owning instead of renting equipment, having materials on hand, location of the project so that crew housing and meals are minimized, efficiency of the crew, and numerous other factors. ~~ ~~ PROPOSAL OF DIXON CONTRACTING COMPANY TO WITHDRAW BID FOR FORT ~ LEWIS SEWER PROJECT DUE TO ERROR ~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING ~ August 13, 1996 • ~._,..,., ___. 4 C7 i~ TABLE OF CONTENTS I• • r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Bid Results Actual Bid Submitted Va Code § 11-54 (Supp. 1996) Roanoke County Code § 17-59 List of Omitted Items July 18, 1996 letter from Wayne Dixon to Elaine Carver July 31, 1996 letter from Don Karnes to Wayne Dixon August 1, 1996 letter from Don Karnes to Wayne Dixon August 6, 1996 letter from Wayne Dixon to Don Karnes • • • • ., • i• BID RESULTS I• I• I• I• Ir I• I• I• 1. Dixon Contracting, Inc. ~ $326,202.00 2. Marshall Construction $435,054.00 3. Conner Contracting $476,284.35 4. Prillaman & Pace $627,474.00 On information and belief, Roanoke County's estimate was that the project costs would be in the $450,000.00 to $500,000.00 range. I• ~~ f rwnlscT T~ I LOCATION C i ~ ARICt11T~T Od01 NQI~ • ~ iUMMARY tY I • ~~ ~~ ~• 11 ~~ n u r. u zu1! S ~~~ DIZON CONTRACTING, ZNC. -RICii •Y CMlCKm ~Y -r-!~ - D <s C R I r T 1 0 N ~I ~ I OUANTfTY UNIT UNIT MIC[ TOTAL LT71MATm MATRIJIL CCiT UNfT Mtl ~ Ta'TAL pT1MATC LABOR Gtr i i z avation ~ Backfill ~ Gravel Beddin ~OGox~~o,'7i 2'1 1 '7 ~ -r; , 2~ 3a~ L.~. ( ~ ^ ji oK f O (., c I 'I °ol~ 1/ I ^iC~ 3 L ~ ~ I L t,~L G c~ . ! ~ - o I :I u ~ U _~ Z ' u~p~ ~? ~ L1~'Sf NG l., 2~. O _ jl ~ ~ 80 L, ~n~s~ s~~ ~ ,~I S~--t~-T-- ~s I I i , Restoration: To soil b Seed ~ L p L ~, p - ~°O ~~ ~ _ i ZG G,S 1l ~ ~ g z; v. ' C c 85~= ~3G5 L., ~ .~ % - I ~ ' L. ~ - d al o ~ I I L Backhoe I - ~ -L A. --- ~- - I - -- I ~ ij ! ; ~ i - i _ ~ ~ ~ - ~ I l I T i j I ~ a er - Track T e !a j W - -7n~ ~ ! r- I _!- ~ ~ i I Ij Il h it I ~ ( -i i - ~ i I - Special Eyuip. i\/1` ~//1 'ZoC~Sa'J _~ ---- • :~ ~ -~ ~' •- ; --- i ~ ' ' -:_ ! I ~ - sir S o Overhead ~~ ~ '1~j ~ I .:~~' ~ GZ ' -l ~-- i -- i-- ~ .r i -' i h __ ~ T I ! ~ t i ' j I ~ ~t G ~ v i ' _ ~ I ~ i ~ v I I I ' e ion ~ _ i - ~ ~ I f-- - II I ~ 3 11-54 ~"IRGL~L~ PLBLIC PROCL'RE~fE~~r ACT § 11-54 interested person, firm or corporation, in accordance with the Virginia Free- dom of Information Act (§ 2.1-340 et seq.). B. Cost estimates relating to a proposed procurement transaction prepared by or for a public body shall not be open to public inspection. ~ C. Any competitive sealed bidding bidder, upon request, shall be afforded the opportunity to inspect bid records •.~-ithin a reasonable time after the opening of all bids but prior to award, except in the event that the public body decides not to accept any of the bids and to reopen the contract. Otherwise, bid records shall be open to public inspection only after award of the contract. C 1. Any competitive negotiation offeror, upon request, shall be afforded the opportunity to inspect proposal records within a reasonable time after the evaluation and negotiations of proposals are completed but prior to award, ~ except in the event that the public body decides not to accept any of the proposals and to reopen the contract. Otherwise, proposal records shall be open to ppublic inspection only after award of the contract. C2. Any inspection of procurement transaction records under this section shall be subject to reasonable restrictions to ensure the security and integrity of the records. D. Trade secrets or proprietary information submitted by a bidder, offeror or ~ contractor in connection with a procurement transaction or prequalification application submitted pursuant to subsection B of § 11-46 shall not be subject to public disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; however, the bidder, offeror or contractor must invoke the protections of this section prior to or upon submission of the data or other materials, and must identify the data or other materials to be protected and state the reasons why protection is necessary..(1982, c. 647; 1984, c. 705; 1994, c. 918.) The 1994 amendment, effective July 1, submitted pursuant to subsection B of § 11-46" 1995, inserted "or prequalification application near the middle of subsection D. § 11-54. Withdrawal of bid due to error. - A. A bidder for a public construction contract, other than a contract for construction or maintenance of public highways, may withdraw his bid from consideration if the price bid was ~ substantially lower than the other bids due solely to a mistake therein, provided the bid was submitted in good faith, and the mistake was a clerical mistake as opposed to a judgment mistake, and was actually due to an unintentional arithmetic error or an unintentional omission of a quantity of work, labor or material made directly in the compilation of a bid, which unintentional arithmetic error or unintentional omission can be clearly shown by objective evidence drawn from inspection of original work papers, docu- ~ ments and materials used in the preparation of the bid sought to be with- drawn. One of the following procedures for withdrawal of a bid shall be selected by the public body and stated in the advertisement for bids: (i) the bidder shall give notice in writing of his claim of right to withdraw his bid within two business days after the conclusion of the bid opening procedure and shall submit original work papers with such notice; or (ii) the bidder shall submit to the public body or designated official his original work papers, documents and ~ materials used in the preparation of the bid within one day after the date fixed for submission of bids. The work papers shall be delivered by the bidder in person or by registered mail at or prior to the time fixed for the opening of bids. In either instance, such work papers, documents and materials may be considered as trade secrets or proprietary information subject to the conditions of subsection D of § 11-52. The bids shall be opened one day following the time fixed by the public body for the submission of bids. Thereafter, the bidder shall have t~vo hours after the opening of bids within which to claim in writing any ~ mistake as defined herein and withdraw his bid. The contract shall not be 35 ~• 11-59 CO~TR~CTS j 11-61 awarded by the public body until the t~vo-hour period has elapsed. Such mistake shall be proved only from the original work papers, documents and materials delivered as required herein. B. A public body may establish procedures for the withdrawal of bids for other than construction contracts. C. No bid may be withdrawn under this section when the result would be the awarding of the contract on another bid of the same bidder or of another bidder in which the ownership of the withdrawing bidder is more than five percent. D. If a bid is withdrawn under the authority of this section, the lowest remaining bid shall be deemed to be the low bid. E. No bidder who is permitted to withdraw a bid shall, for compensation, supply any material or labor to or perform any subcontract or other work agreement for the person or firm to whom the contract is awarded or otherwise benefit, directly or indirectly, from the performance of the project for which the withdrawn bid was submitted. F. If the public body denies the ~vithdra~val of a bid under the provisions of this section, it shall notify the bidder in writing stating the reasons for its decision and award the contract to such bidder at the bid price, provided such bidder is a responsible and responsive bidder. (1982, c. 647; 1985, c. 286; 1994, c. 897.) The 1994 amendment, in subsection A, in- in clause (i) of the second sentence and added serted "and shall submit original work papers" the present fourth sentence. § 11-59. Action on performance bond. - No action against the surety on a performance bond shall be brought unless within five years after completion of the work on the project to the satisfaction of the Department of Transpor- tation, in cases where the public body is the Department of Transportation, or within one year after (i) completion of the contract, including the expiration of all warranties and guarantees, or (ii) discovery of the defect or breach of warranty, if the action be for such, in all other cases. (1982, c. 647; 1996, c. 827.) The 1996 amendment deleted "chief engi- neer" following "to the satisfaction of the" near the beginning of the section. § 11-61. Alternative forms of security. -A. In lieu of a bid, payment, or performance bond, a bidder may furnish a certified check or cash escrow in the face amount required for the bond. B. If approved by the Attorney General in the case of state agencies, or the attorney for the political subdivision in the case of political subdivisions, a bidder may furnish a personal bond, property bond, or bank or savings institution's letter of credit on certain designated funds in the face amount required for the bid, payment or performance bond. Approval shall be granted only upon a determination that the alternative form of security proffered affords protection to the public body equivalent to a corporate surety's bond. C. The provisions of subsections A and B shall not apply to the Department of Transportation. (1982, c. 647; 1989, c. 260; 1991, c. 574; 1992, c. 765; 1996, cc. 77, 827.) The 1996 amendments. - The 1996 the first sentence of subsection B. amendment by c. 77 substituted "savings insti- The 1996 amendment by c. 827 added sub- tution's" for "savings and loan association's" in section C. 36 !• § 17.56 ROAI~tOKE COUNTY CODE ~- r bidder's failure to furnish any required performance or payment bond in connection with a ~ contract awarded to him. (Ord. No. 3350, §§ 2.24, 2-25, 12.14-82) State law references-Provisions similar to subsection (a) above, Code of Virginia, § 11-57; authority for subsection (b), § 11-62. ~ Sec. 17.57. Security in lieu of bid bond. (a) In lieu of a bid bond, a bidder may furnish a certified check or cash escrow in the face amount required for the bond. (b) If approved by the county attorney, a bidder may furnish a personal bond, property ~ bond or bank or savings and loan association's letter of credit on certain designated funds in the face amount required for the bid bond. Approval shall be granted only upon a determina- tion that the alternative form of security proffered affords protection to the board of supervi- sors equivalent to the corporate surety's bond. (Ord. No: 3350, § 2-38, 12-14-82) . • State law reference-Similar provisions, Code of Virginia, § 11-61. Sec. 17.58. Opening and tabulation of bids. ~ . Bids shall be opened publicly in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the invitation for bids. The amount of each bid and such other relevant ~ information as the purchasing agent deems appropriate, together with the name of each bidder, shall be tabulated and recorded. A tabulation of all bids received shall be posted for . public inspection. (Ord. No. 3350, § 2-27, 12-14-82) ~ Sec. 17.59. Withdrawal of bid due to error. (a) A bidder for a public construction contract, other than a contract for construction or maintenance of public highways, may withdraw his bid from consideration, if the price bid was substantially lower than the owner bids due solely to a mistake therein, provided the bid was . submitted in good faith and the mistake was a clerical mistake, as opposed to a judgment mistake, and was actually due to an unintentional arithmetic error or an unintentional omis- sion of a quantity of work, labor or material made directly in the compilation of a bid, which unintentional arithmetic error or unintentional omission can be clearly shown by objective evidence drawn from inspection of original work papers, documents and materials used in the preparation of the bid sought to be withdrawn. The procedure for such bid withdrawal shall be ~ stated in the advertisement for bids and shall be as follows: Any bidder claiming the right to withdraw his bid shall give notice in writing of this claim of right to withdraw his bid within two (2) business days after the conclusion of the bid opening procedure. (b) Procedures for the withdrawal of bids of other than construction contracts may be ~ established by the purchasing agent. 1072 ~~ i• __ PROCUREMENT CODE § 17-60 (c) No bid may be withdrawn under this section when the result would be the awazding ~ of the contract on another bid of the same bidder or of another bidder in which the ownership of the withdrawing bidder is more than five (5) percent. (d) If a bid is withdrawn under the authority of this section, the Iowest remaining respon- sible bid shall be deemed to be the low bid. ~ (e) No bidder who is permitted to withdraw a bid shall, for compensation, supply any material or labor to or perform any subcontract or other work agreement for the person to whom the contract is awarded or otherwise benefit, directly or indirectly, from the perfor- mance of the project for which the withdrawn bid was submitted. (f) If the board of supervisors denies the withdrawal of a bid under the provisions of this ~ section, it shall notify the bidder in writing, stating the reasons for its decision. (Ord. No. 3350, § 2-28, 12-14-82) State law reference-Similar provisions, Code of Virginia, § 11-54. Sec. 17-60. Bid evaluation. ~ (a) In determining the lowest responsible bidder, in addition to the price, the purchasing agent and/or bid committee shall consider: (1) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service required. ~ (2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract or provide the service promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference. (3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder. (4) The quality of performance of previous contracts or services. (5) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and policies relating to the contract or service. (6) The sufficiency of the financial resources and ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service. (7) The quality, availability and adaptability of the goods or services to the pazticulaz use required.' (8) The ability of the bidder to provide future maintenance and service for the use of the subject of the contract. (9) The number and scope of conditions attached to the bid. (10) If any bidder is a resident of any other state and such state under its laws allows a resident contractor of that state preference, a like preference may be allowed to the ~ ~ lowest responsible bidder who is a resident of Virginia. ~. 1073 i• LIST OF OMITTED ITEMS • ITEM ~ COST 1. Three Month Rental of Special By-Pass Pumping Equipment $22,063.50 • 2. Use of Special Boring Equipment for One-Half Month $10,000.00 3. Second Crew of Labor to Operate Equipment in 1-2 • By-Pass Pumping Equipment Costs a. 13 Weeks of Labor Multiplied by $3,250.00 Weekly Rate $42,250.00 • b. Cost of Regular Equipment for Second Crew $26,250.00 c. Twenty-Six Percent Mark-Up $17,810.00 ' • Boring Equipment Costs a. 2 Weeks of Labor Multiplied by $3,250.00 Weekly Rate $ 6,500.00 • b. Twenty-Six Percent Mark-Up $ 4,290.00 4. Sliplining Costs and Labor $ 4,913.25 5. Survey Construction Stakeout $ 3,500.00 • 6. Paving Subcontractor Costs $ 2,500.00 7. Rock Excavation Material Costs $ 2,000.00 • TOTAL $142,076.75 ACTUAL BID $326,202.00 • CORRECT BID $468,278.75 • ~~ ~~ I• I• ~~ I• ~s r 1• 1~ DIXON CONTRACTING. INC. General Co„tractor . Speciali_i,rg iu utility and l~ea:y coust,•ucrio„ P. O. BOX t 08 . FlNGASTLE. VA. 24090 July 18, 1996 Ms. Elaine Carver, Director of Procurement Services Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Phone: (703) 473-3170 Fax: (703) 473-'?340 '--i - Re: Fort Lewis Sub-Main, West Main Street Sub-Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No. CP95-71 -Bid Dated 7-12-96 Dear Ms. Carver: Based on the Code of Virginia Mistake in Bid Law, we are claiming a mistake in the above referenced bid. Due to omissions in our bid calculations, several items of major expense were not included. The items omitted are as follows: 1. The special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project. 2. The special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required. 3. The additional labor and mark-up associated with 1. and 2. above. 4. The additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project. 5. The survey construction stake-out. 6. The paving subcontractor cost. 7. Rock excavation material costs. AN E9UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~~ i• Cont. Page Two - Ms. Carver • Due to the above documented omissions in our bid, we are requesting that we be released from our responsibility associated with the project and that our Bid Bond be returned. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause the County, but it is obvious from the bid results, that we made a gross mistake. • Our original work papers are enclosed as required. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, • a e ix .E. President I , WAD/src I• I• I• I• 1• 1• z ~ z 1838 ~Y -V ~ ~ -i- -V ~ -V ~ -i- ~ PROCUREMENT SERVICES ELAINE CARVER KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB DIRECTOR 'BUYER DONALD R. KARNES EVE F. WIRT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR JUIy 31, 1996 BUYER Mr. Wayne A. Dixon, P.E. Dixon Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 108 _ Fincastle, VA 24090 • REF: Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No. CP95-71 ~ Dear Mr. Dixon: The Roanoke County Utility Department received bids on July 17, 1996, for the subject sanitary sewer project. Dixon Contracting, Inc. submitted the apparent low bid in the amount of $326,202.00, which was $107,852.25 less than the next lowest bid submitted by Marshall ~ Construction of Danville, VA. Roanoke County has received a letter dated July 18, 1996, from Dixon Contracting, Inc. requesting that its bid be withdrawn under the applicable provisions of Code of Virginia, § 11-54 and Roanoke County Code § 17-59. Enclosed with the letter were original work papers utilized ~ in preparation of the Dixon Contracting, Inc. bid. Your letter claims a mistake in the bid due to omissions in the bid calculations. Specific omissions cited include the following: 1. Special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project. 2. Special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required. ~ 3. Additional labor and mark-up associated with Items 1 and 2 above. 4.. Additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project. 5. Survey construction stake-out. 6. Paving subcontractor cost. 7. Rock excavation material costs. ~ Roanoke County staff representatives from Procurement Services, Utility Department and County Attorney's office met with you on July 18th, and the Utility Department staff again on July 30th to review your work papers and to discuss your bid preparation methodology relative to your mistake in the bidding claim. • P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (5401 772-2061 FAX: (540) 772-2074 ® Recycled Paper ~• County staff appreciates your candor and openness during our discussions. However, it is felt that insufficient justification exists to allow withdrawal of your bid. Consequently, it is the intention of Roanoke County to award the contract for bid No. CP95-71 to Dixon Contracting, i Inc. in the amount of $326,202.00. . Upon receipt of the written "Notice of Award" from the Roanoke County Procurement Office, it is required that the contract be executed and the required bonds be furnished to the County of Roanoke within ten days. As stipulated in the "Instructions to Bidders", should you, as the successful bidder, fail or refuse to execute the Contract or furnish the required bonds within the stipulated time (ten days), the Bid Security shall be forfeited to the County of Roanoke as liquidated damages. Should you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact me at 772-2063. I• Sincerely, Don Karnes Assistant Director of Procurement Services ~ drk cc: E.Carver, Procurement B. Fronk, Utility B. Benninger, Utility ~ P. Mahoney, County Attorney It I• C It p,OAN ,I, • . ~ 9 2 a 1 '~' 1838 ~~.Li~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ PROCUREMENT SERVICES ELAINE CARVER KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB DIRECTOR BUYER DONALD R. KARNES EVE F. WIRT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BUYER ~ August 1, 1996 Mr. Wayne Dixon, P.E. • Dixon'Contracting, Inc. P.O. Box 108 Fincastle, Va 24090 Ref Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main Glenvar East Rcconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project • Bid~No. CP 95-71 Dear Mr. Dixon: As indicated in the enclosed Notice of Award, this is to advise that the County of Roanoke accepts Dixon's bid in the amount $326,202.00 for the construction of the above project. '~ Please execute and return two (2) copies of the "Notice and Acceptance of Award" which are being sent with this letter. Sincerely, • ,~ Don Karncs Assistant Director of Procurement Services • • • P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2061 FAX: (540) 772-2074 ® Reycled Paper . ~~ ~~ ~ EtOANp~.~ ' ti 9 ~J ~ GG" 2 ~a PROCUREMENT SERVICES 1 38 ~Tl1TTrTi' ~ ern s rrFPTA NrF. (1F AWARD vlavlr n~.ai c. ~.~. -- I• I• I• I• I• I~ TO: Dixon Contracting, Inc. P.O.Box 108 Fincastle, Virginia 24090 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fort Lewis Sub Main/West Main Street Sub-Main C'Tlenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Proiect BID No. CP 95-71 The COUNTY OF ROANOKE has considered the BID submitted by Dixon Contracting Inc. for the above described WORK in response to its ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS dated Tine 23. 1996. You are hereby notified that your BID in the amount of X326.202.00 has been accepted for construction of the Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project. If you fail to accept said NOTICE OF AWARD within ten (10) days from the date of this NOTICE, the County of Roanoke will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the County's acceptance of BID as abandoned. The County will be entitled to such rights as may be granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this NOTICE AND ACCEPTANCE OF AWARD to the office of Procurement Services and to the Roanoke County Utility Director. Dated this 1st day of August, 1996 ~ounll! of Roanoke Va (OWNS By Don Karnes Title Q.~~istant Director of Procurement Services I• I• Title ® Recycled Paper Receipt of the Notice of Award for the subject project is hereby acknowledged and accepted by Dixon Construction, Inc. this the day of August, 1996. By ~~ ~ p,OANp,I.~ ~~~~~ rL,~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ti 9 ~J Z ~ (~ ~ _ a PROCUREMENT SERVICES 73 NOTICE AND A CEPTANCE OF AWARD I• I• I• I! • • Title ® a«yuee ~. TO: Dixon Contracting, Inc. P.O.Box 108 Fincastle, Virginia 24090 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~'^~* T Pwis Sub Main/West Main Street Sub-Main S,~I~n~ar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project BID Iy'o. CF 95-? 1 The COUNTY OF ROANOKE has considered the BID submitted by Dixon Contracting Inc. for the above described WORK in response to its ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS dated Tine 23. 1996. You are hereby notified that your BID in the amount of $326.202.00 has been accepted forconstruction of the Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project. If you fail to accept said NOTICE OF AWARD within ten (10) days from the date of this NOTICE, the County of Roanoke will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the County's acceptance of BID as abandoned. The County will be entitled to such rights as may be granted by law. You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this NOTICE AND ACCEPTANCE OF AWARD to the office of Procurement Services and to the Roanoke County Utility Director. Dated this 1st day of August, 1996 unty of Roanoke_ Va (OWNER) By ~ '~ Don Karnes Title ~~~+~+ant Director of Procurement Services Receipt of the Notice of Award for the subject project is hereby acknowledged and accepted by Dixon Construction, Inc. this the day of August, 1996. By ~~ nLu-%o-? 7~~0 ~~ ~ » 1J 1 Xu`+ l.u~+ i rnL, i l itila , : i1C . • D(XON CONTRACTING, INC. General Co,rn•acro,• • Spe;ializirrg i,r rirility and Gea:•y contrrrrcrion • P. O, 90X 108 • FIrVCASTLE. VA. 24090 August 6, 1996 • Donald R. Karnes, Assistant Director County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 ~ Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 C I• Re: Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub-Main Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project Bid No.. CP 95-71 Dear Mr. Karnes: (' . ~= Pnor~e: (703) 473-3 t ~a fax: (703) 473.2340 .~. ~~' ~ t ~ 1~ S~~ ~., ~, We desire to appeal your decision and have requested time to present our case at the August 13, 1996, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. A copy of that request is attached. By this lettec, we are requesting that you hold your Notice and Acceptance of Award dated Auwst 1, 1996, in abeyance until our appeal is heard and acted upon. I trust that this will be satisfactory. If you have any questions, please let me know. ~ Sincerely, ayne . D' n, P, . ~ resident WAD/src Enclosure I• cc: Robert C. Fronk, P,~E., Roanoke County AN E6~UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~~ NO ACTION TAKEN, THEREFORE DECLINING TO SUBMIT COMPLAINT TO FCC. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER C "'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Submission of subscriber complaints regarding Cable Programming Services (C.P.S.) tier rates of Cox Cable Roanoke to F.C.C. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I do not see the need to file a rate complaint against Cox Cable's CPS tier with the FCC. Throughout the year it is rare that we have a complaint of any kind. The proposal has been reviewed by a law firm specializing in cable television affairs and has been found acceptable. The increases are even lowers than other systems in Virginia. We have received requests from two citizens to file a complaint with the FCC. This process has allowed cable television users an opportunity to be heard and I don't think we need to take this any further. BACKGROUND: Recent changes in Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) regulations have removed the ability of individual cable consumers to file complaints directly with the F.C.C. which raise objections to rate increases for the cable programming services tier (C.P.S.). Cox Communications/Cox Cable Roanoke has announced increases in their rates for cable customers for both basic cable service and for the C.P.5. tier of cable services effective March 1, 1996. A cable customer has 90 days from the effective date of an increase in cable rates to file a complaint regarding C.P.S. rates with the franchising authority. The franchising authority must receive such complaints from at least two customers before it may file a request with the F.C.C. to review an increase in C.P.S. rates. The County has received an opinion from its outside legal counsel for cable television issues that these rate increases instituted by Cox Communications are within the range permitted by F.C.C. regulations. (See Attachment "A", letter from Brian T. Grogan, dated April 12, 1996). SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has received complaints from two citizens requesting a review of the announced intentions of Cox Cable Roanoke to increase the rates for its C.P.S. tier effective March 1, 1996. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as the .. E-3 franchising authority, made an initial determination at its May 28, 1996, meeting that each of these subscriber complaints were received within 90 days from the date the rate increase at issue went into effect and that such rate increase pertains to the C.P.S. tier. Roanoke County then sent a written notice, including a draft FCC Form 329, to Cox Communications/Cox Cable Roanoke to inform them that these complaints are pending with the County. Cox Communications has submitted a response to the County setting forth its reasons why no complaint should be forwarded to the F.C.C. They contend that their current rate for Roanoke County subscribers is below the F.C.C.'s "maximum permissible rate" for this tier of services. Further, Cox submits that two complaints out of almost 19,000 subscribers in the County represents such a small percentage that filing of a formal complaint with the F.C.C. on this matter is not justified. (See Attachment "B", letter from Gretchen Shine, Vice President and General Manager, dated July 10, 1996). Roanoke County has 180 days from the effective date of the rate increase in question to file the FCC Form 329, along with any response from the cable operator, with the F.C.C. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES• 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute a Form 329, as prepared by the County Attorney and forward to the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) prior to August 28, 1996. 