Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/10/1998 - Regular
~F ROANp,Y~ ranrer a~ rtff A ~ L~ ~" Working document - subject to revision ~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD PLANNING SESSION ACTION AGENDA Saturday, January 10, 1998 -Sunday, January 11, 1998 Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center A. 9:00 A.M: ARRIVAL AND ROOM CHECK-IN B. 9:30 A.M: CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT AT 9;25 A.M. C. 9:35 A.M: WELCOME AND COMMENTS 1. Board Chairman 2. County Administrator D. REQUESTS TO ADD OR CHANGE THE AGENDA ECH MOVED DISCUSSION ON THE LANDFILL TO ITEM #1 1. Resolution adopting a legislative program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly. (Paul Mahoney) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5, 1998 R-011098-1 FM MOTION TO ADQPT_ RESO WITH AMENDMENT BY HCN AND LANGUAGE REQUESTED BY CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. AYES-FM,~FH,HCN~BL NAYS-JPM 1 ® Recycled Paper E. 10:00 A.M: DISCUSSION OF MAJOR CONSENSUS TOPICS 1. Update on phase I school projects. (Diane Hyatt and Elmer Hodge) PRESENTED BY DIANE HYATT. HCN SUGGESTED JPM SERVE ON CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. JPM WILLING IF APPROPRIATE. 2. Overview of budget (Elmer Hodge and Brent Robertson) PRESENTED BY BRENT ROBERTSON PRELIMINARY BUDGET CALENDAR, REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS. PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX IMPLICATIONS. BOARD CONSENSUS TO SET TAX RATES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 3. Update on landfill operations and financial position (Bill Rand and Diane Hyatt) PRESENTED BY BILL RAND DISCUSSION ON LOSS OF COMMERCIAL STREAM, EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP, HOST LOCALITY FEE. ECH SUGGESTED SETTING MEETING WITH RVRA AND LOCALITY MANAGERS AND CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS. BLJ ASKED STAFF TO DEVELOP AN EMERGENCY PLAN FOR TRASH COLLECTION DURING HOLIDAYS AND SNOW. LUNCHEON RECESS -12:15 -1:00 P.M. 4. Report on courthouse needs (John Chambliss) a. Parking b. Office needs for occupants of the courthouse PRESENTED BY JOHN CHAMBLISS. HE PRESENTED 4 OPTIONS TO ADDRESS SPACE AND PARKING NEEDS WITH COSTS RANGING FROM $135,000 TO $5,325,000. JMC TO BRING BACK REPORT ON 1/27 ON PARKING LOT AND 2 OTHER CHANGES GENERALLY AGREED TO BY THE BOARD. 5. Consideration of regional issues JOHN CHAMBLISS PRESENTED UPDATE ON REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION HOME. WILL ONLY NEED $30,000 FOR A&E THIS YEAR AND WILL ESTABLISH COMMISSION TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS. DINNER RECESS FROM 5:30 P.M. TO 6:30 P.M. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION TIM GUBALA UPDATED THE BOARD QN_EC(~NQMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INCLUDING VALLEYTECH PARK~VALLEY GATEWAY, GLEN-MARY PROJECT, HCN UPDATED BOARD ON EXPLORE PARKS INTERPRETIVE CENTER AND MCDONALD FARM. PMM UPDATED BOARD ON CATAWBA FARM. BLJ SUGGESTED THAT APRIL JOINT MEETING WITH ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL BE HELD AT EXPLORE. 6 Update on regional sewage treatment plant (Gary Robertson) PRESENTED BY GARY ROBERTSON. HE PRESENTED THREE ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS FOR THE ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR. RECESS FOR EVENING AT 9:00 P.M. SUNDAY, JANUARY 11, 1998 RECONVENED AT 9:00 A.M. F. OTHER SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION THESE ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED DURING VARIOUS OTHER SESSIONS 1. Economic Development 2. Parks and Recreation and capital needs 3. Government Access Channel ANNE MARIE GREEN UPDATED BOARD ON OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE PROGRAMMING AT RVTV INCLUDING USE OF OTHER PROGRAMMING, HIRING ADDITIONAL STAFF AND ENCOURAGING STAFF TO PRODUCE THEIR OWN SHOWS. DISCUSSED IDEAS FOR SHOWS• LIVE FROM SCHOOLS, INFO ON BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION CAMP ROANOKE, EXPLORE PARK, SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR~MARKETING VIDEOS FOR ECON. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. AMG TO CHECK INTO POSSIBILITY OF SCROLLING AGENDA ITEMS AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN DURING MEETINGS. 4. Year 2000 Update 5. Comprehensive Plan 6. Ridgeline Protection 7. Emergency Services Charge System 8. Water and Sewer 9. Fire and Rescue 10. Solid Waste 11. Social Services 12. Libraries OTHER ITEMS 1. GENERAL DISCUSSION ON PRESENTATION AT BOARD MEETINGS. STAFF AND BOARD SHOULD USE TITLES AND LAST NAMES~.DRESS PROPERLY,. ALWAYS USE A MICROPHONE. STAFF SHOULD KNOW IN ADVANCE WHEN QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED, 4 2. DISCUSSED POSSIBILITY OF USING PARKS AND REC NEWSPAPER INSERT FOR GENERAL INFO ON COUNTY. ~ DISCUSSED STAFF ISSUES INCLUDING RESPONSES TO BOARD MEMBER CORRESPONDENCE AND USE OF VOICE MAIL GENERAL BOARD CONSENSUS THAT A "HUMAN" PERSON SHOULD ANSWER PHONE WHENEVER POSSIBLE AND THAT GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE DIRECTED TO ALL FIVE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE RESPONDED TO BY BOARD CHAIRMAN AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO SPECIFIC DISTRICT SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER. 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION O N REVEN UES AND E XPENDITURES. INCLUDING WHAT ISSUE S NEED TO BE ADDR ESSED WITH NEW REVENUES AND BE ST APPRO ACH TO F UND ITEMS. ~, MISCELLANEOUS DIRECTIONS: a RVRA Minutes should be included in Board Reading File or available for Board members to read. b Board asked for report on charging for emergencv services c Board asked for a work session on funding alternatives for the stormwater management pro rg am. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES The Board agreed on the following prioritie. ECH to bring back for formal adoption: 1. PUBLIC EDUCATION -Operating: salaries and benefits - Capital: new construction and renovation 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Valley Gateway -Glen-Mary - McDonald Farm (with Vinton) - Catawba Farm - Infill development ~ HEALTH AND SAFETY - upgrade 800 MHZ - Emergency Medical Dispatch - ALS Support - Continue regional efforts 4. PARKS AND RECREATION - South County Park - Lighted soccer field in North County - Camp Roanoke - Recreation at Spring Hollow Reservoir ~. REGIONAL COOPERATION - Education Center. - Meeting with Bedford County to discuss joint agreements and projects -Juvenile Detention Center - Economic Development and other projects with Salem - Increase RVRA membership C MI -Complete Year 2000 upgrades G. ADJOURNMENT BLJ ADJOURNED AT 12:15 P.M. 6 F~ NSF ti ~ A z ~ ai 1 38 ~~~~~ (~o«x~#~ ~f ~a~xx~~~e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD PLANNING SESSION AGENDA Saturday, January 10, 1998 -Sunday, January 11, 1998 Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center A. 9:00 A.M: ARRIVAL AND ROOM CHECK-IN B. 9:30 A.M: CALL TO ORDER C. 9:35 A.M: WELCOME AND COMMENTS 1. Board Chairman 2. County Administrator RQAM10.~' LDIJMY l RfQQJIA D. REQUESTS TO ADD OR CHANGE THE AGENDA 1. Resolution adopting a legislative program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly. (Paul Mahoney) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5, 1998 E. 10:00 A.M: DISCUSSION OF MAJOR CONSENSUS TOPICS 1. Update on phase I school projects. (Diane Hyatt and Elmer Hodge) 2. Overview of budget (Elmer Hodge and Brent Robertson) 3. Update on landfill operations and financial position (Bill Rand and Diane Hyatt) 4. Report on courthouse needs (John Chambliss) ® Recycled Paper a. Parking b. Office needs for occupants of the courthouse 5. Consideration of regional issues 6 Update on regional sewage treatment plant (Gary Robertson) F. OTHER SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Economic Development 2. Parks and Recreation and capital needs 3. Government Access Channel 4. Year 2000 Update 5. Comprehensive Plan 6. Ridgeline Protection 7. Emergency Services Charge System 8. Water and Sewer 9. Fire and Rescue 10. Solid Waste 11. Social Services 12. Libraries G. ADJOURNMENT "~- i AT AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1998 RESOLUTION 011098.1 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 1998 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of state-wide concern to be considered by the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption. A. Education. Realizing that public education is the foundation of American democracy and the cornerstone of our future economic well being, the County urges the General Assembly to consider favorably the following actions. 1) The General Assembly should enhance funding for public education, including increasing the funds available to the Literary Fund for local school capital construction or renovation projects. The General Assembly should increase funding for capital construction and renovation projects based upon the locality's local effort in support of these capital projects. 1 2) Local school divisions should be authorized to establish opening dates for school. 3) Disparity funding should be based not only upon the number of students eligible for free or reduced fee lunches, but also upon the locality's local tax eff~~rt in support of education. Disparity funding should be based upon the composite index (which measures a locality's relative fiscal ability to provide its share of the cost of a local school system that meets the standards of quality) and the locality's local effort in support of that school system. 4) Roanoke County opposes legislation that would permit the creation of chartered schools unless (i) local and/or district school boards and governing bodies are guaranteed that no funds will be withheld from the public school system for the establishment of or the support of chartered schools, and (ii) that no charter school shall be established in any locality without the consent of the school board and the governing body of that locality. The elimination, modification or waiver of laws or regulations for charter schools shall also be eliminated, modified or waived for all public schools. 5) Roanoke County supports the creation, funding, and implementation of the Higher Education Center Project located in the City of Roanoke. 6) Roanoke County supports funding in the biennial budget for the College of Health Sciences located in the City of Roanoke. B. Transportation and Highway SafetX. 1) Roanoke County supports additional new construction and maintenance funding for the Virginia Department of Transportation for secondary and 2 primary roads. Additional funding for new construction projects will address critical transportation needs of all local governments. Additional maintenance funding shall be used for an expanded program to mow grass and weeds, and inspect and clean drainage pipes and culverts. 2) Roanoke County supports expanding local authority to create transportation districts, to impose local option motor vehicle fuels taxes, and to expend these tax proceeds for local transportation improvements. 3) Roanoke County requests that Section 33.1-75.3 be amended to add Roanoke County to the list of counties authorized to expend general revenues, revenues derived from the sale of bonds, or federal revenue sharing funds for the purpose of constructing or improving primary or secondary highways. C. Public Safetv. 1) Roanoke County supports legislation appropriating funds and directing the State Compensation Board to modify staffing standards for local jails and court services positions for Sheriffs offices. 2) Roanoke County requests that Section 46.2-1001 be amended to add Roanoke County to the list of jurisdictions whose law-enforcement officers are authorized to perform vehicle safety inspections. 3) Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to authorize the establishment of a commission to fund and/or operate a joint juvenile detention facility for the Counties of Roanoke, Botetourt and Franklin, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem. 4) Roanoke County supports increasing the "Two-for-Life" funding for the 3 benefit of rescue squads and the emergency medical services system to a "$4-for-Life" Program. D. Environment. 1) Roanoke County supports amending Chapter 6.1, "Virginia Tire Tax" of Title 58.1, "Taxation" (a) to increase the tire tax from $.50 to $1.25, and (b) to direct and authorize the Department of Waste Management to utilize the increased Waste Tire Trust Fund to remediate illegal or abandoned waste tire dumps. 2) Roanoke County supports legislation relieving local governments of the responsibility of meeting recycling rates on all wastes collected by private haulers and diverted from waste disposal facilities identified to receive such wastes as set out in the local solid waste management plan. This legislation should also require that private haulers diverting such wastes be held accountable and responsible to meeting the same recycling rates and requirements as the local governments, and require that priva"e haulers be subject to the same recycling mandates as local governments. 3) Roanoke County supports allowing the disposal of land clearing vegetative debris (including tree stumps) in less expensive facilities in a manner not detrimental to the environment. This would require groundwater and methane gas monitoring, financial assurances from the owner/operator, and local governing body certification of compliance with all local ordinances. E. Local Taxation and Funding. 1) Roanoke County vigorously opposes any attempt to restrict ~r eliminate local sources of taxation, including personal property taxation and business and 4 professional occupational licensing, unless local governments are guaranteed the opportunity to replace lost sources of local revenue with comparable, equivalent, independent sources of revenue to allow localities to fulfill their public service obligations. 2) Roanoke County supports continued and increased funding for the Comprehensive Services Act, the Virginia Community Juvenile Crime Control Act, the Family Preservation Act, local police departments (HB 599 funding), and the Regional Competitiveness Act. 3) Roanoke County supports increasing state aid for public libraries by $1.4 Million each for FY 99 and FY 2000; That the Commonwealth fully fund state aid by FY 2001; and that the Commonwealth shall adopt and fund a statewide technology plan for public libraries. The objective of such a plan will be to provide public libraries with the technological support for public, universal access to networked information. 4) Roanoke County supports an amendment to the BPOL tax (Chapter 37 of Title 58.1) to provide for a limitation of gross receipts for employee leasing companies. 5) Roanoke County supports authority to impose an additional one-half percent ('/%) local option sales tax. 6) Roanoke County supports legislation amending Section 14.1-46.0:1 to increase the salary supplement for the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from $1,800 to $2,500 per year. 7) Roanoke County supports Chesterfield County in its proposal to amend the Code of Virginia to require the state tax department to remit sales taxes derived 5 u from catalog, out-of-state and home T.V. purchases based on population percentage within a zip code. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to Senator John S. Edwards, Senator Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo, Delegate H. Morgan Griffith, Delegate Clifton "Chip" Woodrum, Delegate C. Richard Cranwell, Delegate A. Victor Thomas; Mary F. Parker, Roanoke City Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council; Forest Jones, Clerk for Salem City Council; Members of the Salem City Council; Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk for the Town of Vinton; Members of the Vinton Town Council and the Fifth Planning District Commission, and the Virginia Association of Counties. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution as amended by Supervisor Nickens and with language requested by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: Supervisor McNamara A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ~' The Honorable John S. Edwards The Honorable Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo 6 The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum The Honorable A. Victor Thomas The Honorable Bruce F. Jamerson, Clerk of the House The Honorable Susan Clarke Schaar, Clerk of the Senate Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council Forest Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council James D. Campbell, Executive Director, VACo Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, SPDC 7 AT AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1998 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 1998 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of state-wide concern to be considered by the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption. I. A. Education. Realizing that public education is the foundation of American democracy and the cornerstone of our future economic well being, the County urges the General Assembly to consider favorably the following actions. 1) The General Assembly should enhance funding for public education, including increasing the funds available to the Literary Fund for local school capital construction or renovation projects. The General Assembly should increase funding for capital construction and renovation projects based upon the locality's local effort in support of these G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\98LEGGA.RES 1 capital projects. 2) Local school divisions should be authorized to establish opening dates for school. 3) Disparity funding should be based not only upon the number of students eligible for free or reduced fee lunches, but also upon the locality's local tax effort in support of education. Disparity funding should be based upon the composite index (which measures a locality's relative fiscal ability to provide its share of the cost of a local school system that meets the standards of quality) and the locality's local effort in support of that school system. 4) Roanoke County opposes legislation that would permit the creation of chartered schools unless (i) local and/or district school boards and governing bodies are guaranteed that no funds will be withheld from the public school system for the establishment of or the support of chartered schools, and (ii) that no charter school shall be established in any locality without the consent of the school board and the governing body of that locality. The elimination, modification or waiver of laws or regulations for charter schools shall also be eliminated, modified or waived for all public schools. 5) Roanoke County supports the creation, funding, and implementation of the Higher Education Center Project located in the City of Roanoke. 6) Roanoke County supports funding in the biennial budget for the College of Health Sciences located in the City of Roanoke. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\98LEGGA.RES 2 B. Transportation and Highway Safety. 1) Roanoke County supports additional new construction and maintenance funding for the Virginia Department of Transportation for secondary and primary roads. Additional funding for new construction projects will address critical transportation needs of all local governments. Additional maintenance funding shall be used for an expanded program to mow grass and weeds, and inspect and clean drainage pipes and culverts. 2) Roanoke County supports expanding local authority to create transportation districts, to impose local option motor vehicle fuels taxes, and to expend these tax proceeds for local transportation improvements. 3) Roanoke County requests that Section 33.1-75.3 be amended to add Roanoke County to the list of counties authorized to expend general revenues, revenues derived from the sale of bonds, or federal revenue sharing funds for the purpose of constructing or improving primary or secondary highways. C. Public Safety. 1) Roanoke County supports legislation appropriating funds and directing the State Compensation Board to modify staffing standards for local jails and court services positions for Sheriff's offices. 2) Roanoke County requests that Section 46.2-1001 be amended to add Roanoke County to the list of jurisdictions whose law-enforcement officers are authorized to perform vehicle safety inspections. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\98LEGGA.RES 3 3) Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to authorize the establishment of a commission to fund and/or operate a joint juvenile detention facility for the Counties of Roanoke and Franklin, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem. 4) Roanoke County supports increasing the "Two-for-Life" funding for the benefit of rescue squads and the emergency medical services system to a "$4-for-Life" Program. D. Environment. 1) Roanoke County supports amending Chapter 6.1, "Virginia Tire Tax" of Title 58.1, "Taxation" (a) to increase the tire tax from $.50 to $1.25, and (b) to direct and authorize the Department of Waste Management to utilize the increased Waste Tire Trust Fund to remediate illegal or abandoned waste tire dumps. 2) Roanoke County supports legislation relieving local governments of the responsibility of meeting recycling rates on all wastes collected by private haulers and diverted from waste disposal facilities identified to receive such wastes as set out in the local solid waste management plan. This legislation should also require that private haulers diverting such wastes be held accountable and responsible to meeting the same recycling rates and requirements as the local governments, and require that private haulers be subject to the same recycling mandates as local governments. 3) Roanoke County supports allowing the disposal of land clearing vegetative debris (including tree stumps) in less expensive G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\98LEGGA.RES 4 facilities in a manner not detrimental to the environment. This would require groundwater and methane gas monitoring, financial assurances from the owner/operator, and local governing body certification of compliance with all local ordinances. E. Local Taxation and Funding. 1) Roanoke County vigorously opposes any attempt to restrict or eliminate local sources of taxation, including personal property taxation and business and professional occupational licensing, unless local governments are guaranteed the opportunity to replace lost sources of local revenue with comparable, equivalent, independent sources of revenue to allow localities to fulfill their public service obligations. 2) Roanoke County supports continued and increased funding for the Comprehensive Services Act, the Virginia Community Juvenile Crime Control Act, the Family Preservation Act, local police departments (HB 599 funding), and the Regional Competitiveness Act. 3) Roanoke County supports increasing state aid for public libraries by $1.4 Million each for FY 99 and FY 2000; That the Commonwealth fully fund state aid by FY 2001; and that the Commonwealth shall adopt and fund a statewide technology plan for public libraries. The objective of such a plan will be to provide public libraries with the technological support for public, universal access to networked information. 4) Roanoke County supports an amendment to the BPOL tax (Chapter 37 of Title 58.1) to provide for a limitation of gross receipts G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\98LEGGA.RES 5 for employee leasing companies to the amount of administrative fees received by these companies. 5) Roanoke County supports authority to impose an additional one-half percent (~%) local option sales tax. 6) Roanoke County supports legislation amending Section 14.1-46.0:1 to increase the salary supplement for the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from $1,800 to $2,500 per year. II. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to Senator John S. Edwards, Senator Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo, Delegate H. Morgan Griffith, Delegate Clifton "Chip" Woodrum, Delegate C. Richard Cranwell, Delegate A. Victor Thomas; Mary F. Parker, Roanoke City Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council; Forest Jones, Clerk for Salem City Council; Members of the Salem City Council; and the Fifth Planning District Commission, and the Virginia Association of Counties. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\98LEGGA.RES 6 -` J COI11p1'e11eIlS1Ve J Facility J Study srudy 96 SUMMARY: South County High School Athletic Comple:c Science Labs Glenvar Middle School Bonsack Elementary School Burlington Elementary School Clearbrook Elementary School Sub-Total Roof Maintenance Program (Per Comprehensive Facility Study) `97 - `98 $1,00,000 `98 - '99 300,000 `99 - `00 300,000 `00 - `O1 300,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PHASE I PROJECT'S Intl-~a~~ in Pla~n~~ ~!-~u~` ~- . aa,~3r,,s~ -,- a -?~~r,999-99 ~, ~~4, (ooo -3~69;~99.9t} 3, 3 o I , ~~to -8-1~;69A-A~ ~, 5~3, sdo ~6~;~At3- ~, (~5~, ion a, s8l,~a~ -?;~e~aae-ee- ~; Asa; ~o ~ Roanoke County Public Schools Phase I Projects Total Projected Costs 4 _-~-0 f~ ` Q ,~ ~- 5 2,20,000 ~ Study 96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct a new Pyramid V High School, located within the southern portion of Roanoke County. Tlvs new facility will have a core capacity to accommodate a future enrollment of 1,400 students, with sufficient square footage capacity to provide educational programs and activities for t ,100 students. Land purchased for this new facility should he of sufficient size to accommodate future growth for all activities. PROJECT SCHEDULE: RFP Programming Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Bid Period Start Construction Construction Completed PROJECT BUDGET: June thru July, 1997 August thru September, 1997 October thru November, 1997 December, 1997 thru February, 1998 March thru August, 1998 September thru October, 1998 November, 1998 thru August, 2000 Land Acquisition & Related Improvements Includes: Purchase of Property along with Associated Costs i. e., Real Estate Commissions, Closing Costs, Attorney's Fees, Plats, Surveys, Title Search Environmental Impact Report A/E Fees & Reimbursables Consultants Surveys $40,000 ~ Sub-Surface Investigation 20,0000 Testing Services 40,000Q Construction Cost Site Development Furnishings & Equipment Media Resources Technology Value EngineQring Sub-Total y u Contingency Allowance (,1-B%) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ~ Comprehensive J Facility J Study Roanoke County Public Schools PrOpoSed Pyramid V Hi School Project Data P~,,L ann~n~rd~ rww I, I r J O$$O7 ~ ~j~ $ 1,100,000 ~ °~~` ~ I 100,000 17,400,000 3,120,000 1,850,000 355,000 1,400,000 102.600 527,677,600 S53,SSJ -?~69- aa, ~3~, ~s~, > > 5 Study 96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct a new athletic complex which would provide facilities for both the existing Cave Spring High School and the new South County High School. While other specific sites have not been Wiled out, it is the intention, as of this date, to provide this facility on the current Merriman Road site. PROJECT SCHEDULE: R.Fp June thru July, 1998 Programming August thru September, 1998 Schematic Design October thru November. 1998 Design Development December, 1998 tlu~u January, 1999 Construction Documents February tluu Mav, 1999 Bid Period June thru July, 1999 Start Construction August 1, 1999 Construction Completed August 1, 2000 PROJECT BUDGET: A/E Fees & Reimbursables $ 275.000 Consultants ~ 0.000 Surveys 20,000 Sub-Surface Investigation 15,000 Testing Services 15,000 Construction Cost 4.325,000 Furnishings & Equipment 350,000 Value Engineering 32.400 Sub-Total $5.032,400 Contingency Allowance (10%) X03,240 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $5,53 0 o' Mo~~ ~ Fh~s~. ~ J ComprehensivE J Facility ~ study Roanoke County Public Schools Athletic Complex Project Data 6 b r, "t" r`G+C-~ Q ~. ~' ~ t c. f~e~p PROJECT DESCRIPTION: J Comprehensive J Facility J Study Study 96 The existing science laboratories located at Northside Hieh School, Glenvar High School and Cave Syrin~ High School are to be renovated to acconunodate current educational technology. This renovation work will be performed as soon as possible; hopefully, during the summer break of 1998. PROJECT SCHEDULE: RFP Programming Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Bid Period Start Conswction Construction Completed PROJECT BUDGET: June thru July 1997 August thru September, 1997 October, 1997 November, 1997 December, 1997 thru February, 1998 March thru April, 1998 {Hold} June 1, 1998 August 1~, 1998 A/E Fees & Reimbursables Construction Budget Furnishings & Equipment Sub-Total 3 ~o Contingency Allowance (1.6°1'0) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET ~ 130,000 < "'~~ 1,300,000 800 000 52,230,000 ~ly,~oo ~~ ~, ~~y,~Co ~69' Roanoke County Public Schools Science Labs Project Data f-i.ct ~t- Y...T y~ i ;Y~ 7 J ComprehensivE ~ r»o. ~1,~ /9 J Facility J Study srudy 96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Separation of "age appropriate" students and full implementation of the middle school concept requires a physical separation of the existing middle school from the existing high school. To accomplish this, an eleven (I 1) classroom addition, along with a new media center, bandroom and dining area are proposed. Renovations to the existing facility includes improved ventilation in locker room areas, ne~v clinic area, preparation rooms for science labs, vehicular "turn-around" and improvements to the current lectwe hall. Finally, the existing bandroom will be converted to an auxiliary gymnasium. PROJECT SCHEDULE: RFP Programming Schematic Design Design Development Construction Doctunents Bid Period Start Construction Construction Completed PROJECT BUDGET: A/E Fees & lteimbursables Consultants Surveys Sub-Surface Investigation Testing Services Construction Cost Furnishings & Equipment Media Resources Technology Value Engineering Sub-Total ~ ~o Contingency Allowance (kd%) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET June thru July, 1997 August thru September I~, 1997 September 15 thru October, 1997 November thru December 1~, 1997 December l~, 1997 thru March, 1998 April thru May, 1998 June I, 1998 August 1, 1999 $5,000 ~ 3,000 ~ 4,000 ~ Roanoke County Public Schools Glenvar Middle School Project Data Q sa ~~ ~n;~,~a„ S 190,000,5 38~,~~0 12,000 ~ 2,75,000 20,000 110,000 75,000 25.000 $3,237,000 ~y,~yo ~-~o .3, 30 ~, ~y O -~r3~6~, AA- 8 J Comprehensive J Facility o n ~ rr~ c_.~. J4 ~ E c, ~.vax-cam ~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~ study srtrdy 96 Roanoke County Public Schools Design and construct a new elementary school in the Bonsack area, on land currently owned by Roanoke County. The proposed Bonsack Elementary School will have an initial housing capacity of598 students at the time of opening, with a core capacity for 600 total students. ~p ~j PROJECT SCHEDULE: RFP Programming Schematic Design 1997 Design Development Construction Documents Bid Period Start Construction Construction Completed PROJECT BUDGET: A/E Fees & Reimbursables Consultants Surveys Sub-Surface Investigation Testing Services Construction Cost Furnishings & Equipment Media Resources Technology Value Engineering Closing Roland E. Cook Sub-Total ~D Contingency Allowance (~,6~%) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET June thru July, 1997 August thru September l~, 1997 September 1~, 1997 thru November I~, November l~, 1997 thru January 1~, 1998 January 1~, 1998 thru May, 1998 June thru July 1998 August 1, 1998 August 1, 1999 20,000 ~ 10,000 O 20,000 iQ IIementary School at Bonsack ~ Project Data $ 325.000 ~ (oS,ooo Cvns~y. r~o~ z. ,' X0,000 x,787,600 625,000 170,000 300,000 43,400 75,000 $7,376,000 1y7,5~0 ~, Sa 3, SJo ~.~+8-,-~-~3; 69A- 9 J Comprebensivf J Facility 1 Or '~ -~ck.. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: June thru July, 1997 August, 1997 September, 1997 October thru November 15, 1997 November 15, 1997 thru February, 1998 March thru April, 1998 May 1, 1998 August 1, 1999 Provide adequate space for educational opportunities by converting the existing gytnnasitun area into a media center; constructing a new gymnasium, along with a six (6) classroom addition; converting existing special education classrooms and existing library into general classrooms; converting one (1) existing classroom into administrative area; reconfigure existing administrative areas; and construct a small cafeteria/kitchen addition. PROJECT SCHEDULE: RFP Programming Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Bid Period Start Construction Construction Completed Roanoke County Public Schools Burlington IIementary School Project Data PROJECT BUDGET: AIE Fees & Reimbursables Consultants Surveys Sub-Surface Investigation Testing Services Asbestos Inspection & Removal Construction Cost Furnishings & Equipment Library Furniture Kitchen Equipment Furnishings Technology Value Engineering Sub-Total ~ ~a Contingency Allowance (j.