Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/13/1998 - RegularWORKING DOCUMENT-SUBJECT TO REVISION ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA JANUARY 13, 1998 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:00 P.M. 2. Invocation: Gardner Smith Ombudsman 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS BLJ ADDED PROCLAMATION DECLARING CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WEEK (ITEM C-31. ECH RESCHEDULED ITEM G-1 UNTIL AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION PMM ADDED TWO EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS• 21-344 A (3) ACQUISITION OR USE OF REAL ESTATE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES i ITEM G-1; AND SALE OR DISPOSITION OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF SALEM. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Bobby Scruggs from the Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Department. R-011398-1 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC MR. SCRUGGS WAS PRESENT TO ACCEPT THE RESO 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Bob L. Johnson for his service as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors during 1997. R-011398-2 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT RESO ~~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON PRESENTED WITH RESO AND CLOCK IN APPRECIATION 3. Proclamation Declaring the week of January 18-24, 1998 as Constitutional Officers week in Roanoke County. FFH MOTION TO APPROVE PROC. ~! RC WAYNE COMPTON, FRED ANDERSON, STEVE MCGRAW AND GERALD HOLT PRESENT TO ACCEPT BLJ ASKED MHA TO MAKE ADDITIONAL_COPIES_OF PROC. FOR ALL C.O.' D. BRIEFINGS N NE E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of $13,500,000 of industrial revenue a bonds for Hollins College Corporation for the construction of a new library and making various building renovations on the campus. (Tim Gubala, Director of Economic Development) R-011398-3 BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE RESO URC TWG TO DISCUSS AGAIN WITH IDA INSTITUTION OF A FEE. 2. Approval of 1998 Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards. (Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board) A-011398-4 BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1998 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS WITH FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND CHANGES. JPM TO SERVE ON SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. REPLACE BLJ ON THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, AND SERVE ON THE CLEAN VALLEY COUNCIL 5TH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION AND 5TH PDC METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION LEE EDDY TO CONTINUE TO SERVE ON RURAL TRANSPOTATION PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 3. Request for approval of the 1998 Holiday Schedule and amendment to the Employee Handbook. (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources) A-011398-5 HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1998 HOLIDAY SCHEDULE AND HANDBOOK AMENDMENT WITH ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION TO THE HANDBOOK AMENDMENT AND ADDITION OF NEW YEAR'S DAY 1999. URC _- •» F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance to ratify a sublease agreement with Bell Atlantic for use of their tower on Poor Mountain. (William Rand, General Services Director) JPM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 3 2ND -1/27/98 URC 2. First reading of ordinance to amend and reenact Section 10-3 Article I of Chapter 10 "Licenses" of the Roanoke county Code in order to conform with a state code amendment to eliminate charging a license fee to certain businesses subject to a license tax. (Brent Robertson, Budget Manager) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PH -1127198 URC 3. First reading of ordinance to vacate afive-foot portion of a sanitary sewer and drainage easement located on Lot 8A and shown on the subdivision plat of Nottingham Park as recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 124, and located in Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) JPM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PH - 1/27198 URC 4. First reading of ordinance to vacate a 20-foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 128, Lot 1 and Lot 23, Section 2, Plantation Grove as recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 175, located in Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PH -1127198 URC 5. First reading of ordinance to vacate a 50-foot unimproved right-of-way referred to as Champ Drive as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 82, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of 4 Engineering and Inspections) HOM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND AND PH -1/27/98 URC 6. First reading of ordinance authorizing the execution of a lease of approximately 10 acres of real estate from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority for public park purposes. (Joyce Waugh, Economic Development Specialist) HCN MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND -1/27/98 URC 7. First reading of ordinance authorizing the release and reconveyance of utility easements (South Transmission Line and the Starkey Road Water Project) to Terry James Page and Larry Vernon Page, James B. Page and Alice M. Page, and Margaret T. Reynolds. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) HOM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND -1/27/98 URC G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance approving a purchase agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and the Commonwealth of Virginia for 377 acres of real estate known as the Catawba Farm and authorizing the purchase of the property for economic development purposes. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) MOVED UNTIL AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION H. APPOINTMENTS s 1. Commission for Senior and Challenged Citizens BLJ NOMINATED WEBB JOHNSON AND ELIZABETH STOKES 2. Library Board 3. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority HCN MOVED TO APPOINT DOUGLAS ANDERSON AND ALLEN ROBINSON TO SERVE A 4-YEAR TERM WHICH WILL EXPIRE 12/31 /2001 URC 4. Social Services Advisory Committee 5. Southwest Development Financing, Inc. I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT A E DA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-011398-6 BLJ MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO URC 1. Acceptance of a grant from American Electric Power Company for marketing of the`-shell building at Valley Gateway. A-011398- 6.a 2. Request for acceptance of Empire Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-011398-6.b 6 3. Request for acceptance of Millbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. R-011398- 6.c 4. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $62,938 V-Stop Grant for violence again women. A-011398- 6.d 5. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $5,000 grant from the Family and Children's Trust Fund of Virginia. A-011398- 6.e 6. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Mary F. Parrish, Libraries R-011398- 6.f 7. Request to accept donation of a water line easement across the property of George R. Webb and Nita Webb in Roselawn Court. A-011398- 6.4 J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS N NE K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Robert Hunt, 709 Maryland Avenue, Salem Va Spoke in opposition to the proposed location of the 765 KV transmission line and requested that the line not be built above the current transmission line but in the foothills. M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Minnix: Announced that he and Supervisor McNamara met with the EAC for lunch. Thekexchanged ideas and he looked forward to working with them. Supervisor Harrison: Asked how long the County would be picking u~ Christmas Trees. ECH responded they would continue picking them up for several weeks. (2.~ Announced that during the recent snow storm, people with 4-wheel drive vehicles drove into several parks ruining the grass. Chief Lavinder informed him that several people have been caught and he reminded the public that such behavior will be prosecuted. (31 Asked about plans to recognize the Glenvar and William Byrd Girls Basketball teams MHA advised that she is in contact with the coaches and trvinp to set up a date. (41 Asked if anyone had watched Mr. Overstreet's videotape on his flooding problems and advised that the tape is still available. Supervisor Nickens: (1) Announced that Melinda Cox, Clay Goodman, and he had reviewed proposals for the McDonald Farm marketing plan and they plan to chose a firm soon and move forward with development of the project. Supervisor Johnson: Announced that the Board and staff held a retreat at Smith Mountain Lake for two davs They set their priorities with education as the No. 1 priority and re-established the Board of Supervisors fiduciaryresponsibilities. N. REPORTS HOM MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE- UVV 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Bahance 3. Board Contingency Fund O. WORK SESSION 1. Joint work session with American Electric Power to discuss the proposed 765 KVA transmission line. HELD FROM 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM. PRESENTED BY TERRY MCMAHON, AEP ECH WILL BRING BACK RESO OF SUPPORT AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 (3) ACQUISITION OR USE OF REAL ESTATE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, ITEM G-1; AND 2.1-344 (3) SALE OR DISPOSITION OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF SALEM; AND 2.1-344 A (7) PROBABLE LITIGATION, BPOL TAX. BLJ MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 4:30 P.M FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE SESSION URC EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD FROM 5.30 P M TO 6.05 P M Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-011398-7 HOM MOTION TO RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 6.05 P M AND ADOPT CERTIFICATION RESO R. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution supporting American Electric Power's Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 KV transmission line project. R-011398-8 HCN MOTION TO ADOPT RESO URC S. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First Reading of ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of 37.86 acres of real estate located in the City of Salem (The Lloyd Property) BLJ MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND -1/27/98 URC 9 T. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance approving a purchase agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute Sz State University and the Commonwealth of Virginia for 377 acres of real estate known as the Catawba Farm and authorizing the purchase of the property for economic development purposes. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) 0-011398-9 FFH MOTION TO ADOPT ORD. URC BLJ ASKED THAT ANY CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD. U. ADJOURNMENT BLJ ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M. io t '~ ROAN 'fF ~' '_~+ ~ ~ 2 OJ a~ 1838 r~¢r a~ n¢ ewe xmrt C~.~ix~tg ~~ ~.~~rx~~.