2. Decline to file a rate complaint on the C.P.S. tier, Form 3 2 9 , with the F . C . C . and rely upon the review of rate increases previously conducted on behalf of the County by outside legal counsel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative # 2. Respectfully submitted, l'~C~~ ~~~1~. ~~ ~,~ sep B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney ~ ~~ Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Eddy Harrison_ Johnson _ Minnix _ Nickens Yes Abs ATTAC~NT A L: • LAW OFFICES MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 4HOO NORWEST CENTER 9O SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-4129 BRIAN T. GROGAN TELEPHONE (612) 347-0300 TELECOPIER (612) 339-6686 (612 ~ 347-0340 APR 1 ~, 1996 ;j~ U Cr. ~' April 12, 1996 ,~ Mr. Joe Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney P.O. BOX 28800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Re: Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc. Proposed Rate Adjustments Our File No. 27976.4 Dear Joe: This letter will respond to the numerous rate regulation documents which have been forwarded to my attention for review. To begin, I would like to review the chronology of correspondence regarding Cox Communications Roanoke, Inc. ("Cox") and the forms which it has submitted to the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton regarding proposed rate adjustments. 1. By letter dated January 24, 1996 Mr. John W. Bingham, Manager of System Accounting and Analysis for Cox, submitted to the City, County and Town FCC Forms 1205, 1210, 1215, and 1240. These forms were received by each jurisdiction on or about January 31, 1996. 2. By letter dated February 6, 1996, Gary E. Tegenkamp, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Roanoke, sent to my attention documents which Cox had submitted to the City, County and Town regarding Cox's proposed rate adjustments. 3. By letter dated February 9, 1996, Mr. Tegenkamp sent to my attention correspondence from Ms. Gretchin Shine, General Manager and Vice President of Cox, regarding rate change information. 4. By letter dated February 13, 1996 you sent me information which Cox had sent to the County regarding CPS tier rate increases. ~; MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ~'"~` Mr. Joe Obenshain April 12, 1996 Page 2 5. On February 21, 1996 I sent a letter to yourself and Mr. Tegenkamp clarifying the FCC procedural regulations regarding the forms submitted by Cox and suggesting a letter to be sent to Mr. Bingham requesting follow-up information with respect to Cox's proposed rate adjustments. 6. By letter dated February 27, 1996 you sent to me a copy of an Amended FCC Form 1240 which +Cox had submitted to the County. 7. By letter dated March 1, 1996 Mr. Tegenkamp also forwarded an Amended FCC Form 1240 which Cox had submitted to the City. 8. By letter dated March 20, 1996 Mr. Bingham submitted Cox's response to my attention with respect to the questions raised by us regarding their rate regulation forms. 9. On April 3, 1996 Mr. Tegenkamp faxed copies of documents regarding a complaint which had been submitted to the Roanoke Valley Regional Television Committee ("Committee") from Mr. William A. Cook, Jr. regarding his complaint with respect to Cox's proposed rate adjustments. Based upon my review of the information submitted by Cox to the City, County and Town, the rate adjustments made by Cox are consistent with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City, County and Town need take no action regarding Cox's rate regulation forms to preserve their respective rights pursuant to FCC regulations. As discussed in my February 21, 1996 letter to you, FCC regulations at Section 76.933(g) provide that franchising authorities such as the City, County and Town have ninety (90) days from the date of Cox's filing to review an annual rate adjustment. Since Cox's firms were received on or about January 31, 1996 the time period for review expires on or about May 1, 1996. An argument could perhaps be made that since Cox submitted an amended FCC Form 1240, which was received on or about February 20, 1996, the ninety (90) day time period should be extended. However, this issue need not be examined since my review has revealed no discrepancies between Cox's filing and permitted adjustments under the FCC's regulations. Under the FCC's revised regulations if the ninety (90) day review period expires without action from the City, then the proposed rates go into effect subject to a prospective rate reduction and refund if the franchising authority subsequently issues a written decision disapproving any portion of such rates. If Cox should subsequently inquire as to whether the City, County or Town intends to issue a rate order, they must simply notify Cox of their intent to retain these rights within fifteen (15) days of Cox's inquiry. The City, County and Town have twelve (12) months from the date Cox filed its rate regulation forms to issue a rate order. In the event no ~_~ MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Joe Obenshain April 12, 1996 Page 3 6..._. ~~ action is taken within the twelve (12) month period, no refund or prospective rate reduction may be ordered with respect to this particular filing. I realize these FCC regulations can be somewhat confusing, however, the issue before the communities at this time is rather straightforward. The City, County and Town need take no formal action with respect to Cox's rate filing but rather can simply allow the ninety (90) day time period to expire thereby preserving their respective rights to subsequently order a.rate reduction a.-~ciior refund. To tl~e er:;er;t Cc~:: ses~~~ t'te :':'i;y, County or Tnw~n a letter in1uiring whether they intend to issue a rate order or reduction, the franchising authority must simply respond within fifteen (15) days indicating that you wish to reserve your rights to consider these matters to the full extent allowed under FCC regulations. With respect to your letter of February 27,1996 regarding Booth Communications/Salem Cable Television rate adjustments, I concur that as a small cable system they are essentially exempt from FCC rate regulations. Section 76.934 of the FCC's regulations provides that small systems owned by small cable companies have ninety (90) days from their initial date of regulation to bring their rates into compliance with specific FCC regulations. Rates established during the ninety (90) day period shall not be subject to prior approval by franchising authorities or the FCC but shall be subject to refunds pursuant to particular FCC regulations. Further, a new Section 623 of the Cable Act has been added as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which provides that rate regulation does not apply to a small cable operator with respect to the CPS tier. Based on these regulations it does not appear the City, County or Town have authority to review the rate adjustments proposed by Booth. Finally, with respect to the complaint received by the Committee from Mr. William A. Cook, complaints about CPS or upper tier rate increases may now only be filed by the local franchising authority (City, County or Town) and only if the franchising authority has received SuJ..Ciivei C.^,:Ti lui~:.tS ~V~+~''" t ' /nn~ /$ ~ '' p .~..... r..r.e } ~ .,, :! ~ of ,~ ::.te in:,;euse. The french isi::g authori , cannot file a complaint with the FCC until it receives at least two (2) complaints from subscribers within ninety (90) days from the date of the rate increase. Mr. Cook's complaint relates to the County of Roanoke and would not apply to the City or Town. The County of Roanoke can submit a complaint to the FCC only if it receives at least one (1) additional complaint from a subscriber within ninety (90) days of March 1, 1996. If this does not occur the County is unable to submit a complaint. Further, noting in federal law or FCC regulations requires that a complaint be submitted by a franchising authority simply because it receives two (2) or more complaints. The franchising authority has discretion with respect to the submission of a complaint. . ;' . ' , ' 'MOSS &BARNETT !~ PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Joe Obenshain April 12, 1996 Page 4 Y~` 3 L..~ I hope this information is helpful to the Committee, City, County and Town regarding the numerous rate regulation materials which have been received over the past several months. Fortunately, no specific action is required with respect to Cox's rate regulations forms given the FCC's amended rate regulations. After you have had an opportunity to review this letter please feel free to contact me with any questions or comme9~ts you may have. Very truly yours, MOSS &BARNETT, A Professional Association ~~~ T v Brian T. Grogan BTG/slo 27005/K%501 !.DOC cc: Mr. Gary Tegenkamp Mr. William L. Heartwell, III ATTACHMENT B .~ , ' vretahen Shine Vice President & General Manager July 10, 1996 Mr. Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney County of Roanoke PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Obenshain: I~ JUL 1 7 1996 5400 Fallowater Lane, S.W. P.O. Box 13726 Roanoke, Virginia 24036 ph (540) 776-3844 Ext. 151 fax (540) 776-3847 ~i~~~g~ ~-3 COMMUNICATIONS This letter is in reply to your letter advising Cox of your receipt of two Roanoke County cable customer complaints sent to you as a result of our March 1, 1996, rate adjustment. As with any customer complaint, we are concerned and listen for opportunities to improve our product, service and delivery. In March, we elected to change from the FCC's quarterly method of rate adjustment to an annual process, utilizing the FCC form 1240. Our main objective in changing was to eliminate the confusion to our customers of quarterly rate adjustments. In 1995, we utilized the quarterly process, initiating two rate adjustments of four possible windows of rate adjustment opportunities. Customers were understandably puzzled and queried us as to why we had not combined the two into one, if we had a choice. Under the annual method, confusion is reduced, as was borne out by the greatly reduced number of coils we received in March, as compared with the total of calls we received for the two rate adjustment periods in 1995. In Roanoke County, two complaints received from a population of 18,964 customers served represents 0.0001%. While we don't wish to minimize the importance of these two, we submit that such a small complaint rate underscores our commitment to provide competitive rates. For each of the past rate adjustments in 1995, Roanoke County utilized Moss 8~ Barnett to review our filings. They have found our filings to be consistently in compliance. In addition, Cox's current rate in the County is $.09 below the "maximum permissible rate." .~'' We regret any customer complaint, but submit that our rate adjustments which evoked these two complaints were filed and implemented in complete compliance with FCC guidelines. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me or John Bingham, Business Manager, at 776-3845. Respectfully, /! retches Shine Vice President and General Manaaer GS:jk SHINE\CUSTLTRS\OBENSHAI.DOC c-3 t .. 081396-3 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ t AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of funds to VML/VACO for Assessment for American Electric Power Negotiations. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~( vY~~-~i~" ~ ~'r~-8-coca-~ 1J `~~ ~~7~ ~~ $ACRGROUND: The VML/VACO Appalachian Power Company, now known as American Electric Power (AEP) Steering Committee, was established to negotiate reduced electric service charges with AEP for the local governments. Roanoke County's current contract with AEP was approved in 1994 and expired June 30, 1996. Previously, each locality negotiated individual contracts with AEP, but several years ago VML/VACO agreed to negotiate the contract with AEP on behalf of all participating localities. AEP has now proposed a new three-year contract with rates frozen at their present level (exclusive of the fuel adjustment clause). UMMARY OF INFORMATION: Due to the costs of a Utility Consultant, legal fees, and other expenses associated with and acquired by the negotiations, each local government is asked to contribute its share of the cost. Each locality's share is determined by its proportionate use of electricity (exclusive of street lights). The 1996 assessment made by the VML/VACO Steering Committee totals $125,000. The amount that has been assessed for the County of Roanoke is $9,735. The amount is due by August 30, 1996. Negotiations will be monitored by the Utility Director, the Director of General Services, and the County Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: The $9,735 assessment can be appropriated from the Board Contingency Fund. ~=y f~~~~~r=~~~i~~ 1. Approve the payment of the negotiating fee from the Board Contingency Fund. 2. Negotiate separately with AEP. The County would have to employ a consultant which would also require an expenditure of funds. Staff recommends making the necessary appropriation of $9,735 from the Board Contingency Fund and forwarding it to the VML/VACO Steering Committee. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Amber Buckowsky Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County Intern County Administrator Approved Denied Received Referred To (x) Motion by:Supervisor Minnix No Yes Abs ( ) to approve 59,735 expenditure Eddy _ X _ ( ) with County Administrator Harrison _ ~} _ ( ) funding from current budget Johnson _ _X _ ( ) Minnix _ _~ _ Nickens _ X _ CC: File Diane Hyatt, Finance Department Gary Robertson, Utility Director Paul Mahoney, County Attorney ... F .~.J i 'J En;'" ' M E M O RAND U M TO: County Administrators and City/Town Managers in AEP Service Territory ~/ FROM: Kit B. Kiser, Director of Public Utilities, ~~/~ City of Roanoke, Chairman of VML/VACO APCO Steering Committee DATE: June 27, 1996 RE: VML/VACO APCo Negotiations - Assessments As you know, your locality's contract with Appalachian Power Company (now known as American Electric Power (AEP)) expires June 30, 1996. We finally received AEP's proposal for the new contract period. AEP proposes a three year contract with rates frozen at their present level (exclusive of the fuel adjustment clause) for this three-year period. We believe, however, that a rate reduction is appropriate. AEP also proposes that we consider an optional demand billing rate which would be available to individual accounts, subject to certain limitations. We believe this should be explored also. An organizational meeting of the VML/VACO APCo Steering Committee was held on June 4, 1996 in Roanoke. The Steering Committee voted to pursue negotiations with AEP and to seek funds from each locality to cover the expenses of a utility consultant, legal fees and other expenses associated with negotiations. Each local government is asked to contribute its proportionate share of $125,000 based on the proportionate electricity usage for its locality (exclusive of street lights). Funds not used during these negotiations will be retained by the Virginia Association ~~ Cuurii:ies in a separate interest bearing account for future negotiations. Enclosed is an invoice reflecting your locality's share of negotiating expenses. It would be helpful to have your locality's remittance prior to August 30, 1996. In the past, as a result of the Steering Committee's efforts, each local government has always received a savings in its electricity costs far greater than its share of negotiating expenses. For example, during the last negotiations in 1993, APCo initially proposed a rate increase of $4.4 million over a three year period. Final rates negotiated increased rates by $1.37 million over a three year period; a savings of more than $3 million as a result of the negotiation process. This saving was approximately 29 times the cost of the negotiations. It is believed that local governments will again experience a high return from their investment in the negotiation expenses. -over- F `~ ~ €< :} jai . "=; M E M O R A N D U M T0: County Administrators and City/Town Managers in AEP Service Territory ~/ FROM: Kit B. Kiser, Director of Public Utilities „ /~f` City of Roanoke, Chairman of VML/VACO APCO i~ Steering Committee DATE: June 27, 1996 RE: VML/VACO APCo Negotiations - Assessments As you know, your locality's contract with Appalachian Power Company (now known as American Electric Power (AEP)) expires June 30, 1996. We finally received AEP's proposal for the new contract period. AEP proposes a three year contract with rates frozen at their present level (exclusive of the fuel adjustment clause) for this three-year period. We believe, however, that a rate reduction is appropriate. AEP also proposes that we consider an optional demand billing rate which would be available to individual accounts, subject to certain limitations. We believe this should be explored also. _ An organizational meeting of the VML/VACO APCo Steering Committee was held on June 4, 1996 in Roanoke. The Steering Committee voted to pursue negotiations with AEP and to seek funds from each locality to cover the expenses of a utility consultant, legal fees and other expenses associated with negotiations. Each local government is asked to contribute its proportionate share of $125,000 based on the proportionate electricity usage for its locality (exclusive of street lights). Funds not used during these negotiations will be retained by the Virginia Association of Cciuncies in a separate interest bearing account for future negotiations. Enclosed is an invoice reflecting your locality's share of negotiating expenses. It would be helpful to have your locality's remittance prior to August 30, 1996. In the past, as a result of the Steering Committee's efforts, each local government has always received a savings in its electricity costs far greater than its share of negotiating expenses. For example, during the last negotiations in 1993, APCo initially proposed a rate increase of $4.4 million over a three year period. Final rates negotiated increased rates by $1.37 million over a three year period; a savings of more than $3 million as a result of the negotiation process. This saving was approximately 29 times the cost of the negotiations. It is believed that local governments will again experience a high return from their investment in the negotiation expenses. -over- ~Y Local governments benefit greatly from speaking with "one voice" during negotiations with AEP. It is to our collective benefit to continue negotiations in this manner. We hope your locality will choose to pay its proportionate share of the expenses and not just reap the benefit of the work of other local governments. The consultant, Steven Ruback of The Columbia Group, Inc. has begun obtaining information from AEP with which to make a detailed analysis. A Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for August 9 to review his findings. Local governments are encouraged to actively participate in the Steering Committee meetings and communicate any concerns or questions which should be discussed with AEP. If you have anv questions rega.rr~;.n.g r.he asaeasment. or negotiations, please do not hesitate to call Flip Hicks at (804) 343-2505, Howard Dobbins or Sarah Hopkins Finley at (804) 643- 1991 or me at (540) 981-2602. Enclosure cc: Mr. R. Michael Amyx Mr. James Campbell Howard W. Dobbins, Esquire Sarah Hopkins Finley, Esquire C. F. Hicks, Esquire Steering Committee Members 0265187.01 - 2 - 081396-4.a ACTION NO. ' ITEM NUMBER ~= AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Social Services Advisory Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD Supervisor Nickens nominated Robert H. Lewis, Vinton Magisterial District to another four-year term following the July 23 meeting,and asked that his name be placed on the Consent Agenda for confirmation. His term will expire August 1, 2000. ' RECOMMENDATION' It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. Respectfully submitted, ~• Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Roard Approved by, ~. ,/') Elmer C. Hodge Co~xn'•~y _ Admin~_strator Approved (X) Motion by:Supervisor Nickens No Yes Abs Denied ( ) to approve Eddy _ ~ _ Received ( ) Harrison _ ~ _ Referred ( ) Johnson _ ~ _ Nickens _ ~ _ cc: File Betty McCrary, Social Services Department Social Services Advisory Board File . ~ ~. 081396-4.b ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Request a resolution from the Board of Supervisors to accept the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program grant and to appropriate the funds into the Sheriff's Office Care and Confinement of Prisoners Part-Time Salaries Account. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: We have received approval for grant money from the State Department of Education for the Adult Literacy and Basic Education/GED program operated by Roanoke City Schools under the auspices of the Roanoke County/Salem Jail. The funding period began July 1, 1996 and will end June 30, 1997. The total amount of the grant is in the amount of $10,863. We will be reimbursed with Federal funds in the amount of $9,696 and we are to cover the remaining cost from Jail funds. The jail's match is being paid out of the Sheriff's Office Subfund account and requires no additional funding from the Board of Supervisors. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: See attachment. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this grant per the conditions of the Roanoke City Public Schools and the Roanoke County Sheriff's Office. Respectfully submitted, Gerald S. Holt Sheriff Approved (X) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge,'~r. County Administrator Motion by:~p~rvisor Nickens to approve No Yes Abs Eddy _ ~ _ Harrison _ ~ _ Johnson _ ~ _ Minnix _ ~ _ Nickens _ ~ _ cc: File Sheriff Gerald Holt ~~~ Roanoke City Public Schools Division of Instruction • Deportment of Adult Educorion The Jefferson Center, 541 Luck Awe., S. W., Sulre 330, Roonoke, Viryi~~!u 24016 Memo To: Shen1~ Gerald No(t Caunty of RoanokelCity of Salem J~~:' 401 Fast Main Street Salem, VA 24153 F,v~~: ~.~~~Dorofhy W. Hayes Supervisor of Adult and Cui,ti~;iai„g c:uvafion Date: July 12, 1996 Re: Funding for 1996-97 ti. ~< IM t t ht~a.:i'C ~ric:E OF TNk S ~~r~311•OF AUANOKE, ~' L-3 l Approval for the Adult Literacy and fsasic E(7ui;.~;ii;~~ruutD program operatev l~y i~;t~anoke City <:~ools under the auspices of the Roanoke County/City oaf Salem Jail has been received from the State i~epartment of Education. The funding period began .l~ai~ :; ?996 and v.~iil end June 30, 1997. The ~~-,proval and the required local matching funds are listed balv~.;: Federal Funds Jail Funds ~ li;:`` $9,696.00 $1,167.00 w 0,863.': The local cash match may come from funds i~~~i }>.~~...a~ to pw:~~~~<: supplies a~~c ;,~~;;i~:rials or ~;uy salaries andlor fixed benefits to the insVuctor, Mr. Michael Vulgan. The local cash match must always be maintained to equal the previous years level. ThF z r:,ount can never tie any less. I understand that tV1r. Vulgan will be receiving a 4.5% pay increase this year. The increase will either have to be rQ€?ected in ;ewer instructional hours or an additional local money match. There will be no increase in federal €unding. We will be contacting Ms. Pat Chockley in your office to secure ir~ur;riafion for work hours of Mr. Vulgan for the December 1996 and June 1987 State Department of Education reimbursements. We will forward funds to your office upon receipt. i We look forward to working with your instruciicnai staff in pi a~s~iur~al deveiupn rcrt i~ ~-set vice programs for teachers during the school year. Please let us know if we can assist you in any via, . DH/kw cc: Lloyd Enoch, .Director of Business, Technical and Adult Educatio~~ Roanoke City Schools .. Michael Vuiyan, Teacher Roanoke County/City of Salem Jail Fxcelle~°~~~~; in tducotton ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER /i"-` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER EETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Request to schedule a public hearing on September 24, 1996 to amend the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Member Use Agreement and Articles of Incorporation to allow residential and commercial refuse collection. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The essence of this request fora public hearing is a potential loss of fees at the regional landfill for commercial waste. There has been some "discussion" that commercial haulers may be willing to direct the 56% of solid waste they collect to landfills in other areas of the state to reduce their costs. If that becomes a reality, the County costs could increase by $1,140,000. I am only interested in taking over commercial solid waste if the loss of revenue increases costs to our citizens. 1 hope this will not be an issue in the future, but we need to be ready in case it is. Recommend approval of the public hearing. There are other alternatives we are working on with other localities and the Resource Authority and will have more information at a later date. BACKGROUND: The RVRA was created by the three member communities, Roanoke County, Roanoke City and the Town of Vinton, to provide for the disposal of solid waste. The Authority was specifically proscribed from providing collection services at that time. The Towers Perrin report identified residential solid waste collection as an area of potential cost savings. A city/county team has been working on a regional approach to this service delivery and has identified the Resource Authority as a potential service provider. To further this option, the Articles of Incorporation of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority must be amended to allow the Authority to collect residential and commercial refuse. A public hearing is required to amend the Articles of Incorporation. This public hearing requires at least 30 days notice. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Solid waste collection and disposal in the Roanoke Valley has two major components - residential and commercial. All residential collection is made by the respective communities and is 44% of the total waste stream. The city and county collect small amounts of commercial waste. Three major companies collect the bulk of the commercial trash. If one or more of these commercial collectors 1 ~f-I were to take the trash they collect to other landfills, the Resource Authority would be required to increase the tipping fees to make up the lost revenue (see Attachment). A possible method to address the problem would have the Resource Authority enter the commercial trash collection business ensuring the waste stream to the Authority. Residential collection by the city and county is being accomplished by different methods. The city uses a manual method at a cost of $69.29 per household per year. The county uses automated collection for 92% of the county at a cost of $39.96. The remaining 8% is collected manually, bringing the whole county cost to $42.31 per household per year. The city is considering automation in the near future. Concurrently, the city and county cooperation teams have been evaluating the economics of a regional residential effort based upon automated collection. The RVRA has been proposed as a possible choice to provide this service. Both the residential and commercial opportunities would require amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Resource Authority. FISCAL IMPACT: The advertising cost of the legal notice will be shared by the three participating localities. Funds are available in the 1996/97 budget. LTERNATIVES: 1. Schedule a public hearing to consider approval of the amendments. 2. Refrain from approving the proposed amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorization for staff set a public hearing for September 24, 1996 and to publish a copy of the appropriate ordinance, resolution, or agreement at least 30 days prior to the date set for a public hearing on adoption of the resolution as required to authorize the execution of an amendment to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Member Use Agreement and Articles of Incorporation, to allow the Authority to engage in or provide for commercial and/or residential garbage and refuse collection activities or services. 2 /f- I Respe~ctf ly submi ~~.___.__.,~,,,,__,._._ r William J. Rand, III Director of General Services ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: Approved by, ,,. ~~. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 3 Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs ROANOKE VALLEY RESOYTRCE AUTHORIT! -~ Financial Facts 1. Annual Budget $10,250,000 - 2. Capitallnvestment $42,000,000 3. Debt $33,000,000 4. Annual Debt Service $ 3,000,000 5. Total Annual Tonnage 189,000 Tons 6. Commercial (Private Hauser) Tonnage 107,Q(itl Tnna (S6°/a) 7. 