~%) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET $ x,000 ~ 3,000 4,000 X0,000 .~ Study study 96 S (60.000 ~ 3 ~ ~co '~nS~+'~c~a, FIYt~c. 62,000 1,963,000 320,000 $ 45,000 175,000 l 00,000 75,000 25,000 $2,605,000 Ste, goo min inn ~ ~, (.57, ioo -~~9- 10 A ~- ~' a wa~I ec,/ J Comprehensi~ J Facility ~ study study 96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct an eight (8) classroom addition, media center and an addition to the existing cafeteria. Configure existing space to provide for dedicated classrooms for Art, Music, Computer Lab and Math/Science Labs. PROJECT SCHEDULE: RFP Programming Schematic Design Design Development Construction Documents Bid Period Start Construction Construction Completed PROJECT BUDGET: A/E Fees & Reimbursables Consultants Surveys Sub-Surface Investigation Testing Services Asbestos Inspection & Removal Construction Cost Ventilation of Gymnasium Furnishings & Equipment Library Furniture Kitchen Equipment Furnishings Technology Value Engineering Sub-Total J ~o Contingency Allowance (JX;<%) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET June thru July, 1997 August, 1997 September, 1997 October thru November, 1997 December, 1997 thru February, 1998 March thru April, 1998 May 1, 1998 August 1, 1999 © P(~,~ ~~ ~i5,~c~ S 144.000 ~5,~ 62.000 ~ =~'s~`~` $ 5,000 3,000 ~~ 4,000Q 50,000 1,820,000 105,000 300,000 $ 45,000 175,000 80,000 75,000 X5,000 $2,531,000 So,L~o -?-53:+9 ~ 581, ~ Jo Q~ ~Q~ inn ~ ~ Roanoke County Public Schools Clearbrook Elementary school Projrct Dutu ~ ;~1~cSL. ~'/ Overview of Phase I School Capital The County Board has given the School Board the authority to begin Phase I of the School Capital Programs as outlined in the Blue Ribbon Committee report at a total cost not to exceed $47,719,732. They have also approved for the School Board to initiate advances against this project of $4,075,200. To date the School board has requested advances related to the A & E contracts on each of the projects, and for $50,000 for site evaluation for a total in advances of $1,875,200. Attachment A shows the detail of the project budget and the advances to date. To date the Schools have finalized contracts with each of the A & E firms for the projects. They are still in the process of selecting a site for the new high school. They anticipate having an evaluation of the site ready by the end of January 1998. The financing plan for Phase I of the School capital is based upon setting funds aside into a Future School Capital Fund that will help pay the debt service until the year 2000 when the County begins to have some debt drop off. Significant debt drop off is not expected until the year 2002. Attachment B shows the preliminary view of debt service that was presented to the Board during the 1997-98 budget process. All of the noted sources of funds have now been transferred to the Future School Capital Fund. We are planning to postpone any borrowing as long as possible in order to avoid the principal repayment that would be required through a VPSA loan. Our original projections had included a borrowing for the fall of 1997 however, to date no money has actually been expended on these projects so we will be able to postpone this first borrowing at least until the Spring 1998. Time lines for each of the projects will be discussed with the board at the work session. Present estimates are that the original time lines will be extended by six months. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\CORRES\SCH-CAP.WPD December 31, 1997 Attachment A Blue Ribbon Committee -Phase 1 Projects Budget Project Anticipated Advances Projects Code Costs Advances Sept 23,1997 Nov 18, 1997 Dec 16, 1997 Total New High School Land search 150002-8909 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 land and related expenses 150002-8901 2,200,000 2,200,000 p A + E costs - Sherertz Franklin 150003-8905 1,100,000 880,000 880,000 880,000 Survey and testing work 150003-3007 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Construction 17,400,000 p Site development 3,120,000 p Furnishings & equipment 1,850,000 p Media resources 355,000 0 Technology 1,400,000 p Value engineering 102,600 p Contingency (2%) 553,552 0 28,231,152 3,230,000 50,000 980,000 0 1,030,000 Science Labs A + E costs -Dewberry & Davis 150004-8905 130,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 Construction 1,300,000 0 Funrishings & equipment 800,000 p Contingency (2%) 44,600 0 2.274,600 104,000 0 0 104,000 104,000 Glern+ar Middle Renovations A + E costs -Kinsey Shane 150005-8905 _ 190,000 152,000 152,000 152,000 Survey and testing work 150005-3007 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Construction 2,575,000 p Ftimrishiugs & equipment 250,000 0 Media resources 110,000 p Teclruology 75,000 0 Value engineering 25,000 0 Contingency (2%) 64,740 0 3,301,740 164,000 0 164,000 0 164,000 New Bonsack Elementary A + E costs -Mosley Mcc'liutock 150006-8905 309,235 260,000 260,000 260,000 Survey and testing work 150006-3007 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Construction 5,787,600 0 F~ishings Bc equipment 625,000 0 Media resources 170,000 0 Technology 300,000 0 Value engineering 43,400 0 Closing Roland E Cook 75,000 0 Contingency (2%) 163,285 0 7,523,520 310,000 0 310,000 0 310,000 Burlington Elementary Renovations A + E costs -Jones & Jones 150007-8905 155,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 Survey and testing work 150007-3007 62,000 12,000 12;000 12,000 Construction 1,963,000 0 FUrn1~1~4C & equipment 320,000 0 Technology 75,000 0 Value queering 25,000 0 Contingency (2%) 57,100 0 2,657,100 140,000 0 140,000 0 140,000 Clearbmok Elementary Renovations A + E costs - Degen 150008-8905 144,000 115,200 115,200 115.200 Survey and testing work 150008-3007 62,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Construction 1,925,000 0 Furnishings & equipment 300,000 0 Technology 75,000 0 Value engineering 25,000 0 Contingency (2%) 50,620 0 2,581,620 127,200 0 127,200 0 127,200 Roof Maintenance Program 1,150,000 0 47,719,732 4,075,200 50,000 1,721,200 104.000 1,875,200 The above costs are su~rarized from the report prepared by Martin & Associates for the Blue Ribbon Cougrrittce. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\Sch-cip\PHl STAT.WK4 1 12/31/97 Attachment B County of Roanoke, Virginia. Maximum Affordable New Debt Service Additions to Future School Capital Fund Subtract (1)One (2)Capital (3)New (3)SchooU (4)Existing (5)Phase I Fiscal Time Unapprop Economic County Debt Service Annual Remaining Year Savings Balance Development Savings Drop-Off Debt Service Balance 1997 670,000 1,113,043 0 0 0 0 1,783,043 1998 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 146,466 3,636,577 1999 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,407,443 4,229,134 2000 1,000,000 1,000,000 257,406 3,314,889 3,171,651 2001 1,000,000 1,000,000 415,577 4,630,600 956,628 2002 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,328,450 4,800,238 484,840 2003 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,462,031 4,809,550 137,321 2004 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,819,678 4,658,863 298,136 2005 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,082,521 4,518,175 862,482 2006 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,607,651 4,372,325 2,097,808 2007 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,781,236 4,226,475 3,652,569 2008 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,918,644 4,080,625 5,490,588 Notes: (1) This money was the result of savings in the 1996-97 budget from expenditures that had been budgeted for the debt service on the new high school. This money has already been reappropriated to the Future School Capital Fund. (2) This is the present balance of the County Capital Unappropriated Balance. It has not been formally appropriated this time to the Future School Capital Fund. (3)These amounts have been included in the 1997-98 budget as a transfer to the Future School Capital Fund. (4) These amounts represent the savings from the current debt service. amount as the outstanding debt declines in the future. (5) This debt service is based upon the following borrowings from the VPSA and Literary Loan. Fa111997 $5,473,035 Spring 1998 19,714,680 Fall 1998 0 Spring 1999 10,040,385 Fa111999 7,542,500 Literary Loan 5,000,000 $47,770,600 M:\FinancelCommon\Debt\Phase 1 \PLAN. W K4 12/30/97 4 Board of Supervisors Planning Retreat Budget Discussions -Agenda January 10-11, 1998 I. Proposed Budget Development Calendar FY1998-99 II. Revenue Outlook/Economic Conditions III. Discussion of Personal Property Tax/Revenues 1. FY1997-98 2. FY1998-99 a. "No Car Tax" IV. Anticipated Expenditure Issues -County Operations V. School Budget Considerations FY98-99 VI. Multi-year (Strategic) Budgeting Discussion 1. County 2. Schools ~yt.~~_ ~ fr` 9 ~~ L Q~ ~ ~ U °O rn a~ aA ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /O/~ .~ O X a~+ 'G C r~ v L X F% i t/~ ~C •~' y c 2 °~ U ^. ~AA'' .i..[ W a ~ U cCS a.~ a~ ~ a~ C ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~ O ~ +. Rs ~ ~ ~ •~, U ~ ,~ c~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ ti--~ a L o 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ '+... ~ N ~ N ~ r.., +-+ ~ .~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ '~ F- Q ~ a • • a~ Q~ U Q ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c O ~ ~ :~- °' ~ ~ Q °J 3 i . o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. - ~ ~ N N ~ 4- c ~ ~ ~ a> > ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ i ~ ~' U Y ~ cCS •~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ ~ ~ Q L, ~ i! ~ Q X ~ a~ ~ m U ~ • • 0 L O U a~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ a N -~ O Q. ~ ~ ~ .}~ c~ o v L ~ Q ~; m m • • • .Q Q O v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cCf U +N.' O ~ ~ y aA ~ v~ . O ~ ~ i ~ v U Q c L •~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •i ~_ C O ~ ~ C U o ~ ~ ~ L " - o ~ • Q ~ L ~ ~ V L ~ ~ ~ ~ o= u> V m • • ~_ -- U ~' U ~ ~ c~ O ~ ~ N ~ •~ -a ° a C .~ .o O rn ~ ~ ~ •Q. ~ ~ O rn Q ~ C "- o ~' ~ i U ~ ~ 'G ~ ~ ~ O .~ O ~- G~ ~ m i% t/~ O • • • A ~ ~ ~ ~ E L ~ • ~ L O r ~ ~ ~ ~ a> O ~ O U ~ L ~ i bA (n aJ +.• L ~ ~ m Y o x a~ E rn Cl. ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~-. ~ a~ ' ~ U ~ ~: U N Q ~ ~ ~ c o r-.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m o $-' o ~ N ~ ~ ~` L O = !1Q i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 5 ~ U ~ ~/ i- N m U U ~ ~ ~~ m ~i U V ~ rn L ~ i U ~ C ~ Q ~ L.L m: \budget\wprksess\econ_bos.99 Roanoke County Budget Development FY1998-1999 Board of Supervisors Planning Retreat Economic Conditions OO Economic growth and vitality over the last several years has been beyond expectations-both from a national and local perspective. What can we expect in the near and long-term outlook that will impact Roanoke County's finances? • Economic growth (measured by GDP) is expected to slow considerably; however, sustained growth at the lower rate is favorable for the long-term. • Personal consumption expenditures should remain constant at around 3% growth. • Inflation (measured by CPI) while increasing slightly is projected to remain in the 3 range, primarily due to lower prices due to global competition and nominal increases in wages. However, tight labor markets in some sectors could drive wages up. • Short and long-term interest rates are predicted to remain stable. Fixed rate mortgages available around 7%. • Low unemployment (5%) will continue. This could be a problem as some industries will struggle to find adequate labor supply. • Corporate profits will remain strong through technology advances and corporate restructuring. Roanoke County Economic Outlook -Revenues • Real estate revenues will remain the County's most significant, stable source of new revenue. Continued low interest rates should maintain healthy new construction numbers. • Personal property revenues, representing 20% of our revenue stream, are our most volatile. State initiatives to meddle in this category further complicate projections. Further analysis of personal property is included for later review. • Regional projections of personal consumption expenditures minor national estimates. This should equate in a moderate, sustained increase in sales tax revenues. However, increases in consumer debt and other intangibles can change this trend immediately. • Favorable economic conditions such as high consumer confidence, low unemployment, and low interest rates should provide reasonable increased revenues in other categories susceptible to market conditions--meal tax, amusement tax, hotel/motel tax, The general outlook for revenues is quite good; however, growth in most all categories will likely be moderate with no momentous increases on the horizon. ©Sources for economic indicator projections include Blue Chip Economic Indicators and The Kiplinger Washington Letter. -D m n m ~_ n v CD CD CD a m d .-. O m m .». 6 C a a m -, 0 v 0 m m m c m 0 s m O Change ' N N O N O CT1 O N O CJ1 O CJ1 O CJ7 a° a a° a° a° a° a° a as a a° O N O O w w .P rn w m N f1 y ~p ~ o co m N O O W O O A O O CIl O O W O f0 V (O (O D C 'G fD n ~D tC cD n 3 (C lD ~~ 'G N O 7 T V 0 /~ ~T N Roanoke County Budget Development FY1998-99 Potential Funding Issues Est. Cost Economic Development Glenmary Bus. Park Land Acquisition - 2nd Installment 1,000,000 Glenmary Bus. Park Environ. assess., surveys, prelim. engineering 35,000 Parkway Orientation Interpretation Ctr. Project Planning Costs 30,000 Higher Education Center--Downtown Contribution 25,000 Public Safety Fire 8~ Rescue Equipment and renovation needs (current yr. funding $652,000) 350,000 Fire & Rescue Part-Time ALS coverage-full implementation 47,000 Police Additional Vehicle replacement (above current funding level) 100,000 Courthouse Entrance renovation/reconfiguration (includes personnel) 162,000 Community Services/Human Services Solid Waste One-armed bandit replacement 165,000 Parks and Recreation Park developmemt 200,000 Employee Benefits 1 °~ EE Raise 276,000 VRS Retirement Increase (2nd year of 5 year increase) 250,000 Health Insurance Increase (estimate 10%) 180,000 Internal/Management Services Communications Motorola-increase in 800MHz maintenance contract 34,000 Schools/County Payroll/Human Resource software (Year 2000) 500,000 Fleet Replacement Programmed replacement 100,000 Building Maintenance Facility/Infrastructure funding 100,000 MIS Staffing 50,000 m:\finance\budget\worksesslDEPT99.XLS 12/30/97 Roanoke County Budget Development FY1998-99 Board of Supervisors Planning Retreat School Budget Considerations Revenues The Schools will be effectively losing revenue from the state in the next budget year due to a change in their Local Composite Index (LCI). The LCI looks at a locality's ability to pay and is computed by using property values, adjusted gross income, and taxable retail sales. Their current LCI is .4176 and will increase to .4280 for the next biennium; a loss of a penny on each basic aid dollar they receive. When applied to current funding levels, the equivalent loss would be approximately $450,000. The hope is that the loss will be offset by higher per pupil amounts. As previously indicated, anticipated increases in County revenues will be moderate. Based on the methodology utilized in previous years to allocate "new" revenues, substantial increases in County funding for School operations will not materialize. Expenditures Like the County, the School's VRS rates will increase by approximately 1 percentage point in the next fiscal year. The rate is applied as a percentage of salary; therefore, this increase will cost the School Board about $700,000 in FY98-99. This represents the 2nd year of a 5 year phase in previously approved by the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. A 1% average salary increase will cost the School Board approximately $700,000. Some School construction projects (new schools, expansion of existing buildings, etc.) may significantly increase operating costs. For example, school officials have estimated operating costs of a new high school to be approximately $3 million. m:\budget\worksessn\sch bos.99 '~ Overview of the Status of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority began operations in December 1993. In August 1992 $33,830,000 of revenue bonds were sold to finance the construction of the landfill and the transfer station. At that time tonnage projection were based on the participation of the local commercial haulers. Since that time the situation has changed and the local commercial haulers are going elsewhere. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority however, has successfully reviewed the situation and downsized the operation and the required reserves in order to accommodate only the participating localities. This was accomplished through major restructuring in the staffing and operations. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority will continue to be able to operate the facility at $53 a ton tipping fee for municipalities in the foreseeable future. From time to time the Board has looked at the large amount of money that the Resource Authority has in reserve and contemplated using these monies to decrease tipping fees. These reserves were established in accordance with the bond trust and indentures. These indentures are very explicit and binding. I am enclosing Article VII from the bond indenture (Attachment A) that explains the requirements of these funds. In addition Attachment B is a graphical explanation of this required flow of funds. These reserves have recently been reviewed and deemed to be adequate by the independent engineering firm of R. W. Beck, Inc. This is the same firm that provided the original feasibility study for the bond sale. Attachment C shows the dollar amount that is in each of these funds at June 30, 1997 and the projected balance for June 30, 1998. The amount being deposited into these reserves has been reevaluated and downsized based upon the projected longer life of the landfill without the commercial tonnage. Of the funds outlined on Attachment C those that are not required by the bond indenture or Federal regulations are as follows: Surplus Revenue Account $2,860,935 Further Site Development $1,427,978 Interim and Post Development $119,000 While these reserves are not required, in my professional judgement it is necessary to maintain these funds in the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Future years will not provide the surplus from operations that has been accumulated in the past therefore, the surplus revenue account will remain constant or decrease slightly in the future. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority will experience another major expenditure around the year 2001 when the next large area is excavated and prepared for cell development. At that time it is projected that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority will need to borrow $6,300,000 in addition to the amount that can be accumulated in the further site development fund. Available funds from the surplus revenue account will be used to keep the borrowing as small as possible in order to avoid future rate increases. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\CORRES\AUTH-STA.WPD December 31, 1997 Attachment D shows future budget projections based upon the downsized operation. Please note on this table that revenues are declining from $10,200,000 per year to $7,900,000 per year. This reduction is being matched by a reduction in operating costs and reserves in order to keep the tipping fees at a consistent level. I believe that all the actions taken by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority to accommodate the loss of commercial tonnage have left the municipalities in an even better position than they were before. The tipping fees remain at $53 per ton. This compares to $58 per ton that was the projection for the current year in the original feasibility study. In addition, the life of the landfill has been extended greatly because of the reduction of commercial tonnage. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority is in the process of preparing a very competitive bid to submit to the City of Salem to respond to their RFP for waste disposal. If this proposal is successful it would enhance the currently fiscally sound operation. I am enclosing for your review the audit for the year ended June 30, 1997 which reflects that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority was in a good financial position for the year ended June 30, 1997. I am also enclosing a booklet showing an analysis of the reserve account. This report was prepared to coincide with the 1997-98 fiscal year budget. Since that time additional reductions have been made in future reserves for the years 1998-99 and beyond. I look forward to reviewing these items with you at the Board retreat. M:\FINANCE\COMMON\CORRES\AUTH-STA.WPD December 31, 1997 Attachment A ndenture authorizing a Series of Bonds, interest earned on and ny profit realized from the investment of money in the apitalized Interest Account will be retained in the Capitalized nterest Account and applied as set forth above. ARTICLE VII Funds and Accounts Section 7.1. Establishment of Funds. The following funds are established under this Indenture: (a) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Project Fund, in which there is established a separate Capitalized Interest Account, to be held by the Trustee; (b) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Revenue Fund, to be held by the Authority; (c) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Operating Fund, to be held by the Authority; (d) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Bond Fund, in which there is established an Interest Account, a Principal Account and a Redemption Account, to be held by the Trustee; (e) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Parity Debt Service Fund, to be held by or at the direction of the Authority; (f) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Debt Service Reserve Fund, to be held by the Trustee; (g) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Subordinate Debt Service Fund, to be held by the Authority; (h) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Landfill Closure Fund, to be held by the Authority; (i) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System Repair and Replacement Fund, to be held by the Authority; and (j) Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Regional Landfill System General Surplus Fund in which there is established a Host Community Fee Account, to be held by the Authority. -26- Attachment A Section 7.2. Revenue Fund. The Authority will collect deposit in the Revenue Fund as received all Revenues derived the ownership or operation of the S t and from ys em, and such other moneys as the Authority may determine, except as otherwise provided for in this Master Indenture for investment income on certain funds and accounts created by this Master Indenture. Except as set forth below, not later than the fifth Business Day before the end of each month, the Authority will make transfers from the Revenue Fund in the following order of priority: (a) To the Operating Fund, an amount such that the balance on deposit in the Fund will be equal to not less than one-sixth nor more than one-fourth of the Operating Expenses budgeted to be paid therefrom in the then current Fiscal Year as set forth in the Annual Budget; (b) To the Bond Fund an amount not less than that which is necessary to make the following deposits: approximately equal amount eachhmontheduringcthenInterest Period for each Series of Bonds such that (after taking into consideration with respect to each Series of Bonds the amount then on deposit in the Interest Account and any amount to be transferred from the Capitalized Interest Account to the Interest Account pursuant to the terms of any Supplemental Indenture), on the Business Day immediately preceding the next Interest Payment Date for the Series of Bonds, there will be on deposit in the Interest Account an amount equal to the interest on the Outstanding Bonds of the Series to become due on such Interest Payment Date; provided, however, if on the last Business Day of any month, the required deposit to the Interest Account for that month is not made with respect to any Series of Bonds, the requirement will be cumulative and will be added to the deposit required in each succeeding month until the deposit is made; (2) then, in the Principal Account an approximately equal amount each month during the Principal Period for each Series of Bonds, except as provided in paragraph b(3) below, such that (after taking into consideration with respect to each Series of Bonds the amount then on deposit in the Principal Account), on the Business Day immediately preceding the next Principal Payment Date for the Series of Bonds, there will be on deposit in the Principal Account an amount equal to the principal and Accreted Value of the Outstanding Bonds of the Series maturing or required to be redeemed on such Principal Payment Date; provided, however, if on the last Business Day of any month, the required deposit to the Principal Account is not made with respect to any Series of Bonds, the requirement will be cumulative and will be added to the deposit required in each succeeding month until the deposit is made; and -27- Attachment A (3) with respect to the initial Series of Bonds, monthly transfers to the Principal Account to accumulate the amount due on the first Principal Payment Date shall not be required to commence until the month following the last Interest Payment Date through which interest has been capitalized in the Capitalized Interest Account. Except as permitted in this paragraph payments towards the first Principal Payment Date will be made in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) above. (c) To the Parity Debt Service Fund, an amount with respect to any Parity Indebtedness such that if the same amount is transferred to the Fund each succeeding month preceding the next payment date on the Parity Indebtedness, there will be on deposit in the Fund an amount equal to the payment due on the Parity Indebtedness on such payment date. (d) To the Debt Service Reserve Fund, if the amount in the Debt Service Reserve Fund is less than the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, any amount of money remaining in the Revenue Fund, or all of the money remaining if less than the amount necessary, until there is on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund an amount equal to the Debt Service Reserve Requirement; (e) To the Subordinate Debt Service Fund, such amount with respect to any Subordinate Debt as may be determined by the Authority to be necessary to provide for the payment when due of the principal of and interest on the Subordinate Debt. (f) To the Landfill Closure Fund an amount sufficient to accumulate the annual installment of the Landfill Closure Requirement for the Fiscal Year in question in twelve approximately equal monthly payments. Missed payments shall be made up in the following month or over the next several months as the Authority deems appropriate to accumulate the required annual amount. (g) To the Repair and Replacement Fund the amount necessary to make the following deposits: (1) If, after the issuance of any Series of Bonds, an amount equal to the Replacement Reserve Requirement is not on deposit in the Repair and Replacement Fund, an amount sufficient to accumulate the Replacement Reserve Requirement in the Repair and Replacement Fund in not more than twelve approximately equal monthly installments as determined by the Authority; (2) If the Replacement Reserve Requirement is increased pursuant to Section 7.9(b), an amount sufficient to accumulate the Replacement Reserve Requirement in the Repair and Replacement Fund in not more than twelve approximately equal -28- Attachment A monthly installments as determined by the Authority commencing the month following the date of the filing of the notice of the increase with the Trustee; and (3) If money has been paid out of the Repair and Replacement Fund for any reason, and an amount equal to the Replacement Reserve Requirement is not on deposit in the Repair and Replacement Fund, an amount sufficient to accumulate the Replacement Reserve Requirement in the Repair and Replacement Fund in not more than twelve approximately equal monthly installments as determined by the Authority commencing the month following the date money was paid out of the Repair and Replacement Fund; (h) To the Repair and Replacement Fund, such other amounts as may be determined by the Authority; (i) To the Host Community Fee Account of the General Surplus Fund such amount as the Authority considers appropriate to provide for payment of the Host Community Fee Requirement; and (j) To the undesignated portion of the General Surplus Fund, any balance on deposit in the Revenue Fund. In the event there is insufficient funds in the Revenue Fund to make the transfers required by subsections (b) and (c) of this Section in full, the Authority agrees to allocate the available funds between the Bond Fund and the Parity Debt Service Fund in the proportion that the amount required to be deposited to each Fund bears to the total amount required to be deposited to both Funds. Section 7.3. Operatincr Fund. The Authority will pay Operating Expenses from the Operating Fund as they become due and in accordance with the purposes and amounts provided in the Annual Budget. In the event the balance in the Operating Fund is insufficient for its purposes, the Authority will transfer to the Operating Fund such amounts as may be necessary first from the General Surplus Fund, including the Host Community Fee Account, and then from the Repair and Replacement Fund. Interest received on and any profit realized from the investment of money in the Operating Fund will be transferred as earned to the Revenue Fund. Section 7.4. Bond Fund. (a) The Trustee will pay from the Principal Account the principal and Accreted Value of the Bonds when due whether at maturity or upon redemption pursuant to any mandatory redemption requirement. The Trustee will pay from the Interest Account the interest on the Bonds when due. The Trustee will use money in the Redemption Account to redeem Bonds pursuant to any optional redemption provision exercised by the Authority or, if directed by an Authorized Authority Representative, to purchase Bonds on the open market; provided, however, (i) no -29- Attachment A money will be used to purchase Bonds to the extent it is required to pay the redemption price of any Bonds for which notice of redemption has been given as provided in Section 4.3 and (ii) Bonds will not be purchased at a price in excess of the applicable optional redemption price plus accrued interest. (b) The Authority will receive a credit against payments required to be made with respect to any Series of Bonds on any mandatory redemption date in an amount equal to the principal amount of any Bonds of such Series subject to mandatory redemption on such date that have been redeemed (other than by mandatory redemption) before such mandatory redemption date or that have been purchased by the Authority or the Trustee on behalf of the Authority and delivered to the Trustee for cancellation at least seventy days before such mandatory redemption date, provided the Bonds have not previously been applied as a credit against any mandatory redemption payment. The credit will be applied in chronological order against payments required to be made on mandatory redemption dates, unless the Trustee receives written instructions from the Authority at least seventy days before such dates to apply the credit in some other order. (c) On the Business Day immediately preceding a Principal or Interest Payment Date for a Series of Bonds, the Trustee will determine if the balance on deposit in the Principal Account, the Interest Account and the Redemption Account will be sufficient (after taking into consideration with respect to the Series of Bonds any amount to be transferred from the Capitalized Interest Account pursuant to the terms of any Supplemental Indenture) to pay the principal, Accreted Value and interest due and payable on the Principal or Interest