~e ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA JANUARY 13, 1998 RQAAQCE CYJIIMY V-MO. JU Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. Individuals with disabilities who arrangement in order to participate meetings or other programs and County, please contact the Clerk to request that you provide at least arrangements may be made. require assistance or special in or attend Board of Supervisors activities sponsored by Roanoke the Board at (540) 772-2005. We 48-hours notice so that proper A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: John M. Chambliss Assistant County Administrator 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Bobby Scruggs from the Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Department. i ® Recycled Paper i 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Bob L. Johnson for his service as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors during 1997. D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of $13,500,000 of industrial revenue bonds for Hollins College Corporation for the construction of a new library and making various building renovations on the campus. (Tim Gubala, Director of Economic Development) 2. Approval of 1998 Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards. (Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board) 3. Request for approval of the 1998 Holiday Schedule and amendment to the Employee Handbook. (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources) F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance to ratify a sublease agreement with Bell Atlantic for use of their tower on Poor Mountain. (William Rand, General Services Director) 2. First reading of ordinance to amend and reenact Section 10-3 Article I of Chapter 10 "Licenses" of the Roanoke county Code in order to conform with a state code amendment to eliminate charging a license fee to certain businesses subject to a license tax. (Brent Robertson, Budget Manager) 3. First reading of ordinance to vacate afive-foot portion of a sanitary sewer and drainage easement located on Lot 8A and shown on the subdivision plat of Nottingham Park as recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 124, and located in Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director 2 of Engineering and Inspections) 4. First reading of ordinance to vacate a 20-foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 128, Lot 1 and Lot 23, Section 2, Plantation Grove as recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 175, located in Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) 5. First reading of ordinance to vacate a 50-foot unimproved right-of-way referred to as Champ Drive as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 82, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) 6. First reading of ordinance authorizing the execution of a lease of approximately 10 acres of real estate from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority for public park purposes. (Joyce Waugh, Economic Development Specialist) 7. First reading of ordinance authorizing the release and reconveyance of utility easements (South Transmission Line and the Starkey Road Water Project) to Terry James Page and Larry Vernon Page, James B. Page and Alice M. Page, and Margaret T. Reynolds. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance approving a purchase agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute ~ State University and the Commonwealth of Virginia for 377 acres of real estate known as the Catawba Farm and authorizing the purchase of the property for economic development purposes. (Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Commission for Senior and Challenged Citizens 3 2. Library Board 3. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 4. Social Services Advisory Committee 5. Southwest Development Financing, Inc. I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Acceptance of a grant from American Electric Power Company for marketing of the shell building at Valley Gateway. 2. Request for acceptance of Empire Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of Millbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $62,938 V-Stop Grant for violence again women. 5. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $5,000 grant from the Family and Children's Trust Fund of Virginia. 6. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Mary F. Parrish, Libraries 7. Request to accept donation of a water line easement 4 i across the property of George R. Webb and Nita Webb in Roselawn Court. J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund O. WORK SESSION 1. Joint work session with American Electric Power to discuss the proposed 765 KVA transmission line. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R. ADJOURNMENT 5 w r - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION Q11398-1 OF APPRECIATION TO BOBBY SCRUGGS UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER WHEREAS, Roanoke County is indebted to the volunteers who provide fire and rescue service to the citizens of the County; and WHEREAS, these men and women dedicate countless hours, unpaid but appreciated, to ensure the safety of the people and property of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, due to the complexity of family and business life, few volunteers are able to maintain this type of commitment over a long period of time, as demands on their time and energy increase; and WHEREAS, Bobby Scruggs has served as a volunteer at the Mount Pleasant Fire Department for forty-two years, and Roanoke County wishes to recognize him upon his retirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to BOBBY SCRUGGS for forty-two years as a capable, loyal and dedicated volunteer at the Mount Pleasant Fire Department. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes to Mr. Scruggs for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: 1 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Rick Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue Resolutions of Appreciation File 2 C-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOBBY SCRUGGS UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER WHEREAS, Roanoke County is indebted to the volunteers who provide fire and rescue service to the citizens of the County; and WHEREAS, these men and women dedicate countless hours, unpaid but appreciated, to ensure the safety of the people and property of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, due to the complexity of family and business life, few volunteers are able to maintain this type of commitment over a long period of time, as demands on their time and energy increase; and WHEREAS, Bobby Scruggs has served as a volunteer at the Mount Pleasant Fire Department for forty-two years, and Roanoke County wishes to recognize him upon his retirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to BOBBY SCRUGGS for forty-two years as a capable, loyal and dedicated volunteer at the Mount Pleasant Fire Department. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes to Mr. Scruggs for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. l -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION 011398.2 OF APPRECIATION TO BOB L. JOHNSON FOR HIS SERVICE AS 1997 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Bob L. Johnson served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 1997; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Johnson's term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety of accomplishments, including: o Completion of construction of the $102 million R.R. Donnelley and Sons printing facility in Valley TechPark °s o Establishment of a Blue Ribbon Commission to study school construction projects and completion of a report recommending $120 million in additior;s, renovation and new construction o Purchase of the Glen Mary Property for use as a technology park in furtherance of the economic development goals of Roanoke County o Implementation of joint meetings of the elected officials of Roanoke City and Roanoke County, resulting in joint dental insurance for employees and a joint 800 MHZ radio system for the Valley o Opening of the first Greenway in the Roanoke Valley at Garst Mill Park and grant funding to begin work on the Hanging Rock trail o Donation to Roanoke County of land along Green Ridge in North County for the ridgeline protection program WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson also served as Chairman of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission during 1997; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson also worked diligently during his term to represent all the citizens of Roanoke County and to promote regional projects which would benefit all the 1 residents of the Roanoke Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to Bob L. Johnson for his service as Chairman during 1997 and for his belief in democracy and participation by citizens in local government. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~J Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File 2 r ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BOB L. JOHNSON FOR HIS SERVICE AS 1997 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Bob L. Johnson served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 1997; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Johnson's term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety of accomplishments, including: o Completion of construction of the $102 million R.R. Donnelley and Sons printing facility in Valley TechPark o Establishment of a Blue Ribbon Commission to study school construction projects and completion of a report recommending $120 million in additions, renovation and new construction o Purchase of the Glen Mary Property for use as a technology park in furtherance of the economic development goals of Roanoke County o Implementation of joint meetings of the elected officials of Roanoke City and Roanoke County, resulting in joint dental insurance for employees and a joint 800 MHZ radio system for the Valley o Opening of the first Greenway in the Roanoke Valley at Garst Mill Park and grant funding to begin work on the Hanging Rock trail o Donation to Roanoke County of land along Green Ridge in North County for the ridgeline protection program WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson also served as Chairman of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission during 1997; and WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson also worked diligently during his term to represent all the citizens of Roanoke County and to promote regional projects which would benefit all the ~' i ~' residents of the Roanoke Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to Bob L. Johnson for his service as Chairman during 1997 and for his belief in democracy and participation by citizens in local government. 