'Three (3) lYiajar I3aulers (BFi, 'waste lY~ansgen~ent, & Corrugated Cpntainer Service) haul $0,000 TonslAnnually 8. BFI Tonnage - 30,000 Tons/Annually 9. If BFI only transports refuse nut of City: City rats nessi to increase from 850ITon to $63ITon = 5650,000/Annually YSo~c~ C~~.,-~ 10. If all three major haulers transport refuse out of City: City rates need to increase from $50/Ton to S811Ton = 51,550,000/Annually !~ /~07 ~ Ca~~y ~~ }I-1 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE Ai1rI'HORITY June 21, 1996 Mr. Bob Herbert, City Manager Mr. Elmer Hodge, County Administrator City of Roanoke County of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue 24011 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24011 Roanoke, VA 24018 Mr. B. Clayton Goodman, III Town Manager, Town of Vinton P.O. Box 338 Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Gentlemen: I have received your letters of support for amending the Members Use Agreement and the Authority's Charter allowing the collection of commercial waste. Each of you have also requested that residential collection be included. Since the receipt of your letters the Authority has drafted amendments to each document that include both commercial and residential collection. These amendments have been forwarded to your respective legal counsel for their review and comment. Upon receipt of any comments the Authority's attorney will finalize the documents and forward to you for action. The amendments will place the Authority and the local governments in a position to proceed with the necessary public hearings and adoption of the appropriate ordinances. If you have any questions please let me know. Sincerel , John .Hubbard, .E. Chief Executive Officer JRHlmej 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 ~l~ . ~~ ~- ~ ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORPTY Mark Allan Will~ns, General Counsel rn Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney 464 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1595 Buck Heartwell, Esquire Vinton Town Attorney P. O. Box 206 Daleville, Virginia 24083 Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Roanoke County Attorney's Office P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Gentlemen: May 28, 1996. 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ N C rri ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' . rv ~- 0 ~n Re: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority; Amendment of Articles of Tncnrnc~rati~n Following my last letter to you dated April 8, 1996, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("Authority") has received confirmation from the City, County, and Town in support of authorizing the Authority to engage in the collection of commercial waste. The chief administrative officers of three Charter Member Jurisdictions have also stated support for broadening the Authority's powers to include the collection of residential as well as commercial waste. At its meeting of May 22, 1996, the Authority authorized commencement of the procedure necessary for amendment of the Authority's Charter and the Member Use Agreement to authorize the Authority's collection of commercial and residential waste. Please note that at this time, the Authority intends only to amend its organizational documents in accordance with the requirements of the Water and Sewer Authorities Act. The Authority does not intend to comply at this time with the other procedural requirements contained in section 15.1-1250.01 (Supp.) which must be met prior to a decision by the Authority and the Charter Member Jurisdictions to have the Authority actually engage in or provide for collection activities. Roanoke Regional Airport Terminal Building 5202 Aviation Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (703) 362-1999 Fax (703) X63-357 ~I May 28, 1996 page 2 Section 15.1-1250(0) of the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act ("Act"), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, (Supp.), provides that the articles of incorporation of any authority may be amended with respect to the powers of such authority by following the procedure prescribed by law for the creation of the authority. The procedure for creation of an authority is contained in 15.1-1241 through 15.1-1247 and calls for the governing bodies of the jurisdictions to publish a copy of the appropriate ordinance, resolution, or agreement at least 30 days prior to the date set for a public hearing on adoption of the ordinance. Section 15.1-1247 of the Act also provides that the governing bodies of the organizing jurisdictions may by subsequent ordinance or resolution after public hearing specify further projects to be undertaken by the Authority. In accordance with the foregoing, I have enclosed for your consideration and use as you deem appropriate a draft resolution including proposed Articles of Amendment to the Authority's Articles of Incorporation and authorizing amendment of the Member Use Agreement. A draft Amendment to the Member Use Agreement is also enclosed. Please note that the enclosed draft Articles of Amendment do not reference compliance with section 15.1-1250.01, and there is no finding by the Authority and subsequent findings by the jurisdictions that operation by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority of a sanitary landfill and commercial collection system and any related facilities or contract for such operation, in spite of any potential anti-competitive effect, is important in order to provide for the development and/or operation of a regional system of garbage and refuse collection and disposal. As referenced earlier, these requirements must be considered if and when the decision is made that the Authority will actually engage in or provide for collection activities. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions regarding the enclosed documents. With kindest personal regards, I am, Sincerely, ~~ Mark Allan Williams General Counsel maw enclosures cc: Jo n Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer (w/enclosures) embers, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority DRAFT RES. FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS USE AGREEMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN OR PROVIDE FOR COMMERCIAL AND/OR RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES. Ni Whereas the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, ("County"), the Council of the Town of Vinton, Virginia ("Town"), and the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, ("City") have determined that it is in their best interests to amend the Articles of Incorporation of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("Authority") and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Member Use Agreement to authorize the Authority to engage in or provide for commercial and/or residential garbage and refuse collection activities or services, pursuant to the provisions of the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act, Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, ("Act"); and, Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the Council of the Town of Vinton, Virginia, and the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do by concurrent resolutions provide for amendment of the Authority's Articles of Incorporation to authorize the Authority to engage in or provide for commercial and/or residential garbage and refuse collection activities or services pursuant to the Act; and, Whereas, a public hearing has been held in accordance with the requirements of the Act, including, without limitation, sections 15.1-1243, 15.1-1244, and 15.1-1250(0); and, Whereas, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has, by resolution, expressed its consent to the aforesaid amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The proper officials are authorized to execute and attest, in form approved by legal counsel, an amendment to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement authorizing the Authority to engage in or provide for commercial and/or residential garbage and refuse collection activities or services. 2. The authorization of the Authority to engage iri or provide for commercial and/or residential collection activities or services pursuant to the Act is hereby approved, and the Articles of Amendment of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority sets forth and specifies this additional DRAFT RES. FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT ~~ 5-23-96 PAGE 2 authority. 3. The Articles of Amendment of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority are as follows: The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, the Town Council of the Town of Vinton, and the Council of the City of Roanoke have by concurrent resolution adopted the following amendments to the Articles of Incorporation of the Roanoke County Resource Authority of Virginia, pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (chapter 28, Title 15.1, 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended) ("Act") I. The Articles of Incorporation shall be amended by striking out ARTICLE I and substituting the following: The name of the Authority shall be the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the address of its principal office is ~c~~ Roanoke, Virginia ~k II. ARTICLE II of the Articles of Incorporation shall continue to read as follows: The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the County of Roanoke, Virginia;. the City of Roanoke, Virginia; and the Town of Vinton, Virginia. The County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton, as the incorporating political subdivisions, hereby acknowledge, covenant, and agree that these Articles of Incorporation shall not be further amended or changed without the express agreement of each of the governing bodies of ~~ DRAFT RES. FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 3 each of the incorporating political subdivisions. Neither of the following actions shall be taken or permitted to occur by the Authority without the consent of the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke as expressed by the affirmative vote of all City and County representatives on the Authority: (1) Any change in the terms or conditions of design or operation of the Transfer Station located in the City of Roanoke as set forth in the Solid Waste Transfer Facility Design Criteria, dated March 19, 1991, and the Solid Waste Transfer Facility Operating Criteria, dated May 21, 1991, as approved by the Roanoke City Planning Commission on June 5, 1991, and the Part A and Part B applications for the Transfer Station as approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia, or any expansion or modification thereof or use by any persons or entities other than City, County, or Town; (2) Any change in the terms and conditions of the design or operation of the Landfill located in Roanoke County as set forth in the special use permit and the Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies, Action 62789-10 and Resolution 62789-12, each dated June 27, 1989, and the Part A and Part B applications for the Landfill as approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since the Landfill and Transfer Station are scarce and valuable resources, and because the incorporating political subdivisions have a common interest in insuring that the Landfill is utilized in the best possible and most efficient manner, the incorporating political subdivisions agree that Authority membership and operation and use and operation of the Transfer Station and Landfill shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members DRAFT RES. FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 4 Use Agreement ("Use Agreement") dated October 23, 1991. /~-( III. The Articles of Incorporation shall be amended by striking out ARTICLE III and substituting the following: The names, addresses, and terms of office of the members of the Board of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority ("Authority") are as follows: 1. Diane Hyatt 2. B. Clayton Goodman, III 3. Kit B. Kiser 4. Bittle W. Porterfield, III 5. William 7. Rand, III 6. Allan C. Robinson, Jr. 7. Katherine Schefsky The terms of office of each of the members shall become effective on the date of issuance of a certificate of joinder for the Authority by the State Corporation Commission in accordance with the provisions of Section 15.1-1248 of the Act. The governing body of each participating political subdivision shall appoint the number of members, who may be members of the governing body, set forth opposite its name below: County of Roanoke -four City of Roanoke -two DRAFT RES. FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 5 Town of Vinton -one It being the intention of these Articles that the governing body of the County of Roanoke shall always appoint a majority of the members, whenever an additional political subdivision shall join the Authority, such governing body shall be entitled to appoint one or more additional members in order to maintain such majority. Initially, the governing body of the County of Roanoke shall appoint one member for a four-year term, one member for athree-year term, and two members for atwo-year term. Initially, the governing body of the City of Roanoke shall appoint one member for afour-year term and one member for athree-year term. Initially, the governing body of the Town of Vinton shall appoint one member for afour-year term. After the initial terms, each member shall be appointed for afour-year term or until his successor is appointed and qualified. Any additional members appointed by the County of Roanoke to maintain its majority pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall also be appointed for four-year terms. The governing body of each political subdivision shall be empowered to remove at any time, without cause, any member appointed by it and appoint a successor member to fill the unexpired portion of the removed member's term. Each member may be reimbursed by the Authority for the amount of actual expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duties. IV. The Articles of Incorporation shall be amended by striking out ARTICLE IV and substituting the following: The purpose for which the Authority is to be formed is to exercise all the powers granted to the Authority to acquire, finance, construct, operate, manage and maintain a garbage and refuse ~- r DRAFT RES. FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 6 collection and disposal system and related facilities pursuant to the Act. For purposes of these Articles, and any contracts or documents entered into on behalf of Authority, "garbage and refuse collection and disposal system and related facilities" shall mean collection and disposal of garbage and refuse at and through a transfer facility owned and operated by the Authority and the associated landfill or disposal operations d~'ct~€:`~~'~:>~to en a e in or rovi r :;::`;`:;:~` ~::~~or-business .....................:::::....:: g g p de for individual esidential ~az`ti~r~€'€a.;: ;collection activities or services. The Authority shall contract with the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton to furnish garbage and refuse and disposal services upon identical terms and conditions including the same scheduL fJ ~ , t~ t? rates, fees and charges of all types which shall be uniformly applicable to sup subdivisions. Subject to the terms of the Use Agreement, the Authority may contrac~ ~ ~~~ . ~, political subdivisions to furnish garbage and trash disposal services upon such terms anc as the Authority shall determine. The Authority may contract to make host locality payments to Roanoke County and Roanoke City to compensate the County and City in consideration of location of facilities within their communities. It is not practicable to set forth herein information regarding preliminary estimates of capital costs, proposals for specific projects to be undertaken, or initial rates for the proposed projects. V. ARTICLE V of the Articles of Incorporation shall continue to read as follows: The Authority shall serve the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton and, to the extent permitted by the Act and by the terms of these Articles and the Use Agreement, such other public or private entities as the Authority may determine upon the terms DRAFT RES . FOR ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 7 and conditions established pursuant to such contracts. ~'-/ VI. ARTICLE VI of the Articles of Incorporation shall continue to read as follows: The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or by an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the governing body of each of the incorporating political subdivisions. 4. A copy of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement is available for inspection in the Office of the Town Manager, Vinton Municipal Building, Office of the Clerk to the Board, Administration Center, and Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. - 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. C:\WPS] \FII.PS\LANDFILL\FILESIFLOWCNI'R\ARTICLES.AMD DRAFT AMENDMENT TO USE AGREEMENT ~"' 5-23-96 PAGE 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS USE AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY MEMBERS USE AGREEMENT (the "Second Amendment':) is made as of 1996, by and among the ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY, as successor to the Roanoke County Resource Authority (the "Authority"), the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (the "City") and the TOWN OF VINTON, VIRGINIA (the "Town"); each of which are political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia. RECITALS WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement dated October 23, 1991, as amended by First Amendment dated as of June 1, 1992, (the "Members Use Agreement") under which the Authority agreed to acquire, construct and equip a regional waste disposal system consisting of a landfill and transfer station and related structures and equipment (the "System"), and to provide financing therefor in order to dispose of all nonhazardous solid waste delivered to the System by or on behalf of the County, the City and the Town (collectively, the "Charter Members"). WHEREAS, the Authority and the County, City, and Town desire to amend the Members Use Agreement to permit the Authority to engage in or provide for commercial and/or residential garbage and refuse collection activities or services. DRAFT AMENDMENT TO USE AGREEMENT ~"' 5-23-96 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Authority and the County, City, and Town, covenant and agree as follows: 1, flPfinitinns. The capitalized terms in this Second Amendment have the meanings given to them in the Members Use Agreement unless otherwise defined. 2. Amendment ~f S rti~n ~f Memb rc TP Tie A~are.~m n . Section 2.2 of the Members Use Agreement is hereby amended by striking out current Section 2.2 in its entirety and substituting the following: Section 2.2 Annlicahility; Am .ndm .ntc, The Authority and Users covenant and agree that except as .stated herein the terms, conditions and requirements contained in this Agreement shall apply equally to each Charter Member User and further covenant and agree that this Agreement, the Articles of Incorporation, and Bylaws, shall not be amended or changed in any way without the consent of Authority and the consent of the governing body of each Charter Member User. The parties. hereto further covenant and agree that the Authority shall engage in the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse at and through the Facility or other transfer facilities owned and operated by the Authority, and that the Authority shall be authorized to engage in or provide for commercial and/or residential garbage and refuse collection activities or services. 3. Crnmtemarts. This Second Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, will be an original, and the counterparts taken together will constitute one and the same instrument. 4. F.ffectivenecc ~f Memh rc TT P A=rePmPnt, Except as expressly amended in this Second Amendment, all terms and provisions of the Members Use Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. .. DRAFT AMENDMENT TO USE AGREEMENT 5-23-96 PAGE 3 IN VV:[TNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Second Amendment to be executed as of the date above written. . ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY ATTEST: By: _ Title: ATTEST: By: Title: ATTEST: By: _ Title: By: _ Title: Date: COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By: _ Title: Date: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGIl~TIA By: _ Title: Date: TOWN OF VINTON, VII2GII~TIA ATTEST: By; Title: By: Date: Title: ~ ~. ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13,1996 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing conveyance of a gas line easement to Roanoke Gas Company across property at the Roanoke County Public Service Center. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ J. BACKGROUND• Roanoke Gas Company has requested an easement across a portion of the Kessler Mill public service facility. The purpose of the easement would be to extend service to an area of Roanoke County that is not presently served. SUN~IARY OF INFORMATION Roanoke Gas Company is asking the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for a permanent gas line easement through the Kessler Mill facility. This would be an extension of an existing four inch line that serves the new wash bay building and would run approximately 200 feet further West to the property boundary. The proposed easement would be twenty feet wide. Two parallel easements for water and sewer exist in the proposed gas easement corridor and would lie on either side of the gas line easement. The proposed easement would not affect any operation at Kessler Mill either current or future and would run through the unpaved parking area. Staff has consulted with the Public Facilities,Parks and Recreation, and General Services Directors and they are unopposed to granting the easement. Roanoke Gas would be responsible for all costs incurred during construction and repair or replace any damaged Roanoke County property to original condition. A map of the proposed and existing easements is attached along with a copy of the proposed ordinance prepared by the County Attorney's office. r Sf ALTERNATIVES• (1) Approve the request and grant the permanent easement. (2) Deny the easement request. (3) Modify the easement terms and include further stipulations as The Board may feel necessary. FISCAL IMPACT• None STAFF RECOMN~NDATION: Staff recommends alternative one. Roanoke Gas was very co-operative during the construction of the new wash bay gas line and provided service and hook up at no cost to Roanoke County. Since the two existing easements effectively block any further development or construction on the site and the proposed easement would run between them it is felt that no damage to the utility of the property will occur. This can be viewed as an extension of services to Roanoke County citizens. Respectfully submitted, J hn D. Willey operty Manag r Approved by, 1 ~ ~-~-~- ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens T-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 10~ GAS LINE EASEMENT TO ROANORE GAS COMPANY ACROSS PROPERTY KNOWN A3 THE ROANORE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, the Roanoke County General Services Department is constructing improvements and wash bay facilities on property owned by the Board of Supervisors, said property being located on Kessler Mill Road (Va. St. Route 630), in the Catawba District of the County of Roanoke and in the City of Salem, known as the County Public Service Center; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke Gas Company requires an easement for the gas line to serve the new facilities, and has requested that said easement extend through the property to the western property line, adjacent to an existing 20' sanitary sewer line as shown on .the attached drawing marked Exhibit A, in order to provide for future gas service to properties located behind the Service Center; and, WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 1996, and a second reading was held on August 27, 1996. ~'~ t 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Roanoke Gas Company for the provision of gas service in connection with facilities at the Roanoke County Public Service Center and for provision of gas service in the future to surrounding properties. 3. That donation of an easement for a gas pipeline or lines (with appliances and accessories useful and necessary in connection therewith) across the Public Service Center property, as shown on the attached drawing marked Exhibit A, to Roanoke Gas Company is hereby authorized. 4. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrators are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from .the date of its adoption. 7/ .~ ~~ o~ TRACT 'B' TRACT 'A' 10' GAS LINE 20' SEWER LINE EASEMENT EASEMENT .. - . _~ ~\ .\ ~ ~ ~~ . ~.~ INTERS7gTE 81 f~ Q 0 J ~ J ~ f ~ Q' t- W H J ~ ' W Y EXHIBIT A ~. ACTION NUMBER / ITEM NUMBER ~/ "" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ~ GRIEVANCE PANEL Two year term of R. Vincent Reynolds will expire September l0, 1996. ?~ TNDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Four year term of J. Richard Cranwell will expire September 26, 1996. 3. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT STUDY COMMITTEE At the July 9 j oint 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. ~, _- k'/- 3 SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: ,~~'' El er C. Ho ge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) 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, AUGUST 13,1996 RESOLUTION 081396-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 13, 1996 designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - June 11, 1996, June 25, 1996, July 9, 1996 (Joint Meeting with Roanoke City Council), July 9, 1996 (regular meeting) 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Social Services Advisory Board. 3. Request from the Sheriff's Department to accept and appropriate the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program grant. 4. Request for acceptance of Lost Drive and Lost View Lane 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 the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Consent Resolution after discussion of Item 3 and correction to Item 1, and _ S carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~. c. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board cc: File Sheriff Gerald Holt Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections Social Services Advisory Board File AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13,1996 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 13, 1996 designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - June 11, 1996, June 25, 1996, June 9, 1996 (Joint Meeting with Roanoke City Council), June 9, 1996 (regular meeting) 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Social Services Advisory Board. 3. Request from the Sheriff's Department to accept and appropriate the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program grant. 4. Request for acceptance of Lost Drive and Lost View Lane 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 the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. ~-i June 11, 1996 -~ ___ Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 11, 1996 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 1996. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend John Hartwig, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. t ,~ June 11, 1996 CLAIRE NERVO, AN OUTSTANDING GRADUATE AT GLENVAR HIGH SCHOOL. WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo has demonstrated great academic achievement, athletic excellence, and community leadership throughout her academic career at Glenvar High School; and WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo is an honor graduate, a member of the Honor Society of America, winner of the President's Award for Educational Excellence, and the B'nai B'rith Award; and WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo recently won the State 1,600 and 3,200 meter races in record time beating her own records in both events while helping to lead Glenvar's Women's Track Team to a ninth place finish in the Group A State track meet at the University of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo is a Cross Country District, Region, and State Metro Champion and Record Holder, Most Valuable Player, Timesland Cross Country Runner of the Year, and 4th place winner of the Foot Locker National and 1st Team All-American; and WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo is a Track District, Region and State Cosmopolitan 1,600 meter and 3,200 meter Champion, and Record Holding Cosmopolitan Most Valuable Player; and WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo is a community leader certified in first aid, basic water safety and rescue, as well as recipient of the Virginia PTA Citizenship Essay Contest, and the Highlander of the Year; and WHEREAS, Patricia Nervo will be attending the University of North Carolina this fall on a full scholarship in Cross Country Running and Track. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to Patricia Claire Nervo for her outstanding performance in academic excellence, athletic competition and community leadership. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 2. Recognition of County employees for continuing their education: June 11, 1996 /J~J Creek Interceptors. The revised cost estimate for the project is $48.8 million. Mr. Robertson reported that the most critical development since the last status report is that the Department of Environmental Quality has denied the tiered permit concept based on plant capacity of 42 MGD average flow with a 171% increase for peak flows in wet weather. The latest negotiations are based on a straight permit with a capacity of 62 MGD which will require an amendment to the 1994 contract. Mr. Robertson updated the Board on the wastewater treatment plant expansion with estimated costs at $6.3 and the County's share at $2.1 million, and the Roanoke River Sewer Interceptor with estimated costs of $23.6 million, and the County's share at $6.9 million. 2. Report from the Treasurer on the public auction of delinquent real estate properties (Alfred C Anderson, County Treasurer) Mr. Anderson reported that the order for the judicial sale was entered on May 22 to have the judicial sale on June 25. Out of 100 parcels with delinquencies of over $250,000, there remains 22 properties with an assessed value of $600,000 and delinquency of $60,000 scheduled to be sold. Bland Land Company is the auctioneer and the proceeds of any sale will be held in a June 11, 1996 Supervisor Eddy moved to approve the street lighting agreement. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 2. t~equest for an appropriation of 518,000 to fund the County's share of the contract for the services of a Communications Consultant to study the Regional Radio Communications Program (John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) A-061196-3 Mr. Chambliss reported that at the March 4 joint meeting with Roanoke City Council a report was presented on the radio communication system. The report recommended the services of a consultant to assist in mapping a planned migration to a radio system that would provide inter-operability between the city and county. The city-county team has received four proposals for the consultant services and recommends awarding the contract to Hayes, 5eay, Mattern and Mattern at a cost not to exceed $36,000. The County's share would be $18,000. Mr. Chambliss requested that the County appropriate the funds from the unappropriated balance of the Capital Fund. Following discussion, Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the $18,000 appropriation. The motion carried by the Supervisors RESOLUTION 061196-4 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH MOTOROLA CORPORATION AND APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT FOR LEASE/PURCHASES OF 800 MHZ COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AND RELATED TOWER IMPROVEMENTS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary or desirable to: (A) authorize the execution of a contract with Motorola Corporation, and (B) advance money to pay the costs of acquiring certain equipment and improvements for the County consisting of a 800 MHZ Communications System and related tower improvements ("Equipment"), and © to reimburse such advances with proceeds of one or more financings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ,BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration., of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County to pay the costs of acquiring the Equipment from the proceeds of its debt or other financings. The maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the Equipment is $2,200,000. 3. The Board of Supervisors determines that the financing of the acquisition of the Equipment pursuant to one or more agreements providing for the leasing of the Equipment by the County from one or more lessors (collectively, the "Lease") is in the best interest of the County and the lease financing of the Equipment is authorized. The maximum aggregate amount of the principal components of the Lease shall be $2,200,000 plus an amount sufficient to pay the costs incurred by the County in connection with the financing or financings and to fund any required reserves. The Director of Finance and the County Administrator are authorized to select a lessor or lessors and to execute and deliver on behalf of the County an appropriate Lease or Leases and such other documents, agreements and certificates as may be necessary to complete the lease financing. 4. The County Administrator, the Director of Finance and such officers, agents and employees of the County as either June 11, 1996 RESOLUTION 061196-5 REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF YALE DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described below was established before July 1, 1986, and currently serves at least 3 families per mile, and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does not exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D}, Code of Virginia: Name of Street: Yale Drive Length: 0.09 miles. From: 0.24 miles southeast of US 11/460 W with the intersection of SR 710 (Yale Drive), To: 0.33 miles SE of US 11/460 W, to a proposed turn-around. Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50 feet. Plat Recorded, Date: November 5, 1968, Plat Book 7, Page 38 in the Roanoke County Clerk's Office. 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, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor Minnix Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson Nays: one June 11, 1996 administrative changes to the ordinance and advised that the Commissioner of the Revenue requested that businesses with gross receipts of less than $3,000 will be exempt from paying the; license fee. Supervisor Nickens expressed concern about holding the public hearing on the tax after the funds are already included in the budget. Staff was directed to advise County businesses of the changes and include a document showing the fee changes before second reading. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance with the inclusion of Massage Therapists,_and Technicians, and to set the second reading and public hearing for June 25, 1996. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None 2. Ordinance authorizing the relocation of the polling place for the Green Hill Precinct from Fort Lewis Fire Station to Fort Lewis Baptist Church and the North Vinton pollina Mace from the Vinton Fire Station to the Vinton Baptist Church. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) This ordinance was requested at the recommendation of June 11, 1996 RESOLUTION 061196-6 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 June 11, 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 9, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - May 9, 1996. 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, the Board of Zoning Appeals, The Community Policy and Management Team, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 3. Acceptance of a grant by the Police Department for Community Crime Prevention Services. 4. Acceptance of a grant by the Police Department for enhancing drug enforcement and prosecution. 5. Acceptance of a grant by the Police Department for school resource officers. 6. Acceptance of Summerfield Drive, "Summerfield Subdivision," Section 1 and 2, into -the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 7. Request from School Board for appropriation of, the Summer Youth Program grant. 8. Request from School Board for appropriation of the 1996/97 Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Budget. 9. Adoption of a resolution removing Deerfield Circle from the 1985 road bond project list. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. June 11, 1996 ~ np.~ I WHEREAS, staff has been working with the developer and the Virginia Department of Transportation but we have not been successful in complying with VDOT's directives, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County _ Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes staff to remove Deerfield Circle from the 1985 road bond project. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Eddy: (1) He asked for a report on the Virginia Department of Transportation public hearing held on June 6, 1996. Mr. Hodge responded that he attended the meeting and felt that there was greater interest in road improvements to Route 11/460. (2) He advised that he received a list from Mr. Hodge on energy savings in the schools from Johnson Controls which included statistics showing considerable savings. Mr. Hodge advised that he received the list from Dr. Gordon and that he would have staff look at the electricity line items in the budget to compare the actual savings. (3) He was pleased to hear from Senior Assistant County Attorney Joe Obenshain that the regional decal enforcement program would be increased with the addition of other localities. (4) He asked about the status of the policy manual. Mr. Mahoney responded that the department heads had received a copy and will meet on June 17 to review; and that copies will then be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. June 11, 1996 activities at Camp Roanoke, Dwight Bogle for his volunteer efforts in the rescue squad and youth sports and Rose M. Allen for her work with the Girl Scouts, and the VICAP Program who assisted senior citizens with health care insurance concerns. Certificates were presented to Betty Huddleston, Jon McKenna, Mabrey Hunt, Waynard Caldwell, and Charlie Jones, Jr. Following the awards presentation, the Board recessed to attend a reception honoring the recipients. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:20 p.m., Supervisor Minnix moved to go into Executive Session following the reception pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (1) personnel matter, performance evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney and appointment of Fire and Rescue Chief; (5) expansion of existing business or industry; (3) disposition of publicly held real estate; and (7) legal matter; negotiations with the Town of Vinton. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: RETURN TO OPEN SESSION At 6:10 p.m., the Board returned to open session. IN RE: WORR SESSIONS June 11, 1996 4.1 ~ I Manager) Final consensus of the board was reached on contributions to human, social, and cultural agencies. There was discussion and Board direction on the following issues: a. $30,000 for Vinton Jaycee Field and $10,000 for Garst Mill Park: consensus to fund. b. Additional funding for General District Court and Urban Partnership:- no consensus to fund. c. Jail Expansion project presented by Sheriff Gerald Holt: no consensus to move forward at this time. d. Police Firing Range: hold for further discussions e. Requests from Supervisor Eddy's memorandum: (1) $5,000 for Employee Incentive Awards: support for funding. (2) Funding for additional fire hydrants and replacement equipment: new Fire and Rescue Chief to report back. (3) $10,000 for Contran Slots: willing to consider. (4) Fund low band tourist radio system: discuss at the July 9 joint meeting with Roanoke City Council (5) Generator for Bent Mountain Fire Station and air compressor for Cave Spring Fire Station: new Fire and Rescue Chief to report back. (f) Consensus on actual 1996-97 vehicle count at June 11, 1996 Bonds which amounts to $603,515. Mr. Robertson presented a list of potential projects and their estimated cost. Supervisors Nickens and Eddy did not support use of general funds for the project. Supervisor Eddy suggested that the funds be borrowed from the General Fund for the Utility Fund and reimbursed to the General Fund as people sign on for water and sewer. Following discussion, Mr. Robertson was directed to bring back the list of pilot projects and policy for adoption on June 25, 1996. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 8:35 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to go into Ex~'cutive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1- 344 A. (1) evaluation of county attorney and county administrator. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-061196-7 At 10:07 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to return to Open session and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 11, 1996 1. Resolution approving the fiscal year 1996/97 budget for Roanoke County. (Brent Robertson, Budget Manager) R-061196-8 Mr Robertson advised that the resolution approving the 1996/97 budget was developed from budget work sessions with the Board as of the May 28, 1996 meeting. Subsequent .Board direction from today's work session will cause some figures to change by reallocation from one section to another. However, the total County budget would not change. Supervisor Eddy advised he would not support the budget because of the way it was developed. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the 1996/97 budget with changes resulting from the work session and adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: Supervisor Eddy RESOLUTION 061196-8 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 15.160 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only; and WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing fiscal year; and WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the provisions of Section 15.1-162 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required thereon was held on May 28, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of '' `.z: June 11, 1996 Proposed Expenditnres Ger~eral Fund: General Government: General Administration ConstitutionalOfficers Judicial Administration 1Vlanagement Services Public Safety Community Services Human Services Non-Departmental Transfers to School Operating Fund Transfers to Debt Service Fund Transfex to internal Services Transfer to Comprehensive Services Other . Addition to Fund Balance Total General Government Youth Haven II Law Library ~~ Recreation Fee Class Coni~rehensive Services Act Internal Services Garage II Total General Fund $ 2,170,233 6;092,179 319,778 1,690,775 9,249,3 00 7,988,473 8,244,237 3,913,353 41,530,692 5,492,904 1,169,996 313,Q15 800,000 404,963 89,379,898 3 87,247 41,980 616,763 1,126,122 1,461,964 257,278 93,271,252 Adopted FY_~,,~96-97 2,134,094 6,093,764 582,670 1,791,726 10,017,684 7,75 0,101 8,529,310 3,432,674 42,206,668 6,052,750 .888,826 649,840 765,000 0 90,815,307 405,330 41,980 704,597 1,446,110 1,501,854 259.001 95,173,979 Debt Service Fund 8,706,612 9,602,669 Capital Projects Fund 575,000 355,000 Internal Service Fund 1,169,996 888,826 Water Fund .. 11,448,462 10,711,356 Sewer fund ~ ~ 5,351,155 5,489,5'74- School0perating Fund 76,103,239 79,912,6Q7 Schoo3 Cafeteria Fund ~ ~ 2,995,000 3,017,000 ' School Grants Fund 1,652,032 1,498,253 School Textbook Fund 777,283 814,526 Other School Funds 1,500,000 0 '"~'" ~ Total Expenditures All Funds 203,550,031 207,463,790 Less: Transfers ~ (55,985,798) (56,194,679) Total Net ofTratzsfex~s $ 147,564,233 $ 151,269,111 Adopted FY 1995-96 June 11, 1996 budget tool to assist County staff and the Board of Supervisors in addressing the capital needs of our community; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has held several work sessions with County staff on this capital improvements program; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the adoption of this capital improvements program was held on May 28, 1996, to secure the comments of the citizens after publication of notice as required by law. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County capital improvements program for FY 1997-2001 is hereby adopted and approved. 2. That this capital improvements program shall not be considered a portion of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. On motion. of Supervisor Johnson to approve the 1997- 2001 CIP and adopt the resolution; and carried. by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYSr Supervisor Eddy .3~ Resolution establishing salaries for the Count Administrator and County Attorney. (Paul M Mahoney, County Attornev) R-061196-10 Supervisor Johnson announced that the County Administrator and County Attorney had received their evaluations and moved to approve their salaries as follows: The County Administrator will receive a four.percent increase to be invested in the National Association of Counties Deferred compensation Plan, and the County Attorney will receive a four percent salary June 11, 1996 the Board of Supervisors on May 28 and a public hearing was held to receive comment from the public. He presented the budget with changes determined at the work session. The total County budget is $207,463,790, and the ordinance conforms with reporting used in the comprehensive Annual Financing Report. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading with changes resulting from the work session, with second reading and public hearing set for June 25, 1996. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens asked for the expiration dates for grants and temporary full-time positions. Supervisor Johnson asked staff to notify the various agencies of the final decisions on contributions. 2. Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46 01.1 of the Code o Virginia. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading of ordinance increasing salaries by four percent and set the second reading and public hearing for June 25, 1996. The motion carried June 25, 1996 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 25, 1996 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 1996. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES June 25, 1996 A ~ c NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062596-1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO ROANOKE STAR UNDER-13 WHITE SOCCER TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, youth soccer is an important activity to the young people of the Roanoke Valley, and many Roanoke County youngsters participate in the Roanoke Star soccer teams; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Star Under-13 White Soccer Team recently competed in the Virginia State Cup Competition, and for the second consecutive year made it to the Final Four, this year winning the Under-13 State Championship; and WHEREAS, this is the first travel team in southwest Virginia, and in the ten year history of the Roanoke Valley Youth Soccer Club, to ever reach this level of competition in youth soccer; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Star Under-13 White Soccer Team will be competing in the Region I Competition with 14 other State Champions in the 1996 Snicker's Region I Regional Championship in Niagara Falls, New York from June 28 to July 2, representing the Roanoke Valley and the State of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby offer its congratulations to the ROANOKE STAR UNDER-13 WHITE SOCCER TEAM for its state championship victory; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for victory at the Region I Competition in Niagara Falls. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: BRIEFINGS Minnix, Harrison, Johnson 1. Receipt of two awards from National Association of y June 25, 1996 n 7 ~ .. _ ....m... ~~ ~. T.. , v _ ~ ~_ ..v ._ . ~ Report on Judicial Sale of properties for delinquent real estate taxes held June 25. 1996. (Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer) Mr. Anderson gave the unofficial results of the sale which was held this morning. He advised that the assessed value of the 22 properties was $493.,000; that the bids received were $315,000; and that the costs of the sale and payment of the delinquent taxes was $75,000. The balance of $240,000 will be placed in a trust fund and if it is not claimed in two years, this amount will revert to the County. Supervisor Johnson advised that he was concerned that the property located at the intersection of Carefree Lane and" Dent .Road and in the path of the Roanoke Regional Airport was offered for sale because any development of this property would be affected by the close proximity to the Airport. Mr. Anderson responded that the Airport was notified of the sale and did not express any interest. Supervisor Johnson advised that as Chairman of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, he was not aware that notification had been made. Supervisor Johnson asked that staff look at the entire process to determine if there is a better method. Supervisor Eddy asked that when properties are proposed for the next judicial sale, that staff provide maps and descriptions of all properties to the Board members. 4. Demonstration of Roanoke County's Home Page on the uii fr.~ 1/JV requesting that annual appropriations be made for the 1996-97 projects as follows: (1)$350,000 to the Water Repair and Replacement Fund -for projects (a) Exit 146 North County; (b) Labellevue Reservoir; (c) VDOT Road; (d) Castle Hill; (e) Tanglewood/Buck Mountain Pump station; and (f) Castle Rock (upper); and (2) $380,000 to the Sewer Repair and Replacement Fund for (a) Sanitary Sewer Evaluation/Rehabilitation Program; and (b) VDOT Projects. The funds are presently available in both of these funds . Supervisors Eddy and Harrison requested that in the future any maps that are provided should distinguish between new and existing locations. Supervisor Eddy moved to approve the request. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 2. Request to exchange County owned property with property owned by Richfield Retirement Community (Tim Gubala, Director of Economic Development) A-062596-3 Mr. Gubala advised that Richfield Retirement community has approached Roanoke County to acquire County owned property totaling 5.374 acres on Daugherty Road in order to construct an June 25, 1996 ~ Request from Roanoke Regional Airport Commission to approve an amendment to their contract to reduce the number of enplanement surveys (Diane D. Hyatt, Director of Finance? R-062596-4 Ms. Hyatt advised that the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission has requested that their contract be amended to reduce the number of annual enplanement surveys from six to two. The purpose of these surveys is for the allocation of deficit or capital expenditures. Since the County will be making the final payment of its ten year service fee in July, 1996, these surveys become less critical. However, in any fiscal year when a budget with a projected operating deficit or a capital expenditure requiring financial participation has been approved, then six surveys will again be conducted. There was no discussion. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062596-4 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JANUARY 28, 1987 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROANOKE, THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, AND THE ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ENPLANEMENT SURVEYS REQUIRED TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE AIRPORT COMMISSION, UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. BE IT RESOLVED by the County of Roanoke that the County June 25, 1996 e ..., x.. _ ,w._... ,~ ._._r, ~ ,_.~...... ~_. ... _ r,_ ...~.. ~,,.._.._.., 1996. He asked that the resolution be adopted and forwarded to the All American Road Selection Committee. Supervisor Eddy advised that he had recently received a brochure about a group in North Carolina raising private funds to buy land next to the Parkway for preservation, and asked that staff research the idea for application in Virginia. He suggested that copies of the resolution be sent to all localities bordering the Parkway instead of the localities within the Fifth Planning District Commission. He reported that while Supervisor Nickens was absent from this meeting, he sent a letter of support for approval of this item. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the Resolution with the change in distribution of copies to be sent. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062596-5 SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AS AN ALL AMERICAN ROAD WHEREAS, the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road by the Federal Highway Administration would enhance the importance of this scenic highway, both nationally and internationally, and WHEREAS, with over 20 million travelers annually, the Blue Ridge Parkway represents a cultural and tourism attraction for the Roanoke Valley and WHEREAS, the Parkway has been in existence for 60 years and over this period of time its significance as a national June 25, 1996 ,~ ~ C ~ Grandin Road Extension in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District to be surplus and acceptingfrejecting an offer for the sale of same.' tPaul Mahoney, County Attorney. Mr. Mahoney advised that this is a well lot surrounded by the Jamison farm and is not buildable. He asked for approval of the first reading of the ordinance. There was no discussion and there were no citizens to speak on this issue. Supervisor Eddy moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for July 9, 1996. .The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS:. None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Supervisor Eddy asked that a map be included for the second reading. 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of 270 acre of land at Crowell's Gap (Windy Gap Properties ) for an E911 tower site. (Paul Mahoney, County AttorneyZ Mr. Mahoney advised that in March, 1990, the Board executed a ten year lease of an E911 tower site at Crowell's Gap with the option to purchase the site at any time during the lease period for $4,000. The County would like to exercise its option June 25, 1996 ~ ~_ ...._ ~_.. _..ti ,~.~, ~ .~. _. _... _ _ ... ~._ _ of a representative for neighborhood organization. IN RE CONSENT AGENDA R-062596-6 Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062596-6 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 June 25, 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 3, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - May 14, 1996. 2 Confirmation of Committee appointments to Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 3. Ratification of appointment to the Community Policy and Management Team. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None City addressing the committee at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Johnson asked that the staff prepare comments and coordinate with Roanoke City. (2) He asked about the status of the letter to John Hubbard about plans for recycling. Chairman Johnson will phone Mr. Hubbard, and Ms. Hyatt advised that the Authority Meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. (3) He was pleased with the memorandum from Supervisor Harrison about revisiting the dog and cat ordinance but received no support from other Board members. (4) He advised that the Board members received a copy of a letter from the Knights' Booster Club about the use of~the Cave Spring Junior High School field by the Riverdawgs Soccer Team, and asked for a work session with th.e Parks & Recreation Advisory Board,. Mr. Hodge advised that he plans to meet with all parties concerned. (5) He advised that Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, had written to Chairman Johnson suggesting that local governments and 5thPDC comply with 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act, and asked that this topic be added to agenda for joint meeting with Roanoke City Council. Supervisor Johnson: (1) He asked that Mr. Hodge have a reception for the Board to meet the recently hired Chief Building Inspector; Human Resources Director, Fire Chief, and MIS Director. Mr. Hodge will plan this event after the MIS Director is hired. (2) Mr. Hodge introduced three interns working with the County during this summer: Tracey Bennett, Rick Morse, and IN RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-062596-7 Supervisor Johnson moved to return to open session, that the board came out of Executive Session at 6:02 p.m., and adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062596-7 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. 