Payment Date, and if a deficiency exists, will promptly notify the Authority of such fact. If on any Principal or Interest Payment Date, the balance on deposit in the Principal Account or the Interest Account is insufficient to pay the principal, Accreted Value and interest due and payable on Outstanding Bonds, the Trustee will transfer the amount of the deficiency first from the General Surplus Fund, including the Host Community Fee Account, next from the Repair and Replacement Fund and then, if necessary, from the Debt Service Reserve Fund to the appropriate account in the Bond Fund. (d) Interest received on and any profit realized from the investment of money in the Bond Fund (other than in the Capitalized Interest Account) will become a part of the account and subaccount in which the investment is held. Section 7.5. Parity Debt Service Fund. The Authority will use money in the Parity Debt Service Fund to make payments on any Parity Indebtedness when due. Interest received and any profit realized from the investment of money in the Parity Debt Service Fund will be deposited when received in the Revenue Fund. -30- Attachment A Section 7.6. Landfill Closure Fund. (a) The Authority will ::'pay the Landfill Closure Requirement from the Landfill Closure "Fund as landfill sites or portions thereof are fully utilized and are required or considered appropriate to be closed. Payments for closure and post-closure expenditures will be made in accordance with closin and g post-closing schedules established by the Authority in compliance with applicable requirements of state and federal law and implementing rules and regulations, or to the extent no such rules apply, in accordance with then prevailing solid waste management industry standards. With the assistance of the Consulting Engineer, the Authority will establish and include in the Annual Budget an amount to be deposited to the Landfill Closure Fund in each Fiscal Year as an annual installment towards accumulation of the Landfill Closure Requirement. The annual installment amount shall be deposited into the Fund in twelve approximately equal monthly installments. In any Fiscal Year, the Authority may forego deposits to the Landfill Closure Fund if the Consulting Engineer provides a written certificate to the Trustee at the beginning of such year which states that based upon the Consulting Engineer's review of applicable landfill closure requirements, the balance in the Landfill Closure Fund is estimated to be sufficient for its purpose and additional deposits will not be required for the Fiscal Year in question. If at any time the Authority determines in its judgment based upon the Consulting Engineer's certification that the amount of the Landfill Closure Requirement should be increased or decreased, it will notify the Trustee of such determination setting forth the amount of the new Landfill Closure Requirement. The new Landfill Closure Requirement will take effect on the date of the receipt of the notice and certification by the Trustee unless some other effective date is specified in the notice in which case the date specified in the notice will control. In such event deposits to the Landfill Closure Fund will be adjusted to reflect the new Landfill Closure Requirement. (b) Interest earned on and any profit realized from investing money in the fund will be transferred not less frequently than monthly to the Revenue Fund. Any excess balance in the Landfill Closure Fund may be transferred at the Authority's election to the General Surplus Fund. Any deficiency in the fund shall be made up in twelve or fewer monthly installments as determined by the Authority and during periods of deficiency, investment earnings and profits will remain in the fund. Section 7.7. Debt Service Reserve Fund. (a) In the event that amounts on deposit in the Bond Fund, including any amounts transferred from the General Surplus Fund, including the Host Community Fee Account, and the Repair and Replacement Fund are insufficient to make payments of principal of or interest on the -31- Attachment A Bonds when due, the Trustee will transfer money from the Debt Service Reserve Fund to the Bond Fund to the extent necessary to pay principal of, Accreted Value, and interest on the Bonds when due. If the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund is less than the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, the Authority will transfer funds from the Revenue Fund to the Debt Service Reserve Fund to restore the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, to the extent and in the manner provided in Section 7.2(d). (b) Within five days after each Principal and Interest Payment Date and at such other times as the Authority may request, the Trustee will determine if the balance on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund is at least equal to the Debt Service Reserve Requirement. In making such determination, securities in which money in the Debt Service Reserve Fund are invested will be valued in the manner set forth in Section 8.2. If a deficit exists in the Debt Service Reserve Fund, the Trustee will immediately notify the Authority of the deficit. If the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund exceeds the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, as a result of a reduction in the Debt Service Reserve Requirement, the Trustee will transfer the excess to the General Surplus Fund within five Business Days after such determination, unless otherwise specified in any Supplemental Indenture. (c) If the balance on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund equals or exceeds the Debt Service Reserve Requirement based on the most recent valuation made by the Trustee, interest received on and any profit realized from the investment of money in the Debt Service Reserve Fund will be held in the Fund and, except as otherwise provided in any Supplemental Indenture, transferred not less frequently than monthly to the Project Fund, until completion of the applicable Project and then to the Revenue Fund. (d) In lieu of maintaining and depositing money or securities in the Debt Service Reserve Fund, the Authority may deposit with the Trustee a letter of credit, surety bond or a bond insurance policy in the amount equal to all or a portion of the Debt Service Reserve Requirement if the Authority furnishes to the Trustee (i) the written consent of any bond insurance company insuring any Series of Bonds to which the letter of credit, surety bond or bond insurance policy applies and (ii) written evidence that the surety bond or insurance policy is issued by an issuer whose bond insurance policies on municipal bond issues result in the issues being rated in the highest long- term rating category by both Rating Agencies or the letter of credit is issued by a bank or trust company whose long-term debt obligations are rated by both Rating Agencies within the two highest long-term rating categories and the letter of credit is rated within the two highest long-term rating categories by both Rating Agencies. Any letter of credit or bond insurance policy -32- Attachment A shall permit the Trustee to draw or obtain amounts under it for deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund that, together with any money already on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund, are not less than the Debt Service Reserve Requirement. The Trustee shall make a drawing on the letter of credit or obtain funds under the bond insurance policy before its expiration or termination (i) whenever money is required for the purposes for which Debt Service Reserve Fund money may be applied and (ii) unless such letter of credit or bond insurance policy has been extended or a qualified replacement for it delivered to the Trustee, in the event the Authority has not deposited money in immediately available funds equal to the Debt Service Reserve Requirement at least two Business Days preceding the expiration or termination of the letter of credit or bond insurance policy. If the Authority provides the Trustee with a letter of credit or bond insurance policy as provided in this subsection, the Trustee will transfer the corresponding amount of funds then on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund to the Authority, provided the Authority delivers to the Trustee (i) an opinion of Bond Counsel that such transfer of funds will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for purposes of federal income taxation of interest on any Bonds the interest on which was excludable on the date of their issuance and (ii) the Authority covenants to comply with any directions or restrictions contained in such opinion concerning the use of such funds. Section 7.8. Subordinate Debt Service Fund. The Authority will use money in the Subordinate Debt Service Fund to make payments of debt service on any Subordinate Debt when due. Interest received on and any profit realized from the investment of money in the Subordinate Debt Service Fund will be deposited when received in the Revenue Fund. Section 7.9. Repair and Replacement Fund. (a) The Authority may use amounts in the Repair and Replacement Fund for any of the following purposes: (1) Reasonable and necessary expenses with respect to the System for major repairs, replacements or maintenance items of a type not recurring annually or at shorter intervals; (2) To pay costs of reconstruction of parts of the System; (3) To pay costs of construction of additions to, or extensions of, the System; (4) To pay any capital costs with respect to the System; -33- Attachment A (5) To make payments on Service Contracts; (6) To pay the costs of Host Community Improvements; (7) To provide reserves for equipment repair and replacement, for protecting the value of real property adjacent to the System and for environmental protection and preservation; or (8) To make deposits to the Operating Fund, the Bond Fund, the Debt Service Reserve Fund, the Parity Debt Service Fund or the Landfill Closure Fund. (b) Before the preparation of the Annual Budget for each Fiscal Year, the Authority agrees to review the adequacy of the amount of the Replacement Reserve Requirement under then current operating conditions, and in light of then applicable operating, replacement and maintenance costs of the major components of comparable systems. In conducting such review, the Authority agrees to consult with and obtain the recommendations of the Consulting Engineer. If at any time the Authority determines in its judgment that the amount of the Replacement Reserve Requirement should be increased or decreased, it will notify the Trustee of such determination setting forth the amount of the new Replacement Reserve Requirement. The new Replacement Reserve Requirement will take effect on the date of the receipt of the notice by the Trustee unless some other effective date is specified in the notice in which case the date specified in the notice will control. (c) If the amount on deposit in the Repair and Replacement Fund exceeds the Replacement Reserve Requirement, the Authority may transfer the excess to the General Surplus Fund. Section 7.10. General Surplus Fund. Money will be deposited by the Authority in the General Surplus Fund as provided by Section 7.2. The Authority agrees to use money on deposit in the General Surplus Fund in the following order: (i) to cure any deficits in the Operating Fund, the Bond Fund, the Parity Debt Service Fund, the Debt Service Reserve Fund, the Landfill Closure Fund or the Repair and Replacement Fund; (ii) to pay the Host Community Fee Requirement from the Host Community Fee Account held within the General Surplus Fund, and (iii) to pay costs associated with the acquisition, construction, equipping, maintaining, improving or operating the System. Section 7.11. Disuosition of Balances in Funds. When the balances on deposit in the Bond Fund and the Debt Service Reserve Fund are sufficient to pay or redeem all the Bonds then Outstanding, the Authority may direct the Trustee to transfer the -34- Attachment A balances in such Funds to a special account in the Bond Fund to be held by the Trustee for the payment or redemption of Bonds at the earliest practicable date and for no other purpose. ARTICLE VIII Investment Of Funds Section 8.1. Investment of Funds. (a) Subject to the provisions of any Supplemental Indenture, any money held in any funds and accounts established by this Master Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture, except the Bond Fund and the Debt Service Reserve Fund which are governed by Section 8.1(b), may be separately invested and reinvested by the Trustee, at the request of and as directed by an Authorized Authority Representative in any of the following investments which are at the time legal investments for public funds under the Investment of Public Funds Act (Chapter 18, Title 2.1, Code of Virginia of 1950; as amended, "Investment Act"), or any subsequent provision of law applicable to such investments: (1) Bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness to which the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth is pledged for the payment of principal and interest or which are unconditionally guaranteed as to the payment of principal and interest by the Commonwealth; (2) Government Obligations; (3) Government Certificates; (4) Bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness of any county, city, town, district, authority or other public body of the Commonwealth which are rated in one of the two highest debt rating categories by both of the Rating Agencies, without regard to any refinement or gradation of rating category by numerical modifier or otherwise; (5) Savings accounts, time deposits and certificates of deposit in any bank, including the Trustee and its affiliates, or savings and loan association within the Commonwealth, provided that the funds are secured in the manner required by the Virginia Security for Public Deposits Act or any successor legislation and no deposit will be made for more than five years; (6) Obligations of the Export-Import Bank, the Farmers Home Administration, the General Services Administration, the United States Maritime Administration, the Small Business Administration, the Government National Mortgage Association, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal -35- Attachment B Bond Financing Flow of Funds Revenues Operating Fund (Authority) 1/6< Balance<1/4 of Annual Budget Bond Fund (Trustee) Approximately Equal Monthly Deposits Debt Service Reserve Fund (Trustee) All remaining revenue necessary to restore any deficiency. Landfill Closure Fund (Authority) Equal Monthly payments to restore any deficiency. Repair and Replacement Fund (Authority) Any remaining balance to be used for any lawful purpose. General Surplus Fund (Authority) Host Community Fees and Additional Deposits: Any remaining balance to be used for Authority operations and improvments Attachment C 001 O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ r O M ~ ~ ti d b ~ F a 0 y R O rr 'Q ~ d r a a ye W c. w° y p CR G "'~ y ++ q d Lri W U r ~ y u •~ Q ~ V ~ r C v, p C. e# OI M C ~ p, Qi ~ ~ w d ~ .f ti iui ~ ^ q ~ O ~ a~ ~ ~ C) y ..w ~ ~ ~ '~ \O O~ l0 M O~ O O a M O ~O O O O~ O A .-~ C 00 V ~ l~ O~ l( O~ O ~--~ O N ^~ c ~ ~ V7 00 V' --~ V N IM O O V1 ~ O O O O M ~L ~ ~ N ...~ ~-. ~ 0 0 0 u, v O O V1 V O O l~ C O O V1 V O ~ ~ v ~ u f ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° c o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o c O N O N O v1 u N ~ ~ V V O 0 M O ~O O O O~ 0 0 C oo" oo ~ N l~ ~ oo I G ~ ~ M R M N N V N M N f 0 ~O ~ V ~ oo M ~I 00 Mni N ~ O~ f ~O ~p Cr v'i ~--~ ~p v Q~ M 00 M h 00 N oo O~ M A O C N V ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O .. . o c O V r ~ M ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ O O ~t a0 O V' ~ vi C H O O O M ~ N ~t C ~o ~o rn vi oo r O~ M 00 M V1 M V Nooa,M ~ ~ v N ~ Q V) ~D ~ DD Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Ol Q~ O~ 41 O O O O O ~ M M M M M ~ ~ ~ c7 ~ ~ b ~ ~ a i a ti ti ti ti ti .d ~ ~ ~ a w ~ '~ ~ , °~ ° ~ ti y ~ o 0 0 0 0 ~' ~° ~ ~ a w ° o~ a ~ a s a ~ ~ p b °' °; aaa ~~~ `" ~ ~ ~'~Q° ~ ~ ~~~~~~ w ~ ti ~ ~ ~b ~~ww~~ a o ~ ~ U ~ ~ o ~ ~' c fn ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ _ U v~ p, p, p, p, , . . ~. . sue. a 'd o ~ ~ b ~ 'cC ~ ~ O W W x a Q ~ ~ ~ ,~,, U x w~a~' p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'v~v~v~fnv~ a i a i c i O m Q ,~ C~ C.7 ~ W '~ 3 .7 O Rai ~ a o ~ ~ ~ °~' o U ~ ~ o F" U a ~ a~ ~ ~ u°'. y ~ F ~ '~ ti ~ .~, o ~ E- U U a~i .~ y ca U .~ 0 E-' N Y W W w `o g 0 E 0 U 'm U C l6 C Attachment ~ ~$°so~g ° ng°~ ~ ~ °s ~ ~ s°s°o ~ s ~ ~$°g ~~~g N O~ ~ N N -~+ N M ~ 4°i ~ ~ ~ b N ~ ~ O h O V i O V 1 p ~~~ .~ Q t~ '7 r~ ~ a N ~ ? a N t~rl M op t{ vNi O N N Vt 0 G 1 oo w w N --~ eri w H 7 N h H w w w w w w w w w w 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 ~nooo ~n vTi°o°v'ti o ~~a o O O O 0 0 0 o S N O O O O ~` 0 0 0 .. O N N ^-~ N M v v f~ V°j ti ~o a{ M M~O ~ ~ Vi < 0 T O O O N M ~ m ~ ~ 0Oo O N oO o O N N Mooo ~v~i v~i7 t` eo" w w N M w w .f w N w M w w w 7 w h w w vi vi w w H 0 0 0 0 0 0 O^O O O H a m r O O O O O O O O O O n O O O O N 0 0 0 S ^' vi ~D O fV M O ~ ~ ~ O O o O O O O O ~ O o O L O C O O N W N N ^-~ N M ~O Vl .M-~ t~~ t fV a~ a furl V0i ~ O h ~ ~ O h O h Vi VNi vii V~j ? ~ O '~1 7 O r ~ w w r~ ~n N .-. ri w w 7 V w O~ N N r rl f +l V Nit VOi N VNi ~ .ti w w w w w w w w w H 0 0 0 0 0 0 V t 0 0 V ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O fY O O O N O N ~p O ~ N M h O~ M N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O t~ N 0 0 0 p O O v i 0 0 0 T ~ ...: vt ~O O ~n N DD N N -+ N M p ~O O `O Vt vt O 00 f` ~D vi ~n .-. Vl Vi ... O Vi O~ O Vi M O O O O O vi o Vi Vt .. O O O Vj C O O O O Vl Vl M O O D VNi'V~1 vhi rh~l a0 ~ ~ ~ r n r`~, ~"' a V V O~ N N M M ~ vNi yOj N yN ~ w w N ~--~ M w w w w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O r M N ~ O O O O O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O W 00 0 0 0 00 Vl ~O O Vi l`~ 0 0 O O O b O O b M O 0 0 0 O ~ O 7 C $ 0 0 0 0 1+V ~ ~ N N -+ N M ~ O~ O Vt Vi I~ ~D M ~O -. op oo ~ M M O O (`I O N ~ O O + O ~n of ~n VMi vi Vi M vi .! O~ N r~ h T . fV vi 7 V 7 M N N ~ n ~ N-~ M 7 N A w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w U p~ ~N--~OOO ~.-~ f`~~ G L O W v'^io Ov~^i v O ~ aa obO ~ ~? ~ ~ ... ~ .. 7 8 OOOOO O 000 Q O O O O O. M 0000 000 0 0000 0000 O ~ ON N rN^ M . H0 N N Q~ h n CI O 000 o i O O O O ~~~ V i ~/ W ~ O O O O O O N h t~ . b ~ O OMi a lprt 00..Mr O Q a V ti o VtO Vt ~ N O 7 Vl vi VtM ^ ~ I~'Y ~ O 'O w w N et w w b w N w w w w w w H w H w V ~ H ~ ~ (p ~ ~ o W V W w d ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ a ~ y $ a W o F ~ ~ ~; W ~ oo V $ ~ ~ ~ id u > ~ > w ~ v i ~ o w @ ~ `~ ~ ~~i' ~ o p' 'u p Xo " a~ ~ ~~ ~~ W°D d U ~.ag a~~ p O C] Ll qq ~~ . S ~5 WW ~~ ~ ~ ~.na3~~ o ~w m•'~ ~a m~ g ~ ~~ 5 a v B F"~ ~6 v~walp U~ o "i r, rasa ~o xind9 °°:? ~~,~ `~,a._ a:~~~~ a ~ a ~~ ~ W ~ ~ aP~ ,~~~;~,~~~ ~ N .5v ~ ~ ~~ p a~~ ~o j a~'r~c~~3 ~'`-' ° ainsc`~~ "',~~~ ~u p Eiiv~wai5°Cr~~ ~ii ~i .y O g~ ~~ ~ =' ~~ `~ 3 arn r° o N o F- ~ A q E-° x° ~ ~ w.~wF q Nr Uc~ ~ C- Financial Statements June 30, 1997 and 1996 (With Independent Auditors' Report Thereon) Peat Marwick ~~P 10 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 1710 Roanoke, VA 24011-1331 Independent Auditors' Report The Board Members of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority: We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of income, fund equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Authority's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the results of its operations, changes in its fund equity and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. /~PMG ~.e, ~1 G~~ September 10, 1997 r .~~ -. ;~: ~, w. Member Firm of KPMG Inlarnaric Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Balance Sheets Assets Current assets: Cash and short-term investments Restricted assets (note 2) Accounts receivable (note 5) Interest receivable Inventory Total current assets Property and equipment: Land Equipment, furniture and fixtures Buildings and structures Landfill and rail access Construction in progress (note 2) June 30, 1997 and 1996 1997 $ 17,774,869 4,776,028 587,894 33,449 117,397 23,289,637 1,614,894 6,164,085 6,384,233 26,089,360 1996 $ 16,970,894 5,190,348 804,571 22,066 80,144 23,068,023 1,614,894 6,137,595 6,384,233 23,199,022 1,040,668 40,252,572 38,376,412 Less accumulated depreciation (8,485,340) (6,074,987) Net property and equipment Revenue bond issuance costs Total assets See accompanying notes to financial statements. 31,767,232 32,301,425 406,045 465,989 $ 55.462,914 ~ 55.835,437 2 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Balance Sheets Liabilities and Fund Equity Current liabilities: Vouchers payable Accrued interest Current portion of revenue bonds payable(note 2) Accrued vacation and sick leave Accrued payroll Unearned tipping fees Total current liabilities June 30, 1997 and 1996 1997 $ 120,121 548,492 1,250,000 99,645 1,665 43 7,004 2,456,927 3,043,054 1996 $ 330,866 578,699 1,200,000 95,523 1, 743 836,223 Revenue bonds payable, net of unamortized original issue discount of $550,584 and $629,145 at June 30, 1997 and 1996, respectively (note 2) 28,569,416 29,740,855 Accrued landfill closure (note 3) 8,435,772 7,827,077 Total liabilities 39,462,115 40,610,986 Fund equity: Contributed capital Retained earnings -unreserved (note 6) Commitments and contingencies (notes 2, 3, 4, 6, & 7) Total liabilities and fund equity 1,675,504 2,724,499 14,325,295 12,499,952 $ 55.462,914 ~ 55.835,437 3 Roanoke Yalley Resource Authori Statements of Income For the Years Ended June 30, 1997 and 1996 1997 Operating revenue (note 5) Operating expenses Salaries and benefits (note 4) Other operating expenses (note 7) Depreciation and amortization expense Total operating expenses Operating income Nonoperating revenues (expenses) Interest income Interest expense Miscellaneous Net income See accompanying notes to financial statements. $ 8,604,339 1,229,443 3,540,696 2,548,858 7,318,997 1,285,342 1,160,472 (1,678,890) 9,424 $ 776.348 1996 $ 9,781,616 1,212,991 4,425,691 2,495,248 8,133,930 1,647,686 1,044,857 (1, 749,645) 10,094 952,992 4 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Statements of Cash Flows For the Years Ended June 30, 1997 and 1996 Cashflows from operating activities: Operating income Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization Amortization of unearned tipping fees Changes in assets and liabilities: (Increase) decrease in accounts receivable (Increase) decrease in inventory Increase (decrease) in vouchers payable Increase in accrued vacation and sick leave Increase (decrease) in accrued payroll Net cash provided by operating activities Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Capital asset construction costs and purchases Proceeds from capital asset trade Principal payments on long-term debt Landfill closure costs Increase in accrued landfill closure Decrease in restricted assets Interest paid on revenue bonds Net cash used by capital and related financing activities Cashflows from investing activities: Interest on cash and short-term investments Interest received on unearned tipping fees Proceeds from other revenues Net cash provided by investing activities Net increase in cash and short-term investments Cash and short-term investments at the beginning of year Cash and short-term investments at the end of year See accompanying notes to financial statements. 1997 1996 $ 1,285,342 $ 1,647,686 2,548,858 2,495,248 (430,984) (408,602) 216,677 (35,711) (37,253) 34,486 (210,745) 175,788 4,122 9,041 (78) 492 3,375,939 3,918,428 (1,876,160) (1,200,000) (260,603) 869,298 414,320 (1,709,097) (1,524,637) 63,000 (1,150,000) (414,893) 1,464,398 1,248,906 (1,765,362) (3,762,242) (2,078,588) 1,149,089 1,029,389 31,765 52,369 9,424 10,094 1,190,278 1,091,852 803,975 2,931,692 16,970,894 14,039,202 $ 17,774,869 $ 16,970,894 6 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 1997 and 1996 Authority. Credits may be reappropriated by the Authority based on any changes in estimates of closure and postclosure liabilities for the old landfill site. h. Accrued Landfill Closure Accrued landfill closure represents the estimated liability for closure and postclosure care of the landfill sites including the cost of any equipment and facilities to be installed near or after the date of landfill closure for purposes of closure, the cost of landfill capping, and the cost of monitoring and maintaining the sites during the postclosure period. A total estimate of these expenses is made and updated on a periodic basis and these expenses are charged to current period usage of the landfill site (see note 3). I. Employee Benefit Plans Authority employees participate in the Virginia Retirement System Pension Plan through the County of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke's deferred compensation plan. Also, certain employees participate in the City of Roanoke Pension Plan. j . Funding Requirements The City, County and the Town are each responsible for their pro rata share, based on population, of any year-end operating deficit or capital expenditures, if additional funding is required. The Authority is responsible for paying all outstanding debt. k. Use of Estimates Management of the Authority has made a number of estimates and assumptions relating to the reporting of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities to prepare these financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Actual results could differ from those estimates. 2. Revenue Bonds Payable On August 15, 1992, the Authority issued $33,830,000 in revenue bonds consisting of $17,305,000 in serial bonds with interest at 3.625 percent to 5.6 percent due in annual installments of $1,110,000 to $1,880,000 through 2005, and $16,525,000 in term bonds with interest at 5.75 percent issued at 94.882 percent of par due September 1, 2012. The original issue discount is being amortized using the effective interest method 9 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 1997 and 1996 6. Retained earnings Retained earnings allocated to participating localities based on population are as follows: City of Roanoke County of Roanoke Town of Vinton Total 1997 $ 7,858,857 5,841,855 624,583 $ 14,325,295 1996 $ 6,857,474 5,097,480 544,998 $ 12,499,952 The Authority has designated $3,392,039 and $2,554,622 of retained earnings as reserves for renewal and replacement and $2,570,787 and $3,101,419 as reserves for deposits as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, respectively. 7. Commitments and Contingencies Under terms of a transportation contract ("contract") a rail carrier will haul waste for a predetermined transportation charge to be adjusted on an annual basis. The contract will expire June 30, 2018 and the Authority has the option to renew the contract for additional five-year periods. Expenditures under this contract were approximately $1,189,000, and $1,345,000 in 1997 and 1996, respectively. 12 .,.., O U O 4~ r--~ '~ O cCS ~~ RESERVE FUNDS FEBRUARY 1997 r ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Annual Review and Adequacy Evaluation II. Bond Indenture Requirements III. Consulting Engineer's Review IV. Summary of Reserve Funds V. Reserve F A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. unds Landfill Closure Fund Equipment Reserve Fund Environmental Fund Host Community Improvement Fund Property Value Protection Fund Further Site Development Fund Interim and Post Development Fund Recycling Fund ANNUAL REVIEW AND ADEQUACY EVALUATION The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has reviewed the Replacement Reserve Requirements, as required under the Master Indenture of Trust. The Authority has consulted with its consulting engineer, obtained recommendations from the engineer, and has determined that the amount of funds is adequate. The Authority in its review has defined adequacy to mean that those funds exist in amounts equivalent to or exceeding the anticipated expenditures during a period of five subsequent years, with the understanding that certain amounts are to be borrowed, if so indicated in the expenditure plan. The Authority has established the funding and expenditure plan, as shown on the Summary of Reserve Funds made part of this document. All funds required for expenditures are currently available or will be available from future annual deposits or future borrowing. The plan is consistent with the needs and obligations of the Authority and has been approved by the Authority's Board of Directors. BOND INDENTURE REQUIREMENTS The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, as a requirement of the Master Indenture of Trust, must review, prior to the preparation of the annual budget, the adequacy of the amount of the Replacement Reserve Requirement under the current operating conditions, and in light of the applicable operating,. replacement and maintenance costs of the-major components of comparable systems. In conducting such review, the Authority agrees to consult with and obtain the recommendations of the consulting engineer. If at any time, the Authority determines in its judgement that the amount of the Replacement Reserve Requirement should be increased or decreased, it will notify the Trustee of such determination setting forth the amount of the new Replacement Reserve Requirement. The new Replacement Reserve Requirement will take effect on the date of the receipt of the notice by the Trustee, unless some other effective date is specified in the Notice. The 1997 review of the Replacement Reserve Requirement has been performed in conformance with this section of the Master Indenture. CONSULTING ENGINEERS REPORT The Resource Authority should consider seeking an outside engineer to perform review and provide some independent view of reserves. errr,rnT~~v n~ u~~~uv~ ~'rTi~mC lJ Vlf illlAL\~ Vll\lAJ L~\~L 1V1{J.+IJ FISCAL. YEAR ~-~' 997-9s t99s-gs i~sg-zeoa aooo.or zaoi.az aoz-o3 ~oe~-oa zoos-as zoos o6 DEPOSITS. Closure 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Equipment Reserve 900 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Environmental 130 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Host Community 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Property Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Development 11840 0 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Post Development 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 ZS 25 25 Recycling 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EIXPENDITIIRES Closure 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 1,340 890 0 Equipment Reserve 273 0 250 310 525 1285 1250 1163 200 516 Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Host Community 30 0 5 0 20 5 0 10 0 0 Property Protection 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 Site Development 1950 1700 1200 200 1600 3200 1600 100 2900 300 Post Development 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 25 25 0 Recycling 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BALANCES Closure 1875 2375 2875 3375 3875 4375 4375 3535 3145 3645 I~ Equipment Reserve 2304 2704 2854 2944 2819 1934 1084 321 521 405 Environmental 488 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Host Community 8 18 23 33 23 28 38 38 48 58 Property Protection 475 475 450 450 425 425 400 400 375 375 Site Development 2762 1062 362 662 = (438) (3138) (4238) (3838) (6238) (6038) Post Development 94 119 94 119 144 119 144 144 144 169 Recycling 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: Annual Deposit of $920,000 + mid year deposit of $920,000 from surplus $6,300,000 Bond Issue in 2001 r.~r.L cLOSUn~ ~nvn The Landfill Closure Fund provides a reserve for the costs of capping completed areas of the landfill and at the end of the landfill's useful life to completely close the entire area, install all monitoring and collection systems and perform all post closure care activities required by state and federal regulations. Deposits are made monthly providing a total annual deposit of $500,000 based on estimated closure and post closure care costs. Deposits may be adjusted based on revised cost estimates. Portions of the landfill are anticipated to be closed in the year 2003. FISCAL ~~ BEGINNING BALANCE ANNUAL DEPOSIT EXPENSES ENDING BALANCE USES 1996-97 1,375,000 500,000 0 1,875,000 1997-98 1,875,000 500,000 0 2,375,000 1998-99 2,375,000 500,000 0 2,875,000 1999-2000 2,875,000 500,000 0 3,375,000 2000-01 3,375,000 500,000 0 3,875,000 2001-02 3,875,000 500,000 0 4,375,000 2002-03 4,375,000 500,000 500,000 4,375,000 10 acres of Phase I 2003-04 4,375,000 500,000 1,340,000 3,535,000 10 acres of PhaseI 2004-05 3,535,000 500,000 890,000 3,145,000 2005-06 3,145,000 500,000 0 3,645,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 EQUIPMENT RESERVE FUNI? The Equipment reserve is established to provide funds for future purchases of major operating equipment at the time of need. New equipment and replacement or repair of equipment can be purchased from the fund as approved by the Resource Authority board. Currently annual deposits are made in the amount of $700,000. Monthly deposits are made throughout the year to reach the total. The projections made during bond financing indicated the fund to be depleted in the year 2000. 