2 L-i CORRECTED 1-22-98 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION 011398-3 APPROVING REQUEST OF X13,500,000 OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR HOLLINS COLLEGE CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIBRARY AND VARIOUS BUILDING RENOVATIONS ON THE CAMPUS WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Authority') has considered the application of Hollins College Corporation (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $13,500,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the borrower in financing (a) the construction of a new four-story library, of approximately 56,000 square feet, adjacent to the Borrower's existing chapel, (b) the renovation of various buildings, (c) the construction and renovation of utility systems, (d) the equipping of the Borrower's campus, and (e) the acquisition of motor vehicles to be based on the Borrower's campus all of which facilities (collectively the ":Project") will be located on the Borrower's campus on U.S. Route 11 North in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County") and will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the r -r County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: .., ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Secretary-Treasurer, IDA 2 Item No. C `` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of $13,500,000 of industrial revenue bonds for Hollins College Corporation for the construction of a new library and making various building renovations on the campus COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~ `' _~°"~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) was formed in 1970 under the provisions of the Code of Virginia to promote economic and industrial development within Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton. One role of the Authority is to assist new and expanding manufacturing companies by the issuance of tax exempt Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB's) which can be used to finance up to 100% of the costs of constructing and equipping eligible facilities. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 also allows the Authority to issue bonds on behalf of eligible non- profit 501 (c) 3 corporations such as educational institutions and certain medical facilities. The Authority functions as the "vehicle" through which bonds are authorized and issued by a private financial institution. Neither the Authority nor the County are liable for the repayment of bonds, or "co-sign" the bonds when issued. Since 1970, bonds totaling more than $70 million have been issued by the Authority in Roanoke County. The Authority has a separate Board of Directors whom are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Summary of Information: Hollins College Corporation has requested that the Authority issue up to $13,500,000 of IRB's for the construction of a new library and the renovation of various buildings on the campus. Hollins College has previously used $5,500,000 of IRB's to construct a gymnasium, renovate academic and residence hall buildings, construct parking lots and roadways, and a new front entrance on Williamson Road. The Authority held a public hearing and approved the application for bond financing at their January 7, 1998 meeting. The Authority requests that the Board of Supervisors concur in their ., .~• ' recommendation and approve the issuance of $13,500,000 of industrial revenue bonds for Hollins College Corporation. Fiscal Impact• Hollins College Corporation is an tax exempt 501 (c) 3 organization. There will be direct and indirect economic impact from local purchases, new employment and related wages as shown on the attached economic impact statement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution as requested by the Industrial Development Authority for $13,500,000 of industrial revenue bond financing on behalf of Hollins College Corporation. Respectfully submitted: .1- Timothy W. Gubala, Secretary-Treasurer Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Approved: ~s~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator No Yes Abs Harrison _ _ Johnson _ _ _ McNamara _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens Attachment ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST OF $13,500,000 OF INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR HOLLINS COLLEGE CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIBRARY AND VARIOUS BUILDING RENOVATIONS ON THE CAMPUS WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of Hollins College Corporation (the "Borrower") requesting the issuance of one or more of the Authority's revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $13,500,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Borrower in financing (a) the construction of a new four-story library, of approximately 56,000 square feet, adjacent to the Borrower's existing chapel, (b) the renovation of various buildings, (c) the construction and renovation of utility systems, (d) the equipping of the Borrower's campus and (e) the acquisition of motor vehicles to be based on the Borrower's campus, all of which facilities (collectively, the "Project") will be located on the Borrower's campus on U.S. Route 11 North in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County") and will be owned and operated by the Borrower, and has held a public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it has been requested that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, and such approval is required for compliance with Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"); BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as required by said Section 147(fj, to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section 147(f), does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Project possesses any economic viability. The Bonds shall provide that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth") nor any political subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and receipts pledged therefor and that neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, including the County and the Authority, shall be pledged thereto. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ~~- l RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Authority") the plans of Hollins College Corporation (the "Borrower") to construct, renovate, acquire and equip several facilities (collectively, the "Project") in Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower has described the benefits to the County and has requested the Authority to agree to issue its revenue bonds or notes, under the Virginia Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the "Act"), in such amounts as may be necessary to finance the cost of the Project; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the location of the Project in the County will promote the welfare of the residents of the County and surrounding areas, will enhance educational opportunities for residents of the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia, will be in the public interest and will be consistent with the purposes of the Act. 2. To induce the Borrower to locate the Project in the County, the Authority hereby agrees, subject to required approvals and the compliance of the proposed issue with applicable law, to assist the Borrower in every reasonable way to finance the Project and, in particular, to undertake the issuance of one or more of its revenue bonds or notes (the "Bonds") therefor in amounts now estimated not to exceed $13,500,000 upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and the Borrower. The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall be loaned by the Authority to the Borrower pursuant to an agreement or agreements which will provide for loan repayments to the Authority sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and to pay all other expenses in connection with the Project. The Bonds shall be issued in form and pursuant to terms to be set by the Authority. 3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed immediately with the Project, the Authority hereby agrees that the Borrower may proceed.. with plans for the Project, enter into contracts for construction, renovation, acquisition and equipping and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection therewith, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Borrower to obligate the Authority without its consent in each instance to the payment of any monies or the performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that, to the extent consistent with federal tax laws, the Borrower may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds for all costs so incurred by it. RKE#0510756.WPD C/M: 045340-00032-01 .-- 4. To the extent consistent with federal tax laws, all costs and expenses in connection with the financing of the Project, including the fees and expenses of bond counsel and Authority counsel, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the Borrower and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor. ~. The Authority intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official action" toward the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning of the regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. 6. The Authority shall perform such other acts and adopt such further resolutions as may be required to implement its undertakings as hereinabove set forth, and if requested by the Borrower, it will make application to the Internal Revenue Service for such tax rulings as may be necessary in the opinion of bond counsel. To that end, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority is hereby authorized to execute an appropriate power of attorney naming counsel selected by the Borrower for such purposes. 7. The Authority hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board") approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. 8_ ° The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the Board (a) a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing held with respect to the issuance of the Bonds, (b) a fiscal impact statement concerning the Project in the form specified in Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia, and (c) a copy of this resolution, which constitutes the recommendation of the Authority that the Board approve the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds. 9. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. At the regular Industrial Development Authority meeting on January 7, 1998, upon motion by J. Carson Quarles, seconded by Steve Musselwhite, the resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Ayes: J. Carson Quarles, Steve Musselwhite, Billy Branch, Rick Cranwell, Carole Brackman, Ronald Martin, Neil Gallagher Nays: None Absent: None RKE#0510756_WPD C/M: 045340-G7a32-01 ,~~ INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY FINANCING Section 1 Information Concerning Applicant 1. Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: Hollins College Corporation PO Box 9658 Charles W. Crist Roanoke, VA 24020 Federal Employer ID # 54-0506314 2. Name of applicant's representative to be contacted for additional information: Name: Altca Knig?:tcn ~~ Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove Telephone No.: (540983-7632 3. Names} of Principal Users}, if Different from Applicant: Mailing Address, if Different from Applicant: - m PO Box 14125 Roanoke, VA 24038-4125 Mailing Address, if Different from Applicant: NA ~'- f Federal Employer ID # NA 4. Type of business presently conducted by applicant, if any: Hier education 5. Present location of applicant's principal place of business, if any: 7916 Williamson Road Roanoke, VA 24019 6. In what year was business started? 