25,1996 On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: une LS lyy6 NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 062596-8 SUPPORTING PROPOSAL TO THE GREATER ROANORE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION TO LOCATE A SHELL BUILDING AT VALLEY GATEWAY WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley is competing with other regions within the Commonwealth of Virginia and eastern United States for new investment from business and industry, and WHEREAS, the availability of prepared industrial sites and existing buildings is a product that assists the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership in marketing and selling the Roanoke Valley as a location for new business and industry, and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and Fralin and Waldron are forming a public-private partnership to jointly develop a 105 acre industrial site known as Valley Gateway off route 460 (Challenger Avenue) in eastern Roanoke County for commercial and industrial uses, and WHEREAS, the Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation has sought proposals from the Valley governments to locate a site for a 75, 000 square foot shell building to market to industrial prospects, and so THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, does urge the Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation to select Valley Gateway as the best site for a shell building because the location offers multiple opportunities for additional commercial and industrial development that will increase the economic base and employment within the Roanoke Valley. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ~. Ordinance amending and reenacting Sections 10-1 June 25, 1996 Houghten, 2231 Electric Road. Supervisors Johnson, Minnix and Eddy all advised that they felt the speakers' concerns should be addressed at the state level. Supervisors Johnson and Minnix advised that they will be attending the House Appropriations Meeting to be held in Roanoke in an effort to speak on this issue and others. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the Ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062596-9 TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 10-1 THROUGH 10-6, SECTIONS 10-8 THROUGH 10-11, AND SECTIONS 10-15, 10-16, 10-18, AND 10-19, ARTICLE I; SECTIONS 10- 30 THROUGH 10-36, ARTICLE II; AND SECTIONS 10-53 AND 10-56, ARTICLE III; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 10-51, ARTICLE III; OF CHAPTER 10 LICENSES OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE AMENDED STATE CODE ENABLING LEGISLATION, TO IMPOSE A LICENSE FEE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR TAX LIMITATIONS AND RATE INCREASES RELATING TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Chapter 37 (Section-58.1-3700, et sea.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, imposes a business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax through the adoption of an ordinance codified in Chapter 10 Licenses of the Roanoke County Code; and, WHEREAS, said state enabling legislation has been amended through the adoption of House Bill 293 by the 1996 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and, WHEREAS, amended §58.1-3706 of the Code of Virginia, related to limitations on the rate of license taxes, provides that no local license tax shall be imposed on any person whose gross receipts from a business, profession or occupation subject June 25, 1996 ~`~` Except as may be otherwise provided by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and notwithstanding any other current ordinances or resolutions enacted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, whether or not compiled in the Code of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to the extent of any conflict, the following provisions shall be applicable to the levy, assessment, and collection of licenses required and ~~>~~rid taxes imposed on businesses, trades, professionsi``;~; and callin s and upon the ersons firms ......, ...............:~?....................... g p and corporations engaged therein within the County of Roanoke. For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise..re- quired by the context: (a) Affiliated group means: (.1) one or more chains of corporations ~:~~`~~>~~~? ?~~~''a connected throu t ....;:.;:;;:~:;;;:>;:.;::::<.;:.;;:.;;:.::.;;:.:;~::;::~:>;;;;:.;:<.;>:_ ~:.;;:;;;: gh s ock ownership with a common parent corporation which is arr ' cor oration sibs"~°°~~`~c~<<<~~':~~~~s~~r~r if p ......;;;:;<~:;::.:;;:;~;:.;;;;:.;;;:.;:.:~:.;:.;:.;;:.;:.:.;;:.;:;;;:.::.;:<:::;::.:;;;:; (I) Stock possessing at least eighty percent of the voting power of all classes of stock and at least eighty percent of each class of the nonvoting stock .of .each of the corpora- tions ~u~,~~;~,':; _.tp;.;;;;3,3~~~.tzs~r, except the common parent corporation, is owned directly by one or more of the other corporations Sul? <`<~rr~~aap and ...... (ii) The common parent corporation directly owns stock possessing at least eighty percent of the voting power of all classes of stock and at least eighty percent of each class of the nonvoting stock of at least one of the other -tee ..,.t~#~~;c~;.o.;;_~~~7,;t~~~~ corporations. As used in ths~~~~subdivision, the term "stock" does not include nonvoting stock which is limited and Sec. 10-2. Definitions. June 25, 1996 (c) Assessor or assessing official means the Commissioner of the Revenue of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and any of the Commissioner's duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents. (d) Base year means the calendar year preceding the license year, except for contractors subject to the provisions of 65 . 1-3715 . 'i':he:<:>::rbase::<:::::vear~;;;;:for~»::b~c~>>nn ~ nc~:.: 1~t~ ~:~ rtP:~.~P~ ;;:c~~ l ~'1:: ~th~ :::.~:~. (e) Business means a course of dealing which requires the time, attention and labor of the person so engaged for the purpose of earning a livelihood or profit. It implies a continu- ous and regular course of dealing, rather than an irregular or isolated transaction. A person may be engaged in more than one business. The following acts shall create a rebuttable presump- tion that a person is engaged in a business: (I) advertising or otherwise holding oneself out to the public as being engaged in a particular business; or (ii) filing tax returns, schedules and documents that are required only of persons engaged in a trade or business. (f) Commissioner or Commissioner of Revenue means the .Commissioner of the Revenue of the County of Roanoke., Virginia, and any of the Commissioner's duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents, and for purposes of this chapter, shall have the same meaning as 'assessor' or 'assessing official.' (g) County means the County of Roanoke, Virginia. (h) Definite place of business means an office or a location at which occurs a regular and continuous course of dealing for thirty consecutive days or more. A definite place of business for a person engaged in business may include a location leased or otherwise obtained from another person on a temporary or seasonal basis; and real property leased to another. A person's residence shall be deemed to be a definite place of business if there is no definite place of business maintained-.. elsewhere and the person is not licensable as a peddler or itinerant merchant. (I) Gross receipts means the whole, entire, total receipts deduction':;; , without June 25, 1996 (1) Purchases shall mean all goods, wares and merchandise received for sale at each definite place of business of wholesale merchant~~~;--anc} (n) Treasurer shall mean the Treasurer of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and any of the Treasurer's duly authorized deputies, assistants, employees or agents. Sec. 10-3. Levying of license fe'aa:c~taxes. (a) (m) Services shall mean things purchased by a customer which do not have physical characteristics, or which are not goods, wares, or merchandise. June 25, 1996 . r. _. (b) A separate license shall be required for each n arid;:::>>~~:~>'>~`c ;";<»ku~`ri~ss. e definite ace o b 1 f usi ess p .......................................:::: ~?:.:::::::.~::.:~::..;;;.::.:::.;:::.;.. A p rs on engaged in two or more businesses or profess~ons~~carried on at the same place of business may elect to obtain one license for all such businesses and professions if all of the following criteria are satisfied: (I) each business or profession is ~b>``'>p~<<3~risux:~ at the location and has satisfied any requirements imposed by state law or other provisions of the ordinances of the County of Roanoke; (ii) all of the businesses or professions are subject to the same tax rate, or, if subject to different-tax rates, the licensee agrees to be taxed on all. businesses and professions at the highest rate; and (iii) the taxpayer agrees to supply such information as the assessor may require concerning the nature of the several businesses and their gross receipts. btrs-trr~s s . (c) Each person subject to a license ;~' tax shall apply to the commissioner of revenue for a license prior to beginnin business if he was not s~~<">'~~>'c`>~az'esr"~ g ~ ...:::::::.7 .:::::::::::::...:::.~.~:::::.~:::::::.:::::::::::::.~:: in the County of Roanoke on or before January 1 of the license year, or no later than March 1 of the current license year if he had been issued a license for the preceding license year. The application shall be on forms prescribed by the commissioner of revenue and shall be properly completed with such information as the commissioner may require. Every applicant for a license under the provisions of this chapter shall furnish the commissioner of the revenue in writing with his correct name and trade name; his correct residence address; the nature of the business, profession, trade, occupation or calling to be pursued; the place where it is to be pursued; and a record of gross June 25, 1996 Sec. 10-6. Penalty and interest. (a) The assessing official may grant an extension of time, in which to file an application for a license, for ``'~k~~ gcrar~ cause. The extension may be conditioned upon~~~the~~tmely payment of a reasonable estimate of the a ro riate tax-<<>~~>~'~<>i>~'r~ sub ' ect to ad ' ustment pP P ~ ::r:;:.:;;;:.;:;::~:.;;;::.::.::.;::.;;:.:::.:;;.::.;;;;:.;;:;>;;:;:.;:.;:.;:.;:~:.:;.: 7 7 to the correct tax at the end of the extension together with interest from the due date until the date paid and, if the estimate submitted with the extension is found to be unreasonable under the circumstances, xa~ti a penalty of ten percent of the portion paid after the due ~~~clate. (b) A penalty of ten percent (l00) of the tax h--a may be imposed upon the failure to file an application or the failure to pay the tax by the appropriate due date. only the late filing penalty shall be imposed by the assessing official if both the application and payment are late; however, both penalties may be assessed if the assessing official determines that the taxpayer has a history of noncompliance. In the case of an assessment of additional tax made by the assessing official, if the application and, if applicable, the return were made in good faith and the under- statement of the tax was not due to any fraud, reckless or intentional disregard of the law by the taxpayer, there shall be no late payment penalty assessed with the additional tax. If any assessment of tax by the assessing official is not paid within thirty days'x the treasurer may impose a ten percent late payment penalty. , ' f the :. failure to file or pay was not the fault of the taxpayer..;:„_~f` :.;ex~a:l:~:~::?~.s>::>shal:l::>::>nc~~::::::~e zzn Wised::<:::::.~r:::>>:z:f:::.~m :.os:~:d :<.:<sha~l<I:-::;:::b: «:: :. ;; ::: 1~ ..:.::::::::::::::.~:::::::.~ ::.:::.:::.~:::::::::::.::::.:~::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.~?.::::::.~.:::::.~.::.~.::.:.~..::.:.~:::::.:..:::::.p:................................:...:.:.::.: e::: ab~:~~c~:.:.b. . :~1e'ti;~~~`~~t~~titti>>~~~;5s~c~;><:>~~ie1~i. In order to demonstrate lac ..... ..... ........................... ..... ... ......... k o f fault, the taxpayer must show that he acted responsibly and that the failure was due to events beyond his control. Acted responsibly means that: (I) the taxpayer exercised the level of reasonable care that a prudent person would exercise under the circumstances in determining the filing obligations for the business and (ii) the taxpayer undertook significant steps to avoid or mitigate the failure, such as requesting appropriate extensions (where applicable), attempting to prevent a foreseeable impediment, acting to remove an impediment once it occurred, and promptly rectifying a failure once the impediment was removed or the failure discovered. events beyond the taxpayer's control include, but are not limited to, the unavailability of records due to fire or other casualty; the unavoidable absence (e.g., due to death or June 25, 1996 definite place of business from which such activities are initiated, directed, or controlled. The situs of gross receipts for different classifications of business shall be attributed to one or more definite places of business or offices as follows: (1) The gross receipts of a contractor shall be attributed to the definite place of business at which his services are performed, or if his services are not performed at any definite place of business, then the definite place of business from which his services are directed or controlled, unless the .contractor is subject to the provisions of §58.1-3715. (3) The gross receipts of a business renting tangible personal property shall be attributed to the definite place of business from which the tangible personal property is rented or, if the property is not rented from any definite place of business, then the definite place of business at which the rental of such property is managed. (4) The gross receipts from the performance of ' services shall be attributed to the definite place of business at which the services are performed or, if not performed at any definite place of business, then the definite place of business from which the services are directed or controlled. (b) Apportionment. If the licensee has more than one (2) The gross receipts of a retailer or wholesaler shall be attributed to the definite place of business at which sales solicitation activities occur, or if sales solicitation activities do not occur at any definite place of business, then the definite place of business from which sales solicitation activities are June 25, 1996 ~9_ (1) aAny person assessed with a cc licens'e~ng tax ::;..: ............:...:. :... as ~ tyre result of an audit may apply within ~zn~~y .(~~), c~ays.~rom .the...~ate .pf .such to the assess:;' for a correction of the assessment. The application must be filed in good faith and sufficiently identify the taxpayer, audit period, remedy sought, each alleged error in the assessment, the grounds upon which the taxpayer relies, and any other facts relevant to the taxpayers's contention. The assessor may hold a conference with the taxpayer if requested by the taxpayer, or require submission of additional information and documents, further audit, or other June 25, 1996 .,:. (3-~) Any taxpayer may request a written ruling regarding the application of t~-e <`1~~1<>~ tax to a specific situation from the assessor. Any person requesting such a ruling must provide all the relevant facts for the situation and may present a rationale for the basis of an interpretation of the law most favorable to the taxpayer. Any misrepresentation or change in the applicable law or the factual situation as presented in the ruling request shall invalidate any such ruling issued. A written ruling may be revoked or amended prospectively if (I) there is a change in the law, a court decision, 'o~<:'tle`cru~del3n_P:~ i::~:c„~~>:>~-,~~.>.+~:o or ii e assessor notifies the taxpayer of a change in the policy or interpretation upon which the ruling was based. However, any person who acts on a written ruling which later becomes invalid shall be deemed to have acted in good faith during the period in which such ruling was in effect. Sec. 10-9. Exclusions and deductions from "gross receipts." (a) General Rule. Gross receipts for license tax purposes shall not include any amount not derived from the exercise of the licensed privilege to engage in a business or profession in the ordinary course of business or profession. (b) The following items shall be excluded from gross receipts: of its own funds in securities and other types of investments unrelated to the licensed privilege. This exclusion shall not apply to interest, late fees and similar income attributable to an installment sale or other transaction that occurred in the regular course of business. Sec. 10-10. Recordkeeping and audits. (a) Every person who is assessable with a ~1a~ license >~7 tax under this chapter, shall keep sufficient~~~r~ecor.ds and accounts enable the assessor to verify the correctness of the tax paid~+~~for the license years assessable and to enable the assessor to ascertain what is the correct amount of tax that was assessable for each of those years. All such records, books of accounts and other information shall be open to inspection and examination by- the assessor in order to allow the assessor to establish whether a particular receipt is directly attributable to the taxable privilege exercised within the County of Roanoke, and shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years. (b) The assessor shall provide the taxpayer with the option to conduct the audit in the taxpayer's local business __ June 25, 1996 ~ ~C ~ ., .. ~._ ...~r..v .. _~ ...~.:_ _ ~ _ ~, ~ _ .m .----~ following year. *~~~* Sec. 10-15. Assessment of omitted or insufficient license ~e?esi>ri'r ........................... taxes . ........................,.. (a) If the commissioner of the revenue ascertains that any person has not been assessed with a license ~'~!~~~» tax levied under the terms of this chapter for any license year~~~of the three (3) license years last past, it shall be the duty of the commissioner of the revenue to assess such person with the proper license ? tax for the year or years omitted. (b) If the commissioner of the revenue ascertains that any assessment of a license '~! tax levied under the provisions of this chapter for any of ~ the three ( 3 ) license tax years last past or for the then-current license tax year was for less than the correct amount, then the commissioner of the revenue shall assess the licensee with the additional license tax found to be due. ~~ ~~~~ (c) Penalty and interest at the rate provided under_ section 10-6 shall accrue on such omitted or insufficient tax amounts from the date of such assessment until payment; provided, if such assessment was necessitated through no fault of the taxpayer, such penalty and interest shall accrue after thirty (30) days from such date of assessment until payment. (d) In the event that the omitted or insufficient assessment or payment of such license ~'e~':'.ti taxes is due to the fraudulent intent to evade taxes on~~~~ ~the~ ~ part of any person responsible for the same, penalty and interest at the rate provided under section 10-6 shall accrue on such omitted or insufficient tax amounts from the date that the tax amounts otherwise should have been due and payable. Such person shall further be subject to any and all applicable sanctions and criminal penalties for violation of this chapter as provided in this Code and by State law. Sec. 10-16. Erroneous assessment and refunds. (a) The commissioner of the revenue is empowered to certify to the treasurer any instances of erroneous assessments. Upon receipt of such certificate the treasurer is directed to make a refund based upon the certificate of the commissioner of the revenue. (b) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article II June 25, 1996 ****~ Sec. 10-18. Enforcement of chapter. (a) In the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter the commissioner of the revenue of the county, in addition to the powers herein specifically granted, shall have all and the same enforcement authority with respect to county licenses that state law confers upon commissioners of the revenue n r a 11 w i h r e s e c t o state 1 i e n a s€ «>:°"><...<':,:.> •' ;,:<,;::<,; ..;~ ;:::<,;,,,>;;::>:>.; ::.;;.;>:;>•,.< e e 't t 'c s a v p ,.....ex.c.e~t. to.... the... extent (b) As one of the means of ascertaining the amount of ....................... any license e~~~ tax due under the provisions of this chapter, or of ascertaining any other pertinent information, the commissioner of the revenue may require taxpayers or their agents or any person, firm, or officer of a company or corporation to furnish information relating to tangible or intangible personal property, income, or license feesi~ taxes of any and all .::....:..:..:.........:..:.. taxpayers; and require such persons to furnish access to books of account or other papers and records for the purpose of verifying the tax returns of such taxpayers and procuring the information necessary to make a complete assessment of any taxpayer's tangible and intangible personal property, income, and license ~"es~4x` taxes for the current year. (i~) The commissioner may, for the purpose of assessing all taxes assessable by his office, summon the taxpayer or any other person to appear before him at his office, to answer under oath, questions touching the tax liability of any and all specifically identified taxpayers. The commissioner shall not, however, summon a taxpayer or other person for the tax liability of the taxpayer which is the subject of litigation. (c~1) Any person who refuses to (I) furnish to the commissioner of the revenue access to books of account or other papers and records, (ii) furnish information to the commissioner of the revenue relating to the assessment of taxes, (iii) answer under oath questions touching any person's tax liability, or (iv) exhibit to the commissioner of the revenue any subject of taxation liable to assessment by the commissioner of the revenue, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Each day's refusal to furnish such access or information shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 10-19. Violations of chapter. (1) Accepting or offering to accept orders or contracts for doing any work on or in any building or structure requiring the use of paint, stone, brick, mortar, wood, cement, structural iron or steel, sheet iron, galvanized iron, metallic piping, tin, lead, or other metal or any other building material; (2) Accepting or offering to accept contracts to do any paving, curbing, or other work on sidewalks; streets, alleys, or highways, on public or private property, using asphalt, brick, stone, cement, concrete, wood, one any composition; (3) Accepting or offering to accept an order for or contract to excavate earth, rock, or other material for foundation or any other purpose or for cutting, trimming or maintaining rights-of-' way; (4) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to construct any sewer of stone, brick, terra cotta, or other material; (5) Accepting or offering to accept orders or contracts for doing any work on or in any building or premises involving the erecting, installing, altering, repairing, servicing, or maintaining electric wiring, devices, or appliances permanently connected to such wiring; or the erecting, repairing or maintaining of lines for the transmission or distribution of electric light and power; or (6) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to remodel, repair, wreck, or demolish a building; or (7) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to bore or dig a well; or (8) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to install, maintain,, or repair air- une 25, 1996 to institutional, commercial and industrial users. (c) Any person who is both a wholesale merchant and a retail merchant is subject to the retail license tax for the retail portion of the business and the wholesale license tax for the wholesale portion of the business. Such person may, however, obtain a retail license for both the retail and wholesale portions of the business. (a) The annual license tax imposed hereunder for financial services shall be in the amount of fifty;'eS cents ($~~D~') per one hundred dollars ($10q.00) of gross receipts from the~~~~occupation during the preceding calendar year or-tiri-rtp • . b) "Financial services" s-h-zt~r mea ::::;:::: ;~:::;:~;:::~...:::::«::::...;:::.:::...; :::<::::~~:~aa:~:>::.:.:<:;.~;~c~zr~:.~c~:es.::::....~r:::...c~.t~e:r~;:.;::-~>n~r :. ;:.:; r i i i i S: ~ i Sec. 10-32. Financial services. June 25, 1996 ~ (c) Those rendering real estate services include, but are not limited to, the following: Appraisers of real estate Escrow agents, real estate Fiduciaries, real estate Lessors of real property Real estate agents, brokers and managers Real estate selling agents Rental agents for real .estate Sec. 10-34. Professional services. (a) The annual license tax imposed hereunder for rofessional services shall be in the amount of fift ~ ~`""~ ~~~~` p y>~'.~g; cents ($~e~~~') per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the~~~occupation during the preceding calendar year Every person whose gross receipts in the preceding calendar year shall be less. than three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) from any professional service shall e exempt from the occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning, gained by a prolonged course of ~spe~crf~-e-c~ s~~~1Z2 instruction and study:;; is used ~bp its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art or science founded on it. The word "profession" a~ implp~~ attainments in professional knowledge as distinguished from mere skill, and the application of knowledge 0 o ers :<`<`h`eri=<z~r<>':''es~o'.`a1 r`:':>`a. to uses f r th ~;~::::;:::.~:::.::~::::::::::;::.~ :.:::::::::::.::.::.p.::::::::::;:..~ ~?.::..~.~;;;:p..::;pf 1;;. requirements of this chapter. June 25, 1996 Shades, repair of Shoe repair Tire repair Toys, repair of Umbrellas, harness, leather Washing, automatic-cleaning Watches, clocks, repair of Welding shop Other, repair services. e ex re of occupations. om the this chapter. (b) "Personal services" shall mean, rendering for compensation any personal, business or other services not specifically classified as financial, real estate, professional, or repair services, under this ordinance, or rendered in any other business or occupation not specifically classified in this ordinance unless exempted from local license tax by Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. (c) Those rendering a personal or business service.; include, but are not limited to, the following: Auctioneers and common criers Advertising agencies Airports Ambulance services Amusements and recreation services (all types) Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables Artists Addressing letters or envelopes goods, repair of automobiles June 25, 1996 ~ ~~-~- Labor service Laundry cleaning and garment services including laundries, dry cleaners, linen supply, diaper service, coin-operated laundries and carpet and upholstery cleaning Limousine service Mailing, messenger and correspondent services Massage Therapists Massage Technicians Movie theaters and drive-in theaters Musician Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating Nurses and physician registries Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for the retarded, old-age homes and resthomes Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others Parcel delivery services Parking lots; public garages and valet parking Pawnbrokers Personal services, labor agents and employment bureaus Photographers and photographic services Photocopying Physical fitness establishment Physicians registry Piano tuning Picture framing and gilding Porter services Press clipping services Private investigation Promotional agents or agencies Public relations services Realty multiple listing services Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property Reproduction services Secretarial services Septic tank cleaning Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops Sign painting Statistical service Storage--all types Swimming pool, other than nonprofit or cooperative Swimming pool maintenance and management Tabulation services Tanning salons Tax preparers (other than professionals listed in section 10-34) June 25, 1996 (a) Every person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing or providing a coin-operated amusement machine or device as defined by Virginia Code section 58.1-3720 (1984), shall be deemed to be an amusement machine operator, except that a person owning fewer than three (3) machines and operating such machines on property owned or leased by such person is not an amusement machine operator. (b) Every amusement machine operator as herein defined shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax according to the following table: 3 machines or less . 4 machines . 5 machines . 6 machines . 