1997 revised projections indicate that the annual deposit can be reduced to $400,000 without depletion within the ten year planning period. : : : : _ ~::: :: : :: :: : :: :: .. _:: ~`~~.. , ..w: .~ ` :. ~:.~:::::::. ~::::v :::::::: ............................... ................................ ::::::::::..................... ............ .......... :.::::::::............ :.::::::::::::::.:...:...:::.::. .~ . . ::::::::: ::::::: :::: . ::. ......................................... .w ;•:: ;•::. ~:: :v::::n~:. ~::: w:; :v .. ........................................ ...............:::: :.:.. ~:. ~::.::..::: :.. .:.:................... ............ . ..... ..... .. .. ...... ................................ r..•w:::::::::::::::.~:::::::. ~ ....,'`::n:i{ni};?{_: iii:........ : ~:.:. ... ..:::...: : ............. : .... ........ :::::. ~. i•:Ji:iiiv ............:::..::: .:iii}iri;•:A~•.~v,,x ..v..v::. ~.:...v...• ................. \.. :::{•. V~Ct~ivi?~~4~i:~'r:Lt<::i'i?~:~> w:.1 ....... ... ~. ....ti.... ~ :.riii.:i•.{ ti itiv~i:::`Lii::iiii :::i:.:::::: •: . ~\'ii 6 i { .. ::;::. ::..,..,,.: ,.. .:.w.. i::viii:i:ii:<~i:::: .........................n n\i•:.. 4 ,i.,~vjt::. ......... .. iiiiiiiiiiii:v::::.:i' ' :: Y t: ' ti` : :::::::::::::. ~:::•::.::::::::: .: ~ ::::::::. .::::v::::::::::::: :::::::::::.: .:::::::::::::::::. w:::::::::::::::::.~ :.:.:...........: :::: ;•:::; ~•::::::::::::::.::.:::::::::: ~::: :w: •:: :.:::::::::::n~::.~:::.:~:. ~ ::::.:.... ::::.v;}}iiii}i}iiiii}iiii}i:vi :::.w.~:•~J}}iJ;}iyr:. {•;.;.~ :: :1::: ::::iii::ii: ~~iij:Ju'~j}S.{?i:vi: \~ w: :\v. : : L ::ii iii +iitiJii:iv+iiiiiiiii vv............... v \?i'i ~'~`i:v: ~.....: n.v~v:.w :... :::. vv~~< iiit:?: : :i : it J.\+h n4: ~:L:: iii ii}iiiiitL~:L~iii:}iii}:. ~:?: .......................... v.:,::'viij,:y :Ji...... .;{.4: :. ........................ '..:......: vii :v::. ~C~, BEGINNING ANNUAL EXPENSES ENDING USES yEAg BALANCE DEPOSIT BALANCE 1996-97 1,677,000 900,000 273,000 2,304,000 Trackmobile-Spare, D8L-Dozer, Mowing Tractor 1997-98 2,304,000 400,000 0 2,704,000 - 1998-99 2,704,000 400,000 250,000 2,854,000 Blazer, Explorer, Scraper #1 1999-2000 2,854,000 400,000 310,000 2,944,000 Bobcat, Scraper #2 2000-01 2,944,000 400,000 525,000 2,819,000 Loader, 966 Loader 2001-02 2,819,000 400,000 1,285,000 1,934,000 D6-Dozer, Pickup #1, Compactor #1, L150 Loader, 966 Loader 2002-03 1,934,000 400,000 1,250,000 1,084,000 Excavator #1, Grader, Excavator #2, Loader, Compactor #2 2003-04 1,084,000 400,000 1,163,000 321,000 D9-Dozer, Haul Truck #1, Trackmobile (2), Excavator 2004-05 321,000 400,000 200,000 521,000 Haul Truck #2 2005-06 521,000 400,000 516,000 405,000 Blazer, Explorer, Haul Truck #3, Haul Truck #4 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 ENVIRONMENTAL FUND The Environmental Fund is established to address any environmental effects the operation of the landfill may have on the surrounding area. The fund also serves to assist in complying with post closure and corrective action requirements of state and federal financial assurance regulations. Annual deposits are made in the amount of $130,000 and are deposited monthly in equal installments. With the projected 1997 deposit the fund balance will equal $500,000 which is adequate for any anticipated expenses. No additional deposits are planned after 1997. ~C~, yEAg BEGINNING BALANCE ANNUAL DEPOSIT EXPENSES ENDING BALANCE USES 1996-97 358,000 130,000 0 488,000 No planned uses 1997-98 488,000 12,000 0 500,000 1998-99 500,000 0 0 500,000 1999-2000 500,000 0 0 500,000 2000-01 500,000 0 0 500,000 2001-02 500,000 0 0 500,000 2002-03 500,000 0 0 500,000 2003-04 500,000 0 0 500,000 2004-OS 500,000 0 0 500,000 2005-06 500,000 0 0 500,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 The Host Community Improvement Fund is established to fund the construction and maintenance of public improvements to Resource Authority property. Funded improvements will be established with input from the host community and set out in a public improvement plan. Annual deposits are made in the amount of $10,000 with the balance never to exceed $150,000. ~ ~ T ~, >w<::> >._`~:><` \ t4 ............................... .................... w :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................. ::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::: .....:.. i :::::::::::::::::.~ :•::• .............................. vi}iiiiiii?iii}>}iiiii};.;;;;;;;; ............................. : ~:n~::::..::....... v w::;, .............:•::::::•::...:.. v:::...:n. ......... ......... :::::::. ~:::.::::::::::.::.: ~::: ...........:::.....::::...... :S:::^::::•:iii:;•i}isii:i:;i W .................... ...,.,. .. ., ,..., , ::::::; ...... ~::....:;..;; ...:.......... ......:::::.....:::::..:.:::.:::::Kryii ..................~v:nrw:.w::::,~•:i :::•:::•::•:::::.}:.............. ................... w:.;; ............ iiiis : i::•i• .:.......:..:.:.::. ~:: i?:: ?j .......................~. . ... ~.;'P:?:i::i:::...:.~........1 iii:vvti•:i:in~:ii:~}ii:^}}i}}}}ii: }: iivi::, :.iiii};:::.::::::;:^iiri: iiiii::x ........ ... ••~v::::; :•:::::;: ~::.~:~~~~vv.....v ~Y\ v: :i^: ii : :w:ii: i::•iiiiirr ~y i 'CC~i..i..jiiti\i~:~ii{:>j:iv~i tiff \ ,l :::ti;: ~ .4.: nv ~i \ ~ n\•:i+tiL:ii'•i:'4}}ii: ......~ n.v::.v....n....n.\...... i\•i~:•: ~:~~:t+<~ ~~ ~::•'.~::: k:i :}tn. .\~iiiF:;:{~;:ii•:;ti::iQ:i>iii ~ r .. ........v.., .v:: ~:::::..... n. ~i:~::{{ih<? v $iiiii::::.v: i:4iii:iiiii:<t~.'::t:'v}:u ~, '?~..?`::t:':~:ti: ~:~ ~:~~i ...............::.....:....:.:::... .\ :.:::. ti::\ \ \i •n\v.:. ~v •.:vvv •.~y~:. .\..v....v v . ~i:~v. ii:~ii:~:?~i~i '.'~: ?~iiij>.!?::ii'~i.....:J\vv. 'i~iiit^?i:•i'i:u.v:<;:iii::i~j'ri:~:~i. : : .............................. ............................... . .......:...................... ............................... : i : ... ..:...... w.~. ~::::.w:::::::v.... ..:............................ w:. : ~;•};: i iv •: .....................:.. ....•w::,~ ........ ........... .~ •• v; .;; ~...;;,Y•: ~~ ii• iv tiJ: ^: :w::::.~: .•.•. •. ..... . .. w:::::::::::: i:: •iiii}'• ....... Y.~Y.:•iiiiiiv. T..~.. ~C~, BEGINNIN G ANNUAL EXPENSES ENDING USES yE~ BALANCE DEPOSIT BALANCE 1996-97 28,000 10,000 30,000 8,000 Playground, Computers, Fire & Rescue 1997-98 8,000 10,000 0 18,000 -- 1998-99 18,000 10,000 5,000 23,000 Miscellaneous 1999-2000 23,000 10,000 0 33,000 -- 2000-01 33,000 10,000 20,000 23,000 Miscellaneous 2001-02 23,000 10,000 5,000 28,000 Miscellaneous 2002-03 28,000 10,000 0 38,000 --- 2003-04 38,000 10,000 10,000 38,000 Miscellaneous 2004-05 38,000 10,000 0 48,000 --- 2005-06 48,000 10,000 0 58,000 --- 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 PROPERTY VALUE.. PRQTECTION"FUND The Property Value Protection reserve provides funds for payments under the property protection policy to property owners within 5000 feet of the landfill for any decline in values as determined under the policy. Funds are deposited annually in the amount of $200,000 made in equal monthly installments. Deposits are also made from proceeds of property purchased and resold under the policy. ~C~, YEAR BEGINNING BALANCE ANNUAL DEPOSIT EXPENSES ENDING BALANCE USES 1996-97 500,000 0 25,000 475,000 Alexander, Looney 1997-98 475,000 0 0 475,000 1998-99 475,000 0 25,000 450,000 Vanover 1999-2000 450,000 0 0 450,000 2000-01 450,000 0 25,000 425,000 Unlmown 2001-02 425,000 0 0 425,000 2002-03 425,000 0 25,000 400,000 Unknown 2003-04 400,000 0 0 400,000 2004-OS 400,000 0 25,000 375,000 Unknown 2005-06 375,000 0 0 375,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 The Further Site Development reserve provides funds for the construction of subsequent phases of the Smith Gap facilities. Funds are deposited annually in the amount of $920,000 based on estimated future costs. Deposits are made in equal monthly installments. The Fund is projected to be depleted in the year 2001, at which time the Resource Authority plans to borrow funds for further improvements. ~:: ~$C~, BEGINNING ANNUAL EXPENSES ENDING USES yE~ BALANCE DEPOSIT BALANCE 1996-97 2,872,000 1,840,000 1,950,000 2,762,000 Construction Phase II A,~~I ' N 8~:~,~;~ ~~, _..; i,58y,~~~ a,~c7,972? Liner 1997-98 2,762,000 0 1,700,000 1,062,000 Design & Construction Acr,~~l '~, ~~~>'~78 ~ ~..~~ ~ '~~~~.~:~~ - Phase III & IV Liner, Design Pond 1998-99 1,062,000 500,000 1,200,000 362,000 Construct Phase III & IV Liner, Construct Pond 1999-2000 362,000 500,000 200,000 662,000 Design Phase V-X 2000-01* 662,000 500,000 1,600,000 (438,000) Construct Phase V-X 2001-02 (438,000) 500,000 3,200,000 (3,138,000) Construct Phase V-X 2002-03 (3,138,000) 500,000 1,600,000 (4,238,000) Construct Phase V Liner 2003-04 (4,238,000) 500,000 100,000 (3,838,000) Design Phase VI Liner 2004-OS (3,838,000) 500,000 2,900,000 (6,238,000) Construct Phase VI Liner 2005-06 (6,238,000) 500,000 300,000 (6,038,000) Construct Phase VI Liner 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 * Requires bond issue of $6,300,000 in year 2001 INTERIM AND POST' DEVELOPMENT. FUND The Interim and Post Development Reserve provides for recreational or other improvements to buffer areas or closed landfill areas of the Smith Gap property. Funds are deposited annually in the amount of $25,000 made in equal monthly installments. ~C~, yEAg BEGINNING BALANCE ANNUAL DEPOSIT EXPENSES ENDING BALANCE USES 1996-97 69,000 25,000 0 94,000 1997-98 94,000 25,000 0 119,000 1998-99 119,000 25,000 50,000 94,000 Miscellaneous 1999-2000 94,000 25,000 0 119,000 2000-01 119,000 25,000 0 144,000 2001-02 144,000 25,000 50,000 119,000 Miscellaneous 2002-03 119,000 25,000 0 144,000 2003-04 144,000 25,000 25,000 144,000 Miscellaneous 2004-05 144,000 25,000 25,000 144,000 Miscellaneous 2005-06 144,000 25,000 0 169,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 ~cYCLnvc Furor The Recycling reserve provides seed funds and grants to local government members to promote and operate recycling programs. Grants are distributed to members on a prorated share based on population and eligible expenditures. Funds are deposited anually in the amount of $200,000 made in equal monthly installments. Beginning July 1, 1997 the fund will be closed with no further deposits or expenditures. Unspent funds will be transferred to the surplus revenue account. ~C~, yEAg BEGINNING BALANCE ANNUAL DEPOSIT EXPENSES ENDING BALANCE USES 1996-97 41,000 200,000 200,000 41,000 Grants 1997-98 41,000 0 0 0 Transfer Balance to Surplus Revenue 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 • ~ , COURTHOUSE SPACE STUDY December 31, 1997 Staff is working with MARSHWITT Associates, PC to review the existing utilization of the County Courthouse complex. The review includes interviews with each of the County departments utilizing space in the facility including the Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Clerk of the General District Court, Clerk of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff and the Court Service Unit. The Courthouse also provides offices to the Judge of the State Court of Appeals and the Adult Probation and Parole Office. The County is not required to provide space for the Judge of the State Court of Appeals nor the Adult Probation and Parole Office which are State functions. For the Court Service Unit, the County is required to provide suitable office space, however, it does not have to physically be located in the court building. In this regard, rental space could be a viable alternative to address their space needs. One alternative could be to relocate some or all of these operations to other facilities. In the case of the State offices, this would be at the State's expense. In the past, we have discussed parking needs in the area of the Courthouse and you will recall that we are currently leasing property across Thompson Memorial Drive to help alleviate this problem. The Guy House which is owned by the County needs to be removed which could help in addressing some of the parking needs for this complex. Tearing down the Sheriff's office building, re-configuring the existing parking lot and developing a parking deck could provide other alternatives for consideration. Other issues that are being identified are the volume of files and legal records required to be kept, file retention programs and file storage systems. In many instances, the State governs the length of time certain files must be retained and their accessability. The County has made few structural modifications to the building since it was completed yet several offices such as the Commonwealth Attorney have had additional staff approved to accommodate the work load. At the planning session, we will have cost estimates for some of the alternatives identified to assist in meeting the needs of these offices which can be used in the budget preparation process. Alternate (rented) space can be considered as well, however, no specific proposal for such move has been pursued at this time. John M. Chambliss, Jr. Asst. County Administrator cc Bill Rand Elmer Hodge C ' REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION HOME UPDATE January 10, 1998 Discussions are continuing for the development of a regional juvenile detention home. Representatives from Franklin County, Roanoke County, Salem and Roanoke City will be meeting with officials from the Department of Juvenile Justice in Richmond on January 12 - 13 to update the City of Roanoke's plan and to get all parties on the same position on the time line. Attached is a listing of the A & E costs which represent the expanded scope of work to the City of Roanoke's plan as provided by HSMM, consultant to the City. Based upon the division of cost in the ratio of the beds identified in the Needs Assessment study last fall, the County's share would be $118,925.90 for the A & E services. It is projected that the cost of the construction of the expansion for Franklin, Roanoke County and Salem would be 30 beds at a cost of $2,531,000. Our share of the construction cost would be $1,349,782. Stafffeels that we can cover the $118,926 A & E share with monies already appropriated and monies within the Court Service Unit budget. We will need the borrowing capacity of the Commission to finance the construction cost. The projected time line would be to have the General Assembly approve the formation of a Commission to finance and/or operate the expanded facility during the 1998 session. The project should be ready for bid in July-August 1998 with the estimated completion in January, 2000. Our meeting in Richmond next week will greatly determine the remaining steps we must take to complete this project. Once we know what could be approved by the State, we will need to formulate an intergovernmental agreement, determine the operating plan, and devise a method for distributing the various costs. It is anticipated that the per diem rates would be used to help repay the debt service for this facility. Anticipated operating costs, state share of the cost, and related expenses will be discussed in the coming weeks as the plans evolve. The existing facility of Roanoke City has 21 beds which will be refiubished at the end of the new construction. The City will be expanding by 22 new beds and facility upgrades and the other three localities will be trying to build 30 beds to address the 38 bed need approved in the study. As a joint facility, we feel that we can better serve the youth of our community and provide alternatives to secure detention as a treatment option as well. Staff wanted you to be aware of the cost and time line as you prepare to enter the budget study for FY 1998-99. John Chambliss Attachment ~~ Detcost Jan 7, 1998 SUGGESTED COST SHARING OF THE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALEM, ROANOKE COUNTY AND FRANKLIN COUNTY Locality Share of Beds Share Roanoke County 16 53.33% Salem 8 26.67% Franklin County ~ 6 20.00% Total 30 100.00% Item Cost Roanoke Co. Salem Franklin Co. Total Planning Study Update 40,000.00 21,332.00 10,668.00 8,000.00 40,000.00 Preliminaries 43,000.00 22,931.90 11,468.10 8,600.00 43,000.00 Construction Documents 86,000.00 45,863.80 22,936.20 17,200.00 86,000.00 Bidding 10,000.00 5,333.00 2,667.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 Construction Administration 44,000.00 23,465.20 11,734.80 8,800.00 44,000.00 Total 223,000.00 118,925.90 59,474.10 44,600.00 223,000.00 Construction Estimate 2,531,000.00 1,349,782.30 675,017.70 506,200.00 2,531,000.00 Grand Total 2,754,000.00 1,468,708.20 734,491.80 550,800.00 2,754,000.00 Projected cost of construction for the City of Roanoke (w/o A & E) is $4,837,000. Salem, Roanoke Co, Franklin Co Cost 2,754,000 Roanoke City Expansion 4,837,000 Total Projected Cost (plus City A & E) 7,591,000 G ~~ ~ z ~ ~2~2~-n t..c~v C~-a-r~ o~C-~ ~° OVERVIEW OF THE TINKER CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWER, ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR SEWER AND ROANOKE REGIONAL WPCP PROJECTS TINKER Creek Interceptor 1. Contractor for project is Bryant Electric Company. Contracts "A" and "B" were awarded for a total of $5,595,895. 2. The Contractor is currently engaged in pipe laying operations along Tinker Creek between Walnut Avenue and Wise Avenue in Vinton. Approximately 6,000 lineal feet of 54-inch diameter prestressed concrete cylinder pipe have been laid. In addition, the inverted siphon which crosses the Roanoke River has been completed. 3. The contract period to complete both contracts is 540 calendar days. This would result in a completion date of July 7, 1998. To date the project is on schedule and within budget. ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR 1. The project as designed by Black & Veatch consists of five phases (A, B, C, D, & E) of gravity interceptor sewer line with a total of seven contracts. The total current construction cost estimate provided by Black & Veatch for the five phases is approximately $30,400,000. 2. Contracts for Phase A (Contracts Al and A2) and Phase B (Contracts B 1 and B2) have been awarded to Alex E. Paris Contracting Co. of Atlasburg, PA for a bid of $18,632,063. However, the notice to proceed has been issued for Contracts Al and A2 only, for contract prices of $4,270,642 and $4,615,283, respectively. These contracts provide for the installation of approximately 14,000 feet of 66-inch diameter sewer pipe between the Walnut Avenue Bridge in Roanoke City and the headworks of the Roanoke Regional WPCP. 3. A notice to proceed for Contracts B 1 and B2 has not been issued to date. The contractor has agreed to hold the bid prices for Contracts B 1 and B2 until the middle, to latter part, of February 1998. 4. The technical staffs of Roanoke City, Roanoke County and the City of Salem have been meeting collectively and individually for the past 3 months to investigate and discuss various alternatives to reduce the cost of the project and/or extend the construction phasing, 5. The Roanoke County Utility Department staff has been advocating consideration of construction of 23,000 lineal feet of sewer force main (pressure pipe) and a sewage pump station. These facilities would be used to convey wastewater along the Roanoke River corridor between Peters Creek and the Walnut Avenue Bridge in lieu of Phase B and Phase C of the gravity interceptor sewer line. 1 6. If a force main and sewage pumping station were constructed in lieu of Phase B and Phase C of the gravity interceptor sewer, it is estimated that the total construction cost for the Roanoke River interceptor project could be reduced from $30,400,000 (Black & Veatch estimate) to approximately $27,000,000 (RCUD estimate). It should be noted that Black & Veatch estimates that construction of the force main-sewage pump station alternative would result in a total project cost of $31,156,475. Utilizing the RCUD estimate would correspond to an annual cost savings of approximately $120,000 to $145,000 each for Roanoke City, the City of Salem and Roanoke County to cover O & M costs for the sewage pump station and debt service for the entire project. 7. Although staffpersonnel from Roanoke City and the City of Salem do not totally disagree with the cost saving merits of the Utility Department staffs force main-sewage pump station proposal, it is their opinion that the cost savings are not of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the disadvantages associated with operation and maintenance of a sewage pump station. In addition, the time required to design the force main-pump station alternative would delay construction of that portion of the project by 9 to 12 months. 8. For the preceding reasons, the majority of the technical review committee preferred the gravity interceptor sewer line alternative. Consequently, Roanoke City staff will direct Black & Veatch to proceed with bidding of Phases C, D and E of the gravity interceptor line within the next 30 days. 9. The bids for Phases C, D and E will then be evaluated in conjunction with the bids for Phase B (Contracts B1 and B2) which Alex E. Paris Contracting Company has agreed to extend until the middle of February. Should the total project cost for Phases A, B, C, D and E substantially exceed Black & Veatch's $30,400,000 estimate, the force main-sewage pump station alternative will be reconsidered. ROANOKE REGIONAL WPCP Connection Between Tinker Creek Interceptor and WPCP Headworks: a. Contract includes installation of pipe required to connect the Tinker Creek interceptor to the WPCP headworks; construction of a new junction box which will receive flows from both the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek interceptors; and increased raw influent pumping capacity. b. The contract price for the interconnect is $1,865,800. Contractor for this portion of the project is Crowder Construction Co. c. The contract period to complete the project is 180 calendar days. The contract was awarded around the first week of June, 1997. The original completion date was scheduled to be November 25-30, 1997. The contract period has been extended to the end of December due to work which remains to be performed by Bryant Electric Company at the Roanoke River siphon crossing. 2. WPCP Upgrade: 2 a. Danis Heavy Construction Company was awarded the contract on September 29, 1997, for the WPCP upgrade with a bid of $16,690,000. The notice to proceed was issued on October 29, 1997. b. Danis is still mobilizing at this time. Actual construction activities are beginning after the Christmas holidays. SUMMARY The attached Table I summarizes the various cost components for each project, as well as providing the current cost allocations for each participating jurisdiction. It is important to stress that in spite of the project cost escalation, particularly the Roanoke River Interceptor, no sewer rate increase will be required to fund debt service for the projects. 3 Q V W O a r J m N <O ~ ~A O ~ ~,,, N (O ~A ~ ~A et .- J O D ~ (U ~ CA 0 CD 00 Y7 N N 1~ O ~ ~ ~ O M 1~ O c0 ~, V V ~ M (O ~A O N t0 D O C O ~ ~ N 0 a O o O d a N N ~ ~ ~ o 6 9 E R c o EH fA fH t,9 Z a ~ si' M ~ N 00 OO 0 M ~ I~ O U N 00 0 0 00 M C W YO ?~ V ~ O ~A ~ N ~ N G W ~ C c0 V v M r Oi eY ~ d' 00 rn CO r et v ' D: ~ O ~ C C y 'p 0 - ~ o t~ ~ M ~ O - V ` Q r ~ v~ ~i ~ ~ ~ . N O ~ a V> a o a ~ ~ o C O M N O) OD O w+ C p +=' ~ M N N O O O 03 C L V ~ G a O H a ' O W N I~ O 1~ ` _ O r CA tf) O (O •'A^ v/ f- ~ Lp y c ~ N o 0 0 N ~/ W ~ Q O V ~" ~ i o 00 ~A 6 9 ao W ~ Y 0) ~+ ~ M 000 ~ cfl ~ ~ Q r I~ ~- O j ~ R Q U 0 C a Q ~ `~ ss ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ o .., = o o ~ ~ ti o 0 ''^^ VI O " O M N M O O Q e 0 c ~ ~ ~ O a Q Q Y ~ y ~ N u~ N ~ N o O co 1 M ~ Z Z ` ~ O ~ M N er O ~ M M cD c0 ~ fA et N ~ ' ~ ~ Y + ,, 0 M r N ER I~ U C ~ ` a ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 W c ~ rn rn o .- o ~/ 3. : N ~ M O ~ O y + ~ v v Z d O Q a Q ~ ~ c c c c c U ~ U 'o U ~ °~ o v 'Q O O O `~- O O J Q 47 '~ "-' °? C ca C ca ~, C 3 F- c ~ ~ c ~ ~ O O U F - r ~' ~ Z ~ Z < C ~ ~ -1 C7 O ~ O ~ -o D r 0 ~ O -~~ ~ m m z ~ O cn .; ; rn ~ m ~,, m ~ n ~ G~ ~~' ~ n ~ ~ O D D ~~ ~' - i m m zm O O ~ .~~ ~, m o ~ o ~° ~ . ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ -~ ~ z ,--~ nm Om n ~ o o wr w~ ~ ~ w rn ~m =~ o o ~! or rn o ~ o D ~0 b O b O . b~ b o m-n O \/ ~ O 0 oh oo ~ Z ~ ~ < rn w o°o p. ~~G~ = ~ w oo ~ C~7 D o ~, ai ~ C~ D ~Zc -~IC~ r -I = D D O .-~ ~s~- a m~Z o ~ o o ~ D N ~ ' ~~Z ~ (( c°o~' ~~ ~o ~ <pmpC o ao ° iv - ~ ~~ u:W .,~ ~D --~ _ O ° n ~ D m r o 0o co o - cfl m D • ~ ~ D ~ Z-I ~ cD~t b ~ m D ao ° N ~ ~ ~ °D D Z r ~r o 0o co . ~ m N ~ ~ ~ D mpz N w w~ ~ oo ~mz v, ~ A o. O; o N ~ -~ <W C C7 -i D ~ o ~ ~ ~ m r ~ ~ ~ D N ~, D Z -~ ~ ~ o;' ~ °~° ~C~ _ O N O o~t N y -~ CT mDD Z r r p ~ ~I ~I lZ C1i 'C i U ~ ~! ~ N ~V~ ~ W m D ;I7~Z O o .P i U7 -~ < W C . ~ N w ~' " r V m r m rn o -• D - ~D o m n' ~~ rn °° ~z0 0 ° ~ ~ 'C w~ , J1 w ~ --~ o ~ '~ mCy O ° 1 ~O N Z~r a o ~ c O 0, ~ ~ ~7 n C m 0 O ,. ~ D D ~ m m n ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O -n m z o o ~ -~ o ', z n~ Om ~n m w~inoWi=~ D 0~~0~0 o'oomm {~ . ~ coOOp ~~ in~~ ~; ~_~~ N...~D C .A ; .^ oo %U ~ ~ oZc v ~_, ~D-~I rn~:wDO-DI ooa~w~fp- o')oom~z mo < pmp C7 ~ m vy m D Z -I ~ w~ti`moo~C~~ WW°ONrnDD vooo~rr ~~coD ~ ~ D m N o~arnv~rnZcn W Oo O .A CO ~1 ~GJ 00 C ~ C ~ c°s,rn~rnwm ~m vN ~„J~ D M; ~ ~ ~ D m -~~°rn~'~z00 °~~,o rn m D ~ 0 o~s~>o°o?rr m ~ w(v' w ~ ~ CJl 00 r CT ~ --I O~oo ,gym ~D v ~ c~nc~n+~.~~Z mD C~JiNN~r T~ i ' r ,~` N t0 00 O O W 0 W O n O Z -~ C n --I O Z m c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cmn Z o m o o o °' o o o o o ~ O Z ~ po w .p .n. = D D m w ~ < ~ D ~ D D D D D ~ Z m (n p a: `G 0 rn 5 N ' ' ao ~ y 'W Z O Z O ~p ~ ~ c N a ill < c ~ Z 0 C~ = Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 -D m a ~ c - v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ cn T m T m ~ .o' ~ -o ~D < ~ 7C m Cn m T m T rn T T T I m .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn m m m ~ Z - -i o "o m m rn n ~ ~ - ~ ~ 'c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ O p p c ~ ~ ~ -I « ~ ~ ~° ~ o < m « « < m ~~ ~ -c m -, m ~ m -, Z rn ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m m m rn rn m ~ m _ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-; ~ -o o ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ )~ Z ~ ° ~ z ~ ~ ' ~ n Z p Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ -o' ~ ~ - i ~ ~ ~ i - ~ ~ i - ~ i - ~ i - ~ N ~ r r ' r W ~ ~ ~ cQ Q° ~ ~ ' O m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ Z ~ 5 ~ N ln fn ~ ~ (n fA f/~ fn fn O .~= ~ ~ G1 z Q Q Q ° n m n rn ~ o p < ~ ~ D D - rn ~ rn ~ m n m n m n < m 0 0 o Q, -i ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ Z ~ -i -I -1 -I ~~ n 0 0 ~ ' p O - O 0 0 0 0 0 m '~ c c c ~ Z Z D ~ Z N N ~ ~ Z i O m CD m 'U fA fn ~ ~ o N - -I )~ a o. a ~ m y ~ m v n po D ~ ~ ~ -o -o -o ?' ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ sp Sp ~ W j~ m m c~n ~ ~ ~°-~ ~ N ~ '~ 'l7 ,Np ~ ~ ~ ~ N N 0 ~ `I ~ _' A ~ ~ O O J OD v O 0 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O OO O O ~ N ~ p ~ O 0 ~ CJ~ O ~ ~ ~ c ~ N O ~A Cn W Uri :3~-' ~ ~ O O ffl ~ ~ » ~ N fp A ~ O O O O O ~ n ~~] - O O W - W 00 O . W 0 ~1 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O -~ .P ffl b9 ffl ffl .OA N ~ C c 0 0 (O Ul O ~ .A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ""' (n ~ m y - --i .~ ~, ffl ffl fA f!- fH ~- ~, ~ Z ~ to ~ ffl ffl ffl N '"' ~ N ~ Efl ~ ffl ffl ffl N W ~O Q1 ~A N ~1 0 ~ W W O V 0 .A CJt W Ui ? N ~ N V Ui W W O ~I N W -~ O CJ~ O UI Cn N N O n ~m W V 00 W O O O Ut .f~ O .f~ Cr O O Gf O CO C10 OD V O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 CO W O N -I ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' y, z fig c ~ -o ~ fA N N N ~ 0 o ~ n C W Cn f~i CIi O ~ Cn W ~I fi9 69 fig O O ffl CP 69 69 ffl ffl 0A fOA ~G ~ O O O C n 0 A . A 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- ~< D ~ -1 ~ ~ fA N fig ~ {~ ~ ffl N ffl .~ l!i CA ffl N ffl -~ ~ ffl W to W CO ~, O1 Z D V ~O O V N N N O Ut ~ ~l ~ ~ N O W ~I -a --.~ 0 ~O O {a N .a Cb n ~m N ~O ~l O U7 N N ~O O O O O (O O ~ V O Ci O ffl CIl O O O U~ O Ut O Cn O 00 O V O ffl 69 ffl O O ffl O O O O fA tfl EA fA W N ,yr ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o c o Z C ~ ~ O ffl ffl ffl ffl n ~W CT c G9 0 GH 0 ffl 0 69 0 ffl 0 ffl 0 {~ 0 ffl 0 ffl 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 ffl O ~ W .A O ~I .A O Ch ~I ~ N OO O J~ O O,N.,, < ~ < ~ m -~ z~ fA f N V A f A A f A H tO rt CO C1 r '~ D ao 0 rn 0 o o ~ V ~- oo C~ 0 -i ' o o o V COO om ffl fA fA fA ti9 ff1 f A f A f A f A f ig f !~ f A f A f I~ f H f fl O O O ~ N ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o A o m m /~ ~ rn ~ N rn C V .p ~ X ~ Z O m N r -~ /'~ 4 ROAN®KE VALLEY TELEVISION -GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATIONAL ACCESS 541 LUCK AVE., S. W, SUITE 145 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016-(703)343-0436 To: Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations From: Elaine Simpson, RVTV Station manager RE: RVTV Programming Date: January 9, 1998 I have investigated various ways to increase programming for RVTV, and would like to share some of the information I have obtained. I have contacted the government access stations in Blacksburg, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach and Athens, Ohio to discuss how those stations deal with the programming issue. Virginia Beach is by far the largest operation, with a staff of fourteen, and I will be visiting their station in February. Three out of the four currently use an automated playback system, and the fourth recently ordered a unit. Additionally, Virginia Beach uses programming which they obtain from outside sources to help fill the channel. It is my recommendation that we use both of these methods to increase programming as soon as possible. I have looked at various playback systems, and have narrowed the choices down to two systems: Leightronix Pro-8, which is currently being used at Radford University. I will be looking at that unit later this month. Active 64-16 by Adtec, which is currently being used by Carilion. I have seen this system demonstrated and it is very impressive. RVTV currently has the resources in its capital budget to purchase either of these systems. My second recommendation concerns obtaining programming from other sources. In particular, the Government Services Television Network (GSTN), offers a video library that includes over three hundred video titles. The majority of these have been cleared for government access use. I have also obtained a list of preproduced videos from some of the other government access stations, and Jon Boettcher at WBRA has indicated there is a possibility that we can obtain some of their programming. In the past, the Cable Committee has been very conservative and has limited access to Channel 3 only to the three governments and their school systems, although beginning two years ago, we did add some GSTN programming. I believe that the Committee is ready to move beyond these limitations to increase the programming that is shown on the station. It is important to remember that the programming on the local network affiliates, such as sitcoms, game shows, dramas, etc, is produced elsewhere, with only one or two shows per week produced locally. Memo to Anne Marie Green January 9, 1998 Page two My third recommendation concerns additional staff. In addition to the 4 full time positions, I would like to add a part time position to help cover the station when the full time staff is in the field, and to assist with daytime programming. I have enclosed an average monthly production schedule which gives a break down of working hours. I am very proud of the quality and quantity of the productions that RVTV generates with its present staffing level, and believe that the part- time person would help increase the air time significantly. It is my goal to increase RVTV's programming hours. The Citizens Survey supports the fact that the station is widely watched and we have received many awards and letters of praise for our video productions. The staff is very talented and motivated to reach its full potential. cc: Board of Supervisors RVTV General Progam Schedule Attached is the General Program Schedule for Roanoke Valley Television (Cox Cable Channel 3 and Salem Cable Channel 3). Programs aired in the time slots designated Open vary from week to week and are listed on the Channel 3 message board on the purple pages. Abbreviations for programs are as follows: CS -The City Show is a monthly half-hour prograni hosted by City Manager Bob Herbert, Public Information Officer Angelita Plemmer, City staff and community leaders. It addresses City government and neighborhood issues. RCT -Roanoke County Today is a monthly half-hour program hosted by County Administrator Elmer Hodge and Community Relations Director Anne Marie Green. It addresses County government and neighborhood issues. CC -City Council meetings are shown live the first and third Monday of each month and re-played the following Thursday.