1842 7. If a corporation, give state of incorporation: Virginia 8. If a subsidiary of another corporation, give name, state of incorporation and mailing address of parent corporation: NA 9. If a corporation, give names and residence addresses of the principal officers, directors, and major stockholders (ten percent or more): See attached 10. If applicant is a partnership, give (a) name of state under whose laws it is organized: NA ;and (b) City or County in which its principal office is located: 11. If a partnership, state whether general or limited: NA 2 1 12. If a partnership, give names and residence addresses of all present partners and indicate whether general or limited: NA 13. If applicant is a joint venture or other business entity (other than a corporation or partnership), describe and give names and residence addresses of all principals: NA 14. If applicant proposes to undertake the facility sought to be financed through a subsidiary corporation, a new corporation, or other entity to be formed by applicant, give details: NA 3 ~~ 15. Identify any officers, director, or shareholders (except shazeholders of publicly traded corporations) who hold any state or local elective or appointive office, and state the office held: 16. Describe any relationships between the applicant and principal users and any member of the Authority or the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County: None Section 2 Information Concerning Facility Sought to be Financed 1. Type of facility: (a) Institutional x ; (b) Commercial ; (c) Other If (c) Other, describe facility: 2. Indicate whether facility sought to be financed is a (a) new facility x ; (b) existing facility x ; or (c) addition to or modification of existing facility x . 4 ~i 3. Type of business or activity to be conducted and purpose of facility sought to be financed. Explain proposed use of facility by applicant and/or others and, if a manufacturing plant, the type of products to be manufactured: A library and other buildings an3 u*_ility systems located on the Applicant's campus. - 4. Specific site location, if known, including street number, if available: 7915 Williamson Road IvT,~T 5. 6 7. Roanoke, VA 24019 General description of proposed facility (describe type of construction, square footage, amount for each operation such as manufacturing, storage, office, etc.): 1~ Four-story library, approximately 56,000 sq. feet 2) renovation of various buildings 3)construction and renovation of utility systems _4)equippin~ of the campus 5) acquisition of motor vehicles Name and address of architect, if selected: Yerrv, Dea~t, Rogers & PartnerG 177 Milk Street Boston, MA 02109 Name and address of contractor, if selected: JM Turner & Co. PO Box 2140 Roanoke, VA 24009 Telephone No. X17) 423-0100: Telephone No. (540343-6749 5 ~/ 8. If site has been selected, give name of present owner(s): Hollins College Corporation, Applicant 9. If an existing facility, (a) what is its present use? Institution -Higher education (b) number of regular employees presently employed on year-round basis: 3io ;and (c) average annual salary per such employee $27, SOO 10. If applicant is not the present owner of the site, state what, if anything, has been done concerning the location and acquisition of a site by or on behalf of the applicant. NA 11. If specific location of proposed facility is known, state the present zoning classification of the land under the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County: Commercial 12. If specific location is known, is a zoning change required? YES NO x If yes, state the zoning classification required: 13. Does the site of the proposed facility require governmental expenditure for roads, utilities, etc.? Describe: No 14. Are funds from other government-sponsored programs involved in this protect? Describe: ,,T„ 15. Estimated number of regular employees to be employed on year-round basis after acquisition or completion of facility: One additional employee 6 i_ r ~~ 16. Average annual salary per such employee: $ 16, o00 17. Estimate the annual payroll after completion of the facility: $10,102,224 18. State the growth potential for the facility, employees, proposed wage scale, and training needs: The new library, various building renovations and utility . system upgrades will serve both Hollins students and faculty as well as students, faculty & public from throughout the Roanoke region. One new custodial employee will be required @ approriTately $1b,000 per year. 19. State the growth potential. for the facility in terms of sales, employment, and plant eXpansion: The new librar~r w; 11 add aooroximatel~C $ 180.000 per year in new 20. Section 3 Cost of Facility and Financing 1. Estimated total cost of proposed facility: $ 22, ooo, ooo~ 2. Maximum amount of financing sought through the Authority: ooeratinQ costs primarily in enerQV usage and equipment maintenance. If application is approved by the Authority, when would applicant anticipate issuance of bonds and work on the facility started? January 1, 1998 $ 13, 500,.000 3. Items of cost to be paid from Authority financing (i.e., land, building, equipment, legal, etc.): New & renovated buildings, utility systems, chiller plant, HVAC systems, and associated professional fees, e.g. engineering, architectural and le 7 E- t 4. If financing is approved, does applicant expect the Authority bonds to be sold by (a) private placement ; or (b) public offering x ~ 5. If by private placement, has applicant received a commitment or other assurance from a bank or others with respect to the sale of the bonds? Yes ~ No Elaborate: 6. If by public offering, name and address of underwriter desired: Name Mailing Address First Union Capital Markets Corp 123 South Broad Street .Managing Underwriter- 4th Floor, MBO, Philadelphia, PA 19109 Mary Di Martino Telephone: ~ 21~ 985-3188 7. Name and address of bond counsel desired: Name Mailing Address Alton L. Knighton, Jr. p0 Box 14125 Woods. Rosers & Hazletrove Roanoke; VA 24038-4125 Telephone: ~40~ 983-7632 8 Section 4 Tax Information 1. If the site of the proposed facility is known, state the current assessed value for real estate tax purposes of the land, and improvements thereon. Land $ NA Improvements $ NA TOTAL $ NA 2. Current yearly real property tax on the proposed site: $ NA 3. Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property (buildings and improvements) to be constructed: $ NA 4. Estimated real property tax per year with respect to the facility when completed on real property to be constructed (buildings and improvements) using present County of Roanoke tax rates: $ NA 5. Estimated personal property tax per year with respect to the facility when completed, using present tax rates: $ Na 6. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year with respect to the facility when completed, using present tax rates: $ NA 7. Estimated dollar value per year of goods and services that will be purchased locally by applicant or other users of the facility: $ iso, o00 -f 9 i-r Section 5 Inducement Explain how the requested financing by the Authority will enable or induce applicant to locate in or remain in the County of Roanoke and the Commonwealth of Virginia: w; 11 promote the wed fare of the residents of the County and surrounding areas, will enchance educational opportunities for residents of the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia, will be in the ublic interests and will be consistent with the purposes of the Virginia Industrial Development & Rev. Bond 'Act. It is understood and agreed by the Applicant that Applicant (a) will, upon the filing of this application, pay to the Authority an application fee of $1,250.00 and in addition (b) will pay when billed the cost of necessary advertisement of any public hearing required to be held with respect to this application, and (c) will pay, when billed, all other costs and expenses of the Authority, including reasonable fees of its legal counsel, with respect to this application and any Authority or Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County meetings held in connection therewith. Also in addition, Applicant understands and agrees that in the event the Authority approves the application and adopts an inducement resolution with respect thereto and thereafter authorizes the issuance of its bonds or notes to finance a facility on behalf of the Applicant, all costs of the Authority in connection with any such issue, including the reasonable fees of its legal counsel and bond counsel, will be paid either from the proceeds of the issue or directly by the Applicant, or if such bonds or notes are not issued for any reasons, then directly by the Applicant. The Applicant understands that the approval or disapproval of this application is within the discretion of the Authority and that if approved by the Authority the requested financing must also be approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke; that the Authority and/or the Board of Supervisors may require additional financial and other information from the Applicant; that the Authority reserves the right to approve or disapprove bond counsel with respect to each issue; that if this application is approved and Authority bonds or notes are thereafter issued, all financing documents shall be in form and substance satisfactory to the Authority, its legal counsel and bond counsel, and shall include provisions satisfactory to the Authority, with respect to indemnifying the Authority and payment by Applicant to the Authority of additional funds as may be 10 3ie~essary on an annual basis to be applied to the Authority's general operating and audit L~°" expense while such bonds or notes are outstanding; and that if the Authority adopts an inducement resolution with respect to the issuance of bonds or notes on behalf of Applicant and thereafter before the issuance of its bonds or notes determines (1) that any material information furnished the Authority or the Board of Supervisors by or on behalf of the Applicant is false or misleading, (2) if after the adoption of such resolution the proposed financing is not thereafter approved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, or (3) if the Authority deems the Applicant to have taken insufficient action toward closing the requested financing, the Authority, in any such event, reserves and shall have the right to revoke or rescind such inducement resolution which the Authority has entered into with Applicant, after not less than ten (10) days written notice of the Authority's intention so to do, addressed and mailed.to the Applicant at its address given in this Application. If the proposed financing is approved by the Authority and the Board of Supervisors, and for any reason, the bonds or notes are not issued prior to the end of the current calendar year, the inducement and authorization to issue bonds shall terminate and abate, and be of no further effect at midnight on the last day of the calendar year. Respectfully submitted this ~ day of ~ ~, 199b. Hollins Co11eQe Corporation by Charl s W. Crist, Treasurer G~-~ PLEASE NOTE (1) Individual applicants shall each sign the application. If Applicant is a corporation, the application is to be made and signed in the full proper name of the corporation as it appears in its Articles of Incorporation, by a duly authorized officer thereof who shall give his title, and if a partnership, in the full proper name of the partnership as it appears in its Certificate of Partnership, by one or more general partners. (2) If additional space is needed to properly respond to any question, refer to and attached an additional numbered sheet at end of application. (3) If any question is not applicable, indicate by inserting "N/A." 11 A-011398-4 ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: 1998 Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a list of the 1997 Committee Assignments. The appointments specific to the chairman and vice chairman will remain the same this year because there was no change in officers. However, there are vacanices created by the election of Supervisor McNamara representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The vacant appointments are also noted on the attached list. At this time, the Board of Supervisors may make any modifications they wish. Many of the appointments are for specific terms and those appointments should be made at the expiration of the terms. Listed below is information about several of the Committees: Liaisons to the Virginia Association of Counties In 1994, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to interact directly with VACo regarding legislative matters. At a 1994 meeting, The Board recommended that the Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serve in this capacity. However, any Board member may be appointed. In 1992, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to work directly with the regional representative on the VACo Board of Directors. The Chairman has served in this capacity for several years, but any Board member may be appointed. Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership ;, .~ ~r ... The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serves on this organization. Therefore Chairman Bob Johnson should be appointed to this position. Urban Partnership The County recently decided to retain membership in the Urban Partnership and the Chairman serves on this organization. Roanoke County Cable Television Committee ' This is similar to the Roanoke Valley Cable Television Committee and the same members serve with the addition of the Supervisor Harrison who represents the Catawba Magisterial District, the primary area served by Salem Cable TV. The 5th District Rural Transportation Planning Advisory Committee Former Supervisor Lee Eddy served on this committee as a citizen representative and offered to step down. However, several Board members have indicated their desire that he remain a member of this committee as Roanoke County's representative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the Board of Supervisors appointments for calendar year 1998. Submitted by: pproved by: Mary H. Allen, CMC Elmer C. Hodge Clerk to the Board County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison _ x _ Denied () ~ 998 Committee appointments with Johnson _ ~ Received () additions and changes as discussed McNamara_ x _ Referred () Minnix _ ~c _ To O Nickens x NOTE: Supervisor McNamara will serve on School Construction Committee, replace Supervisor Johnson on the Audit Committee, and serve on the Clean Valley Council, Fifth Planning District Commission and Fifth Planning District Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mr. Lee B. Eddy will continue to serve on the Rural Transportation Planning Advisory Committee as a citizen representative. cc: File Committee Book BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 1998 FENTON F. HARRISON -- Fifth Planning District Commission (three-year term expiring 6/30/98) - Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/1/99) -- Roanoke County Cable Television Committee (representing Catawba Magisterial District) BOB L. JOHNSON -- Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (4-year term expires 2/10/98) -- Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2-year term expires 5/5/98. BLJ appointed Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes as his designee.) -- Virginia Association of Counties Liaison (As Chairman1 -- Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership jAs Chairman JOSEPH P. MCNAMARA -- Audit Committee -- Clean Valley Council (2-year term expires 6/30/99) -- Fifth Planning District Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/99) -- Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/1/99) H. ODELL MINNIX -- Social Services Advisory Board (4-year term expires 8/1 /98) -- Audit Committee -- Metropolitan Planning Organization -Alternate (3-year term expires 7/1/99) HARRY C. NICKENS -- Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee -- Roanoke County Cable Television Committee -- Legislative Liaison to Virginia Association of Counties (As Vice-Chairman -- Metropolitan Transportation District Study Commission E~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 1997 VACANT -- Clean Valley Council (2-year term expires 6/30/99) -- Fifth Planning District Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/99) -- Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/1/99) FENTON F. HARRISON -- Fifth Planning District Commission (three-year term expiring 6/30/98) -- Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/1/99) -- Roanoke County Cable Television Committee (representing Catawba Magisterial District) BOB L. JOHNSON -- Audit Committee -- Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (4-year term expires 2/10/98) -- Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2-year term expires 5/5/98. BLJ appointed Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes as his designee.) -- Virginia Association of Counties Liaison jAs Chairmanl -- Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (As Chairmanl H. ODELL MINNIX -- Social Services Advisory Board (4-year term expires 8/1/98) -- Audit Committee -- Metropolitan Planning Organization -Alternate (3-year term expires 7/1/99) HARRY C. NICKENS -- Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee -- Roanoke County Cable Television Committee -- Legislative Liaison to Virginia Association of Counties jAs Vice-Chairmanl -- Metropolitan Transportation District Study Commission r A-011398-5 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~ "" 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 SUBJECT: County Holiday Schedule for Calendar Year 1998 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Employee Handbook incorporates a schedule of 11 paid employee holidays, for regular, full-time County employees. On these days, most County offices are closed and most employees can enjoy the day off as a part of the County benefit package. In 1997, the Governor authorized three additional holidays for State employees around the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays. Following the Employee Handbook, these additional days were also authorized in 1997, for Roanoke County employees. In granting these additional days, the Board of Supervisors also amended the Employee Handbook to remove the granting of additional days authorized by the governor. The purpose of this Board Report is to approve the County holiday schedule for 1998 and amend the Employee Handbook to reflect the Board's earlier action. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors ratify the following holiday schedule for the 1998 Calendar Year: New Year's Day Lee-Jackson-King Day George Washington Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day New Year's Day January 1 January 19 February 16 May 25 July 3* September 7 October 12 November 11 November 26 November 27 December 25 January 1, 1999 *July 4 falls on a Saturday ~-3 In addition, by the Board's earlier action, the Employee Handbook was amended to remove the following sentences: Chapter IX - Leaves of Absence K. Holida~Schedule " The following days shall be observed as holidays. for .The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to amend the holiday schedule at any time and to increase or decrease the number of holidays observed. For those offices that remain open on designated holidays or do not follow the established holiday schedule, the total number of paid holidays shall not exceed 11 eight-hour working days or 88 hours. a . Holidays are considered an eight-hour work period that falls on the specified holiday." SUBMITTED BY: h .Sgroi Director of Human Resources APPROVED: ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator E-3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION Approved (x) Motion by: Harr~C, Nicl:sns to approve Denied () 1998 holid~ schedule and Handbook Received () amendment with addititional modification Referred () to the Handbook Amendment and To () addition of New Year's Day 1999 cc: File Joseph J. Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Assistant County Administrators Department Heads VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison _ ~c _ Johnson _ ~ _. McNamara- x Minnix - x Nickens - x Assistant County Adm John Chambliss Assistant County Adm Don Myers Clerk, Board of Supervisors Mary Allen Clerk, Circuit Court Steve McGraw Commissioner of Revenue Wayne Compton Commonwealth Attorney Skip Burkart Community Relations Anne Marie Green County Attorney Paul Mahoney Economic Development Tim Gubala Engineering & Inspections Arnold Covey Family Court Services Mike Lazzuri Finance Diane Hyatt Fire & Rescue Richard Burch General Services Bill Rand Health Department Dr. Margaret Rutledge (Mail) Human Resources Joseph Sgroi Library Director Spencer Watts Mgt Information Systems Craig Hatmaker Ombudsman Gardner Smith Parks & Recreation Pete Haislip Planning & Zoning Terry Harrington Police Chief Ray Lavinder Procurement Elaine Carver Real Estate Assessment John Birckhead Registrar Diane J. St.John School Administration Dr. Deanna Gordon Sheriff Gerald Holt Social Services Dr. Betty McCrary Treasurer Fred Anderson Utility Gary Robertson VPI & SU Ext Agent Jean Vandergrift Youth Haven II Beverly Tys-Berson ~ ~ TO: All Roanolze County Employees FROM: Joe Sgroi, Director o{ Human Resources DATE: November 19, 1997 SUBJECT: HOLIDAY SCHEDULE We are pleased to announce that Roanolze County O~~ices will observe the additional holidays authorized by the Governor ~or state employees. During the holidays, all regular ~ull-time employees will receive holiday leave time as follows: TIIANKSGlVING O~~ices Close at 12:00 Noon O~~ices Closed Of ices Closed Wednesday, November 26, 1997 Thursda~y~ November 27, 1997 Friday, November 28, 1997 CHRISTMAS Offices Close at 12:00 Noon O~~ices Closed O~~ices Closed Wednesday, December 24, 1997 Thursda ,December 25, 1997 Friday, ~ecember 26, 1997 NEl~ YEAR'S O{ices Closed Thursda ,January 1, 1998 O~Fices Closed Friday, ~anuary 2, 1998 ^-3 For those o~~ices that remain open on designated holidays or do not otherwise follow the established holiday schedule, your supervisor will advise you o{ the woriz schedule ~or your department or o~~ice. A11 regu~ar u~~ time em~~otiees wi~~ receive an equa~ amount o{ ac~c~itiona~ boliclay ~eave time to ineJuc~e a tota~ 0 24 lro~ic~ay Hours. In their meeting, the Board o~ Supervisors also amended the Employee Handboolz to remove the granting o~ additional holidays authorized by the Governor. In 1998 and in ~uture years, County employees will continue to receive 11 holidays (88 holiday hours) but will not automatically receive Governor granted holidays. Employees are always ~ree to request accumulated leave time (following the Handboolx guidelines) for time o{~ during the holiday season or other times during the year. I would lilze to talze this opportunity to wish you and your family a happy and sae holiday season and thanlz you {or your service to the County. ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~' 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to Ratify a Sublease Agreement with Bell Atlantic Providing Use of Tower Space on Poor Mountain. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ BACKGROUND: In 1988 Roanoke County placed into service a conventional 800mhz repeater on Poor Mountain. This repeater provides a conventional radio backup enabling emergency communications should the primary system become inoperative and to serve as a conventional repeater to reach the south side of Poor Mountain and the Bent Mountain area. The repeater, power supply and antenna were placed at the Bell Atlantic tower site to provide complete separation, thereby ensuring true backup for the Poor Mountain site. This arrangement has been an informal agreement since its inception. This sublease formalizes the agreement, giving the County legal status at this site. The sublease is for a five (5) year term with the option for one five (5) year renewal. FISCAL IMPACT: There is NO rent required for this sublease. Bell Atlantic is requiring, however, that the County provide liability insurance with Bell Atlantic as an additional insured. The cost of this insurance is estimated to be approximately $350.00. The funds are available in the Communications Division of the General Services Department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This conventional repeater site is essential to an effective emergency communication system and staff recommends approval of this ordinance. Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator William ~. xanct, 111 Director of General Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE TO APPROVE, RATIFY, AND CONFIRM A SUBLEASE AGREEMENT WITH BELL ATLANTIC -VIRGINIA, INC. TO SUBLEASE TOWER AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING SPACE FOR A REPEATER ANTENNA ON POOR MOUNTAIN AS PART OF THE E911 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WHEREAS, Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. (Bell Atlantic) leases a tower site on Poor Mountain from Elizabeth Terry Reynolds, and has constructed a tower and equipment building thereon; and, WHEREAS, in 1988, Bell Atlantic personnel authorized Roanoke County staff to place a repeater, power supply, and antenna on said tower site to serve as a conventional radio back-up for the County's main Poor Mountain tower site and as a conventional repeater to reach the south side of Poor Mountain and the Bent Mountain area in connection with the enhanced emergency 911 communication system; and, WHEREAS, Bell Atlantic has now required a sublease agreement in order to maintain the antenna and equipment on the site; and, WHEREAS, said sublease provides for an initial term of five years, with an option to renew for an additional five year term and annual renewals thereafter, subject to termination by either parry without cause upon providing six months written notice; and, WHEREAS, said sublease requires no payment of rent, but requires payment by the County of labor costs, if necessary, associated with Bell-Atlantic permitting access to the site after normal work hours, and requires providing Owners and Contractors Protective Insurance, naming Bell-Atlantic as the insured, at an approximate cost of $350.00 per year; and, Fi WHEREAS, such costs are to be funded from the annual budget of the Communications Division of the Department of General Services and requires no specific appropriation; and, WHEREAS, this repeater site is essential for E911 communications in certain areas of the County and is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; and the second reading was held on January 27, 1998. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Sublease Agreement dated December 30, 1997, between Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc., Sublessor, and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Sublessee, and the terms and conditions provided for in said agreement, is hereby approved and the execution of said agreement by the County Administrator is hereby authorized, ratified, and confirmed, subject to execution of said agreement by a duly authorized official of Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. 2. That the insurance and labor costs associated with this sublease agreement shall be funded from the annual budget of the Communications Division of the Department of General Services; and, 3. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such other documents and take such additional actions on behalf of 2 F~ Roanoke County in this matter as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this agreement, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. g:\...\vlh\bellada.ord 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 10-3, ARTICLE I; OF CHAPTER 10 LICENSES OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH A STATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ELIIVIINATE CHARGING A LICENSE FEE TO CERTAIN BUSINESSES SUBJECT TO A LICENSE TAX ('OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval of these changes Most are housekeeping. I do recommend retaining the fee for those businesses grossing less than $100,000. EXECUTIVE SUI\RVIARY: This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Article I, Section 10- 3 of Chapter 10 LICENSES, of the Roanoke County Code to incorporate a state code amendment to eliminate charging a license fee to businesses subject to a license tax into the Roanoke County Code. The second reading and public hearing are scheduled for January 27, 1998. BACKGROUND: Chapter 37 (Section 58.1-3700, et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, authorizes localities to adopt an ordinance imposing a business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax. In response to criticism of the BPOL tax and support for repeal of the state enabling legislation to eliminate the tax, due to disparity among localities in the tax provisions and administration, many local governments adopted the uniform provisions proposed by the Virginia Municipal League (VML) to voluntarily address the concerns. The Board of Supervisors adopted an amended BPOL Ordinance with the uniform provisions on December 12, 1995. During the 1996 session of the General Assembly, significant amendments were made to the enabling legislation. Specific provisions to address such issues as key definitions, rules for establishing situs, interest and penalty provisions, and due dates were adopted into the state code and were required to be incorporated into any local BPOL ordinance no later than January 1, 1997. F~ In addition, the 1996 General Assembly provided that no locality could impose a BPOL tax on any business with gross receipts less than $100,000. The amended legislation authorized localities to impose a fee not to exceed $100, applicable to all businesses, for issuance of a business license. The Board of Supervisors made these amendments to the BPOL Ordinance and established a $50 fee applicable to all businesses for the issuance of a business license on June 25, 1996. SUNIMARY OF INFORMATION: The 1997 General Assembly, in order to limit charging a license fee to businesses subject to license taxes, amended section 58.1-3703 to permit localities to assess and collect license taxes "...provided such tax shall not be assessed and collected on any amount of gross receipts of each business upon which a license fee is charged." This amendment will prohibit Roanoke County from imposing a licensing fee on a business and assessing a gross receipts tax on that business whose gross receipts are greater than $100,000. The State Code amendment is effective July 1, 1998; therefore, this change will not affect the 1998 BPOL tax year for taxes and fees due on March 1, 1998. County staff has prepared the proposed amendments to Chapter 10, Licenses, in order to assure that the Roanoke County BPOL ordinance will be in conformity with the requirements of the amended state enabling legislation as of July 1, 1998. In summary, the ordinance amendment states that the license fee shall not be charged to any business whose gross receipts are $100,000 or greater and who is subject to levy and payment of the annual license tax. One additional amendment to State Code section 58.1-3703 authorizes the governing body to waive the license requirements for businesses with gross receipts of less than $100,000. While not specifically mentioning the license fee, it is logical to assume that if the licensing requirement is waived, the fee would also be waived since there would be nothing filed on which to base the fee. The Commissioner of Revenue's office is adamantly opposed to this option, mainly because the filing requirement assists in tracking businesses to see whether or not they are subject to BPOL taxes. This option would also have a significant negative fiscal impact. This change in state code is optional at the discretion of the local governing body. The Board may elect to take no action to amend the County Code. If no action is taken, the state code would supersede the County Code as of July 1, 1998. FISCAL IMPACT: Based on State Code section 58.1-3703 as amended and adopted by the 1997 session of the Virginia General Assembly and approved by Governor George Allen, Roanoke County will no longer be authorized to charge a business a filing fee and a business license tax based on gross receipts of $100,000 or greater. The projected revenue loss from this amendment totals approximately $75,000. 2 ~a If the Board chooses to waive licensing requirements for businesses with gross receipts less than $100,000, the projected revenue loss would be approximately $210,000 (in addition to the above mentioned revenue loss). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 10-3, Article I; of Chapter 10 Licenses of the Roanoke County Code in order to comply with the amended state code enabling legislation, to not charge a license fee to any business with gross receipts of $100,000 or greater who is subject to levy and payment of the annual license tax, and to schedule the matter for a second reading and public hearing on January 27, 1998. Respectfully submitted, ~,~ Brent Robertson Budget Manager Approved Denied Received Referred To ACTION Motion by: Approv d by, _ ~. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison Johnson _ _ _ McNamara _ _ _ Minnix Nickens 3 r--a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 10-3, ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 10 "LICENSES" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH A STATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE CHARGING A LICENSE FEE TO CERTAIN BUSINESSES SUBJECT TO A LICENSE TAX WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Chapter 37 (Section 58.1-3700, et seg.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, imposes a business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax through the adoption of an ordinance codified in Chapter 10 Licenses of the Roanoke County Code; and, WHEREAS, said state enabling legislation was substantially amended by the 1996 session of the Virginia General Assembly and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted an ordinance in June of 1996, to be effective on January 1, 1997, amending the Roanoke County Code to address and conform with the state code provisions, including imposition of a $50 fee for issuance of a business license; and, WHEREAS, §58.1-3703 of the Code of Virginia was amended by the 1997 session of the General Assembly to provide that the license taxes authorized therein shall not be assessed and collected on any amount of gross receipts of each business upon which a license fee is charged, which amendment is to be effective July 1, 1998; and, WHEREAS, said amendment necessitates a revision to §10-3 of the County Code, to be effective July 1, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that, for businesses with gross receipts of $100,000 or more and therefore subject to the BPOL tax, the tax should properly be 1 ~f assessed on the "whole, entire, total receipts, without deduction", as gross receipts is defined in the state and county code, and that in accordance with the amendment to §58.1- 3703, such businesses shall not be charged the $50 license fee under §10-3(a)(1); and, WHEREAS, legal notice of this amendment has been published in a newspaper of general circulation within Roanoke County on January 13, 1998, and January 20, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998, and the second reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on January 27, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That §10-3 of Article I, Chapter 10, LICENSES of the Roanoke County Code be amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 10-3. Levying of license fees and taxes. (a) Subject to the limitations provided in § 58.1-3703.C. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and except as otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter of the Roanoke County Code, there are hereby imposed and levied for each and every year, beginning with January 1 of each year and ending December 31 following, and there shall be collected the following license fees and taxes upon the privilege of doing business or exercising a profession, trade, occupation or calling, including all phases thereof, in the county, which license fees and taxes shall be for the support of the county government, payment of the county debt, and for other county and public purposes: 2 ~~ at the rates and in the amounts hereinafter set forth in this chapter upon any person, firm, or corporation engaged in a business, trade, profession, occupation or calling subject to licensure in the county. Except as may be otherwise authorized by specific or special provisions of Chapter 37 (§ 58.1- 3700 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and this chapter of the Roanoke County Code, the annual license taxes shall not be imposed upon any person whose gross receipts from a business, profession, trade, occupation or calling are less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) during the preceding calendar year. (b) Where the license tax imposed in this chapter is measured by volume, the volume on which the tax may be computed shall be the volume attributable to all definite 3 ~° places of business of the business, profession, trade, occupation or calling in the county. All volume attributable to any definite places of business of the business, profession, trade, occupation or calling in any other locality shall be deductible from the base in computing any local license tax measured by volume imposed upon the licensee in the county. "Volume," as used in this section, means gross receipts, sales, purchases, or other base for measuring a license tax which is related to the amount of business done. 2. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from July 1, 1998. g:\...\vlh\commrev\bpo1.98 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM: January 13, 1998 Request to vacate a 5-foot portion of a sanitary sewer and drainage easement located on Lot 8A (tax #76.03-10-8), and shown on the subdivision plat of Nottingham Park as recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 124, and located in Windsor Hills Magisterial District, as shown on attached map. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The petitioner, Triangle Developers, Incorporated, is requesting that Board of Supervisors vacate a 5-foot portion of a 35-foot sanitary sewer and drainage easement. BACK GROUND: The petitioner, Triangle Developers, Incorporated is the owner of Lot 8A, Nottingham Park, recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 124, and located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The partial easement vacation is necessary because the petitioner inadvertently constructed a residence that protruded approximately 3.5 feet into the existing easement. At the December 2, 1997 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board approved the petitioner's donation of an additional 5 feet of sanitary sewer and drainage easement that compensated for the encroachment into the existing easement. 3 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Triangle Developers, Incorporated, the owner of Lot 8A, Nottingham Park Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 124, requests that the Board of Supervisors vacate a 5-foot portion of sanitary sewer and drainage easement as shown on the attached map. County staff received no objections to the vacation from the applicable County departments. Therefore, Roanoke County is requesting that the 5-foot portion of Sanitary Sewer and Drainage Easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 22, Title 15.2-2272 (2), Code of Virginia 1950. First Reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled to be held on January 13, 1998. A Public Hearing and Second Reading is scheduled for January 27, 1998. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate a 5-foot portion of the Sanitary Sewer and Drainage Easement and instruct the County Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. ITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved: ()Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Harrison Received () Johnson Referred () McNamara To Minnix Nickens pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney { ~UTtLLITY ESM'T for /~•~, • ' /5o•H g ,~ E D.E. -DRAINAGE •••----''• 3" ~'~`~ „ r EP~SEM~NT S P,,FN.~~', ~N'~o ~ aR~ •,. ~ S.S.E - f_ • ~ ~~~ m SAN iTARy ~ ~ .~ yF k~ ~9 ~ SEWER ESM'T. ~ ~ o '~~ fi~~.~,~ ~/ ~ i ~! AG. ad 'v oI~ Y ~ ~1 ~~°G4i.V n, ~ 1~ ~~ ti ;~ 0' CPS ~ '°~+ .-. f~ A ~ ~ ~, ~~ti ~, GpT . ~h .. YAC.4 Ep BE /~"~ N / ~ cY ~4l~ ~. ~ ~ 30, (4~~ 2 `•0` ~~ ~ ~_ ~~ R_ .<'' / DLDICA ,CDT z ~~or 3 / - /%. ',~! .2 A ~ •. ~' (^ iG\ '0~~. Co~Rr V~ Q`~~ Z -- a ~ `~ ~s / ~f? M / ACRE ~e~ o~ • ~ ~--NS~v'25 ~~•~ nW ,o ,c.or ~ , c'n ~ ~•~ ~~ ROANOKE COUNTY REQUEST TO VACATE A 5 FOOT PORTION OF A SANITARY ENGINEERING & SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT OF NOTTINGHAM PARK IN WINDSOR INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT HILLS ?MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT %!r y- 76.0 ~- 3 1~T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A 5 FOOT PORTION OF A SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 8, NOTTINGHAM PARK, PLAT BOOK 17, PAGE 124, (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 8A, NOTTINGHAM PARK, PLAT BOOK 20, PAGE 77) IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled "SURVEY OF NOTTINGHAM PARK', recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 17, page 124, Triangle Developers, Inc. dedicated certain public easements, including a 30' sanitary sewer and drainage easement along the property line of Lots 7 and 8; and, WHEREAS, by resubdivision plat entitled "RESUBDIVISION PLAT FOR TRIANGLE DEVELOPERS, INC.", recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 20, page 77, the property lines were adjusted and the northern half of the subject easement is now located on the lot designated as Lot 8A, Nottingham Park; and, WHEREAS, the petitioner, Triangle Developers, Inc., is the owner of Lot 8A (formerly Lot 8), Nottingham Park; and, WHEREAS, a recent survey of said property reflects that a new residential dwelling located thereon encroaches upon the north side of the existing 30' sanitary sewer and drainage easement; and, WHEREAS, by deed of easement dated October 6, 1997, the Petitioner granted an additional 5' sanitary sewer and drainage easement along the south side of the existing 30' sanitary sewer and drainage easement on Lot 7, Nottingham Park, resulting in a 35' easement and said easement was accepted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on December 2, 1997; and, ~." WHEREAS, the petitioner has requested that the 5' portion of the sanitary sewer and drainage easement on the north side of the existing 35' sanitary sewer and drainage easement be vacated by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), which requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and a first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 1998. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the northerly 5' portion of the existing sanitary sewer and drainage easement along the southern property line of Lot 8 (now Lot 8A), Nottingham Park, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as shown on the subdivision plat entitled "SURVEY OF NOTTINGHAM PARK", recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 17, page 124, also being on Lot 8A, Nottingham Park as shown on the resubdivision plat of record in Plat Book 20, page 77, and further shown as "5 FT. D.E. & S.S.E. TO BE VACATED" on the Exhibit attached hereto, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, 2. That, as a condition to the adoption of this ordinance, all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, 2 ~-- shall be the responsibility of the petitioner, Triangle Developers, Inc., or their successors or assigns; and, 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). c:\wp51\doc\agenda\esmis.w&s\nottham.ord 3 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~° 7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to vacate a 20-foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 16 at Page 128 and located on Lot 1 (Tax Map #40.13-5-2), a portion of the right of way for Carter Grove Lane, and Lot 23 (Tax Map#40.13-5-9), Section 2, Plantation Grove, as recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 175, and located in Hollins Magisterial District (shown on attached map). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The petitioners, Mr. Mike LaBrie and DVW Incorporated, the developer of Plantation Grove Subdivision, request that the Board of Supervisors vacate the 20- foot drainage easement. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Mr. Mike LaBrie is the owner of Lot 1 and DVW Incorporated is the owner of Lot 23, Section 2, Plantation Grove, Plat Book 19, Page 175, located in the Hollins Magisterial District. They are requesting that the Board of Supervisors vacate a 20- foot drainage easement no longer needed because the drainage plan for the Plantation Grove Subdivision has been altered from its original design and drainage facilities are no longer required. This vacation also allows the owners flexibility in the location of their new residence to be constructed on Lot 1. County staff received no objections to the vacation from the applicable County departments. Therefore, Roanoke County is requesting that the described drainage easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 22, Title 15.2-2272 (2), Code of Virginia 1950, as amended. F- 4 First Reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled to be held on January 13, 1998. A Public Hearing and Second Reading is scheduled for January 27, 1998. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance to vacate the referenced Drainage Easement and instruct the County Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. SU MITTED BY: s Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections ACTION Approved ()Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney C Poly a 7 ~ (~ p a Z2~ a X ~ ~ N 2 Qw q J~~9 SQ<s122°' QJ ~a y S ? xy< O ZQ Oit Rte _ c O 05 _ ~~ Grave ~aae^ h `Q 3 o- C~ ~ a`.12~ C.c ~ Rt.1072. r. c ~~ v° ~,° e-a _~h VICINITY MAP Request to Vacate 20 foot drainage easement 7.5' Recorded tin Plat Book 16, Page 128 ~~~` ~ Plantation Grove - Sect~.on 1 ~~ " ~ ~~~ ~'"~' ~~-> Located on ~ ,~ti ~ Lot 1 (Tax Parcel: 40.13-5-2) & ~ ~~~~ ~. Lot 23 (Tax ParceG 40.13-5-9) ~ ~ \;:~;~\. Crossing new right of way (Carter Grove Ln) ~ `` ~~~' ~ Plantation Grove -Section 2 ~::~::\ > .... ,P Recorded in 9) `'~:~:~. A Plat Book 19, Page 175 \(:\ ~~S Lot 23 ~:::;;;~, 9z :\ < sr~° SS ~~ 9 *~ ~i~ SI ~~ . Lot 22 ~~ A~ ~O ~~ U~ S° ::::~.