7 machines . 8 machines . 9 machines . 10 or more machines. . $ 25.00 . 50.00 . 75.00 . 100.00 . 125.00 . 150.00 . 175.00 . 200.00 (c) The license tax imposed by this section is not in lieu of, but is in addition to, other license e~e''c taxes imposed by this Code, including the gross receipts tax~~~~mposed by section 10-36. (d) Every amusement machine operator shall furnish to the commissioner of the revenue a complete list of all machines on location and the names and addresses of each location on or before the thirty-first day of January of each year. (e) Each machine shall have conspicuously located thereon a decal, sticker or other adhesive label, no less than 1 x 2 inches in size, clearly denoting the operator's name and address. (f) Any person, firm, or corporation providing any such amusements machines or other devices and failing to procure a county license shall be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense and the machine or other device shall become forfeited to the county. (g) Exemptions. The amusement machine operator's license tax shall not be applicable to operators of weighing machines, automatic baggage or parcel checking machines or receptacles, nor to operators of vending machines which are so constructed as to do nothing but vend goods, wares, and merchandise or postage stamps or provide service only, nor to operators of viewing machines or photomat machines, nor operators ~ 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 Maaisterial District upon the petition of Industrial Development Authority. (Trent Development). CONTINUED FROM MAY 28, 1996 (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoning) Mr. Mahoney advised that the petitioner was requesting a continuance until the July 23; 1996 meeting. It was the consensus of the Board to grant the continuance. ,. 3. Ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to expand an existing electric substation, located at 8920 Willett Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of American Electric Power. (Terry Harrington, Director of Planning & Zoninct) 0-062596-10 Mr. Harrington advised that this is a request for a special use permit to expand an existing substation. The site is in the rural preserve land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the intent of that designation. The expansion would not adversely impact agricultural, recreation or June 25, 1996 ~ Q Z ~ and carried by the following vote: AYE5: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ~ Ordinance authorizing .the relocation of the ollinct place for the Green Hill Precinct fro Fort Lewis Fire Station to Fort Lewis Baptist Church and the North Vinton polling place from the Vinton Fire Station to the Vinton Baptist Church. {Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 0-062596-11 Ms. St. John, Registrar, advised that there had been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance. She reported that she had responded to concerns from the Town of Vinton and confirmed that the proposed Vinton precinct will conform with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was no discussion and there were no citizens to speak on this issue. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the Ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYE5: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062596-11 AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF THE POLLING PLACE FOR THE GREEN HILL VOTING PRECINCT FROM THE FORT LEWIS FIRE STATION TO THE FORT LEWIS BAPTIST CHURCH AND AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF THE POLLING PLACE FOR THE NORTH VINTON VOTING PRECINCT FROM THE June 25, 1996 fiscal year budget for Roanoke County. (Brent ~tobertson, Budc,~et Manager) 0-062596-12 Mr. Robertson advised that the 1996-97 fiscal year budget was presented to the Board on May 28, 1996 after a public hearing. He asked for approval of the budget appropriations ordinance and the classification plan for fiscal year 1996-97. The total budget is $207,662,135, which includes all interfund and intrafund transfers, with the budget net of transfers being $151,467,466. He summarized the changes that were made to the appropriations ordinance since the first reading on June 11, 1996, and provided information that the Board requested about the grant. funded and temporary full time positions with benefits. Ms. Lela Spitz, 1971 Oak Drive Extension, expressed her concerns about excessive spending and taxes; incomprehensible financial reports; poor priorities in spending; and that the County does not use zero based budgeting. Supervisor Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance... The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062596-12 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 1996-97 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held on May 28, 1996, concerning the adoption June 25, 1996 Expenditures: General Governrizent: General Administration Board of Supervisors $ 232,502 County Administrator 189,202 Community Relations 133,547 Asst. Co. Administrators 222,397. Human Resources 346,095 County Attorney 3 05,094 Economic Development. 718,007 Total General Administration $ 2,146,844 Constitutional Ofhcezs Treasurer $ 515,731 Commonwealth.Attorney ~ 502,053 VictimlWitness 5,048 Commissioner of fhe Revenue 540,578. . Clerk of the Circuit Court 658,995 Sheriff's O#Ece 1,093,081 Care & Confinement of Prisoners 2,778,278 Total Constitutional Officers $ 6,093,764 Judicial Administration Circuit .Court $ 124,518 General District Court 34,083 Magistrate 1,255 J & DR Court 10,429 Court Sezvice Unit 332,385 Total Judicial Administration. $ 502,670 Management Services County Assessor $ 665,552 Financial Planning 653,745 Public Transportation 76,600 Management and Budget 112,910 Procurement Services 282,919 Total Management Services $ 1,791,726 June 25, 1996 Transfers to Other Funds Transfer to Debt -General $ 3,478,760 Transfer to Debt Service -School 2,573,990 Transfer to Capital 315,000 Transfer to Schools 41,945,736 Transfer to Schools -Dental Insurance 260,932 Transfer to Internal Services 888,826 Transfer to Comprehensive Services 649,840 Transfer to Garage II 100,000 Total Transfers to Other Funds $ 50,213,084 Unappropziated Balance Board Contingency $ 305,313 Total General Government $ 90,815,107 Youth Haven II ~ ~ $ 405,3.3 0 Comprehensive Services $ 1,446,110 Law Library $ 41 980 Recreation Fee Class $ 704,597 Internal Services Management Information Systems $ 952,922 Communications 548,932 Total Internal Services $ 1,501,854 Garage II $ 259,001 Total General Fund $ 95,173,979 Debt Service Fund $ 9,602,669 June 25, 1996 unexpended at the end of the 1995-96 fiscal year not lapse but shall be reappropriated as follows: a) 40% of these unexpended appropriations shall be transferred to the unappropriated Capital Fund Balance; b) 60% of these unexpended appropriations shall be re-appropriated to the same department for expenditure in fiscal year 1996-97 as provided by Resolution 042396-5. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the Code of Virginia. (Diane Hyatt, Finance Director) Q-062596-13 Ms. Hyatt advised that the current salary for each Board Member is $10,690 with additional annual compensation provided for the chairman and vice-chairman. This ordinance will increase the salaries by 4%, with the new salary being $11,117.60. Don Terp, 5140 Appletree Drives advised that he did approve of any raise in salary for the Board members because he felt that they have not been good stewards of the taxpayers June 25, 1996 Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of 4% pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 14.1-46.01:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $11,117.60 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. The salaries paid to each member of the Board during Fiscal Year 1995-96 are hereby ratified and confirmed. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 1996. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED Chairman Johnson announced that the following public hearing had been continued by the Planning Commission: Ordinance to rezone 0.82 acre from R-3 to C-1 to construct professional offices, located at 3422 Ogden Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Barry L. Marsh. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONED Chairman Johnson announced that the following public hearing has been postponed until the July 23, 1996 meeting. Ordinance vacating a portion of the subdivision flat 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. IN RE: CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS ~ Michael Stovall, NWS Development advised that he, and partners Bill Wimmer and George Nester are developing garden June 25, 1996 A (~ C I budgets and fund based budgets, and asked for an annual report to be published in layman's terms. Supervisor Harrison asked Ms. Spitz to put her request for the annual report in writing to him. ~ James Garris, P. O. Box 294, Boones Mill, commented on excessive State and Federal mandates, and advised that citizens are challenging the Board to cut spending and watch where money is allocated. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 p.m., Chairman Johnson declared the meeting adjourned to July 9, 1996, at 12 Noon, at the Brambleton Center for the purpose of a joint meeting with the City of Roanoke Council. Submitted by, Approved by, Brenda J. Holton Bob L. Johnson Deputy Clerk Chairman July 9, 1996 . ,m_ ._ r~.~-__ _ , . ,.~.. ,~__,...__ . ,....... _...... Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 9, 1996 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Brambleton Center, this being the second Tuesday of July and a special meeting for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Roanoke City Council. IN RE~: WELCOME Chairman Johnson welcomed Roanoke City Council and staff to the Brambleton Center. Those present toured the new Teen Center and other offices located in the Brambleton Center. Following the tour, luncheon was served. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 12:59 p.m. The roll call was taken. Mayor Bowers called the Roanoke City Council to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, H. Odell "Fuzzy" July 9, 1996 Bowers and offered the congratulations of the Board of Supervisors and citizens of Roanoke County. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the prepared resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison RESOLUTION 070996-1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CITY OF ROANOKE UPON BEING NAMED AN ALL AMERICA CITY WHEREAS, municipalities all over the United States compete for the designation "All America City"; and WHEREAS, the National League of Cities chooses only 10 localities each year to receive the All America City Award; and WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke entered the All America competition this spring, and was chosen one of 30 finalists; and WHEREAS, the City highlighted three projects in the presentation to the National Civic League judges: ~ Renew Roanoke - the renovation and re-opening of the Hotel Roanoke; ~ The Jefferson Center - citizen driven renovation of an old high school into a center for the Arts, City services and public gatherings; and ~' Solid Waste Transfer Station - citizen } July 9, 1996 x(11 ~ television channel (Item 9). IN RE: DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS 1. Establishment of a Regional Sports Commission !Continued from the March 4, 1996 meeting). This item was requested by former Councilman McCadden. Supervisor Johnson noted there was ongoing financial support for Virginia Amateur Sports as well as other athletic activities. There was no consensus from either governing body for further discussion. 2. Discussion of Metropolitan Public Transit District (Transportation District): Requested by Roanoke City and Roanoke County. Mayor Bowers advised that the total loss of transportation funds from the federal government will be $1 million to $1.5 million. He reported that both the County and City requested approval from the 1996 General Assembly to create a transit district, but the General Assembly denied the request. He expressed hope that both localities would again include this request in their legislative packages. a r include all Roanoke Valley governments and other agencies including the Airport Commission and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. She estimated that it would take three to six months to complete the study. 4. Discussion of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Aot: Requested by Roanoke County. Mr. Hodge reported that this act was an outgrowth of the Urban Partnership, and that $3 million was set aside in state funds to encourage regional cooperative efforts. The Fifth Planning District Commission (5th PDC) has offered to be the agency to funnel the funds. Lee Osborne, Fifth Planning District Commission, was present and advised that the 5th PDC has proposed the creation of a steering committee comprised of its members to study the best way to move forward. Assistant City Manager Jim Ritchie recommended that both the City and County staff review the 5th PDC proposal. 5. Habitat for Humanity: Requested by Roanoke City. July 9, 1996 Mayor Bowers requested that the Board of Supervisors actively encourage the building of homes by Habitat for Humanity L x July 9, 1996 ~n ~ .~ _ __ __ Councilwoman Wyatt expressed concern about a new subdivision being built in the County that could potentially cause future flooding in the Garden City area of Roanoke City: She suggested that the Roanoke Valley approach flood control issues on a regional basis. Supervisor Johnson advised that there is a proposed regional storm water management study underway. Mr. Hodge responded that a report on the study will be brought back to the governing bodies at their next joint meeting on November 4, 1996. 9. Expanded use of Government Access TV Councilman Harris suggested that more could be done with.the government access channel and recommended exploring the possibility of doing more creative programming. Supervisor Nickens suggested that ideas be forwarded to members of the Cable TV Committee or station manager Angie McPeak. Mayor Bowers suggested that representatives of both governing bodies meet to develop new programming ideas. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 2:20 p.m. Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting. Roanoke City Council also adjourned. July 9, 1996 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 9, 1996 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the first. regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 1996. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson, Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Fenton F. "Spike" Harrison STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all July 9, 1996 ~~.. WHEREAS, the sport of golf, in particular, teaches eye/hand coordination, concentration, and strategy, and WHEREAS, the Northside High School Golf Team has exemplified the ideal of high school athletics, with a variety of team accomplishments, including: ~ Undefeated in 18-hole matches Roanoke County Quad Champions Big Orange Champions . Metro Champions ~ Blue Ridge District Regular Season Champions Blue Ridge District Tournament Champions Region III Champions; and WHEREAS, the team roster includes Mark Futrell, Scott Henson, Josh Mattox, John Milko, Doug Norris, Johnny Sink, Jayme Swafford and individual accomplishments by team members include: ~ Jacob Jarrett - 1st team Roanoke Valley Golf Hall of Fame All Metro Team, 1st Team All Timesland Team Jason Orlando - 2nd team Roanoke Valley Golf Hall of Fame All Metro Team Anthony Romano - 2nd Blue Ridge District Tournament Justin Young - Blue Ridge District Regular Season Champion, 2nd AA State Tournament, 1st Team Roanoke Valley Golf Hall of Fame All Metro Team, Roanoke Valley Golf Hall of Fame Player of the Year, 1st Team All Timesland, Timesland Player of the Year ~' Jim Wolfe, Coach - Roanoke Valley Golf Hall of Fame Coach of the Year and All Timesland Coach of the Year; and WHEREAS, the Northside High School Golf Team completed the season by winning the 1996 AA State Championship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby commend the NORTHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL GOLF TEAM and its Coach for outstanding performance in athletics; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors extends its sincere congratulations to the Team on becoming the AA State Champions for 1996. July 9, 1996 Supervisor Nickens expressed appreciation to the Vinyard family for their donation, and advised that there would be several regional tournaments at the park there which will have an economic impact to the County. He moved to name the park land Vinyard Park II. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison 3. Request to approval funding advance for County participation on "Petition for Public Works Projects". (Gary Robertson, Utility DirectorZ This item was moved to a work session for discussion. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. 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 bSr Richfield Retirement Community (Tax Map Nos 55.03-1-18. 19, 20) (Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director) July 9, 1996 within the guidelines established by the Board. Supervisor Nickens asked that the Real Estate Assessment Department provide comparables within the area that the well lot is located. Supervisor Eddy moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set the second reading for July 23, 1996. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison 3. 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 Mr. Robertson explained that the West Main Street Sanitary Sewer Submain Project is being constructed as part of a Petition for Public Works project which was previously approved by the Board. The project involves acquisition of several easements. He advised that 10 other easements were being donated. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set the second reading for July 23, 1996. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson July 9, 1996 of Supervisors acquired from Windy Gap Properties a ten-year lease, for the sum of $6,144.57, of a parcel of land containing .30 acre (.270 acre by current survey), lying along the cul-de- sac at the end of Highrocks Road, together with a right-of-way fifty feet (50') in width from the public road (leading from Secondary State Road #116) over the existing access road to the. property; and, WHEREAS, said agreement also granted to the Board an option to purchase the property at any time during the ten-year period, for the sum of$4,000~.00, subject to the Landlord's (Windy Gap Properties') option to retain the right to construct and maintain a water tower upon the parcel between the County's improvements and the cul-de-sac and to retain the right of first refusal as to the premises in the conveyance to the County; and, WHEREAS, the County has erected the building and tower on the site, which is necessary for the E911 system, and the funds for the purchase are available in the E911 account; 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 June 25, 1996; the second reading was held on July 9, 1996. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to exercise the option to purchase and to acquire from Windy Gap Properties a .270-acre parcel of land, lying along the cul-de-sac at the end of Highrocks Road, together with a right-of-way fifty feet (50') in width from the public road (leading from Secondary State Road #116) over the existing access roads to the property, known as Windridge Parkway and Highrocks Road, all as shown upon the plat entitled "The Resubdivision of the Property of Windy Gap Properties, Rke. Co. (D.B. 1055, Pg. 776), Franklin Co. (D.B. 319, Pg. 540) Creating Hereon Tract "A" (0.270 Ac.) (Utility Lot) Situated At the Terminus of the Future Highrocks Road", dated 2 April 1996, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. 2. That the County Administrator is authorized to accept the property subject to the conditions provided for in the Lease and Option to Purchase Agreement, namely: (I) Windy Gap Properties' option to retain the right to construct and maintain a water tower upon the parcel between the County's improvements and the cul-de-sac and to retain the right of first refusal as to the premises in the conveyance to the County. July 9, 1996 NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison ORDINANCE 07095 OF REAL ESTATE NO. 76.01-1-3 ROAD EXTENSION DISTRICT TO ACCEPTING fR~EE SALE OF SAME -6-5 DECLARING A PARCEL IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP LOCATED OFF GRANDIN IN THE WINDSOR HILL5 BE SURPLUS AND ~-NG-AN OFFER FOR THE 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 is hereby declared to be surplus and is -being made available for other public uses; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on June 25, 1996; and a second reading and public hearing was held on July 9, 1996, concerning the sale and disposition of a parcel of real estate identified as Tax Map No. 76.01-1-3; and 3. That an offer having been received for said property, the offer of Merle A. Jamison and Dwayne E. Jamison to purchase this property for Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) is hereby accepted~-e~; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be paid into the water fund in accordance with the trust agreements of the 1991 water revenue bonds. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke. County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Ordinance accepting the offer of Merle Jamison and Dwayne Jamison for $5,000, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison July 9, 1996 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 9, 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 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - May 28, 1996. 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Highway and Transportation Safety Commission. 3. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Jean Clinevell, Library. 4. Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Easements serving R. Jack Helms - Sewer Extension. 5. Designation of Voting Delegate to the National Association of Counties (NACO) Annual Conference. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, with th e addition of Item 5, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison RESOLUTION 070996-6.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO JEAN CLINEVELL FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICES TO ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Jean Clinevell was first employed on April 6, 1981 in the Roanoke County Library as a technical services assistant; and has also served as a library assistant; and WHEREAS, Jean Clinevell played a significant role in planning and implementing advances in library service, including the conversion to an automated library system; the introduction July 9, 1996 with the changes. (c) Asked for support on a work session in the future to discuss periodic cleaning of drainage ditches. It was Board consensus to schedule the work session in the future. (d) Asked for an update on the SSER Program. Gary Robertson will provide a report at the August 13, 1996 meeting. (e) He received responses from Fred Anderson and Diane Hyatt regarding his suggestions to change the tax collections dates. He requested to discuss his concerns with Ms. Hyatt in greater detail. Supervisor Minnix: (1) In response to a quote in a newspaper article, he advised that he could now "find his way to the bathroom." (2) He advised that he had a conflict for the Board Retreat on July 27 and asked that it be moved to August. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Hodge to contact the facilitator, and Ms. Allen to contact Supervisor Harrison and to poll the Board members for dates in August. Supervisor Johnson: (1) He asked Mr. Hodge to report on the response times for a recent fire in the Hollins District on Oakland Boulevard. Mr. Hodge described what happens when a 911 call comes in, and advised that for a residential call, two fire companies are dispatched. The Vinton Company arrived in approximately 9 ? minutes while the Hollins Company did not arrive for 20 minutes because no personnel were in the station at the time. He explained that the Vinton response time was appropriate but the Hollins response time was not. Supervisor Nickens suggested developing an education program on 911 calls July 9, 1996 Si Progress Report on the Comprehensive Plan IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Update on improvements to Hollins Road (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections) Mr. Hodge advised that Hollins Road has been on the Virginia Department of Transporation (VDOT) Six-Year Plan for over 10 years. Mr. Covey summarized the history of the project during the past ten years, and VDOT Resident Engineer Jeff Echols advised that the project had been on "hold" since 1990. Mr. Echols reported that there are two proposed. alignments of Hollins Road from Plantation Road to the south of the Hanover Direct entrance. The existing alignment (B) would impact a greenhouse, a vacant parcel and bank property in front of the Food Lion shopping center. This alignment would also be more expensive because of bridge costs, utilities and additional engineering work. The proposed new alignment (A) would be less costly, but would take the Holley golf course. Mr. Echols said that VDOT would develop proposed plans that would be brought to a public hearing for comment, and then brought to the Board of Supervisors. There was discussion on the impact to the new golf course because the owner of the golf course did not own the property and would therefore not be paid for the loss of July 9, 1996 their review. (2) Mr. Hodge asked for an updated needs assessment. (3) Supervisor Eddy asked for a copy of the old facility use contract with the schools. (4) Mr. Hodge advised that he would have the current insurance policies reviewed. Mr. Haislip announced that following additional review and amendments, the policy will be brought back to the Board for adoption. 3. Funding for County Participation on Petition for Public Works Projects This item was moved from New Business a work session format to discuss concerns by the Board about using General Fund money to fund the project. Mr. Robertson explained that the intent of the project is not for the General Fund to subsidize the Enterprise Fund, but to be able to provide water and sewer to those residents who need them. An evaluation form for County participation on the projects was included, and a list of proposed projects. Mr. Robertson explained that Board action would only approve the policy and appropriation of the start-up funds, and not the projects. He emphasized that each project would be brought back to the Board and approved individually. The Board members asked that a report be brought back on July 23, 1996 which will include case studies of the projects and method of payback to the General Fund. Supervisor Eddy asked .~ July 9, 1996 .: M:_: _, ._ ~...~:.~ _._ ~ ~ ..~ ._ ..~..:_...~_~...~~ ._v....~:.. _.~..~ r:. ..._..:~ _w...._ :, a requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of- Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Harrison IN RE: DISCUSSION There was a general discussion of the citizen survey and Business and Professional Operators License tax. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 7:18 p.m., Chairman Johnson declared the meeting adjourned. ~-y The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in regular meeting on the 13th day of August, 1996, adopted the following: RESOLUTION 081396-4.C REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF LOST DRIVE AND LOST VIEW LANE 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 S ee Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation. that a certified copy of this Resident engineer for the Virginia Recorded Vote: Moved By: Supervisor Nickens Yeas: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson Nays: None A Copy Teste: .~- Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board CC: File Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Lost Drive and Lost View Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CFG Corporation, the developer of Lost Mountain, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept .55 mile of Lost Drive and .14 mile of Lost View Lane. 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 Lost Drive and Lost View Lane into the Secondary Road System. SU ITTED BY: , Arnold Covey, Directo of Engineering & Insp ctions Approved Denied Received Referred to Motion by: ACTION APPROVED: ~~x~ ,~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens L-~ The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in regular meeting on the 13th day of August, 1996, adopted the following: RESOLUTION 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 ~ I R v I ~ : 11~ L~ ~ . ~ ~ • !