* BOS -County Board of Supervisors Meetings are shown live the second and fourth Tuesday of each month and re-played the following Thursday.* SOCS -Spotlight on City Schools is a monthly half-hour program that highlights the City's educational system, hosted by City School Public Information Officer Lissy Runyon. AE -Accent Excellence is a quarterly half-hour news stlye program that looks at the the people and places that make up the Roanoke County Schools. GSTN -Government Services Television Network is a monthly program that highlights local government innovations from all across the U.S. It is produced by Westcott Communications in Carrollton, Texas and varies in length each month. Open -The Open slots on the RVTV schedule are usually filled with short governmental videos on a wide variety of topics, produced by RVTV. These videos vary in length and RVTV may run several different ones within ahalf--hour period. RVTV may not air any programming in an Open slot depending on scheduling. Viewers may check the Channel 3 message board for individual programs scheduled in a given week. * Live governmental meetings & their re-plays are subject to schedule changes. When reading the RVTV General Schedule please note that the weeks are listed as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and Odd. The 1st Week on the schedule is the first full week of the month (the week with the first Monday of the month). The 2nd Week on the schedule is the week in which the second Tuesday of the month falls and so on. The Odd Week refers to the partial weeks at the beginning and end of the month, for example if the first day of the month falls on Tuesday or if there is a 5th Monday or Tuesday in a month. General Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Schedule 1st Week loam CS loam CS 10:30 RCT 10:30 RCT 2pm CC Live 3pm CS 3:30 RCT 7pm CS 7pm CS 7pm SOCS 7:30 RCT 7pm CC 7:30 RCT 7:30 AE 8pm SOCS Replay 8pm GSTN 8:30 AE 2nd Week loam CS loam CS 10:30 RCT 10:30 RCT 3pm CS 3pm BOS 3:30 RCT Live 7pm CS 7pm CS 7pm SOCS 7:30 RCT 7pm BOS 7:30 RCT 7:30 AE 8pm SOCS Replay 8pm Open 8pm GSTN 8:30 AE 3rd Week loam CS loam CS 10:30 RCT 10:30 RCT 2pm CC Live 3pm CS 3:30 RCT 7pm CS 7pm CC Live 7pm SOCS 7:30 RCT 7pm CC 7:30 AE 8pm SOCS Replay 8pm GSTN 8:30 AE 4th Week loam CS loam CS 10:3 0 RCT 10:3 0 RCT 3pm CS 3:30 RCT 3pm BOS Live 7pm CS 7pm CS 7pm BOS 7:30 RCT 7pm BOS 7:30 RCT Live 8pm SOCS Replay 8pm Open 8:30 AE Odd Week loam CS loam CS 10:30 RCT 10:30 RCT 3pm CS 3:30 RCT 7pm CS 7pm RCMR 7pm SOCS 7:30 RCT 7pm Open 7:30 RCT 7:30 AE 8pm SOCS 8pm Open 8pm GSTN 8:30 AE The RVTV staff currently consists of four full time employees. Full staffing is required for most RVTV productions, including live cablecasts and field shoots. RVTV Average Monthly Production Schedule Based on 160 Work Hours City Council Meetings Set upBreakdown 2 hours Average Meeting Length 3 hours Total for 2 meetings------------------------------10 hours Board of Supervisors Meetings Set UpBreakdown 2 hours Average Meeting Length 3 hours Total for 2 meetings---------------------10 hours City Manager's Report Writing/Scheduling 6 hours Interviews, Cover Shoots, Travel Time 6 hours Editing, Graphics, Dubs for WBRA 12 hours Total for RCMR-------------------------------------------24 hours Roanoke County Today Writing/Scheduling 6 hours Interviews, Cover Shoots, Travel Time 6 hours Editing, Graphics, Dubs for WBRA 12 hours Total for RCT----------------------------------------------24 hours Spotlight on City Schools Writing/Scheduling 6 hours Interviews, Cover Shoots, Travel Time 6 hours Editing & Graphics 10 hours Total SOCS-------------------------------------------------22 hours Updating the Message Board Adding/Deleting 1 hour per day Total for month----------------------------------20 hours Miscellaneous Dubbing Average total for month--=----------------------4 hours (each staff member spends at least 4 hrs/month) StationBquipment Maintenance Average 30 minutes per day Total for month----------------------------------10 hours Total hours -124 work hours This leaves 36 hours for other production work and it does not include time for purchasing video supplies, having repairs made, paperwork, answering the telephone or attending meetings. ~- i nteroff iCe MEMORANDUM COUNTY OFROANOKE Community Relations to: Elmer Hodge, County Admi 'strator from: Anne Marie Green, APR ~~(~, ~~,~,~,~~ ~~,~~ subject: Board Retreat Topics date: December 31, 1997 The Government and Educational Access Channel has grown dramatically since the character generator first went on line in 1991. We now cable cast all Board and City Council meetings live and tape-delayed, produce a monthly show for the County, the City and the City schools and a quarterly show for the County schools, and have created, written and produced a wide variety of videos used both in house and on the channel. The station also airs productions created by the Government Services Television Network. The current focus of the Cable Television Committee has been to increase the amount of programming on Channel 3. In the past, an employee had to be on-site at the studio nights and weekends to play back tapes, which cut into the time that employee had during the week to produce programming. During the upcoming budget year, the Committee will be looking at a new system that can automatically play back videotapes, allowing staffto be more productive during the day time hours. Additionally, the Committee may look at other sources of programming, such as that produced by other government and educational entities, like the Virginia Department of Transportation, Virginia Western, etc. Traditionally, since stafftime was required for playback, Channel 3 has focused on airing programming on those nights when viewership is highest, i. e., Monday through Thursday. With an automatic system, the weekend afternoons and evenings can also be filled with in-house productions. For most of the past summer and fall, the station was operating on partial staff, due to a serious illness and the vacancy in the Station Manager position. Beginning in December, for the first time, the station has a full staff of four employees. All the employees have production and editing experience, and the Station Manager expects that programming will be increased during the coming year. If the Board has any suggestions, either for additional programming sources or other operational issues, the Cable Television Committee would be please to receive that input. n u ;' - -ray:. t ~ - _ yy 4 -~ t ~ 1~ i '!~ 3 .J-,l,J~ JS L~~ 1~ L f ~~ y.~ {~. 5 - i+ r~,h'Y'~ 4nY ~} ''rr Y~ RFC "~ ~ a - rw y "~' ~ i -~ :d F ~ ~~- msna .... ,9c ~c ~.. ,-. ... ~~~ ..... 1aT'uv;~i~ ,a'~~'~'wia$A ~,. .; y:? c ~~4 _ I • 1 I • I • S _, '~ 'i't's _ .~ p ~ ' !~ ~Dg' ~ ~ a~ ~'~ ~ ~ r _ i'v :` ~; 7a `x~ ~r'i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ fl ~ _ t s- 'F,t .~,°-. * h r:~. ads. -~'' .+r 4 . ~ ~ r t s s ~ L ~; ~ ~ ~h ~ . { ~y~~y. yr y~ttE L .: ~ r~~R *,s~ ~ . z "~~. ,~ ~ x~ act :ir~ . ?~~<-~f ~ .f +~~~ y, c, t „~ x433.' L `- "~~ ~ ° i r `~ R ~SS! "p t ..11LYM ~{' N d ~ `~. r ~ e i'~ ~~,~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . is ~~ hN - 1 • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Acknowledgements 1. General Building Location ~ 2. Assessment by Occupancy Group Adult Probation Circuit Court Clerk of Circuit Court • Clerk of General District Court Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Commonwealth Attorney Court Services Unit General District Court ~ Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Sheriff 3. General Building Assessment ~ 4. Summary 5. Recommendations 6. Options • Addenda Engineer's Report Floor Plans • 1• 1• PAGE NUMBER 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 10 11 13 14 15 20 1• I• I• I• I• I• li I• I• I• 1• ~~ Acknowledgements MarshWitt Associates, P.C. would like to acknowledge the time, effort, and consideration of the following individuals who made this report possible: Judge Ferguson, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge Harris, General District Court Judge Willett, Circuit Court Gerald Holt, Sheriff Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney Steve McGraw, Clerk of Circuit Court Theresa Childress, Clerk of General District Court Ruth Bates, Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Mike Lazzuri, Court Services Unit Special thanks to Sheriff Holt, Steve McGraw, and John Krista who went above and beyond the call to answer questions and provide documentation and other assistance. Your help is greatly appreciated. 2 I• I• I• Is I• I! L 1. General Building Location The Roanoke County Courthouse is located at the corner of Main Street and Thompson Memorial Drive (Route 311), in Satem. The complex of buildings consists of a two story Courthouse building split into two distinct wings at ground level by a central covered entry fronting on Main Street. The east wing is nearest to Thompson Memorial Drive, the parking lots, and the Sheriffs headquarters, a small building set to one side of the parking area. The west wing at the opposite end of the complex is nearest the old County Courthouse and houses the General District and Circuit courtrooms. The County Jail, asix-story structure, runs parallel and behind the Courthouse building. The buildings are arranged generally around a central exterior courtyard. Parking for staff and the public is provided to the east of the Courthouse and across Thompson Memorial Drive. Additional parking is available curbside on Main Street. Site currently provides approximately 50 parking spaces on the grounds and 40 additional spaces in the leased parking lot across Thompson Memorial . The Courthouse building has a total floor area of 65,500 square feet on two levels. First floor has 30,200 square feet; the second, 35,300 square feet. All space in the building is fully occupied at the time of this report. At present, the building houses the following ten tenant groups: East Wing: Clerk of the Circuit Court Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Court Services Unit Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court I• I• I• ~~ West Wing: Adult Probation Circuit Court Clerk of the General District Court Commonwealth Attorney General District Court The Sheriffs Department occupies posts in both wings and in the Annex. 3 I• 2. Assessment by Occupancy Group ~ 2.1 Adult Probation The Adult Probation Unit is located in the west wing of the Courthouse complex on the second floor. The offices are adjacent to the courtrooms and the Commonwealth Attorney's offices. Space is fully occupied at the time of this report housing a staff of probation ~ officers and some storage. Space is approximately 300 square feet. Exact space needs of this department are unknown as they were not interviewed as part of this report. The department is in the building largely because space was available for their use in the building and to serve the convenience of the • Court. However, as a State agency, it is not the direct responsibility of Roanoke County to provide space for their use in the Courthouse. As such, it is recommended that they vacate their space in the building to better serve other needs of the County. 2.2 Circuit Court Circuit Court is located on the second floor of the west wing of the Courthouse complex. Space is used by the Court for judges chambers, toilet and conference rooms, hearing rooms, jury rooms, attorney and other waiting rooms, and bailiff work spaces. Three courtrooms are located centrally in the space accessible to the public and by secured corridor to the circuit judges. Total space occupied by the Circuit Court is 7,800 square feet. All space available to the Circuit Court is fully occupied at this time. Space is adequate to handle current staffing levels with all members of the Court having space. Only the area serving the judges is at this time pressed for space. The offices of Judge Koontz occupy areas on both this floor and on the first floor below. The first floor space is being used by Judge Koontz's legal clerk. As this uses all available space on the second floor located along the secure corridor serving the judges, there is no space for expansion or for the inclusion of an additional judge if so required. The request for additional storage space or for the construction of a judge's library cannot be addressed based on these identified space constraints. There do not appear to be any problems with space utilization at this time nor in the near future. However, if the Circuit Court `s case load grows and warrants the addition of another judge, the existing space will be inadequate to handle that person. Space would be required at that time for an office, conference room, and robe room for the new position. In light of the current configuration of space and the need for special security in this area, this may prove difficult to provide. 4 i• 2.3 Clerk of Circuit Court ~ Clerk of Circuit Court is located on the second floor of the east wing of the Courthouse complex. Space is used primarily for staff offices and work spaces and for a considerable amount of files storage, court records, and other legal documents. The documents stored are used by both the Court and the public, are used regularly, and require ease of access. Additional storage files space for the Clerk of Circuit Court is located in one storage room on the first floor of the ~ Courthouse's east wing directly below their second floor operation. The Clerk of Circuit Court is adjacent to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in the east wing. I• Total space used by the Clerk of Circuit Court is 6,784 square feet. Space within the Clerk of Circuit Court is utilized for staff office and work space, in hard-walled offices and systems partitions, a central counter and waiting area, and a considerable amount of space devoted to files storage, both paper and film media. Several peripheral spaces are present including a conference room, toilet facilities, and microfilm processing room. A separate room on the first floor is used for additional files and general storage. The primary function of the Clerk of Circuit Court and its major space programming issues are both tied to the same items: document storage and ~ access. The Clerk of Circuit Court by the very nature of the work is responsible for processing, filing, storing, accessing and archiving a considerable volume of documents. The difficulty lies in providing sufficient storage of these documents as well as providing ease of access. ~ Exacerbating the problem is the length of time that many of these records are required to be maintained. If the files were limited to those of current usage and short duration retainage, file turnover would accommodate most filing needs with limited need for additional file storage space. This is not the case. Many of the files are required to be stored indefinitely with no plan for destruction after any predetermined time frame. • This digression from the main body of this report is important as the matter of files and document storage for the Courthouse and for other agencies and departments of the County will prove to be an increasing and considerable problem in years to come, and may warrant additional investigation. • At present, the Clerk of Circuit Court has plans for the installation of a mobile filing unit which significantly reduces the necessary floor area required for document retention and access. However, the placement of the unit may be problematic based on the loads introduced to the building structure by this filing ~ system. It is one of considerable size and was not planned for in the original 5 • i• structural parameters of the building. An independent study of the structural findings is an integral part of this report. ~ The space is adequate for meeting the present staffing needs of the department. Though some staff growth is anticipated, it can be accommodated through reconfiguring the existing space plan. Most projected growth will be the attendant file burden tied to increased case loads of the Circuit Court. ~ Current space need is to restore the existing conference room to its original intended function. The space is currently acting as small conference room, staff work area, court evidence storage vault, and overflow storage. It also acts as a lunch room for the Clerk's staff. • No additional space needs have been identified for inclusion at this time. 2.4 Clerk of General District Court The Clerk of the General District Court occupies 1,539 square feet of floor space on the first floor of the west wing of the Courthouse complex. Offices run along ~ and parallel to the Main Street side of the building. Adjacent to the Clerk's spaces are the General District Courts, the judges' chambers, and other limited access office and storage areas. Serving as a support function to the General District Court, the Clerk serves a ~ function analogous to that of the Clerk of Circuit Court. That function is the processing, filing, storage, and archiving of Court related records and documents. Though file volume is considerable, especially as the case load is constantly increasing, it is not to the same scale factor as that present or anticipated by the Clerk of Circuit Court. ~ The installation of the mobile file storage unit in the confines of the Clerk of General District Court's space does much to address current filing needs as well as that of the immediate future. As with other installations, it has done much to recapture space otherwise lost to circulation. • Staffing has changed over the past five years to include three new positions. Space was available for the new positions and is presently configured to permit future staff growth. At this time, staff growth is predicted to be only one or possibly two more positions in the next five years. Current plans are for the Clerk of General District Court to vacate her office to allow it to be used by new staff as ~ they are hired. Her own office will be relocated into the judges zone immediately adjacent to the Clerk's department. This will require that the deputies of the Clerk of General Circuit Court handle more of the daily routine functions as the traffic flow would otherwise require constant access to the Clerk in the secure judge's area. • s • All space currently available to the Clerk is fully occupied and adequate for present space needs. Other than the need to provide for the anticipated changes • in staff and for increased filing needs, some of which have been met by the new filing system, no additional space needs have been identified. 2.5 Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court The Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is currently located on the first floor of the east wing of the Courthouse complex. Services provided by the • Clerk are to the Courts located on the second floor of the same wing and also tied to the Court Services Unit located adjacent to the Clerk's space on the first floor. The Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court currently occupies 1,889 square feet of space. • The function of the Clerk is to support the functions of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Clerk acts as a center for processing and filing of all records of the Court, a duty which has expanded considerably in recent years due to the tremendous increase in case volume of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. • Of all tenants of the building, the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is the most pressed for additional space. The space currently occupied by the Clerk is pushed well beyond its capacity to house department staff, provide work and counter space, and to store files in an orderly and retrievable fashion. The ~ space is so congested that it disrupts normal workflow of the department. At the present time, file storage in the circulation path constitutes a safety hazard and is a violation of the Virginia state fire prevention code. • Hallways and aisles are clogged with files that have no other space available for storage. The front counter area can only be reached by two clerks at this time in spite of the fact that at peak hours all clerks may be required to work at the counter area. All file storage spaces are fully occupied at this time. Files are purged as allowed ~ by record retention policies and procedures, but the increased volume of files processed and stored outstrips the capacity of the spaces to handle it. The existing conference room serves several different functions as has been the case with most other conference spaces throughout the building. The conference • room acts as small conference room, file storage, lunch room, and computer work station for Judge Trompeter. Current staff is expected to increase within the next few years to include one additional staff person. This addition will bring the total number of clerk and staff ~ to six. As the present space is inadequate to handle its functional requirements, it is inconceivable that the space could handle additional staff members unless the • i• department is able to secure additional space to meet its needs elsewhere in the building. ~ 2.6 Commonwealth Attorney The Commonwealth Attorney's offices are located in the west wing of the Courthouse complex on the second floor. The offices are adjacent to the courtrooms and the Adult Probation offices. Space is used for the Attorney's staff, multi-purpose conference room, storage space, and witness investigators. ~ A clerical area is located near a small waiting area. The suite of offices occupies approximately 1,659 square feet. With the space presently available, the Commonwealth's Attorney is able to house all of his 10 person staff on site. Office space is adequate but not • generous. Attorneys have small offices that necessitate the use of the conference room for any and all meetings as the offices are not large enough to seat more than three people. All of the space currently available is fully occupied and to capacity. No spaces ~ are vacant at the time of this report. Immediate concerns are for filing and common conferencing space. Available storage space is beyond intended capacity and is now a safety hazard. In some cases stepstools are required to reach stacked files. In spite of conscious efforts to purge files and use of the Kessler Mill Facility for long-term storage, on-site storage continues to be a problem. The common conference room serves several distinct functions, any one of which renders it unusable by others at the same time. It functions as the only ~ meeting space, kitchen/lunch room, child room, court video room, and library available to the staff. Future staff projections would indicate that the Commonwealth Attorney is unable to provide office space for his staff unless additional space for staff and storage is made available for his use. 2.7 Court Services Unit The Court Services Unit is located in the east wing of the Courthouse complex on the first floor. It is immediately adjacent to the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the only other tenant of the floor. The Court Services Unit • provides screening, diagnostic, .and treatment services for the citizens of Roanoke County who come under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Court Services Unit works as an extension of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Then office currently enjoys certain advantages in having its operation adjacent to both the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic ~ Courts and to the Courts and Court Officers. There has been a need expressed to maintain the close physical relationship of the Court Services Unit to the ~~ Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Other departments provide documents and evidence to their respective Courts, but only with the Court Services Unit are ~ staff members routinely part of the actual court proceedings. Having probation officers and the psychologist immediately available minimizes delay of court proceedings and the Court's considerable case docket. At the present time, the Court Services Unit is the only known tenant in the building that is unable to house all of its staff in the Courthouse . There is not ~ sufficient space available to meet their staffing needs. Of its 18 member staff, five are located full time offsite and are required to travel to the Courthouse to perform their duties to the Courts. The Court Services Unit currently occupies 3,500 square feet in the Courthouse • complex. They also occupy an additional 550 square feet of space in the Salem Bank Building at the corner of College and Main Street and related office space for the City of Salem in the Salem Courthouse. Not only is the Courthouse unable to meet the Court Services Unit's current ~ staffing needs, it is also unable to provide sufficient workspace, conferencing space, and file storage space. Several programs that would be handled through the Court Services Unit cannot be provided at this time due to lack of available space. ~ Peculiar to the Court Services Unit is the actual configuration of the meeting spaces. Certain internal room arrangements are conducive to certain meeting types but not appropriate for different uses. Ideally, this would require additional and distinct meeting rooms to respond to the different uses. At present, the one conference room is utilized for all meeting purposes of the ~ department which precludes the concurrent use of the space by others. This has caused a major problem in scheduling the use of the space as many of the participants are citizens who can ill afford a loss of income to attend meetings during daytime working hours. The space itself is not sufficiently large enough to handle many of the meetings that are held with as many as 20 to 25 people • present. Based on all current projections, the Court Services Unit can expect to add four more staff members (state employees) within the next five years. As there is not sufficient space to house the current staff, it is unrealistic to expect that the space will be able to address this staff increase and the peripheral work space that these staff members will require. For optimal functioning of the Unit, additional space for storage, copier, and conferencing need to be allocated for both present and future space needs. J 2.8 General District Court General District court is located on the first floor of the west wing of the building. ~'~ ~ The space is immediately adjacent to the building's entrance vestibule and to the Clerk of General District Court. Space is provided for three courtrooms, judges' chambers, conference rooms, robe rooms, hearing rooms, holding cells, conference rooms, law library, attorney's lounge, and toilet facilities. General District Court fully occupies all ~ 6,774 square feet provided for its use in the Courthouse complex. The General District Court has jurisdiction over cases pertaining to traffic violations, violations of City and Municipal codes of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, City of Salem, and Town of Vinton. It also has jurisdiction over criminal • matters and civil matters to $15,000. There do not appear to be any problems with space utilization at this time. Though the space is adequate to meet the present needs of the General District Court and its officers, it has reached its practical limit. With future projections for ~ case dockets, additional space will be required to handle increased case volume and the increased pedestrian traffic flow in and about the courtrooms. In light of the current configuration of space, and the need for special security in this area, this may prove difficult to provide. ~ The increased case volume is especially true of the traffic violations handled by the Court. Of the 33,104 cases heard in the General District Court, 24,813 were matters relating to traffic violations. This volume is important to note insofar as it indicates a direct impact on overall building usage, traffic flow, building security and extraordinary parking needs. ~ An immediate concern is the need for additional space in Courtroom Two where the traffic cases are heard. Space is not of sufficient size to handle the number of individuals present for their appearance on the court docket. The waiting area outside of the courtrooms becomes congested with a significant amount of noise. Noise is audible in the Courtroom spaces and becomes a distraction to Court • proceedings. At the time of this report, there was no indication of any changes in the staffing level of the Court officers, nor of requirements for additional spaces to serve the needs of the General District Court. J 2.9 Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court is located in the east wing of the Courthouse Complex on the second floor where it occupies 5,835 square feet. All space is currently occupied with no space vacant for other purposes. 10 On the second floor, it is adjacent to the Clerk of Circuit Court. All staff and spaces tied to the functions of the Court, namely the Court Services Unit and the ~ Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, are located on the first floor of this same wing. At the present time, space is adequate for the needs of the Court but is not conducive to work processing. Several sources noted the inconvenience of the upstairs/downstairs relationship of the three related groups which is unique to this group in the building. One of the court officers of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has gone so far as to prepare all paperwork in the conference space of the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. This allows the officer to better access to staff of that department and files currently processed and stored in that department. • No immediate space concerns were noted at this time specifically for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and its Court officers. Several concerns were expressed regarding the space issues and functionings of the related departments stated elsewhere in this report. • Possible new directions in the nature of the Court itself could significantly affect the nature and the volume of the caseload and future space constraints. This would occur if the Court was to be expanded into a family relations court, which as a court of record would see a tremendous increase in case load and ~ other attendant requirements. At this time, however, the future nature of the Court remains unclear. 2.10 Sheriff The Sheriffs department is located primarily in a detached structure (the Annex) ~ located to the east of the Courthouse complex. All space available to the Sheriff in the Annex is fully occupied. Though the location of offices and work spaces are in that facility, the workings of the Sheriff and his staff occur in the Courthouse and the County Jail. • In the 2,000 square feet of the Annex, the Sheriff has assigned space for storage, a conference room, Process Servers' office, small entry foyer and receptionist's station, clerical work stations, offices for senior staff, and several staff spaces that are shared quarters for the Sheriffs deputies. ~ The space allocated to the Sheriffs Department is inadequate to provide sufficient staff office space, workspace, and storage to meet the present needs of the Department. The spaces are inadequate not only in number but in actual square footage of usable space. This situation is all the more problematic as the Department is, in general, understaffed. Space needs would be considerably ~ greater were it fully staffed to meet all the requirements placed upon it to provide 11 necessary safety and security to the Courthouse, County Jail, and other primary responsibilities. The overcrowding is somewhat alleviated by the development of space throughout the Courthouse for use by bailiffs. Workspace for the Sheriff's staff is in most cases adjacent to the areas served. A room is provided on the second floor of the west wing outside the judges' security area, convenient to both the judges' chambers and to the courtrooms of the Circuit Court. A similar adjacency occurs at the far end of the west wing on the first floor. Here, a room is utilized by the Sheriff at the end of the judges' corridor serving the General District Court. A workstation is provided at the counter of the Clerk of General District Court for use by the Sheriff. • At the present time, the Sheriff has a request for an additional six personnel in the near future to serve the increased needs in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the General District Court and the requirements for an additional two positions to man a centralized security post at the two main entrances of the Courthouse. Two other positions are requested to allow for adequate staffing • based on a shift relief factor which accounts for training, sick leave, and annual leave. Without the development of additional space, these additional needs cannot be met in the existing structure. If however, modifications to the building envelope could be made, a centralized security zone could be created that would address the needs for increased security while minimizing staff requirements. • This central security zone would be created by enclosing the central atrium. The most immediate concern of the Sheriffs department is the need for greater security throughout the Courthouse complex, and an acute awareness of the Sheriffs department concerning impediments to providing security and safety to all users of the Courthouse. This need for increased security was corroborated ~ by an independent study conducted by the U.S. Marshals Service in April 1989. At the time of this report, no implementation or correction to any of the findings of that study have been made. The impediments to security and public safety include the fractured architectural nature of the buildings, multiple points of entry, no centralized zone employing weapons detection technology, and the expanded • need by all Courts in the Courthouse for bailiffs based on extraordinary increases in caseload. The need for additional and more consistent security, by whatever means, cannot be overly stressed. The building's security is a study in contradictions. ~ Certain sections of the building are under tight security, notably access to the judges' chambers of all Courts and to the Courtrooms themselves. Light security, if any, is provided throughout most of the public spaces of the building. It can be demonstrated that the spaces of six of the building's tenants, in various locations in the building, can be entered without encountering any type of weapons ~ detection equipment or security whatsoever. 12 i• Exterior security is an extension of the interior condition. Where court officers are under tight security within the building envelope, they are in a vulnerable and ~ totally unprotected condition while still on the site, specifically in the parking lot. Parking lot signage specifically identifies them and puts them in close proximity to the sidewalk and roadway at the border of the Courthouse property. This is the same area that most defendants and other visitors to the Courthouse must transverse in order to reach their parking areas across Thompson Memorial Drive. • Through developing and defining a central security zone, several of the space and security issues of the Sheriffs department can be addressed. This could best be accomplished by enclosing the open atrium/breezeway space of the Courthouse complex. This recommendation to enclose the central area is not • new to this report and has been the subject of a previously submitted capital improvement request endorsed by the Circuit Court, Clerk of Circuit Court and the Sheriff's Department. ~ 3. General Building Assessment Though convenience to files and staff is a theme that is repeatedly stressed by all tenants of the building in regard to the timely and effective performance of their routine duties, it is curious to note that the building is the most obvious violation of this expressed need. Though the major portions of the building are on ~ the same site and proximate to each other, they are not truly connected. Though initially constructed as an architectural design consideration, it results in a sizable waste of space at the center of the building complex and a separation of functions. This would not he of major import were it not for its impact on building operational costs, custodial expenses, security, and interior space limitations. ~ This significant loss of space at the building's central atrium could be recaptured and utilized were it to be enclosed. There is a considerable lists of benefits were this to be accomplished, addressing all of the aforementioned concerns. A cursory examination of the heating and cooling issues of the building would • indicate that there is a considerable loss of heating and cooling of the structure during their respective seasons. The major cause of this is the excessive amount of air infiltration occurring at the building's entrances. During the heating season, cold air can be felt penetrating the Courthouse as far as 50 feet into the building envelope. (As the first floor and second floor of the west wing are not isolated, ~ any air infiltration affects all conditioned air in common spaces of the building.) Though revolving doors have been provide on both wings of the Courthouse, presumably acting as main access to the building, the side doors flanking these revolving doors on both wings handle most of the pedestrian traffic. On five separate occasions, fewer than one in five people were observed using the 13 r i• revolving doors. Those this is by no means conclusive evidence of actual long- term utilization, there is a high probability that this is typical throughout the year. ~ Much to the detriment of the function of the courts, the central space and specifically the waiting areas immediately outside of the courtrooms are very live acoustically, presenting a problem when courts are in session. As all of these waiting areas and corridors are hard walled enclosures of metal, ~ glass, and masonry, noises are amplified and reverberated owing to the poor acoustic properties of these materials. The large planar surfaces also contribute to noise propagation. There are no materials present in these areas that would act in any fashion to attenuate the noise levels. • There are two other areas of concern in the building envelope that will be mentioned here, as they are appropriate to this section, but are covered in greater detail in other sections of this report. These are security and the building's wall cracking and settlement. The overall security of the courthouse complex is poor and is treated in the Sheriffs section of this report. Building ~ cracking is covered in the Structural Engineer's report. The building`s exterior is in good condition. Only the cosmetic/aesthetic nature of the central courtyard is in any real need of improvement. The central corridor running from east to west between the Courthouse and the Jail is cold, stagnant, ~ and lifeless. It presents itself as a harsh and distant environment, one that could be converted into a space that would center the complex and create a more "user friendly" environment. At present, it is no more than a wide sidewalk paying homage to concrete and a few trees. As the nature of work performed at the Courthouse and Jail are quite serious and the expressed form of the architectur% quite severe, an attempt to balance the scales is in order. • A major problem is the lack of available parking on the site. Parking is not adequate to handle the building's occupants, let alone the public who come to use the Courthouse facilities or to appear in Court. The use of overFlow parking across Thompson Memorial Drive to handle the parking need is at best ashort- term solution. The increased case dockets of the courts and the increased pedestrian and vehicular flow will soon outstrip the capability of existing lots and curbside parking. 4. Summary Briefly, the investigation of the Courthouse complex revealed that the building tenants fell into one of three conditions: The space of the Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and the Clerk of General District Court are fully developed, and generally adequate for the present needs of the occupants and for those needs 14 E: in the near future. Short-term solutions may be addressed through changes in current space configurations. ~ The Clerk of Circuit Court and the Commonwealth Attorney are both in need of additional space, both to meet current needs and those in the near and distant future. Their spaces are fully developed and occupied with no space internal to their operation still available for expansion. ~ The Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Court Services Unit currently occupy space in the Courthouse that is completely inadequate to meet their present needs and any projections for space requirements in the future. Their current space situations in the building have a negative impact on the functioning of their departments. The space available to each group does not • provide adequate room for staff, work areas, conference/meeting areas, or files and general storage. The correction of their space deficiencies should be a high priority. Second, the investigation revealed that future growth of all tenants over the next ~ ten years will be beyond the capacity of the existing Courthouse structure to provide. This growth is especially true of files and file storage due to constantly increasing case dockets of the Courts. Third, that building security, due to present building architectural configuration, is ~ poor and stretches the current resources of the Sheriffs department to provide security and safety to building occupants and visitors to the site. Fourth, that the building exhibits a need for rebalancing of HVAC systems; monitoring of structural cracking; and correction of moisture penetration at windows, ceilings, and roof. • Fifth, that site parking, both on the grounds of the Courthouse and in the immediate areas of the Courthouse is totally inadequate to meet present and future needs. • 5. Recommendations Based on interviews with building residents and the resultant assessment of the current space utilization of the building, several recommendations should be considered. These recommendations address current staff and space needs, projected needs, and building inadequacies. There is no established order of precedence for the recommendations as that is a matter for the County's Board of Supervisors. Their vision and direction for the Courthouse complex will determine future planning and implementation. For the most part, the recommendations fall into one of several major categories: • 15 The first of these is the removal of select tenant groups or functions from the building to be relocated to other buildings and facilities off-site. As there are no ~ spaces in the building that are vacant at the time of this report, the only means to provide additional space in the building is to eliminate tenants to allow the other remaining tenants to expand into the vacated space. Though some additional space can be found within existing tenant spaces through changes in current space use, it will provide only limited short-term relief to space congestion. It will not prove adequate to address projections for future staff growth and space ~ needs. The second category addresses the relocation of building tenants within the building to improve space usage and departmental functions. In most cases, this involves the expansion of existing tenants into previously occupied adjacent • spaces. This will allow for the growth of a particular tenant with minimal disruption to other tenants in the building. The next category is the correction of space deficiencies within any tenant group by alterin tq he space usage within that group's current space. These are ~ changes in internal space planning that do not require additional space in the building. These changes will facilitate the operation or functionality of the group. Having higher initial cost considerations. this category addresses modifications to the building envelope itself to improve space utilization. This would be achieved ~ primarily through the reconfiguration of the central atrium space of the Courthouse complex, enclosing the central courtyard and physically tying all three wings into one unified weather tight enclosure. The next category relates to the exterior site and its inadequacies in providing proper support to the building's internal functions and activities. • Though they were not originally included as part of the scope of work of the space needs assessment, several matters concerning the building's systems and structure were repeatedly mentioned or noted during the examination of the physical spaces. As they affect the occupants of the spaces and are some cause r for concern, they are noted here with recommendation for potential corrective action. They would otherwise be conspicuous through their absence from this report. Specific recommendations for the building complex are: • 1. That the Adult Probation offices and function be moved to another facility. The function and operation of this tenant is not one supported by the County as it is an agency of the Commonwealth. Its owes its presence in the building to a previous need for convenience and accessibility by the courts. As such is no ~ longer the case, it is an unnecessary burden to the County to provide space and 16 I• incur building operational expenses, especially in light of more pressing needs of the County in this building complex. • The space could then be made available for use by the Commonwealth Attorney's office that is adjacent to the space in the west wing of the building complex. As the space is presently configured for use by Adult Probation, it will not meet the space needs of the Commonwealth Attorney and will require internal modification and wall movements to meet the Attorney's space • requirements both for immediate needs and projected growth. 2. That the Court Services Unit be relocated to another facility off-site, but one which is immediately accessible to the Courthouse complex. This recommendation is not as clear cut as in the first case with Adult Probation. '~ • There is considerable argument and justification for maintaining Court Services as a tenant in the Courthouse as there is direct involvement of Court Services staff in Court proceedings. The same argument for convenience and immediacy of need is used by other tenants of the building to justify accessibility between different functional areas in the building. This argument is only valid for access • to documents, evidence, files and records, not for direct staff involvement. However, Court Services is one of the few tenants of the building that could be relocated. It is important to note and should be stressed that their relocation to another facility would be a marked inconvenience to the Domestic and Family ~ Relations Court. Its physical isolation would impede Court proceedings and introduce delays into the Court's considerable case docket. The prime determinant recommending the relocation of Court Services is that its present space is woefully inadequate to meet its current or projected space needs and staffing requirements. Its needs, both short-term and long range, cannot be met in the Courthouse complex. • 3. That the Commonwealth Attorney's office space be expanded into the existing space of the Adult Probation unit. As was stated earlier in this report, the Attorney's Office has no available storage space, utilizes the conference area for far too many operations, and has no room for current or anticipated staffing ~- needs. 4. That the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Court expand into the now adJoining Court Services space on the first floor. The relocation of the Court Services Unit out of the Courthouse complex will affect the immediacy of response of that ~ group to the needs of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and its officers. However, it will also allow for the expansion of the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court into the vacated space and provide additional staff, storage and workspace for their operation. The space currently occupied by Court Services is adjacent to the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations and ,~ shares common circulation corridors and elevators. Expansion of the Clerk's space into that presently occupied by Court Services can be performed with 17 • I• I• I• I• I• I• I• [~ I• minimal reconfiguration of the existing rooms and storage areas. In light of the extensive and increasing files storage needs of the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, recommendation is given to installation of a mobile filing system similar to that in operation in the Clerk of General District Court's spaces and now proposed for the Clerk of Circuit Court. 5 Specific space needs of the Circuit Court fudges should be further investigated. Excessive space requirements limit inclusion of another judge's quarters. At present, Judge Koontz occupies space on both the first and second floors. Those on the second floor are for his office, toilet facilities, conference room, and secretary. Space on the first floor is provided for his law clerk. Unfortunately, this limits the ability of the complex to provide space for an additional Circuit Court judge as there is no other secure space available in the vicinity of the courtrooms. 6. Enclose and reconfigure the central courtyard space. By enclosing and reorienting the central courtyard and the building's Main Street entrance, a variety of building space issues could be effectively addressed. It would tie together the two wings of the Courthouse complex and the Jail. Though they are in close physical proximity to each other, they are not at present connected as one integral facility. It would create a centralized security area or zone that would maximize building security while minimizing the Sheriff's staff requirements. Fewer and more sophisticated weapons detection equipment could be installed in the common entry that would improve security not only to the Courts and Clerk's offices but to the Jail as well. Enclosing the central area would recapture poorly utilized space and allow for its development to meet interior space needs of the tenants. It would minimize heating and cooling losses at the entrances, thereby lowering building operating expenses. These losses are not only those caused by air infiltration through the building's entrance doors, but also those losses through the floor of the spaces over the Main Street entrance. By enclosing even a portion of the central courtyard, existing exterior walls on the jail and both wings of the courthouse would now be inside the building envelope. Using a double entry or airlock would further reduce heating and cooling losses. It would create a new seating area convenient to, but somewhat removed from, the courtrooms and reduce noise levels transmitted into the courtrooms. The space at present has planters and trees but is used largely as a corridor between different parts of the building complex. With enclosure, a "user friendly" 18 ~• • courtyard could be created that would increase the waiting area serving the Courts and other building functions. ~ ~ 7. Reorient the counter and work zone of the Clerk of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The current counter layout does not allow access to the counter by more than two staff members at a time which impedes work flow at the counter when Court is in session. Recommend that it be reconfigured so that it can be used by all staff members at the same time when conditions warrant. 8 Provide space on the first floor for the mobile filing system of the Clerk of Circuit Courts. Based on the structural engineer's findings, it is not advisable to install the mobile filing system on the second floor of the Courthouse. The loads, both dynamic and static, that it places on the building's structure are a safety • hazard. The floor framing was not designed to handle the considerable loads that the system would create. Though additional framing and support, as recommended by another independent consultant, could be provided that would lend support to the floor, the floor would still be stressed to unacceptable limits. On the ground floor, the mobile filing unit could either be located in the space ~ currently used as overflow storage by the Clerk of Circuit Court or in part of the space vacated by the Court Services Unit. 9 Test and rebalance heating and cooling flow to Circuit and General District Courtrooms. The courtrooms appear to have some problems with maintaining ~ constant temperature, possibly due to the varying number of people occupying the space at any given time. Air infiltration from the open waiting areas outside of the courtrooms is also suspect. HVAC system should be investigated and rebalanced as necessary. ~ 10 Provide incandescent lightingover judges in all courtrooms. Though overhead fluorescent lighting provides adequate general lighting levels in all of the courtrooms spaces, the lighting over the judges at the front of the courtrooms is not acceptable for reading and review of documents and evidence by the court officers. Recommend the installation of high wattage incandescent lighting as task lighting in these areas. • 11 Conduct a space analysis of the Kessler Mill storage facility. The subject of Kessler Mill, known as "the Cage", occurred during the course of this investigation and one previously conducted for the County at the County `s Administration Building near Starkey Road. Quite simply, no department wants ~ to use Kessler Mill to store anything at all because they feel that it is either not convenient or that anything sent there can be and will be damaged. The storage problems that are symptoms at the different facilities all point back to the perceived problem which is the Kessler Mill Facility. If a central facility were available for storage and other purposes, the space inadequacies in other ~ County buildings could be reduced. This would eliminate or at least minimize the 19 ~• County's need to lease or build new facilities. An investigation of the Kessler Mill Facility to determine its current status and utilization is indicated. ~ 12. Move the Sheriffs office from the annex building into the Courthouse building. Although the Sheriffs administrative office is currently located in the annex building, most of the daily function occurs in the jail and court related operations. After removing the Court Service Unit from the Courthouse building, there should be adequate space to move the Sheriffs operation into the ~ Courthouse building. The Sheriff will be closer to the security issues and in closer proximity to the operations. 6. Options • Based on the space needs assessment, which includes both the immediate, short-term, and long-range projections of the building's tenants, certain options present themselves for consideration. Though the study had an architectural/ space needs orientation, the options are presented in order of increasing costs. f, These costs range from those associated with the simple expedient of relocating tenants outside and within the building envelope, to those where the expansion of the envelope and the site in general are considered. They are also indicative of relative need over time. Where the first options handle ~ the needs of the present, the later options are more future oriented, taking a proactive stance toward future functional requirements of Roanoke County. Option A Move specified tenants out of the building Expand remaining tenants into the space made available ~ Provide space for Circuit Court mobile filing system on the first floor Provide space for Juvenile Court mobile filing system on the first floor Bring Sheriff into Courthouse Building Approximate Cost: $135,000 ~ Option B Move specified tenants out of the building Expand remaining tenants into the space made available Provide space for Clerk of Circuit Court mobile filing system on the first floor Provide space for Juvenile Court mobile filing system on the first floor ~ Bring Sheriff into Courthouse Building Enclose Central Atrium/breezeway Create Central Security Zone Approximate Cost: $305,000 ~ Option C Move specified tenants out of the building 20 • • Expand remaining tenants into the space made available Provide space for Clerk of Circuit Court's mobile filing system on the first floor ~ Provide space for Juvenile Court mobile filing system on the first floor Bring Sheriff into Courthouse Building Enclose Central Atrium/breezeway Create Central Security Zone Build two-story parking deck to east of County Jail Approximate Cost: $705,000 • Option D Move specified tenants out of the building Expand remaining tenants into the space made available Provide space for Clerk of Circuit Court's mobile filing system on the first floor +! Bring Sheriff into Courthouse Building Enclose Central Atrium/breezeway Create Central Security Zone Build two-story parking deck to east of County Jail Build Four-story Courthouse addition on-site at corner of Thompson and Main ~, Two floors for office and administrative use 30,000 sf Two floors parking 30,000 sf Full storage basement 15,000 sf Relocate one entire Court Function to new Addition Approximate Cost: $5,325,000 7. Structural Engineer's Reports I• [, [~ 21 ~ Consultin En ineers, PLLC D Day-Williams g g W 3239 Electric Road P.O.Box 20187 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone (540) 774-5706 Fax (540) 772-3266 Eric W. Day, P.E. James F. Kinder, Jr., P.E. December 30, 1997 Mr. Barry L. Marsh ~ MarshWitt Associates, P.C. 4656 Brambleton Avenue P.O. Box 21193 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 . Re: Roanoke County Courthouse Masonry Cracks -Courts Wing Comm. No. 97348 Dear Barry • On Monday December 22, 1997 I accompanied you to the Roanoke County Courthouse for the purpose of visually inspecting masonry wall cracks. The areas in question are located on the second floor at courtrooms 6 and 7 and the stairwell on the east end of the building. The masonry walls in question are located on column lines 10, 11, 11.3, and 12.4 • between column lines B and C and the masonry wall behind courtrooms 6 & 7 south of column line B. These walls are supported by the second floor framing which is typically composite construction. The walls are showing signs of varying degrees of vertical movement as evidenced by the numerous cracks. The cracks for the most part are located within the mortar joints running in a stair stepping fashion. ~ We have rechecked a typical floor beam for the design dead and live loads and have found that the total deflection for the beams supporting the masonry walls exceeds .3 inches which is th~ upper limit for beams supporting masonry construction by the current code. Masonry construction is sensitive to vertical deflections and will crack in the manner seen if differential movements become excessive. It is likely that the majority of the cracks seen are ~ the result of beam deflection as indicated by our calculations. Another possible contributing factor could be differential settlements of the building foundations in this area. The stairstepping cracks in the masonry walls of the east stairwell are most likely the result of differential foundation settlement. I would recommend that the cracks at the court areas and the stairwell be monitored by ~ way of crack gauges. I would suggest that these gauges be installed and monitored on a monthly basis by a local testing company to provide us with information concerning wall movement until a solution for this problem is completed. If you should have any questions /concerns please feel free to give me a call. ~ Sincerely, , James F. Kinder, Jr., P.E. • ~ Consultin En ineers, PLLC D Day-Williams g g W 3239 Electric Road P.O. Box 20187 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone (540) 774-5706 72-3266 Fax (54~) 7 Eric W. Day, P.E. lames F. Kinder, Jr., P.E. December 30, 1997 • Mr. Jim Mihalik MarshWitt Associates, PC P. O. Box 21193 i Roanoke, VA 24018 • Re: Roanoke County Court House -File loadings Commission No. 97-348 Dear Jim: We have completed our review of the second floor framing in the area of the proposed Mobile Storage System, as well as a general load determination for the existing composite steel floor system. These reviews were based on the original structural drawings prepared by VVKR, dated September 28, 1982. With regards to the specific proposed Mobile Storage System, we have reviewed the calculations provided by Durrant Engineers under their cover letter of December 22, 1997. The following items were considered during our review. • 1. The use of a posted "File Storage Access Area" may meet the intent of the code, but long term enforcement of this loading restriction may prove to be impractical. The tendency to temporarily stack materials in this area during filing operations should be considered. 2. The calculations provided by Durrant Engineers for the typical W 14x22 floor beam consider the file load to be present at one end of the beam. Since this is a mobile file ~ system, the floor beams must be checked with the file load centered on the beam span. Our calculations for this condition indicate an overstress of 13 % in the steel beam. 3. The determination of the weight of this file system assumes a weight of material within the files. For this analysis to be accurate it would be necessary to guard against any materials being stored on top of the file system. This may once again be impractical to ~ enforce. • Given these items, we feel that it would not be in the best interest of the Circuit Court to install this Mobile Storage System in this location. • I• With regards to the actual capacity of the existing floor system and the current file loads in the Clerk's office, we have done an analysis of the typical W 14x22 floor beam and the typical W 16x26 exterior floor girder at the second floor. This analysis resulted in a calculated live load capacity of ~ approximately 100 psf. We estimate that the existing drawer type files in use produce a live load of 80 to 100 psf, which should be within the capacity of the floor system. In conclusion, the installation of any concentrated files should be carefully considered when being located within an existing building. Mobile file systems, and even tall drawer type files and shelves, • can easily exceed 100 psf over significant floor areas. Analysis of the existing structure using the original construction documents should also be viewed with some caution, since there is no assurance that the structure was built exactly as shown on the drawings. For this reason it is often good practice not to fully load the existing structure to it's absolute full calculated capacity. ~ Please feel free to call with any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, • fir/. ~ Eric W . Day, P.E. r I• I• I• I• I~ ., • I• I• I• I• I• I• I• I• r 9~~?g? . ~ ~~r~ a ~ ~~x6 ~ ~_ a dixi9ain '~oNVaa ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '_ 1~CfLL5 3~'ddS ~ Q ~ ~,~(IOFlL~If10~ J.LNf10~ ~IOIr'dOSI IS I~ Ila ~ I~ 13 IIx ~~ III I~ ~ ~ 6js'~f " : ~ ~~e - .y i~711fAT7~ia 1~/i /W~I I~// C~IVI~~IVO ~~S ~ d ~ ~a 3 ~ `wia ~ 2 ~~I e_ • • • • • J l J 4 • I• ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ VM19~U/~'~IONr'~ ~ ~ g 9 ~~'~ r 2Sf10HLiIfID~ 1.tl~f10~ ~IONVOiI : # 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ia2 0 ~ ~ u a ;_, __ ~ ,C ~ L 6~ ~ O O ^~ 0 V i 7 O U V ~L +.+ ~ R = i. 6! u c v ~ V 9 ~~ • diHistiU'~voa ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~~ ~+ ~ ,-.