/ r ~~ \ \ .1700 Q TW 9e ,' _ eJ:',. ~ .. ~•,, _ _ y~4r~ D • ~ ~ KNOB t+1 \ 1650(a C(' Iroo ,V 6 d~ wo6e\ st i i /t . LOST;~MOUN'f,AIN „~, _~,:x, ~~'_ _ ~=' VICINITY MAP ..': -~ ,'a~ 3 .t.a Rooa. ue pld ~ ~,.- '~ pt. 693 .s 4.6Ac ~ _ ~ .\ '~-... 4.52 Ac O N 24 ~ ss7o ssrs 2l4 Ac 28.90 ae lif ~~ Roil Lon ~ 1663 36ss ss71' 57.43 Ac (DI 6ao1 Ae (et !O ~ H ,~ to e< 23 r~ fez Ac O a26 At c` • asss ~ r: ._ - 2b Ac 1's ~a N ~ 18 17 99 AC 272 4C 2 2.72 Ac '3.46 AC ~~ . 2.87 AC ~ , N O ~ 14 2J1 Ac a790 Jep 2.48 4C A72 s7so DNv Jep am Lost e j 3766 37ss ~/3 ~ - . a726 676/ ~w ~I ~ 9 8.1 / 13 3727 L 223 ~ 8 22~Ae ~ '36N 314 k n ? i aTSO I.68 Ac / 10 II 291 Ac 'y / 229 265 Ac 12 ~ b 234 e< ~ • 'A61 Y _ _ 4.10 AC _ _ ~ PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: (1) Lost Drive from the intersection of Ridgelea Road (Rt. 695) to cul-de-sac. (2) Lost View Drive from the intersection of Lost Drive to cul-de- sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.55 MILES (2) 0.14 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET (2) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 20 FEET (2) 20 FEET SERVICE: (1) 3 HOMES (2) 4 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF LOST DRIVE AND LOST VIEW LANE INTO ENGINEERING & THE VIRGINIA DEPART!r1ENT OF TRANSPORTATION INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT SECONDARY SYSTEM _ j r f ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Cable Television COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS• SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to discuss items related to cable television. Several Board members have requested a work session to discuss various cable TV issues. 1996 Telecommunications Act Senior Assistant County Attorney Joe Obenshain will be available to explain the ramifications of the new act. A copy Mr. Obenshain's July 18, 1996 memorandum on the subject is attached. Status Report on Cox Cable BPOL Tax Staff will update the Board on efforts to determine whether Cox Cable is required to pay BPOL tax to Roanoke County. Future Proctramminct_options for RVTV Community Relations Director Anne Marie Green will update the Board on programming on RVTV and will be available to discuss your suggestions for future programs. Attached is the policy governing programs for RVTV. !,iy,rrw/ ,, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Eddy Received ( ) Harrison Referred ( ) Johnson To ( ) Minnix Nickens __ ~. ~ ~ ROANOKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W. -Room 431 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 772-2071 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Joseph B Obenshain ~ . Senior Assistant County tto ey DATE: July 18, 1996 SUBJECT: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 The massive Telecommunications Act of 1996 ['96 Act] signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, 1996, has significant implications for Roanoke County and its citizens. The potential impact of this important legislation extends far beyond the field of cable television to numerous other areas of the telecommunications industry which will impact local governments as consumers, as regulators and as property owners. In responding in a proactive manner to this vast and significant change to the legal landscape, it may well be advisable for Roanoke County to adopt a telecommunications ordinance which mirrors in many aspects our current cable television ordinance. Once our office has had an opportunity to review ordinances from other jurisdictions, we may wish to discuss this option with the Board in more detail. BACKGROUND This memo is one result of a recent two-day conference on "The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Governments" in Charlotte, N.C., presented by the National League of Cities. I want to briefly share some information with you and open up the possibility of further discussion of some of the more pressing issues facing counties in Virginia in this area. The '96 Act is more than 100 pages in length and contains both specific mandates as well as very general guidance on some central issues. As a result of the passage of the '96 Act, the F.C.C. has been required to undertake a number of regulatory rulemaking procedures. A number of those regulations will initially be issued by August 8, 1996, the 6-month anniversary of the act. Therefore, many important questions regarding the impact of this legislation will not even receive a tentative answer until these F.C.C. rules are issued. ~~~~ Board of Supervisors Page Two July 18, 1996 In addition to a large volume of material from this conference, my colleagues from the City and I also made numerous contacts with other city and county attorneys and local officials and have requested further information from them,' such as sample telecommunications ordinances. It is not my intention to deluge you with all this material. However, as you read articles in various publications or attend conferences yourselves, I would encourage you to pass them on to this office, among others in the county, and feel free to request further information or research from us. CABLE TELEVISION: Franchises and other issues Part of the difficulty in addressing the '96 Act and its potential impact is in attempting to accurately predict what areas will be of significance to local governments in our various roles and what may prove to be merely "deadends." A good example is the recent interest around "video dial-tone" which Bell Atlantic and a number of other telecommunication firms were actively exploring 9 to 12 months ago. In the assessment of several knowledgeable speakers at this conference, "video dial-tone" is now a dead letter for firms wishing to enter the cable television market. But other options are still actively being pursued. Some of the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCS), Ameritech for example, are choosing to follow the traditional cable franchise route which, of course, subjects them to all the provisions of the Cable Act. While there are other options which could be pursued outside of the restrictions of the Cable Act, such as the "wireless cable" option or a pure common carrier option, the most discussed option is a new one created by the '96 Act termed the "Open Video System (OVS)." While subject to some of the provisions of the Cable Act, OVS seems to portend a "worst case scenario" for local governments because of its exemption from current franchise grant and fee requirements. Also, it may be possible for a cable operator to convert to an OVS operation at the time of franchise renewal. The full implications of OVS cable operations await the soon to-be-adopted F.C.C. regulations. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES (PCS) Issues The issue of franchises and their potential for revenue to localities is continually one of the most pressing problems confronting local govemments. But here the traditional distinction between cities and counties in Virginia becomes most compelling. One of the apparent real growth industries in the telecommunications field is that of "personal communications services" (PCS) which are similar to cellular phone services but over a much smaller area. The City of Roanoke has already received inquiries from several PCS providers with regard to obtaining a franchise for operation in the City and the possible Board of Supervisors Page Three July 18, 1996 lease of city property for tower sites. Because of their smaller transmission range, it is my understanding that a PCS provider needs a grid or matrix of towers every 2 to 3 miles to provide reliable coverage for these devices. Counties have no specific authority under Virginia law at the present time to require franchises for the operation of telecommunications related businesses within their boundaries except for cable television under the federal Cable Act and § 15.1-23.1 of the Code of Virginia. Whether our county charter grants us the power to require other franchises, by virtue of the incorporation of § 15.1-894 of the Code of Virginia, is an important issue which this office will have to research further. This is complicated by the language of our Virginia Constitution in Article VII, § 9 which, on its face, only authorizes the granting of franchises by cities and towns. ZONING POWERS: Restrictions -Dishes & Towers The '96 Act will also have important implications for Roanoke County government with regard to zoning powers. As you may have already heard, the '96 Act and implementing FCC regulations effectively prohibits local governments from enforcing its zoning powers to prevent the placement of the small satellite dishes on homes or businesses used in Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS), or "wireless cable," systems. This applies only to dishes less than one meter, approximately 3 feet, in residential districts and two meters, approximately 6 & 1/2 feet, in business/industrial districts. Any local zoning or building code is "presumed unreasonable and is therefore preempted" and may not be enforced unless a waiver is obtained from the F.C.C. It is the general consensus of experts in this area that the chances of any locality obtaining such a waiver from the F.C.C. in the current environment are 1) slim and 2) none. Even for larger dishes, there is a very heavy burden placed upon localities to justify such restrictions in terms of a specific health or safety objective which must be no more burdensome than necessary and must be set forth clearly in the ordinance. There was even some concern voiced whether limitations contained in deed covenants or restrictions would withstand the broad prohibition contained in the recently issued F.C.C. rule. On the related issue of regulation of towers used in wireless services, particular care may be called for by the county to insure that any zoning action respecting such applications will withstand attack in light of this new legal environment. From the perspective of the '96 Act, the key principle appears to be whether a locality is prohibiting or effectively prohibiting entry into the local wireless market. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). While this should still leave localities the latitude to rule on a case-by-case basis on Board of Supervisors Page Four July 18, 1996 _, ~. applications for permission to establish tower sites or on other zoning issues effecting such businesses, the F.C.C. seems to be leaning very strongly in the direction of strictly limiting the authority of local governments to take actions which either "impair reception" or impeded the entry of this competitive market into a locality. If localities think they have trouble keeping out a Wal-Mart, just wait until they begin refusing applications from an RBOCS for tower sites for PCS enterprises. ''~fELEPHONE COMPETITION AND SERVICE While the '96 Act does contain provisions affecting cable television by amending significant sections of the 1992 Cable Act, the real impetus behind this legislation was to alter the 1984 Consent Decree which broke up AT&T. The major objective is to encourage competition in all realms of the telecommunications industry with the intent of lowering prices and increasing service. The '96 Act attempts to remove barriers to entry and completion whether for telephone services, local and long distance, as well as for cable television and cellular communication services. The focus is no longer on the technology involved in delivering messages or data but upon communications or data as a commodity to be transported as cheaply as possible. Most state laws and regulatory procedures have yet to amve at this point. A key provision of the '96 Act nullifies any state or local legal enactment which "may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate telecommunications service." [Emphasis added] 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). While another subsection proclaims the rights of localities to manage public rights-of-way and to require fair and reasonable compensation on a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral basis, the Act gives ultimate authority to the F.C.C. to preempt and prohibit the enforcement of any local action which interferes with the mandate of § 253(a). The '96 Act will also have implications for local governments as purchasers of telephone and data transmission services. As large consumers of telecommunications services, localities may find themselves in an advantageous position as a result of this legislation. However, there are significant potential conflicts between the Act's purposes of promoting competition and a goal of preserving and expanding universal service for telecommunication modes. Congress implicitly recognized that there are costs involved in insuring universal service and that all providers would have to share at least part of this cost. In an increasingly competitive environment, how these costs are divided up will likely be a very contentious issue. Board of Supervisors Page Five July 18, 1996 ~_ /, a~ The'96 Act also will impact local tax revenues by virtue of provisions which restrict local sales taxes on Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services received by residents of a locality. But it may also have a very positive impact as local economic development is promoted by new telecommunications infrastructures. As cable operators expand their services into data transmission and providing Internet access, this may have the potential to increase their gross revenues received for "cable services" which are specifically defined in the 1992 Cable Act. With respect to''a cable operator's entry into the telephone business, such activity would not be controlled by either the Cable Act or by an existing cable franchise. Therefore, the revenues collected by a cable operator from this portion of their business activities would not be subject to any existing cable franchise fee percentage. If state law permits, the county may be able to impose a separate franchise fee on the cable operators phone business. As suggested above, adoption of a county telecommunications ordinance may be a prerequisite for requiring a separate franchise agreement in regard to any compan~s telephone operations. cc: Elmer C. Hodge Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. Angie McPeak, RVTV-Ch.3 Dr. Deanna Gordon, Division Superintendent Thomas A. Leggette, School Board Chairman Terry Harrington, Zoning Administrator William Rand, Director of General Services Craig Hatmaker, Director of MIS ~v~ `~' ~~ ~`L~~ \ 102 GRANDIN RD., SW, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401 5-(703)343-0436 Roanoke Valley Television x DRAFT Use of Facility, Equipment & Programming Policy Roanoke Valley Television - Cox Cable Channel 3 is a .government and educational access cable station serving the City of Roanoke, the County of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton and their respective school systems as an extension of their Public Information offices. Accordingly, only local government departments, including school and constitutional offices, and groups whose membership are appointed by the governing body of their respective localities can utilize the services of Roanoke Valley Television. Each of the local governments and school systems are represented on the Operations Committee, which oversees the operation of RVTV-Channel 3, including the assignment of all projects to the Station. Manager. The Operations Committee representative determines the allocation of RVTV resources for his or her respective locality. Any government or school department wanting to utilize RVTV must do so through the Operations Committee representative. Events or programs which are co-sponsored by the local governments or school systems are eligible for RVTV coverage. Pre-produced tapes or satellite feeds obtained for re-broadcast by the local governments or school systems may also be aired on Channel 3. These types of projects must also be approved by the Operations Committee representative. RVTV cannot be used for political purposes or financial gain - personal or otherwise. It is the goal of RVTV-Channel 3 to provide Valley citizens with educational and government programming in a professional manner. In order to maintain an acceptable audio and video signal, the Cable Access Director has full authority to accept or reject material based on technical quality. ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C n ~ ~~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ o ~ o, n ~ z ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o~ ~• 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ H N N ~~' ~ ~ 0 v~~ N (J1 h z ~ ~ N z 0 z ~ z 0 ~o 1^~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ S N N H ~ a ~e Q -/ n 0 z 0 r O .~~y L'~ ~-/ RVTV 1995 Productions Edited Videos: Title Locality Length The Game of Chess -- Roanoke City Schools-- 22 minutes Work & Family Studies -- Roanoke County Schools -- 5 minutes The Consolidated Plan -- Roanoke City (Grants Compliance)-- 10 minutes Architectural Review Procedures -- Roanoke City (Planning Dept.)--18 minutes Moorehead Kennedy Speech -- Roanoke County Schools--1 hour Roanoke County Visioning -- Roanoke County (Planning Dept.)-- 8 minutes Citizen Appreciation Day Highlights -- Roanoke City-- 3 minutes FDETC 20th Anniversary -- Roanoke City (FDETC)-- 13 minutes University Center -- Roanoke City-- 8 minutes Rekindle the Glow -- Roanoke County (Camp Roanoke)-- 6 minutes This is RVTV -- RVTV (for use at a national conference)-- 5 minutes Fire Dept. Training Video -- Roanoke City-- 6 minutes Volunteer Recruitment -- Roanoke County (Fire & EMS)-- 6 minutes Eligibility Forum -- Roanoke City (Fire Dept.)-- 1 hour, 30 minutes Greenways Open Space Presentation -- Fifth Planning District (req. by City)-- 28 min Festival of Lights Holiday Parade -- Roanoke City-= 1 hour, 16 minutes 2 Teen Center spots for commercial air -- Roanoke County (Parks &Rec Dept.)-- 1 min 2 City Summer Youth spots for commercial air -- Roanoke City (Parks &Rec)-- 1 min "Grand Old Lady" music video -- Roanoke City-- 2 minutes 11 Roanoke City Manager's Report programs 11 Roanoke County Today programs RVTV 1996 Year-to-Date Productions Edited Videos Title Locality Length School Budget Presentation Roanoke City Schools 40:00 Emergency Press Conference Roanoke City 15:00 Magnet/Governor's School Roanoke City Schools (edited toge ther only) 1996 School Bond Video Roanoke County 9:26 Mock Board Meeting Roanoke County 20:00 Camp Roanoke PSA's (2) Roanoke County 1:00 County Real Estate Tax Assessment Roanoke County 13:26 All America City Video Roanoke City 6:10 All America Video Chronicle Roanoke City 40:00 WIC Program PSA Roanoke City :30 Projects that are currently in production or being planned: The Resource Authority City & County Employee Orientation Roanoke City Employee Orientation Roanoke County Employee Safety Training Video Roanoke City DARE Camp Highlights Roanoke City New Airport Security Procedures City & County 911/EMS Response Process Roanoke County Vocational Education PSAs Roanoke County Schools The Roanoke Regional TV Committee City & County yo~~, S~ ~ c~~~-~~ Y~~d~ ~~ ~- c~u~ Js/ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Beginning Balance at July 1, 1996 (unaudited) $7,176,332 7.92% Balance at August 13, 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, ,o,~.,~ ~.~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Gen96. WK4 ~'w~t 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 August 13, 1996 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance $648.413.00 I M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap96. WK4 ~`~ RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 1996-97 Original Budget $305,313.00 Balance at August 13, 1996 $305,313.00 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board96. WK4 i ITEM NUMBER CJ '"~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Status Report on Dixie Caverns COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Dixie Caverns Landfill was operated by Roanoke County from 1965 to 1976. Problems with obtaining a permit and the construction of a regional landfill led to the abandonment of the Dixie Caverns Landfill. On October 4, 1989, Dixie Caverns was listed on the National Priorities List as a "Superfund Site." In December, 1992, the Board signed a Consent Decree with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the ultimate disposal of the electric arc furnace dust (flyash). The transport of that material to HTMR (high temperature metals recovery) facilities in Rockwood, Tennessee and Chicago, Illinois was completed in August, 1995. A total of 8,116 tons of material was excavated and shipped to these facilities. This "part" of the Superfund Project is complete and has been officially closed by the EPA. CURRENT ACTIVITIES: The other "part" of the Superfund project is the removal of contaminated sediments from the stream that leaves the Dixie Caverns site towards Twine Hollow Road. In August, 1992, the Board of Supervisors signed a Consent Order for Removal with the EPA that addressed this action. That work began in January, 1993 and continues today. As of July 26, 1996, we have stabilized 12,500 tons of contaminated steam sediments. This represents removal of 2500 feet of streambed out of a total project length of 3600 feet. Our goal is to be f finished with the contaminated stream removal process by December of this year. Project closure would most likely occur three to six months after we finish the stream, hopefully by spring or early summer of 1997. 1 •~ D-Y FISCAL IMPACT: To date, we have spent approximately 8 million dollars on all of the related activities at Dixie Caverns. This figure does not include reimbursement by Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation for their share, as outlined in our cost-sharing agreement. They are paying one half of the costs related to the electric arc furnace dust transport and stream removal. This figure does include over one million dollars that has been spent on leachate collection, treatment, and transportation, as a result of a Consent Order with the Department of Environmental Quality. There is currently approximately 1.5 million dollars remaining in the account. This should be sufficient to finish the project, exclusive of EPA response costs and unforeseen circumstances. SUMMARY' Progress has been good on the project. The removal of the "dust" pile was completed on schedule and below the EPA estimated cost as contained in the Consent Decree. The stream removal process has increased in productivity from 30 feet per month to well over 400 feet per month and the stabilization process has increased from 20,000 pounds per day to almost 200,000 pounds per day. With respect to the closure of the municipal part of the Dixie Caverns Landfill, we have "capped" the majority of the site. This has been done at very little cost due to the fact that we were able to obtain free cover material from the water treatment plant and Valley Tech Industrial Park. As you may recall, garbage was placed in a large area that was not owned by Roanoke County. We have been negotiating with ICI Explosives, of Houston, Texas, for the past year and a half to acquire this property (approximately eighteen acres). Although the land is of little value, it is important to ICI because of the buffer requirements that they have to conform with. This has made the negotiation of the sale of the property difficult. As soon as this parcel can be acquired, the closure of the entire municipal side can be completed. FUTURE PLANS' The Dixie Caverns site contains approximately 75 acres, some of which has the potential for other uses. The Economic Development Department has actively marketed the site and shown the property to prospects. Some of the possibilities considered have been a portable asphalt plant, a rifle range, and an automobile auction facility. The land could also be considered for use by the Parks & Recreation department. 2 a .- a-v Respectfully submitted by: ~-,~~„ George S mpson, Assistant Director Engineering and Inspections Approved by: `mil Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) -------------------- No Yes Abs Eddy _ _ _ Harrison _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens _ _ _ 3 ~, dp CB{y~ L~~ ~ i^ % F"a 'Clt'~hft Tv4t'~'~` - `aJ®~IYY®~ V 7 II.s~LLJY 1 Y O~ ~~~~~~~6 9 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219-1939 August 2, 1996 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: D-s JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in July 1996. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. These changes will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its monthly meeting on August 15, 1996. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 786-7399. James S. Givens State Secondary ads Engineer JSG/MII TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY -., ~ . b a N O a~ w w W ~ C 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ C~ Aa y ra H~ G i. W 6~ O O a i C O .~ .> b u .~ a a~ C V rn o~O~, ~ ~ N ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ I a\ N ^'+ N O O O C O ~ ~ .~. _O N .0.+ O ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ +, ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ O O O z M l~ N M O O O O O 'O v O d ~r d eo C U on ee z O ~O _O ~ a' ~ O ~N. N N a0+ a~+ O ~ ~ Y Y ~ N Q) ~ a~ 33^ 3 ~ ~ Y 7 O 7 O O O ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ M_ N O O O O O_ _ _ t~ O N N .~. o U Q ~ b a~ ~ ai Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ U ~ C `~' 0 q O U .. ~ ~ ~ ~ a+ ~ 'b ~ O N °: U o ~ w _N ~ ~ N o O o .~ b b b Q Q Q o-5 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ "'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Sanitary Sewer Evaluation/Rehabilitation Program (SSE/R) -Private Property Inspection COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The sanitary sewer evaluation rehabilitation program (SSE/R) is intended to remove the majority of the stormwater and groundwater that enters the sanitary sewer system. This water enters the system through inflow or infiltration (I/I). The Roanoke County SSE/R program is divided into two segments -the public portion which consists of main sewer lines that are .owned and maintained by Roanoke County and the private portion which consists of the private laterals and homes that are the responsibility of the property owner. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County SSE/R program started in 1986 concentrating only on the public portion. In 1992 a study of the private portion was begun and enforcement began in the fall of 1994. The purpose of this report is to summarize the results from the private SSE/R program over the last two years. ©~ ~F' Penn Forest Area -The initial study of the private SSE/R program was begun in the Tanglewood Drive drainage area of the Penn Forest subdivision. This project is complete with the exception of non-compliance properties. Total Properties Affected 522 Properties that have granted permission to inspect 498 Inspections completed 498 Category I defects found/corrected 49/41 Category II defects found/corrected 25/18 Category III defects found (voluntary compliance only) 93 The remaining 15 property owners with Category I and II defects have failed to correct the defects within the 6-month time limitation as provided under County Ordinance Section 18-156. Surcharges will be added to their sewer bills beginning next month until the corrections are made. There are still 24 properties that have not allowed inspections. The County Attorney's office approved a letter submitted by staff July 10, 1996, which addresses this concern. Properties that do not abide by the conditions of the letter will be assumed to have Category I defects and surcharges will be added. These letters will be mailed within the next two weeks. Although surcharge of the sewer line along the Tanglewood Drive area still exists during extremely heavy rainfall, a significant improvement has been realized. There have been fewer events and of much shorter duration. Green Valley Area -Inspections started in the Green Valley Area on January 17, 1996. This project is expected to last until May 1997. ~~l~l~ ~~~1~~~ - CJ~t~ ~tJl~ ~1~~N~~~ ~~ Total Properties Affected 179 Properties that have granted permission to inspect 110 Inspections completed 110 Category I defects found 12 Category II defects found 1 Category III defects found 13 0-6 North Spring Drive -Inspections started in the North Spring Drive area on February 13, 1996. This project is expected to last until June 1997. Total Properties Affected 241 Properties that have granted permission to inspect 149 Inspections completed 149 Category I defects found 14 Category II defects found 3 Category III defects found 13 Future Private Portion Studies - Montclair Estates (Peters Creek Drainage Area) -Begin August 1996; complete September 1997 Sugar Loaf Farms, Glen Heather, South Park Circle (Mudlick Drainage Area) -Begin October 1996; complete October 1997 Public Portion - The public portion of the SSE/R program has been operating in the Sugar Loaf Farms area. This will continue into the Castle Rock area. These areas are expected to be complete by February 1997. Results - It is staff's opinion that the private portion of the SSE/R program is having a much larger impact on reducing I/I than the public portion. Approximately 60% of the Category I defects noted to date have been sump pumps for foundation drainage connected to the sewer system. Alight duty sump pump is capable of pumping at least 20 gallons per minute (gpm). In the Penn Forest area the sump pumps discovered would introduce 600 gpm if all pumps were operating simultaneously. This flow alone would cause the sewer line in Tanglewood Drive to surcharge. Staff estimates that these County wide defects increase our sewer flow by 4 MGD during periods of heavy rain. Eliminating this excessive amount of I/I will greatly reduce I/I related back-ups and overflows, improving customer service, environmental quality, and system efficiency. This will also reduce the need for costly sewer trunk line, interceptor line and treatment plant upgrades. The private property SSElR inspections have revealed that many of the improper connections of storm and ground waters to the sewer system have been wet basement corrections by waterproofing companies that do not get a building permit. This is a common practice, knowingly improper, but continues to this day. Staff is researching alternatives to minimize this practice. D-~ SUBMITTED BY: l~ l~ Gary Rob son, P.E. Utility Director ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to APPROVED: C:~-. ~-~' ~7 Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens / -~~ r 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. _ "" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: Progress Report on the Comprehensive Plan COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Progress: The following items were completed since the last progress report was submitted to you on July 9: • A work session was held with the Board of Supervisors to discuss the progress of the Comprehensive Plan project and present in summary form the demographic analysis. • The first meeting of the Citizen Advisory Committee was held on July 25 in the Brambleton Avenue Teen Center. • Initiated detailed research on the intra-county changes in population, with an emphasis on growth and impact on community facilities. • Collected detailed information on school aged children located in multi-family projects in the County. • Continued meetings with County Departments to review the comprehensive plan project, and determine the departmental resources and needs in context to the plan. • Received preliminary information on viewshed analysis prepared by the Park service for locations along the Blue Ridge Parkway. It is anticipated that the following tasks will be completed within the next 30 days: • Prepare for and conduct the second meeting of the CAC scheduled for August 22, with an emphasis on developing a strategy for citizen participation. • Prepare and distribute the August 1996 issue of the Comprehensive Plan Newsletter. o~ 2 • Coordinate with the County's GIS staff to produce a current land use map and provide trend analysis on building construction. • Complete meetings with County Departments related to the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. If you would like additional information on any of the above activities, please contact Jon Hartley or Gary Mitchell at the Department of Planning and Zoning at (540) 772-2068. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, \~ ~~ Terrance Ha r' gton, AICP Elmer C. Hodge Directo of Pl ning & Zoning County Administrator Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Vote No Yes Abs Eddy Harrison Johnson Minnix Nickens t ` ' `•. ,~~•,~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON AUGUST 13, 1996 RESOLUTION 081396-5 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Minnix 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, CMC Clerk to the Board cc: File Executive Session File AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON AUGUST 13, 1996 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. o~ EtOANp~~ ~ ~ A z ' c~ ~ z ~ a, 7838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2 7 93 August 15, 1996 Mr. J. Lee Osborne, Chairman Fifth Planning District Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24010 Dear Mr. Osborne: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 081396-1 in support of the Fifth Planning District Commission's estabhishunent of a regional steering committee to examine the process for developing a regional partnership under the provisions of the 1996 Regional: Competitiveness Act. Tlus resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on August 13, 1996. At the meeting, the Board also appointed Supervisor Lee Eddy and Cotulty Administrator Elmer Hodge to represent the County of Roanoke on the steering committee. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sirlcerely, ~ . ~.1~c..~.J Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board Attachment CC: Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Pharuling District Commission Lee B. Eddy, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Elmer C. Hodge, Cotulty Administrator ~~~~~~ ~~ ~a~xY~.~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ® Recyded Paper o~ ROANp,~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1838 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 August 15, .1996 Mr. Robert H. Lewis 1135 Deer Run Road Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Mr. Lewis: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Social Services Advisory Board. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are far too scarce. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on August 13, 1996, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Social Services Advisory Board representing the Vinton Magisterial District for another four-year term. Your new term will expire on August 1, 2000. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Infornlation Act. Your copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. Sate 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. 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 Enclosures cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Steven A. McGraw, Clerk of Circuit Court ® Recycled Paper o~ pOANp,~~ ti A z c> ~J a 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD ~~~~~ ~~ ~~Y~~.~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 August 15, 1996 F. Douglas Sweetenburg Roanoke County Sheriff's Office Salem, VA 24153 Dear Deputy Sweetenburg: BRENDA J. HOL70N DEPUTY CLERK On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, l would like to thank you for offering the invocation at their meeting on Tuesday, August 13, 1996. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings and the Board is very grafeful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. Sincerely, 7rz ciu~.. s6' ~ ~•/ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board ® q~~ p~ I N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: Board of Supervisors From: Elmer C. Hodge ~~~ Subj: High School Summer Intern Date: August 9, 1996 Tlus summer we have been fortunate to have asl excellent summer intern sent to us by the American Red Cross Youth Summer Volunteer Program. Her name is Amber Buckowsky and she will be a senior at Cave Spring High School this fall. One of the projects I asked Amber to handle was to prepare a Board Report for the August 13 agenda on appropriation of funds to VML/VACo to negotiate the contract with American Electric Power. I have also asked her to present the item at the Board meeting. I feel this will be an opportunity for her to gain valuable experience for the future. Tlus is a fairly routine item which has been on the Board's agenda in the past, so there should be no difficult questions for her. If you have questions on the item, please contact me prior to the meeting. Amber will also be helpilg us the week of August 13 while Brenda Holton and Melinda Rector take some vacation time. She will work with Mary Allen in the Board Office on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Thursday and Friday, she will handle the Information Desk. We axe pleased to have Amber with us this summer. She recently moved to Roanoke County from Oregon. She is active in Student Government at Cave Spring and hopes to attend either William and Mary or the University of Virginia. \~ I N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: Board of Supervisors ~~~~~ From: Elmer C. Hodge Subj: Reception for New Department Heads Date: August 8, 1996 Several meetings ago, Chairman Bob Johnson suggested that we schedule a program to welcome our new department heads. Board Clerk Mary Allen has coordinated a reception following our Board meeting on August 13. The Board members and County department heads have been invited to attend. This will provide an opportunity for all of you and the other department heads to meet the newest members of the County family. They include Joseph J. Sgroi, Director of Human Resources; Diane St. John, Registrar; Craig Hatmaker, Director of Management Information Services; and Richard Burch, Cluef of Fire and Rescue. The reception will be held on the fourth floor of the Administration Center at 4:30 p.m. following the regular afternoon session and before our work session. Refreslunents will be served. Attached is a brief resume for each of the new department heads. . . a Joe Sgroi. Director of Human Resources Joe joined the staff on June 3. He is a native of Baltimore, Maryland, but has lived in the Roanoke Valley for 20 years. He has a Master's Degree in Human Resources Management from Pepperdine University and a B.A. in Behavioral and Social Sciences from the University of Maryland. Previous positions include Director of Human Resources for Roanoke Memorial Hospital and a Personnel Manager for the Kroger Company. Joe's wife is a special education teacher with the County school system. His daughter Julie attends Cave Spring High School where she is the president of the student government. His daughter Stephanie attends Cave Spring Junior High School where she also is president of the student government. Joe serves as President of the Roanoke Society of Human Resource Management. Music is his main hobby and he plays guitar in "Joey and the Jaguars," a variety dance band performing music from the 50's to the 90's. His hobbies include tennis, racquet ball and snow skiing. raig Hatmaker, Director of MIS The new director of MIS is a native of Marietta, Georgia. Craig attended Virginia Tech and received his degree in Architecture. His first job was as a consultant/PC Tech with Business Solution Center. Other positions he has held are programmer and MIS Manager for Blue Ridge Transfer, and Application Development Manager for Transcrit. Craig has three children, two daughters who are 10 and 7 and a son who is 4. His wife, a native of Salem, is a registered nurse but is staying home with her children right now. When not on the job, Craig likes to run. He also writes music by computer, which is accomplished by hooking up a keyboard to a computer. Diane St. John, Registrar Diane is new to her position, but not new to the County staff. She was first employed in the Registrar's Office in 1974.. Diane is a native of Roanoke and a graduate of Northside High School. She has supplemented her education with additional business courses. Prior to employment at the County she worked at Kroger and stayed home for several years. Her husband, Barry, works for Norfolk Southern. She has a daughter, Tina Lowe and a son Jerry Helm, Jr. She has three grandchildren, Chelsea, Joshua and Julie. In her spare time, Diane enjoys bike riding on the Blue Ridge Parkway, scuba diving, and cooking. Richard Burch, Fire and Rescue Chief Rick comes from Hanover County where he was deputy fire chief/emergency services coordinator. He was employed by Hanover County since 1977 and was a firefighter for the City of Richmond prior to that time. He also served as volunteer assistant fire chief of the Mechanicsville Fire Department. He is currently serving as President of the Fire Chiefs Association of Virginia, and was recently appointed to the Virginia Fire Services Board by Governor Allen. He has an A.A. S. Degree in Fire Science Technology from the J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College and is a graduate of the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy. Rick has two children, Ricky who is 12 and Jacquie who is 14. His wife, Sandy is originally from California and has been in Virginia for six years. ACTION NO. ~. ~. ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 8, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : 4/~,,~,,~,,,..~,/ ~c-C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' This is the new Virginia Public Authorities agreement for electric service. The agreement is for a three year term beginning July 1, 1993. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League jointly appointed a steering committee and hired lawyers and consultants to negotiate a new electricity agreement on behalf of all local governments and authorities in the Appalachian Power Company service territory in Virginia. This agreement is the result of the efforts of this process. VML/VACo have negotiated a favorable agreement at favorable rates, and recommend that their membership approve the agreement. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This agreement includes exhibits for a present listing of all accounts covered by the agreement; the rate schedule for general service, schools and utility pumping; the rate schedule for outdoor lighting; and an addendum for electric service for Spring Hollow Reservoir. For the period July 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, rates will increase 50; for the period January 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995, rates will be revised downward to reflect a 1.6~ increase above the rates in effect on June 30, 1993; and rates for the period July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996, will be revised to reflect a 2.5% increase above the rates in effect June 30, 1993. • ~-~ With respect to street lighting rates, APCO sought a 6.5~ increase over the rates in effect June 30, 1993. Local governments have been paying rates reflecting this increase since July 1, 1993. Although the steering committee agreement allowed APCO to retain this revenue through December 31, 1993, street light rates are revised as of January 1, 1994, to reflect a 1.5~ increase in the rates in effect on June 30, 1993. These rates will be in effect for the period January 1, 1994, through June 30, 1996. FISCAL IMPACTS• The increased rates for electric service shall be reflected in the annual operating budgets of the affected County departments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution, which authorizes the County Administrator to execute this agreement for electricity from Appalachian Power Company for a three year term beginning July 1, 1993, upon form approved by the County Attorney. Respectfully submitted, • ~, rVl' Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to agenda~agrmts~apco Motion by No Yes Abs Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens Minnix • _ ~' `~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF TFTE BO~iRD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1994 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY WHEREAS, Roanoke County and Appalachian Power Company desire to enter into a three year agreement commencing July 1, 1993 for the purchase of electricity for public purposes; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has benefitted from the professional assistance and expertise of the Virginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties Steering Committee in negotiating an agreement for electricity with Appalachian Power Company for political subdivisions and public authorities in this service area; and, WHEREAS, the VML/VACo Steering Committee strongly recommends the agreement negotiated, since the rates negotiated by it result in significant savings for all participating localities; and, WHEREAS, this agreement establishes rates for general service, utility pumping and outdoor lighting/street lights. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1) That the three year agreement commencing July 1, 1993 for the purchase of electricity from Appalachian Power Company is hereby approved and accepted. 2) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and Roanoke County, upon form approved by the County Attorney. AGENDA\GENERAI.\APCO.RFS • 1 j AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1994 RESOLUTION 3894-4 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY WHEREAS, Roanoke County and Appalachian Power Company desire to enter into a three year agreement commencing July 1, 1993 for the purchase of electricity for public purposes; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County has benefitted from the professional assistance and expertise of the Virginia Municipal League and Virginia Association of Counties Steering Committee in negotiating an agreement for electricity with Appalachian Power Company for political subdivisions and public authorities in this service area; and, WHEREAS, the VML/VACo Steering Committee strongly recommends the agreement negotiated, since the rates negotiated by it result in significant savings for all participating localities; and, WHEREAS, this agreement establishes rates for general service, utility pumping and outdoor lighting/street lights. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1) That the three year agreement commencing July 1, 1993 for the purchase of electricity from Appalachian Power Company is hereby approved and accepted. 2) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and Roanoke County, upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve agreement and authorize the County Attorney to meet with VACo/VML and APCO to discuss differences identified in rates, as well as storm-related issues, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney • • ACTION ,~ A-61290-5 ITEM NUMBER ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 12, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation to VML/VACO for Assessment for Appalachian Power Negotiations COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ ,z~ ~7, o o '~ ~- SUNIlKARY OF INFORMATION: The VML/VACO Appalachian Power Company Steering Committee has been established to negotiate a reduction in electric service charges to local governments for the period beginning July 1, 1990. To cover the expenses of the utility consultant, legal fees and other expenses associated with the negotiations, the Steering Committee proposed a -$115,000 assessment. Each local government is asked to contribute a proportionate share based on the 1989 electricity units for its locality (exclusive of street lights) . The amount that has been assessed for the County of Roanoke is $9,007. 0 FISCAL IMPACT: The $9,007 assessment will need to be appropriated from the unappropriated balance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends making the necessary appropriation and forwarding the $9,007 to the VML/VACO Steering Committee. Diane D. Hyatt- Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs ent Approved (X ) Motion by: Si-a ~Pn A _ M~-Grave Denied ( ) to arnrnvr~ ac~P~smPnt _ Eddy Received ( ) Johnson . Referred ( ) McGraw To Nickens Robers cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget X X_ X _ X X I N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: George Simpson From: Mary H. Allen Subj: Status Report on Dixie Caverns Date: July 26, 1996 At the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 23, the Board requested a status report on Dixie Caverns. Mr. Hodge would like you to prepare a status report for the August 13 board meeting. He would like you to include the following information: - Dollars spent to date -Dollars needed to finish project - Significant items to be completed - Acreage: how much is in the landfill, how much surrounds the landfill - Potential uses of the property when cleanup is complete CC: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Allen FROM: John M. Chambliss, Jr. ~~- SUBJECT: Award for the Court Service Unit DATE: June 28, 1996 Mike Lazzuri recently learned that the 23rd District Court Service Unit Substance Abuse Program has won the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges' award for "Most Unique & Innovative Program". Sandra C. Alderson of his staffwill receive the award at the 59th Annual Conference in Vail Colorado at their meeting in July (14-17). You may wish to call Mike to include this info in the County Signal and also to allow the Board of Supervisors to recognize there when Sandy returns. cc Elmer Hodge Anne Marie Crreen Mike Lazzuri 8 - /.~ g,~3 N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS St~P ~rvisor Edd y (11 Rec eived reservation for ms f^r VAC' n Confer ence and ~ggested making re servati ons as soon as possible (2) Asked whether staff has amended remarks to be ma de on 7/10 before the H r i lons ~omm~tte e AMG P resent ed c odes of the amende d comments (31 A ked staf about the following issues (,~L Defined terms for t he Volun ~ oar ECH will briny prop osed t erms to Board for a~pro val• L- 1 r men o Qppening burning E CH a dvise d Couniy ordinanc e is in Com nlianc.e with the changes ( c) asked for supp ort o n a work session in the futur i ri eanmg o f drainage ditches B oard consensus to sch edule in the f re• s e for an up date on the SSER Pr Q,gram Gary Rober tson will i repo r a 8/13/96 m eeting fie ) Rece ived resuonses from Fre d nder~~n and Dia ne Hyatt re~a~ riling his s~g~es tions t o c hange tax collections dates R~ o t concerns with Ms Hyatt in greater detail. ~p~rvisor Minnix (,~ In response to a quote in the newsu~aer articles ~~l..yised that he could now find his way to the bathroom (21 Advised he ha a conflict for the Board Retreat on Tulv 27 and asked that it Hp mnvPd to August. BLT asked ECH to contact the facilitator, and MHA to contact Spike arrison an to Poll Board members for dates in August. ~~ervisor T ohnson (1) Asked ECH to report on resn or~p times for a fire in the Hollins Distric call comes in an t on Oakland Blvd EC d advised that two fire H described wha companies are di t h~pnens when sn~t~'hed The a 911 mton i nmuanv arrived in a~zproximately 9 1/z minutes while the H 1 in ~ not arrive for 20 minutes because there were no personne l in the station He ~xPlained that the Vinton response time w as anrQpriate b~ ~t the Hollins re sponse time was not HCN suggested an ed ucation .~rQgrarn ~~ 911 calls on the government access channel X21 Announc ed that the Board of Supervisors h~ld_ a pint meeting with Roanoke Cit~Council earlier in the day a„rl rennrted o n what was discussed at the meeting. O. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COl~~VIUNICATIONS 1 Barbara BuckleX, 1779 Millbridge Road spoke in support of funding ~novations to Fort Lewis Elementarv School. 2 Amber Sir, 1756 Millbridge Road., spY ke in port of funding renovations to Fort Lewis Elementarv School O~ AOANpk~ ti • , .,• ~ z * ,7 .. 2 ~` ' a~ 1838 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 C~~~xx~t~ ~~' ~~~x~.a~~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 MEMORANDUM 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. GATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (540) 772-2005 TO: Joe Obenshain FROM: Harry Nickens ~ ~ ~L~,~,~~tls' DATE: July 25, 1996 SUBJECT: TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 COMMUNICATIONS Thank you for your excellent and succinct treatment of the Telecommunications Act and the potential implca ' s-for local government. I would suggest that this matter be addresse w sessio so that we can collectively deal with this rather than be in a reacti o oust timing would be left to the discretion of e Board Chairman, the County Administra or, and yourself, working toge e ~~ ~~%%~ HCN/bjh cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Elmer Hodge ~;~~ ~'~7 ~/ ~ ,' ~~" f i~ / ~~ ~'~~~~ "U( ~" .. ,, ,. ,„ C ®Recyded Paper JUL. -30' 96 (TUE) Q8 ~ 49 23RD-D 1ST. L'. S. U. TEL ~ 540 387 b119 P. aa~ ment of juvenile Justice 305 E Maio Street + Salen, Y1 Z41S3 • {54p) 387-612b • faa: f540) 381-6119 r'4R. IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: July 30, 1995 CoritSCt: Michael J. LaZZUx~i (540) 367-61.25, Fax; (5gO) 387-6119 National Award fora IIayque and, ~nnovativa Project Salem, Va,---'~.'he Virgiz~a Taepartment of juvenile ~ustiee is pleased to announce that the National Council of Juvenile and family Court }'udges has selected the 23rd District Court Service Chit Substance Abuse T''rogram for its annual award for a Uxiiclue aiicl 7iuwvdtive Project. 7"he award was presented at the organizations 59th Annual Conference to be held in Vail, Colorado 1uly I4-17, I996 The award is prescnLCd annually ca ol~e local, state, or national oigasucstiult, agcrtcy court or group of persons for a unique and innovative project in the area of research, rehabilitation, detention, runavray programs, etc. The award is bestowed to a project which is truly new, original or unique or innovative, and c~,~pands the knowledge of hovv~ to successfully deal with problems in the juvenile and Faxr>,ily court system. The projects must have demonstrable success with coon and community support for its oUjecti~ves. The 23rd District Court Service Unit is located in Salem, Va. and serves the City of Salem and the County of fLoanake. The substance abuse program addresses the issues of protection of the public, prevention, and holding the offender accountable for his actions. 't'his program provides ror the assessment, education, treatment, rehabilitation of juveniles wytt~ ct~hstanr.P ;ahttst' l,rnhlP~~nG nr at risk to ahiiGp alrohol or drugs. The parents are involved in addressing the issues of substance abuse and parental responsibility in tht education phase of the program. The Court Service Unit has blended the sezvices of public agencies, schools, and private providers to provide the youth v~-ith an opportunity to effectively deal with the substance abuse ili(J1J1Cill 1iL(:lUtllit~+ LIIC 151uCS Uf rClapse. dUL. -34' 96 (TUE1 4$ ; 48 23RD-D IST. C. S. U. .. -TEL: 540 38 i 6119 P. 001 TRANSMITTAL .-_..-- ta: Mary Allen tax ~: 772-2193 re: National Award date: July 3b,199~ pages: 2, including this cover sheet. Sazidy Alderson who is our substance abuse counselor attended the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Annual Conference in Vail, Colorado to accept the award for the Court Service Unit. The National Council gives awards annual ~ several categories but only one a~~arc1 in each category. Our Substance Abuse Program was selected for the Annual Award in the category of '"Unique and lnnovative Project" because of the manner in which we deal with the subject of substance abuse involving the parents as well as the juvenile, and the involvement of the public and private sectors in delivering the treatment services. In addition, our program holds the juvenile accountable for his actions, addresses prevention through the educational part of the program and provides protection to the community through the random testing for the use of illegal substances. We had found that nearly 9b% of the juveniles appearing in our court for charges other than traffic were either experimenting with, abusing or exposed to family members abusing alcohol and/or drugs. RCCUguiL'u>,,g the steed tv deal 'with suUsta~lce abuse by juveniles, I created a tenzporaiy position devoted to this issue. Sandy Alderson joined or staff as a temporary employee in 1VYarch of 198? and remained as a temporary employee until Oetaber of 198$. In 1989 we had a resignation in our office and I redesigned the position description to provide for a substance abuse counselor. The position was advertised and Sandy was selected to fill the position becoming a full time employee on June ] 2, 1989. Sandy received her Master in Arts Degree in Clinical Psychology from Radford University in 1986. In December of 1994, Sandy was certified by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a substance abuse counselor after completing a prescn`bed course of study and passing a written exam. From the desk of... Mlohael J. Lazzurl Director of Courk Services i7epartment af,lwenile Justice 305 E. Maln fittest Salem, VA 24153 (64Q) 387 612b Fax: (540 B87y6118