~ILS ~7VdS ~ LL 1 a ~ ~~~~ --.. ~ ~IOhLL~Y1071~1Nf I07 ~IOPIVO'~I s i ~ ~ 3 , ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~~ I• I• I• I• I• [: I• 4 ~~ :~ OF AOANp,I-~ ti x Z ~ a ~ z., 1838 (~nun~~ of ~nttnok~e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY li ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMPLEX January 8, 1998 • • C7 The County has utilized the services of MarshWitt Associates, PC, Architects, Value Engineers and Planners to interview the current users of the Courthouse complex. The purpose of their study was to evaluate current conditions, determine current and future needs, and to suggest alternatives to providing the necessary space. The nature and relationships among several of the operations dictate the requirement for the need to be near certain functions. Availability to the general (walk - in) public, concerns of security and records management drive the needs of each of these offices. DEPARTMENTAL OVERVIEW The first twelve (12) pages of the consultant's report represent the conclusions and highlights of their interview with each of the County related departments. This review highlights the space currently occupied, issues and concerns impacting the delivery of services and resultant departmental suggestions for improving the space utilization. GENERAL BUILI,ING ASSESSMENT • Beginning on page thirteen (13), several physical and environmental issues are identified which will require further study. These items include: - balancing of the heating and cooling system (entrance areas as well as internal such as in the courtrooms) n - acoustics and impact on court sessions - cracking and settling of building walls - security >ssues r~ 1 u P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2002 FAX (703) 772-2089 ® Recycled Paper I• parking on the property for employees and users of the courthouse complex • SUMMARY (Consultant's views) Page 14 The consultant has indicated that the space of the Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and the Clerk of the General District Court are fully developed and are generally adequate for the present needs of the occupants and for those needs ~ in the near future. Short-term solutions may be addressed through changes in current space configurations. The Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Commonwealth Attorney are both in need of additional space to meet current and future needs. The space of the Clerk of the Juvenile and ~ Domestic Relations Court is completely inadequate to meet current needs and cries for immediate attention. File management and retention requirements greatly contribute to the space demands of these offices and presents both part of the problem as well as part of the solution. Efficient file ~ systems assist in meeting these needs within the building envelop, yet the need to review the files being maintained on-site will help to relieve some of the crowded conditions and could present other alternatives. Building security, HVAC balancing and Parking issues have been identified as common ~ needs throughout the structure. CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS (Page 15) The Consultant has recommended several possible alternatives to address the identified ~ needs from the user departments. Beginning on Page 20, Options A - D offer a range of alternatives which are progressive in nature which tend to relieve the stresses and needs identified with on associated cost to each. Some of the previous cost estimates obtained by staff to address improvements were not re-evaluated in the scope of the consultant's study. Outlined below are the results of the Consultant's review. • OPTION A - Move specified tenants out of the building - Expand remaining tenants into the space made available ~ - Provide space for the Clerk of the Circuit Court mobile filing system to the first floor. - Provide space and a mobile filing system for the Clerk of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court - Move the Sheriff into the Courthouse Building ~ Cost: $ 135,000 i • OPTION B ~ - Items from Option A $ 135,000 - Enclose Central Atrium/breezeway 150,000 - Create Central Security Zone 20.000 Cost: $ 305,000 ~ OPTION C - Items from Options A & B $ 305,000 - Build two story parking deck (Est 40 spaces) 400,000 Cost: $ 705,000 • OPTION D - Items from Options A, B & C $ 705,000 - Build four-story addition on-site. Two floors of office and admin (30,000 sf @ 90) 2,700,000 ~ Two floors parking (30,000 sf @ 40, rep 80 cars) 1,200,000 Basement (15,000 sf @ 20) 300,000 10% contingency (landscaping, paving, creation) 420.000 Cost: $ 5,325,000 I• STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed these suggestions and offer the following observations. Previously identified costs for tearing down the Guy house and Sheriff annex building of $50,000 must be added to the estimate. 2. The existing parking lot has approximately 50 spaces. We also lease property across Thompson Memorial Drive at $10,000 per year which provides an estimated 40 ~ unmarked spaces. The cost of developing a parking structure is estimated at $10,000 per parking space for planning purposes, depending on the circulation patterns required and the amount of site preparation and foundation required. 3. The lease of space for the Court Service Unit must be provided by the County and there is ~ no reimbursement from the State. The estimated annual cost per sf is $8.70 plus cost for utilities, janitorial, and related expenses. We would need 3,000 - 4,000 sf of new space to address this need on an on-going basis $27,000 - $40,000 annually. n u 3 4. Previous estimates to paint and carpet the courthouse area was $150,000 of which $65,000 is funded in the current fiscal year budget. We will need to supplement the ~ monies from the Courthouse Maintenance Fund to allow this improvement to be made. $85,000 5. Existing structural issues and repairs. These are cosmetic in nature but do not include structural re-engineering to resolve the settling issues. $20,000 ~• 6. The suggestion to enclose the breezeway area to improve the lobby waiting area and improve security does not truly address the issue. This method still requires two security people to protect the ingress -egress to the two main structures of the courthouse complex building. There is no gain of usable office or other space except the aesthetic ~ and acoustic improvement which could help the noise level in the courtrooms. Other security methods should be identified which could provide a single point of access for control. Reduce est $150,000. 7. The sf cost estimates appear to be low and would need to be updated if we proceed with ~ construction projects. 8. The mobile file system suggestion for the Clerk of Circuit Court and Clerk of the J & D Relations Court are cost effective ways to improve space for file retention. Better File Retention Standards (some are governed by the State and are not local option) and a ~ sound file management program will improve the utilization of current or proposed space modifications. CONCLUSIONS i, The basic concept of Option C without the enclosure of the breezeway, the removal of the Guy house and Sheriff Annex building and the balance of the monies to paint, carpet and repair the courthouse would require an estimated $710,000. In addition, we would need to provide $27,000 - 40,000 annually to house the operations ~ of the Court Service Unit in rented facilities which would increase annually. Staff has previously suggested consideration of the acquisition of additional real estate (such as the houses diagonal to ' the courthouse, the Salem Bank and Trust Building, etc.) to meet current and anticipated needs of such offices. This suggestion does not address any of the on-going issues of space for the jail or magistrate (located in the Jail building). The walls are not elastic, and without additional space ~ development, we can do little to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of these offices. r• .~ J Elmer: RE: Retreat at Smith Mountain 4-H I talked with Ann at the 4-H Center and they are available on January 10 and 11. The total price per day would be $47.50 per person. That would include: Saturday -Lunch and Dinner Sunday -Breakfast and Lunch $3.00 per person facility use fee (for meeting room and other facilities) $22.00 per person for the rooms with private baths (2 people sharing a room) If one person stayed in each room it would be much more expense - $40.00 per person. The approximate total cost for 16 people for the weekend would be: ~760.OO~lus ta.~ Let me know what you want me to do next. I'll probably have to let her know pretty soon. ;~ ~ ~ ~ a~ _~-~~~~ Mary A. 12/9/97 /~~ /~ I .~ ~-~~~ ~J~"' r // / /,ly, __ .~f' VVVG~/ ~~ ~(/~~^1~'2~ ~ ~~~~ r. ~ <~ -~~~,,~, ~~ ~//J//// ~~ ~~ / A /G i A,IJ ~ /~ M u Cl` - '~~/ji/i~y G /~~~~ of P~ANO~F ~ ,A ,, ~ Z _`L7 \ 2 v "ate 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 December 18, 1997 Ms. Ann Flint, Group Coordinator Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Educational Center 775 Hermitage Road Wirtz, VA 24184 Dear Ms. Flint: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached are the signed contract and rental agreement and the reservation form for our Board of Supervisors Retreat to be held January 10 and 11, 1998. Also attached is a check for $100 to cover the deposit. I am not sure what audiovisual equipment we may need, but I will contact you closer to the date of the retreat to discuss any needs we may have. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 772-2003. I will be in contact you prior to January 10 to finalize our plans.. Thank you. Sincerely, yJ2~-.~-, y~/. GZc.e~i Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board ® ae~ydea P~ SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE 4-H EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC. CONTRACT AND RENTAL AGREEMENT Whereas Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Educational Center, Inc., here- in-after referred to as the Center, is a non-profit corporation operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and as a part of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service for the purpose of providing educational and recreational facilities to the citizens of South Western Virginia and; Whereas Roanoke County Administration here-in-after referred to as the Client, desires to rent and make use of the Center's facilities on Jan~zary 10 -11, 1998. Now therefore, for considerations received by both parties, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this agreement do hereby agree as follows: 1. The Center will provide the services and facilities specified in the attached reservation form, during the dates and for the rates specified. 2. This contract and Rental Agreement is contingent upon receipt by the Center of a signed copy of this Agreement and a deposit. Time is of the essence as to all dates and times contained in the agreement. 3. The deposit is non-refundable, unless this Agreement is canceled by the Center, in which case the liability of the Center shall be limited to the amount of the deposits paid by the Client. In the event of cancellation by the Client less than 14 days prior to the scheduled event, the Client will be liable for 400 o.f the Total Guarantee (less deposits paid) 4. The guaranteed number expected to attend, (16) is the Client's best estimate at the time of booking. This guarantee may be increased with agreement of the Center or decreased by up to 20% until five working days prior to arrival. In either case, Client shall be liable for the number guaranteed or served, whichever is greater. Any adjustment in the number guaranteed for this reservation must be received by five working days prior to arrival. 5. Client will be financially responsible for repairs and/or replacements to property in and on the Center's facilities which may be damaged by actions of Client's members, guests or visitors beyond the normal use category. -over- Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Educational Center 775 Hermitage Road Wirtz, VA 24184 540-721-2759 RESERVATION FORM Date of Function January 10 - 11, 1998 Contact Name Mary Allen Home Phone ~~~ "~" Li°'~ D 4 Name of Organization Roanoke County Administration Address P.O. Box 29800 Work Phone (540)772-2003 City/State Roanoke. VA Zip Code 24018 Expected Attendance 16 Arrival Times: Coordinators/Group Leaders ~.' c~D Q~x.~ Participants Coordinators wi// be responsib/e for group registration. Departure Date: January 11, 1998 Departure Time: ~f O,~ix-~ To confirm booking, this reservation form must be returned by N/A (Please indicate numher exnPrtPd at each maall with a $100.00 deposit. Food Service Needs Time Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Breakfast 8:00 am 16 Lunch 12 Noon 16 16 Dinner 5:30 pm 16 Brunch Picnic i~--~.u:,t Pig Snack LODGING NEEDS The following Lodge(s) have been reserved for your group. Flora Hancock Skelton Svoboda XX Hepler-Jamison 1 Person per room at $ 40.00 2 Persons per room at $ 3 Persons per room at $ 4 Persons per room at $ 5 Persons per room at $ 6 Persons per room at $ per night. per person per night. per person per night. per person per night per person per night per person per night LINEN: XX Yes No @ $3.50 per person. 12301 ROANOKE COUNTY REVOLVING FUND DEPARTMENT OF -FINANCE P. O. BOX 29800 68-2902: ROANOKE VA. 24018-0798 514 DATE / THE ~ /DD ~~ DER OF .. ~! DO DOLLARS B ~~~ O FIRST VIRGINIA BANK-SOUTHWEST SERVING SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24019-0585 (~ n NP iR ~~lJ -^!' ~~~ ~~ -- ------------ li'000 12..30 L11' ' ~:0 5`l40 290 3~: 00 ~8 7 2 7:911' O~ ROANp,Y~ ti ~ z c> z JJ a~ 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 January 12, 1998 The Honorable John S. Edwards The Honorable Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum The Honorable A. Victor Thomas Dear Senators Edwards, and Trumbo; and Congressmen Griffith, Cranwell, Woodrum, and Thomas: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 011098-1 adopting a Legislative Program for the 1998 Session of the Virginia General Assembly. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their planning meeting on Sunday, January 10, 1998. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ''rta-~-~. -~d ~ Q- Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable Bruce F. Jamerson, Clerk of the House The Honorable Susan Clarke Schaar, Clerk of the Senate Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council Forest Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council James D. Campbell, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission ® Recyded paper O~ ROANp~~ a ti p z ~ ~ z ov a~ 1838 COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE R. WAYNE COMPTON TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: R . WAYNE COMPTON ~~ DATE: January 9, 1998 SUBJECT: AMT. INC. Len DeShano Once again we have been approached by Mr. DeShano with a request that I feel must be answered by the Board. To briefly update you, this is the taxpayer that has requested the legislators to submit a statute to limit gross receipts of employee Leasing companies. He is moving hi.s business to Franklin County. with one exception. His exception and request is to Leave a payroll manager at this Roanoke County location and be forgiven gross receipts tax. He states night blindness and this employee could not travel the distance required at the new Location as the reason for leaving her at this location. NEEDS THIS DECISION BY MONDAY JA1~lUARY .Z2, 1998.. P.O. BOX 20409 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 240 1 8-05 1 3 • (540) 772-2050 ® Recyded Paper b. Vice Chairman FFH MOTION TO NOMINATE HARRY C. NICKENS NO OTHER NOMINATIONS URC 2. Length of Term for Chairman and Vice Chairman BLJ MOTION TO SET TERMS FROM JANUARY 5, 1998 TO JANUARY 4. 1999 AT 4:00 P.M. URC 3. Resolution Establishing Bylaws, Rules of Order and Schedule for Board Meetings in 1998. R-010598-1 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO WITH JOINT MEETINGS WITH ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL REMOVED AND CORRECTIONS TO THE RESO FOR APRIL AND NOVEMBER 18. URC C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution adopting a legislative program for the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly. (Paul Mahoney) CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 16, 1997 BLJ ASKED THAT FUNDING SUPPORT FOR DESTINATION EDUCATION FUNDING AND THE COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES BE ADDED TO THE RESO. BOARD DISCUSSED IN LEGISLATORS MEETING VOTE WILL BE TAKEN ON 1/10/98 AT BOARD PLANNING SESSION WITH RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION a .. ~ I N T E R MEMO CLERK TO THE BOARD O F F I C E To: Gary Robertson, Diane Hyatt, Bill Rand, John Chambliss, Diane Hyatt, Tim Gubala, Brent Robertson, Anne Marie Green, Craig Hatmaker From: Mary H. Allen Subj: Board Retreat -January 10, 11, 1998 Date: December 18, 1997 Attached is a rough draft of the issues that will be discussed at the Board of Supervisors retreat on January 10 and 11, 1998. Elmer would like each of you to prepare aone-page overview and/or update on the issues listed for your department. Please forward the overview to me or Elmer by 8:00 a.m. Monday, January 5, 1998 so copies can be distributed to the Board of Supervisors following their organizational meeting at 9:00 a.m. A specific agenda with times when these issues will be discussed has not been established yet. We will keep you informed when there are more details available about the retreat. CC: Elmer Hodge Paul Mahoney BOARD RETREAT Saturday, January 10, 1997 -Sunday, January 11, 1997 Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center Proposed Items for Discussion 1. Sewer Force Main (Gary Robertson) -Update on construction upgrades to the Roanoke River Interceptor 2. Landfill Update (Diane Hyatt, Bill Rand, John Hubbard) - Commerical pickup - Salem joining RVRA 3. Courthouse Space (John Chambliss) - tear down Guy House and Sheriff s House(?) 4. Schools - Phase I (Diane Hyatt) - where are we? - Debt service - pay out for next 3 years 5. Economic Development (Tim Gubala) - Adams Construction - GlennMary - Valleypointe 6. Parks and Recreation Capital Needs (Brent Robertson, Pete Haislip) 7. Regional Issues (General Discussion) - Landfill -Sale of water to Salem - regional economic development park 8. Budget Issues (Brent Robertson) - Personal Property tax realities - School loss of funds from state - Major objectives - multi-year budget 9. Government Access Channel (TVTV) 10. Year 2000 update. From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO1/ECH > To: "Mary Allen" < ADMO1/MI3A > Date sent: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:26:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Board Retreat From : "Mary Allen" < ADMO 1 /MHA > To : adm01 /ech Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:16:36 +0000 Subject: Board Retreat Several questions about retreat while I think of them since I hope to be on vacation next week. 1. Do all the Board members know when the retreat is? Yes 2. Since you want the reports ready by Jan. 5 from staff, who is going to tell them what to prepare - do you want me to or do you want to. We did that at the meeting last week. We can finalize after todays BOS meeting where we will get suggestions from all BOS. 3. I need to send a deposit and signed contract to th 4-H and I want to do it this week, so I want to make sure the dates and times are final. They are. Go ahead. Let me know. Mary Allen, Clerk to Board 772-2003 Mary Allen -- 1 -- Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:29:17 From: "Mary Hicks" < ADMO1/MEH > To: adm01/mha Date sent: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:35:03 + 0000 Subject: Board retreat ECH would like you to attend a meeting at 4:00 on 12-11 to discuss the January Board retreat. It will be held in the Board's conference room and will last about half an hour. Mary Allen -- 1 -- Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:12:04 ~~- /~ ~~o m ~ ~ ~~ ~ ____ ~,o ~J ~- ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- ~o a o L~~c~~_~ - ~ Cam.--~-~~ ~~-~-~- C~- ~~ C ~~~ r~--a--r--- f ~ ~. ~~~ ~~ ~ c_~--,~-~- ~~ ~~. 3 ~° ~~.~~ ~- o n~ -fa~-~- ~iQ--~ ~~- . Y-zit---- a--~.~ G~-~~ *~ • ~~a~ /~ ____ ~" -- ~ ~ s ~~ rn h ~ _ _, ~mm ~~ ~ ~ i~ ~-7~ ~ ~3 rv~ -f - 7 i rrm ~ ~y ~- `~~-f~ N ____-~ • 7~Y ~- 1/c~ .e_ ~~ r- County o~ F.o~rn©~~, Vir~i~ia ~~voi~rin~ Fund Rei~bur~~ Rc~u~~$ Forma fl-D To: Finance Program Support Specialist Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center Payable To: Deposit for Board of Supervisors Retreat -January 10, 11, 1998 Purpose: Dollar amount requested: $100.00 201000-5540 Account Code 12/ 16/97 ~' Qyc~c.-,/ Department Head Signature Date Advance Date: For Finance Use Only Amount: Due Date: December 18, 1997 Check No: Approved by: Elmer: RE: Retreat at Smith Mountain 4-H I talked with Ann at the 4-H Center and they are available on January 10 and 11. The total price per day would be $47.50 per person. That would include: Saturday -Lunch and Dinner Sunday -Breakfast and Lunch $3.00 per person facility use fee (for meeting room and other facilities) $22.00 per person for the rooms with private baths (2 people sharing a room) If one person stayed in each room it would be much more expense - $40.00 per person. The approximate total cost for 16 people for the weekend would be: X760.00 plus tam Let me know what you want me to do next. I'll probably have to let her know pretty soon. Mary A. 12/9/97 C~ i v _~Q cL -v,..._r-,,u..J , ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ . I N T E R O F F I C E MEMO To: Board of Supervisors J ~ From: Elmer C. Hodge Subject: 1998 Planning Session Date: January 5, 1998 Enclosed is a preliminary agenda for our 1998 planning session on January 10 and 11 at Smith Mountain Lake. After reviewing your suggestions for topics to be covered, Mr. Johnson and I established the attached agenda. We have placed items that were requested by more than one supervisor in the first category. The other topics can be considered for discussion as time permits. Of course, we can amend the agenda at any time if you wish. The staff and I look forward to reviewing these topics with you. This promises to be a great meeting and a productive year. We have planned to check in at 9 a.m. with the meeting to begin at 9:30 a.m to allow time to get settled in your room and for any additional driving time you may need. Listed below is a proposed schedule for the planning session. Directions and a map to the Smith Mountain 4-H Center are also included with this memo. SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1998 9:00 a.m. -Arrival and room check in fWe will be staying at the Helper Jamison Lodge. Each room has a private bath. Your linen and bedding will provided but you may wish to bring another pillow and heavier towel. Also bring your own toiletries. The beds will be unmade because they do not have staff to make the beds.) 9:30 a.m to 12:00 noon -Discussion of topics (drinks and snacks are available from vending machines) 1.2:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. -Lunch 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. -Discussion of topics (Drinks and snacks are available from vending machines) 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. -Dinner Board of Supervisors Page 2 January 5, 1998 Evening -Free or continuation of topic discussions SUNDAY, JANUARY 11, 1998 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. -Breakfast 9:00 a.m. -12:00 noon -Discussion of topics (Drinks and snacks are available from vending machines) 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. -Lunch 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. -Discussion of topics (Drinks and snacks are available from vending machines) 4:00 p.m. -Check out time. If you have any questions on the agenda items or the schedule, please call me. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLANNING SESSION SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 1998 SUNDAY, JANUARY 11, 1998 1. Map to Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center 2. Directions to Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center 3. Agenda 4. Agenda Reports NoRrfE ~~ ~ti IP 3 k .~~P b ~ ~~Hr ,1. Qi1~'R~reY i `~' ba't s? ~~ Q =~-ii ~- . ~ NAtL' PLC HQpK BBDFOfLD G~~Tx1~ I s DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE 4-H EDUCATIONAL CENTER From Roanoke - From 181, take exit 143 - 1581 south (220 south) to Roanoke; go approximately 3.5 miles to Exit 6 East (Elm AveNinton). Turn left onto Elm Avenue (route 24 east), go to first stoplight, turn right onto 9th street. Follow 9th street through Industrial Park to-the stoplight at Riverland Road. Turn left onto Riverland Road (116 south). Follow Riverland (116 south) 15 miles across Windy Gap Mountain to the {ittle village of Bumt Chimney. At the stop sign at Bumt Chimney, tum ri ht onto route 122 south; go approximately 50 feet and turn left onto Burnt Chimney Road (route 670). Follow Burnt Chimney Road for 7 miles to route 668 at Dudley's Schoolhouse Store. Tum ri ht onto route 668. Follow route 668 about 1 mile to the stop sign. Turn ri ht onto route 944; go approximately 1 ~/2 miles to a sharp curve and turn left onto Hermitage Road (669). Follow Hermitage Road to the Center. The above route is curvy as it crosses the mountain. If you prefer to take a route with not as many curves, follow these directions. From 181, take exit 143 - 1581 south (220 south) through Roanoke and Boones Mi11. Continue past Boones Mill on 220 south for approximately 4.5 miles to route Wirtz Road (697). (Dairy Queen & Exxon Station on the left and the Franklin Mote! up on the right.) .Turn left on Wirtz Road (697). Follow Wirtz Road for approximately 5 miles to stop sign. At the stop sign turn left onto route 122 north. Go about 1 mile to Burnt Chimney; turn ri ht on Burnt Chimney Road (670). Follow Burnt Chimney Road for 7 miles to route 668 at Dudley's Schoolhouse Store. Turn ri ht onto route 668. Follow route 668 about 1 mile to the stop sign. Tum right onto route 944; go approximately 1 ~/z miles to a sharp curve and turn left onto Hermitage Road (669). Follow Hermitage Road to the Center. To: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO1/ECH > Subject: Re: Board/Staff Retreat in January Date sent: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:15:00 O.K. You had asked me to do some checking so I was just following up on your earlier diretion. Let me know when you want me to help. > From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO 1 /ECH > > To: "Mary Allen" < ADMO 1 /MHA > > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:07:01 +0000 > Subject: Re: Board/Staff Retreat in January > No, Im working on it. Mary Allen -- 1 -- Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:15:01 To: adm01/ech Subject: Board/Staff Retreat in January Date sent: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:04:28 I am trying to catch up on things left over from while I was not feeling well: I just talked with Ann at the Smith Mountain 4-H Center. They have space available for every weekend in January. They also have the lodge part that has private bathrooms available for all weekends in January (I believe the Board would probably prefer that). Do you want me to send out something from the BOS from you asking which weekend would be preferable? Do you want all day Sat. and 1 /2 day Sunday? All day Friday and all day Saturday? 1 /2 day Friday and All day Saturday (thereby still having Sunday for "rest") I don't want to give the Board TOO many options because then there will be no consensus. Let me know...thanks Mary Allen -- 1 -- Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:04:29 • • ~- ~, ~ L Y~~ w~.~'~ ~ ~ `mar ~ ~v/~ ~-- ~Ya~~ Q i~-~-~7 /~ ~ ~ s - a S ~ ~ ~.rs 1~n~~ A ~.z.s .~ ~Qc%~~ s la~~ c..~ - ~ ~ ~ ~e~rson -~ ~~o. ~ ~, ~ ~- ~ -ya - s9 .~ ,~ DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE 4-H EDUCATIONAL CENTER From Roanoke - From 181, take exit 143 - 1581 south (220 south) to Roanoke; go approximately 3.5 miles to Exit 6 East (Elm AveNinton). Turn left onto Elm Avenue (route 24 east), go to first stoplight, turn right onto 9"' street. Follow 9~h street through Industrial Park to the stoplight at Riverland Road. Turn left onto Riverland Road (116 south). Follow Riverland (116 south) 15 miles across Windy Gap Mountain to the {ittle village of Bumt Chimney. At the stop sign at Burnt Chimney, tum right onto route 122 south; go approximately 50 feet and turn left onto Burnt Chimney Road (route 670). Follow Burnt Chimney Road for 7 miles to route 668 at Dudley's Schoolhouse Store. Turn right onto route 668. Follow route 668 about 1 mile to the stop sign. Turn right onto route 944; go approximately 1 ~/2 miles to a sharp curve and turn left onto Hermitage Road (669). Follow Hermitage Road to the Center. The above route is curvy as it crosses the mountain. If you prefer to take a route with not as many curves, follow these directions. From 181, take exit 143 - 1581 south (220 south) through Roanoke and Boones Mill. Continue past Boones Mill on 220 south for approximately 4.5 miles to route Wirtz Road (697). (Dairy Queen & Exxon Station on the left and the Franklin Motel up on the right.) Turn left on Wirtz Road (697). Follow Wirtz Road for approximately 5 miles to stop sign. At the stop sign turn left onto route 122 north. Go about 1 mile to Bumt Chimney; turn ri ht on Burnt Chimney Road (670). Follow Burnt Chimney Road for 7 miles to route 668 at Dudley's Schoolhouse Store. Turn right onto route 668. Follow route 668 about 1 mile to the stop sign. Tum right onto route 944; go approximately 1 ~/2 miles to a sharp curve and turn left onto Hermitage Road (669). Follow Hermitage Road to the Center. From Lynchbura/Bedford - On route 460 take the second Bedford exit. At the stop sign turn left onto route 122 south. Go approximately 18 miles to traffic light at intersection of 122 and 616 (Fairway Village & Food Lion). Turn left onto Scruggs Road (616). Follow Scruggs Road for approximately 1 ~/2 miles and turn right onto route 834. Follow 834 approximately 5 miles to Burnt Chimney Road (670), Dick's Food Center on the corner; turn left onto Burnt Chimney Road. Follow Burnt Chimney Road (670) for au©ut 4~/2 miles to 668 ai Dudley's Schoolhouse Store. Tura ~ ri ht onto routE 668. Follow route 668 about 1 mile to the stop sign. Turn right onto route 944; go approximately 1 ~/z miles to a sharp curve and turn left onto Hermitage Road (669). Follow Hermitage Road to the Center. There are 4-H Center signs posted along the routes close to the 4-H Center. From South & North Carolina - On 220 north take the second Rocky Mount exit to route 40 east exit. Take ri ht onto 40 east; go about 1 mile; take 122 north to the left; follow approximately 8 miles to Bumt Chimney Road (670). Turn right on Burnt Chimney Road (670). Follow directions above From Roanoke. From Southeast -Tennessee - From 181 take exit 143 - 1581 south to Roanoke. Follow the directions above From Roanoke. ~~i~~~ )boH ~~ ,; H-}~= ~~ ~ 1'1 t Q~t O~C~38 a ~I t$~ ~~s ROUTE 220 S THROUGH TO BOONES MILL. CONTINUE PAST BOONE'S MILL FOR 4.5 MILES TO ROUTE 697 (WIRTZ ROAD) DAIRY QUEEN AND EXXON STATION ON THE LEFT AND FRANKLIN MOTEL ON THE RIGHT. TURN LEFT ON WIRTZ ROAD (697). STAY ON WIRTZ ROAD FOR 5 MILES TO STOP SIGN. TURN LEFT AT STOP SIGN ONTO ROUTE 122 NORTH. GO 1 MILE TO BURN CHIMNEY. TURN RI HT ON BURNT CHIMNEY ROAD (ROUTE 670). FOLLOW BURNT CHIMNEY ROAD FOR 7 MILES TO ROUTE 668 AT DUDLEY'S SCHOOLHOUSE STORE. TURN RI HT ONTO ROUTE 668. FOLLOW ROUTE 668 AABOUT 1 MILE TO THE STOP SIGN. TURN RI HT ONTO ROUTE 944. GO APPROXIMATELY 1 ~/z MILES TO A SHORT CURVE AND TURN LEFT ONTO HERMITAGE ROAD (ROUTE 669). FOLLOW ROAD TO THE CENTER To: adm01/ech Subject: Retreat Date sent: Tue, 9 Dec 199713:33:37 Brenda Holton sent me message that you said to move forward with retreat for weekend of Jan 10 and 11 at Smith Mountain 4-H. She said you didn't know whether to go with room reservations. I will check on prices but will probably have to let them know soon since it is only a month off. I assume you want me to reserve room for meeting for Saturday and Sunday, including meals (Lunch and Dinner on Saturday and breakfast and lunch on Sunday) Get room prices and you' 11 then decide what to do. Is that correct? Mary Allen -- 1 -- Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:33:38 From: "Brenda Holton" < ADMO1/BJH > To: adm01/mha Date sent: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:48:57 +0000 Subject: Retreat ECH said to tell you that he talked with Bob Johnson and to schedule the retreat for the weekend before 17 and 18. Weekend of 10-11 . Sat and Sun. Said to finalize with 4-H but unsure if staying overnight. Probably will and might need 16 rooms. Get prices. Brenda Holton Deputy Clerk 772-2005 Mary Allen -- 1 -- Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:53:27 To: adm01/ech Subject: Retreat Date sent: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:05:58 For your information: Harry Nickens said he was available any weekend for the retreat. Got a fax from Joe McNamara. He is NOT available for the weekend of Jan. 17 - 18. Haven't heard from anyone else. Mary Allen -- 1 -- Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:05:59 FRGM: !~FIISVS ]FIC Ff1~: 703-959-~S15 Dec-03-97 Wcd 09:0 P(1GE: O1 U~risva Cor por~liun P.O. Bax zo1o~, 5115 Bernard. Dr., 5W _ gam, !!p~ Roaaoke, VA Z40i8-0Ol! FAX To: _ • ~' v c~ u~ +~ S M ~cc~,s.~ ~-~e~e vas' Date; r ~ ` ~ ~ ~ Number of pages including Cover sheet: J . ~_ Fr»m: _ Plionc: 1's1x ph00C: `,~,: ~-- Date: Doccmbc;r 3, 19~I7 To: Bob Johnson. Chairman ofthc Board (Torn: Jac: McNamara t'~L': Marv Allen. Cicrk to the Board Rcgardmg: January 199K Work Scssian Phaae: 540/77 -3950/NE?' 560-3950 Fax hone: 540/989-4115 1t hag cnmc to my attention that 1 hav4 a conflict for part of the weekend of January 17.18, 1998. If January 17 - 1 R, 1998 is the chosen wcx~krnd, 1 will attc~td to the extrnt poasiblo. Allcirnativcly. the weekend of Jnnuury 24 - 25, 199A mt~y work txluHlly wG11 fur all partiCS. Wlljle Super [3owl wockcnd, the Sulx;r Bowi kickoff will not be bcfarc 6:(}U PM. HEPLER-JAMISON LODGE 1 person per room $40.00 per person per night 2 persons per room $22.00 per person per night 3 persons per room $18.00 per person per night 4 persons per roam $15.OC per person per night Suite (will accommodate 6 people) $75.00 per night Room 1: Room 7: Room 13: 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. Room 2: Room 8: Room 14: 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. Room 3: Room 9: Room 15: 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. Room 4: Room 10: Room 16: 1. 1. 1. 2 2• 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. Room 5: Room 11: Room 17: 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. Room 6: Room 12: Room 18: 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. ROOM 19: Suite w/parlor 1. 2. 3. 4. -.-.- , 11 ~ i a 1 December 24, 1997 (11:17am) NOTE TO: Elmer Hodge FROM: Harry Nickens SUBJECT REGIONAL DISCUSSION AT BOARD RETREAT Please add to the regional discussion at the Board Retreat: Storm water management. cc: Mary Allen ~NTER MEMO O F F I C E ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: Elmer Hodge ~~ FROM. Harry Nickens ~`~ `~. ~~ DATE: December 23, 1997 SUBJECT: BOARD RETREAT SUGGESTED ADDITION Item 3, Courthouse Space: would put "and Parking". Item 7, Regional issues: Just to delineate some, I would put Fire/Rescue Emergency Medical Dispatch. Adding some new items: Comprehensive Plan Ridgeline Protection Emergency Services Charge System HCN/bjh cc: Mary Allen BOARD RETREAT Saturday, January 10, 1997 -Sunday, January 11, 1997 Smith Mountain Lake 4-H Center Saturday -begin at 9 a.m. -lunch and dinner included Sunday -begin at 9 a.m. -breakfast and lunch included 1. Sewer Force Main 2. Landfill Update 3. Courthouse Space 4. Schools -Phase 1 5. Economic Development 6. Parks and Recreation Capital Needs 7. Regional Issues (General Discussion) 8. Budget Issues 9. Government Access Channel (RVTV) 10. Year 2000 update. • • Cam.- ~ ~ G~ _ ~ -- ~,, e~~--~ ~. ~` ~'. G. 7. _~ L/ e,o c~ .~ ~L, ~~~ ~ ,, .. ~~~ ~~ _ ,~,L ~ ~- D ~~ 6 f~n.c~, ~6~'° i ~ 9' ~_ (mac ,c~ ~ ,a ,e ~ a~-~.~ 1~ co cu.~~r, Date: December 22, 1997 To: Elmer Hodge From: Jce McNamara CC: Board of Supervisors Regarding: Board Retreat, January 10-11, 1998 Per your request, I have reviewed the Board Retreat Agenda. Further, at your suggestion, I have attempted to delineate what would be the most helpful Board Retreat Subjects for me. My ideas may be drastically different from the ideas forwarded by other Supervisors, and more weight should be afforded their suggestions. The proposed items for discussion at the Board Retreat were: Sewer Force Main Landfill Update Court House Space Schools -- Phase One ~' Economic Development '~ Parks &Rec Capitol Needs Regional Issues (General Discussion) Budget Issues " Government Access Channel ~ Year 2000 Update These topics look good, but I suggest we briefly review the major resource departments of the county. Specifically: Schools Water and Sewer Police Fire and Rescue Social Services Solid Waste Sheriff'/Confinement of Prisoners Information Technology Engineering and Planning Parks &Rec Library It would be helpful to have a 15 minute presentation, followed with an opportunity to ask questions of each department. A consistent structure for all presentations might include the budget and actual expenditures for the past two years, department headcount, department description (objectives), major issues facing the department, and suggestions. Economic Development, Budget Issues, and Government Access Channel do not fit logically into any of the above departmental presentations and could be discussed as standalone topics. Further, a presentation by Human Resources relative to employee job satisfaction, pay scales, and other issues would be helpful. COURTHOUSE SPACE STUDY December 31, 1997 Staff is working with MARSHWITT Associates, PC to review the existing utilization of the County Courthouse complex. The review includes interviews with each of the County departments utilizing space in the facility including the Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Clerk of the General District Court, Clerk of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff and the Court Service Unit. The Courthouse also provides offices to the Judge of the State Court of Appeals and the Adult Probation and Parole Office. The County is not required to provide space for the Judge of the State Court of Appeals nor the Adult Probation and Parole Office which are State functions. For the Court Service Unit, the County is required to provide suitable office space, however, it does not have to physically be located in the court building. In this regard, rental space could be a viable alternative to address their space needs. One alternative could be to relocate some or all of these operations to other facilities. In the case of the State offices, this would be at the State's expense. In the past, we have discussed parking needs in the area of the Courthouse and you will recall that we are currently leasing property across Thompson Memorial Drive to help alleviate this problem. The Guy House which is owned by the County needs to be removed which could help in addressing some of the parking needs for this complex. Tearing down the Sheriff's office building, re-configuring the existing parking lot and developing a parking deck could provide other alternatives for consideration. Other issues that are being identified are the volume of files and legal records required to be kept, file retention programs and file storage systems. In many instances, the State governs the length of time certain files must be retained and their accessability. The County has made few structural modifications to the building since it was completed yet several offices such as the Commonwealth Attorney have had additional staff approved to accommodate the work load. At the planning session, we will have cost estimates for some of the alternatives identified to assist in meeting the needs of these offices which can be used in the budget preparation process. Alternate (rented) space can be considered as well, however, no specific proposal for such move has been pursued at this time. John M. Chambliss, Jr. Asst. County Administrator cc Bill Rand Elmer Hodge ~0?/05/98 Mg55 & ROC4VICH [31402 ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW A PROFESSIONAL cORPORATiON •a+e CLECTR~C ROAD 2x014 ~. O. rOlt 13806 ROAN04CE, VIRGINIA 24035 ts4a7 T~a.aeoo FAX (5407 774•nno8 yanuary 5, 1998 6488 FfLE NOt Paul M. Mahoney, Esq. Coanry Attorney County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA, 240,18-0798 >1.te: Proposed Legislation Llmlting Grass iteceipts of Emmpooyee Leasing Companies for BPOL Tax Pwposes Dear Mr. Mahoney: I have e~oclvsed fpr your review a draft of the legislation that you asked us to prepare. Xou requested that we submit a proposed statute which would limit the gross receipts of employee leasing companies for Business, Professional, and Occupational License ("BPOL") tax purposes to the amourn of the fees received by these coz~npanies. Ir7 the course of preparing this proposal, we researched the laws of other states for statutes addressing similar issues. from the prelnninary research we conducted, using both the Internet: and WestLaw, it appears that~only Tennessee lass a statutory scheme wtaich bona cecog~nizes employee leasing companies and Inuits the amount of a gross receipts tax as applied fA that type of entity. Copies of the relevant Tennessee code srxtions are included for your reference. The draft legislation which we aze submittlrtg to you is based on the Tennessee statute, but also contains language taken from statutes im other states which have craployec leasing company acts such as Florida and Vermont. We have attempted to draft the statute as narrowly as possible so that only those entities which truly are employee leasing companies qualify for the gross receipts ,irnitation_ In addition, we have included a requirement that the employee leasing companies hold funds for each client company in a sepazace account. This section is to insure that funds set aside for specific companies wilt be available for. payment of the employees assigned to that company_ Please contact 7:ne should you wish t0 discuss these issues in greater detail. Very truly yours, MO55 & ROC VICH, P.C. avid be RDB/ed Enclosures 0105/98 MON 15:48 FAX 540 774 8808 MOSS Co ROCOVICH PROPOSED LEGISLATION § 58.1-3732.3. Limitation oif gross c~eceipts; employee leasing companies. - A. Gross receipts of an employee leasing company for license tax purposes under Chapter 37 (~ 58.1-3700 et seq.) of this title shall be limited to the amount of administrative fees received by the employee leasing company. B. For purposes of this section, "administrative fees" shall mean the gross receipts received by the leasing company from its client companies e>tclusitie of (i) the wages, salaries, payroll taxes, payroll deductions and employee benefits paid to or for the benefit of each leased employee for the period of time each such leased employee is actually employed for the use of the client company pursuant to an employee leasing agreement; and (ii) actual workers' compensation costs associated with such leased employee for the period of time such leased employee is actually employed for the use of the client company pursuant to an employee leasing agreement. C. For purposes of this section, "employee leasing company" or "leasing company" means a person that, under a written agreement between the leasing company and a client company, and for a fee, places one or more of the regulaz, full-time employees of the client company on the leasing company's payroll and leases them to the client company on an ongoing basis with no restriction or limitation on the duration of employment. An "employee leasing company" does not include: i) a person whose principal business activity is tat entering into employee leasing agreements; ii) a temporazy help arrangement, whereby an organization hires its own employees and assigns them to a client to support or supplement the client's workforce in special work situations such as employee absences, temporary skill shortages, seasonal workloads, and special assignments and projects; iii) an arrangement wherein a person shares employees with a commonly owned company within the meaning of § 414(b) and (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; iv) an arrangement in wh ich a person assumes full responsibility for the product or service performed by such person or such person's agents and retains and exercises, both legally and in fact, a complete right of direction and control over the individuals whose services are supplied under such contractual arrangements, and such person and such person's agents perform a specified function for the client company which is separate and divisible from the primary business or operations of the client company; or v) a labor organization. D. Client company" means a person who enters into an agreement with an employee leasing company to lease any or all of its regular, full-Lime employees. E, T'he employee leasing company shall be required to maintain a separate depository bank account for each client company in which shall be deposited funds payable to or for the benefit of the employees assigned to that client company. The employee leasing company shall be prohibited from commingling the funds of the separate depository accounts. @1003 i ~dfli~~ C®U1VTX ~TTC1~Y'S ~~C~ Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W. -Room 431 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 772-2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisor FROM: Paul M. Mahoney - DATE: 5 January 1998 SUBJECT: Acquisition of 3 acres from the Commonwealth Catawba Fire Station We have encountered additional bureaucratic obstacles to the County's acquisition of the 3 acres adjoining the Catawba Fire Station from the Commonwealth of Virginia. You may recall that County staff had uncovered documentation from 10 years ago which indicated that the Commonwealth would transfer the 3 acres to the County for the fire station expansion. Various state officials were apparently linking this transfer to the County's conveyance of real estate to the Division of Consolidated Laboratories for the Forensics Lab. In other words, various officials were viewing this transaction as a land swap. Earlier this month, despite all of this documentation, I was advised by the appropriate state officials that the County would have to follow the procedures currently in place for the acquisition of this real estate. These procedures require: (1) a survey; (2) an appraisal; (3) 30-day notification to appropriate committees in the General Assembly; and (4) payment of fair market value consideration. I am currently pursuing a 2-pronged strategy: (1) trying to convince the Secretary of Administration, Michael Thomas, that the apparent intentions of the parties from 10 years ago should be followed today, despite the current Governor's directive that all real estate conveyances be made in exchange for fair market value consideration, and (2) following the current bureaucratic directive. I have secured a survey and appraisal. The appropriate committees in the General Assembly have been notified. I am awaiting the Commonwealth's appraisal. Earl G. Robertson, MAI, SRA, has rendered his opinion that the estimated market value of this 3-acre site adjacent to the Catawba Fire Station is $13,800. If our efforts to acquire this property by donation or gift from the Commonwealth are C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\LIT\OHIO\CATAWBA.FIR ._ t unsuccessful, is the Board interested and willing to pay at least $13,800 (plus survey and closing costs) for this property? If the Commonwealth appraisal is higher than $13,800, then these two appraisals would have to be reconciled. The proposed lease between Ohio State Cellular (OSC) and Roanoke County calls for monthly lease payments of $325.00. If these lease payments were allocated to the purchase price (instead of the volunteer fire company), then it would require approximately 43 months of payments to recover this amount. The short term goal is to resolve the pending litigation with OSC. The acquisition of this 3 acre parcel and lease of a portion of it to OSC accomplishes this goal, but at a much higher cost than originally contemplated. However, the long term goal of acquiring sufficient land for future fire station expansion is still achieved, and OSC lease payments will cover any acquisition costs. I recommend paying fair market value consideration for this 3 acre parcel, if necessary. Do you agree? PMM/ spb c: Elmer C. Hodge C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\LIT\OHIO\ CATAWBA.FIR ~o~vox~ coulv~rY ~TTO~v~X~s o~~c~ Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W. -Room 431 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 772-2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisor +~~~ FROM: Paul M. Mahoney - DATE: RVRA SUBJECT: January 5,1998 This memorandum is submitted to you within the range of the attorney-client privilege, and as such, is confidential. Further, it is exempt from disclosure as a public record under the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Section 2.1-342.B.5. At your meeting on December 16,1997, the Board discussed a variety of issues with respect to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA). The Board discussed the possibility of contracting with the City of Salem to collect and dispose of its waste in Authority facilities. A review of provisions of the Articles of Incorporation of the RVRA and the Members Use Agreement may answer your inquiries. There were several questions concerning the appointment of members to the governing body of RVRA. Article III provides, in part, that "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. The Members Use Agreement defines key terms. The "charter member users 'are Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and Town of Vinton. A "user" means the County, City, and Town or any other political subdivision which shall become an incorporating political subdivision under the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act. Section 2.2 of the Members Use Agreement provides that this Agreement, the Articles of Incorporation, and By-laws "shall not be amended or changed in any way without the consent of the Authority and the consent of the governing body of each charter member user." This section also requires that "the Authority shall only 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." C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\PMM\BOFS\ RVRA.MO Section 3.3 provides that the transfer station "may only be utilized by charter member users and properly authorized persons and entities located within the charter member users jurisdictions only for the transfer of Acceptable Waste originating within the County, City, and Town." The parties also agreed that the transfer station shall not be utilized by any other person or entity without the express prior consent of Roanoke City Council. The use and operation of the landfill are subject to many conditions, primarily the special use permit conditions imposed by Roanoke County on June 27,1989. These conditions and policies limit landfill users "to qualifying residents and businesses of Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Vinton, Montgomery County, and Salem." Section 4.1 b. provides that "each user shall have the right to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the facility all Acceptable Waste generated within its political jurisdiction." Changes in the terms or conditions of design or operation of the transfer station and the landfill shall not occur without the express consent of County and City, as expressed by the affirmative vote of a~,County and City representatives on the Authority (See Sections 4.3). Section 4.4 addresses the topic of adding new members. A copy of this section is attached to this memorandum; however, several points should be noted. Subsection (2) provides that only users and persons or entities located within user jurisdictions shall be permitted to utilize the facility. Subsection (4) provides that additional users may join the Authority by a simple majority vote provided certain conditions are met: (i) limitations on maximum annual tonnage and reductions to minimum landfill life (the new user jurisdiction shall be responsible for the costs and expenses of waste stream and landfill life projections), (ii) an analysis of the waste stream from the proposed new user by an independent environmental expert, (iii) an initial capital contribution from the new user at least proportional to the capital contribution made by charter member users, and (iv) the execution of an agreement similar to this agreement. The "maximum annual tonnage' is 330,000 tons per year, and the "minimum landfill life' is 36 years. The reference to the exception under Section 7.5 was the 3-month window of opportunity (from October 1991) for Montgomery County and the City of Salem to join RVRA. Neither Montgomery County nor Salem have taken advantage of this opportunity. By Resolution 62789-12 the Board of Supervisors granted a special exception permit to operate a solid waste disposal facility at Smith Gap, subject to the approved landfill permit conditions and operating policies. These operating policies include "landfill operational priorities' to guide the Authority and the Board of Supervisors in making all future policy determinations. These are listed in priority order as follows: (1) protection of the environment of the Roanoke Valley Service Area; (2) protection or extension of the useful life of the landfill; (3) protection of the interests of the residents of the landfill host community; (4) protection of the interests of the residents of the rail corridor; (5) C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\PMM\ BOFS\RVRA.MO minimization of landfill operating costs; (6) minimization of landfill tipping fees. While the addition of Salem s waste stream may provide short term relief for tipping fees and operating costs, such action could be inconsistent with the adopted landfill operational priorities. Further, certain actions require the unanimous consent of Roanoke City and Roanoke County, or the unanimous consent of the charter member users (Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and Vinton). The Members Use Agreement places specific limitations upon the parties with respect to the operation of the landfill and the transfer station, and specifically who can use these facilities, and how and under what conditions new members can be added. Before taking unilateral action that might be in violation of the County's previous commitments, the Board should discuss the Salem proposal with the Authority, and our partners (Roanoke City and the Town of Vinton). If any Board member would like a complete copy of the Members Use Agreement or the Articles of Incorporation, please do not hesitate to contact me. PMM/ spb c: Elmer C. Hodge C:\OFFICE\ WPWIN\ WPDOCS\PMM\ BOFS\RVRA.MO ~ , approved by the 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 of the Transfer Station or use by any persons or entities other than City, County, or Town; or, (2) Any change in the terms or conditions of design or operation of the Landfill located in the County of Roanoke as set forth in the special use permit approved pursuant to Roanoke County item 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, or any expansion or modification of the Landfill. Section 4.4. New Members. Because the Landfill is a scarce and valuable resource and because all Users have a common interest in insuring that the Landfill is utilized only for the proper disposal of Acceptable Waste and because Authority and Users desire to make the best possible and most efficient use of the Landfill, Users and Authority covenant and agree as follows: (1) No person or entity shall be permitted to utilize the Facility except pursuant to the general terms and conditions of this Agreement; (2) Only Users and persons or entities located within User jurisdictions shall be permitted to utilize the Facility only for the disposal of Acceptable Waste originating within User jurisdictions; (3) The total number of User jurisdictions, including the County, City, and Town, shall at no time exceed eight; (4) Except as provided in Section 7.5 of this Agreement, additional Users may join the Authority by a simple majority vote of the Authority provided that the following conditions have been met: (a) The additional volume of Acceptable Waste that would be disposed of at the Landfill as a result of such proposed new User's joining is not projected to cause the total aggregate amount from all User jurisdictions to exceed the Maximum Annual Tonnage or to reduce the Minimum Landfill Life; the proposed new User jurisdiction shall be responsible for all the costs and expenses of such waste stream and 10 w Landfill life projections as determined to be necessary by Authority. (b) The nature of the waste stream from the proposed new User must be determined by an independent environmental expert at such proposed new User's cost to consist of Acceptable Waste only; the proposed new User shall contract in advance to be financially responsible for periodic, unannounced, inspections and testing of its waste stream by independent environmental experts chosen by and on terms and conditions established by Authority up to six times per Fiscal Year, and to comply with such other requirements as Authority may.. impose to insure that only Acceptable, non-Hazardous Waste is delivered to the Facility. (c) The proposed new User shall make an initial capital contribution at least proportional to the capital contribution made by the Charter Member Users. (d) The proposed new User shall execute and deliver an agreement substantially similar to this Agreement as required by the Authority. Section 4.5. Title to Acceptable Waste. Upon Authority's acceptance of any Acceptable Waste, Authority shall receive title to such Acceptable Waste. Authority may, at its sole election, take title to Acceptable Waste at an earlier time if it notifies the affected User of the exercise of such election. Authority shall never be deemed to have title to Unacceptable Waste unless it specifically represents that it is aware the waste is Unacceptable Waste and it is specifically taking title to the same. Inoperability of Authority's scales shall not effect the transfer of title. In the event of any dispute regarding transfer of title, the affected User shall join with Authority in defense of such title. Section 4.6. Disposal of Unacce table Waste. Authority shall notify any person delivering waste found before discharge into the Facility to contain Unacceptable Waste that the waste cannot be disposed at the Facility. If Unacceptable Waste is disposed of by or on behalf of any User, and time and operations permit, Authority shall notify such User and such User shall promptly cause the Unacceptable Waste to be removed from the Facility and disposed of in accordance with Applicable Laws. In the event time and operations do not permit such notice or such User does not promptly remove the Unacceptable Waste, Authority may, at its option, cause the same to be removed, 11 '"" OVERVIEW OF THE TIl~TI~R CREEK INTERCEPTOR SEWER, ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR SEWER AND ROANOKE REGIONAL WPCP PROJECTS TINKER Creek Interceptor Contractor for project is Bryant Electric Company. Contracts "A" and "B" were awarded for a total of $5,595,895. 2. The Contractor is currently engaged in pipe laying operations along Tinker Creek between Walnut Avenue and Wise Avenue in Vinton. Approximately 6,000 lineal feet of 54-inch diameter prestressed concrete cylinder pipe have been laid. In addition, the inverted siphon which crosses the Roanoke River has been completed. 3. The contract period to complete both contracts is 540 calendar days. This would result in a completion date of July 7, 1998. To date the project is on schedule and within budget. ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR 1. The project as designed by Black & Veatch consists of five phases (A, B, C, D, & E) of gravity interceptor sewer line with a total of seven contracts. The total current construction cost estimate provided by Black & Veatch for the five phases is approximately $30,400,000. 2. Contracts for Phase A (Contracts Al and A2) and Phase B (Contracts B 1 and B2) have been awarded to Alex E. Paris Contracting Co. of Atlasburg, PA for a bid of $18,632,063. However, the notice to proceed has been issued for Contracts Al and A2 only, for contract prices of $4,270,642 and $4,615,283, respectively. These contracts provide for the installation of approximately 14,000 feet of 66-inch diameter sewer pipe between the Walnut Avenue Bridge in Roanoke City and the headworks of the Roanoke Regional WPCP. 3. A notice to proceed for Contracts B 1 and B2 has not been issued to date. The contractor has agreed to hold the bid prices for Contracts B 1 and B2 until the middle, to latter part, of February 1998. 4. The technical staffs of Roanoke City, Roanoke County and the City of Salem have been meeting collectively and individually for the past 3 months to investigate and discuss various alternatives to reduce the cost of the project and/or extend the construction phasing, 5. The Roanoke County Utility Department staff has been advocating consideration of construction of 23,000 lineal feet of sewer force main (pressure pipe) and a sewage pump station. These facilities would be used to convey wastewater along the Roanoke River corridor between Peters Creek and the Walnut Avenue Bridge in lieu of Phase B and Phase C of the gravity interceptor sewer line. 1 6. If a force main and sewage pumping station were constructed in lieu of Phase B and Phase C of the gravity interceptor sewer, it is estimated that the total construction cost for the Roanoke River interceptor project could be reduced from $30,400,000 (Black & Veatch estimate) to approximately $27,000,000 (RCUD estimate). It should be noted that Black & Veatch estimates that construction of the force main-sewage pump station alternative would result in a total project cost of $31,156,475. Utilizing the RCUD estimate would correspond to an annual cost savings of approximately $120,000 to $145,000 each for Roanoke City, the City of Salem and Roanoke County to cover O & M costs for the sewage pump station and debt service for the entire project. 7. Although staff personnel from Roanoke City and the City of Salem do not totally disagree with the cost saving merits of the Utility Department staffs force main-sewage pump station proposal, it is their opinion that the cost savings are not of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the disadvantages associated with operation and maintenance of a sewage pump station. In addition, the time required to design the force main-pump station alternative would delay construction of that portion of the project by 9 to 12 months. 8. For the preceding reasons, the majority of the technical review committee preferred the gravity interceptor sewer line alternative. Consequently, Roanoke City staff will direct Black & Veatch to proceed with bidding of Phases C, D and E of the gravity interceptor line within the next 30 days. 9. The bids for Phases C, D and E will then be evaluated in conjunction with the bids for Phase B (Contracts B1 and B2) which Alex E. Paris Contracting Company has agreed to extend until the middle of February. Should the total project cost for Phases. A, B, C, D and E substantially exceed Black & Veatch's $30,400,000 estimate, the force main-sewage pump station alternative will be reconsidered. ROANOKE REGIONAL WPCP Connection Between Tinker Creek Interceptor and WPCP Headworks: a. Contract includes installation of pipe required to connect the Tinker Creek interceptor to the WPCP headworks; construction of a new junction box which will receive flows from both the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek interceptors; and increased raw influent pumping capacity. b. The contract price for the interconnect is $1,865,800. Contractor for this portion of the project is Crowder Construction Co. c. The contract period to complete the project is 180 calendar days. The contract was awarded around the first week of June, 1997. The original completion date was scheduled to be November 25-30, 1997. The contract period has been extended to the end of December due to work which remains to be performed by Bryant Electric Company at the Roanoke River siphon crossing. 2. WPCP Up rg ade: 2 a. Danis Heavy Construction Company was awarded the contract on September 29, 1997, for the WPCP upgrade with a bid of $16,690,000. The notice to proceed was issued on October 29, 1997. b. Danis is still mobilizing at this time. Actual construction activities are beginning after the Christmas holidays. SUMMARY The attached Table I summarizes the various cost components for each project, as well as providing the current cost allocations for each participating jurisdiction. It is important to stress that in spite of the project cost escalation, particularly the Roanoke River Interceptor, no sewer rate increase will be required to fund debt service for the projects. Q V• U O a r J m H ~ . N (O ~ Y7 Q1 ~ , y (O to O ~ ~ ~ J a O ~ C w ~ ° ~ o Oi ° oO ~ N ~ f~ O d " ~ M OOO ~ st tN ~ H '0 00 O .- ~A N o0 a a ~ "' ~ ~ ~ "' ~ Z .- M N 00 M I~ U .r v r- ao rn ~ o W Z a o ~ ° N ° ° ° M C W Y ~ V c '~ O to ~ U ~ ~ N ~t c o N C W ~ O O , M C~ h ~ ao a0 ~ ~ > ~ R C d ~ 0 et o o ~ M . - O > ~ ~ O - ~- t~ tO st~ v ` Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ N O ~ a ~ ~ ~ C o O o M ~ N o 0 (O 0 O C *'' ~ M N ~ ~ O C O ea N 6 L V ~ a O ~ Q ` O O N I~ O I~ vI ~ O ~ N ~ O ~ N Z w C /~/ W d V +± ~ CO u7 00 W ~ d Y ~ ~t CO N M ~ c '-~ _ „ _ W ~ ~ ~ ~ a o F-- •• o o ti ~ ~ o 0 d ~ O M M O O Q L N ~ a O Q J Q Y ~. N r N ~ N r- N O O (O ti M ~ Z Z ` w O Q M N ~ O M M O ~ ~ a v w ~ :°- ~ `~ ~ L ~ v N O N r N ~ Y w 'p ~ M r N E H 1~ W V i= ~ a` Q ~ ~ ~ ~ W 0 oe o o ~ o c .- rn rn o. - o Y y +r N ~' N O e- O d c ~ Z v y V O Q a Q ~ ~ c c O O >, "' ~ O ~ o c O U ( ~ U N - • - r Y Y ~ ~ C C ~ O O J a N O C ~ .-. c ~ ~ c ~ ~ o O UI-