°°~ Easement to °~~~~~~`~ JSo / be vacated 7 ~ S6°62~ 06 ~' A1~ F Lot 2 '7.5' ~ 60.00' S 46°21'01" W 29.98' 11°30'20" E ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Request to Vacate 20 foot drainage easement Recorded tin Plat Book 16, Page 128 Plantation Grove - Section 1 F-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE REMAINING PROPERTY OF THE A. D. STRUBLER HEIRS, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 128, AND FURTHER SHOWN ON LOTS 1 AND 23, SECTION 2, PLANTATION GROVE, AND ALONG A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR CARTER GROVE LANE IN PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 175, IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled "Survey for Plantation Grove", dated September 14, 1993, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 16, page 128, the A. D. Strubler heirs dedicated certain public easements, including a 20-foot drainage easement located on their remaining property; and, WHEREAS, upon subdivision of the remaining property, a portion of said 20-foot drainage easement was located on Lots 1 and 23, Section 2, Plantation Grove, and across a portion of Carter Grove Lane, as shown in Plat Book 19, page 175; and, WHEREAS, the drainage plan for the Plantation Grove Subdivision has been altered from its original design, and the easement previously created is unnecessary; and, WHEREAS, the petitioners, Michael L. and Crystal L. LaBrie, and DVW, Incorporated, are the current owners of Lot 1 (Tax Map No. 40.13-5-2) and Lot 23 (Tax Map No. 40.13-5-9), respectively; and, WHEREAS, the petitioners have requested that a portion of the 20-foot drainage easement be vacated by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, pursuant F-Y to Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), which requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and a first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 1998. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of the "EXIST. 20' D.E. (P.B. 16 PG. 128)", being twenty feet (20') in width, located along Lots 1 and 23, and Carter Grove Lane, Section 2, Plantation Grove, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as shown on the subdivision plat entitled "Survey for Plantation Grove, Section 2", dated February 4, 1997, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 19, page 175, and having been dedicated and shown as " 20' D.E." on the remaining property of the A. D. Strubler Heirs on plat entitled "Survey for Plantation Grove" recorded as aforesaid in Plat Book 16, page 128, and being specifically shown as "Easement to be vacated" on the Exhibit attached hereto, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended); and, 2. That, as a condition to the adoption of this ordinance, all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the petitioners, Michael L. and Crystal L. LaBrie and DVW, Incorporation, or their successors or assigns; and, 2 f-`~ 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). c:\Wp51\doc\agenda\drainage\plantat.ord 3 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to vacate a 50-foot unimproved right-of-way referred to as Champ Drive, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 82, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,~,~,~ ~~ ~~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff is recommending that Champ Drive, an unimproved right-of-way, be vacated on the condition that a drainage easement be retained through part of the original right-of-way. The drainage easement will cover the entire 50-foot width of the current right-of-way and extend 145 feet from Chaparral Drive. Once the Champ Drive right-of-way is vacated, the property will be divided evenly and combined with the property adjacent to both sides of the former right-of-way, per the requirements of Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended) as cited in Section 15.2-2272(2). BACKGROUND: The petitioner, Mr. Don Dye of Buck Mountain Land Development, L.L.C., is the owner of the unimproved parcel adjacent to Champ Drive, which parcel is more particularly described as Fralin & Waldron property, recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 77 and located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. The petitioner desires to vacate the unimproved portion of Champ Drive, which is 50 feet in width, and approximately 290 feet in length, as shown on the attached map and recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 82 and Plat Book 6, Page 77. Once this right-of- way is vacated, the property will be divided evenly and combined with the property adjacent to both sides of the former right-of-way, as per the requirements of Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Code of Virginia, 1950 (as amended) as cited in Section 15.2274. F 5 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County supports this vacation because this section of Champ Drive provides no service. All adjoining properties are provided access from either Kenwick Trail or Chaparral Drive. Although County staff has received no objections, the Engineering and Inspections Department has requested that a portion of the right-of-way be retained as a drainage easement. Therefore, Roanoke County requests that the described right-of-way be vacated in accordance with Chapter 22, Title 15.2-2272(2), Code of Virginia 1950, as amended and a drainage easement, covering the entire 50-foot width of the current right-of-way and extending 145 feet from Chaparral Drive be retained. A second reading of the proposed Ordinance is scheduled to be held on January 27, 1998; a public hearing is scheduled for January 27, 1998. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the first reading of the ordinance to vacate the referenced right-of-way while maintaining the above- described drainage easement and instruct the County Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. ITTED BY: )~rr(old Covey, Dir~ctor~ of Engineering & Inspections APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens pc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney I ~ ~n ~^ ~t. I /~ / ~ `6 ''~s ~~° / h / S ~ ? '11 ~. Pf ! Y ~ 2 ~ahM1 ?ae ~ti 3M ya}6 rs ~ °s y° ..[[~~Ty r mod' ,~,''" / M W J .f ,~ ~= 8 ~9a y 5 b re 2 ' `d, .~`o.~ 01 t yay ~, t5 • '~' ' ab0 r! rR '~ ~ ~ p 'Map 3 y 6 ~r 1a Iq 'r to • 41 ~, .~ 9 ?s y' ~ ~ ,e CHAMP DRIVE - ~ ET °' Is , ~ ~ r ~` TO BE -VACATED ~"° t2 ~~ gas .~ ,, .: bye r7 ~, ty ~ ~/ ~° 0,~..' r .- 10 p ,ao ~!-° o. 6 9 M a f9 T 3S / ~ ba \ M1., 9 ~ _ ~s~~ ss7~ 330 ~/~ y y` 9 \ u 'e / • x ~" ' 1992 .dl `~ . - ~ i53O ' ~ 50' DEDICATED D.E. ~ I ~ / o ~~ - 1 :'`, ~*p, `. slay _ _ 72 ~ O c h I I ~ * ,,_ s F 19M'~ .r ~ ! ~'f' 7~ pp 1 e 12 :ly O ' / R ,~ a 8 ' r ~' ~h ~6 ,fir ~q ~~° ~ yy 7.! ..Z~ei 6y y D ' O ~2*67 ,! A ,600 ~ ti 13 •, r ,f .ti ur ~~ n t .~`Z Q~y ~g era y530 `~ 76 / y- 1L1 35 ~ e 141 ac ~ 15 `~ is` • ti~ ~+ is~ x~ t '~O ° / r Iw Irle raw ~., mp 4 , ISI bl ~ ~ ! X39_ h ~ w i I+p '~ / ryg o i ,,. 16 ~ 2 ine saes ?, 0 19 • w t973 ~ C / Y \\ ~ t~,h ? \~ See M ROANOKE COUNTY VACATING OF 50' RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS ENGINEERING & CHAMP DRIVE AND RETAINING A 50' DEDICATED INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ~5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE VACATING AND CLOSING AN UNIMPROVED AND UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS CHAMP DRIVE IN PENN FOREST SUBDIVISION SHOWN IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 82. WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Buck Mountain Land Development, L.L.C., is the owner of one of the parcels of land adjacent to Champ Drive, shown as "Remaining Property of Tract B" on that certain 'Plat Showing Subdivision of a Portion of Penn Forest' recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 6, Page 77, said parcel being designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #87.10-8-6; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate and close Champ Drive, which is an unimproved, unused right-of- way, measuring fifty feet (50') in width and approximately two hundred ninety feet (290') in length, extending from Chaparral Drive to Kenwick Trail, being shown and dedicated on plats of Penn Forest Subdivision, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 5, Page 82, and Plat Book 6, Page 77; and, WHEREAS, §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by §15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 1998. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: F5 1. That an unimproved portion of right-of--way, situate in the Cave Spring Magisterial District and known as Champ Drive, being approximately 50' in width and 290' in length, extending from Chaparral Drive to Kenwick Trail, as shown on plats of Penn Forest Subdivision, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 5, Page 82, be, and hereby is, vacated and closed pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the following conditions: a. That a perpetual drainage easement, fifty feet (50') in width, and extending northwesterly from Chaparral Drive through Champ Drive a distance of 145' to connect with the existing 20' drainage easement through Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Penn Forest, Section 1, on plat recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 82, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, remove, monitor, repair or replace present or future drainage courses, ditches, lines, pipes, facilities, and other necessary or related structures, appurtenances and improvements, for management, collection, transmission and distribution of any form of drainage, including but not limited to stormwater drainage, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, is hereby reserved and retained. The location of said easement is shown cross-hatched and desig- nated as "50' DEDICATED D.E." on the map entitled 'Vacating of 50' Right Of Way Known As Champ Drive And Retaining A 50' Dedicated Drainage Easement' attached hereto and made a part hereof. b. That fee simple title to the centerline of Champ Drive shall vest in the owners of the abutting properties as provided in §15.2- 2274 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the above-described drainage easement and subject to the condition that the vacated area of land shall be added and combined, by deed or by plat, to said abutting properties, in compliance with the Roanoke County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and other applicable laws and regulations. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner; and, 2 . ~~~ 2. That the County Administrator, an Assistant County Administrator, or any County Subdivision Agent is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). c:\wp51 \doc\agenda\eng\champ.ord 3 ' Item No. ~'"' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of ordinance authorizing the execution of a lease of approximately 10 acres of real estate from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority for public park purposes ('OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ~ti~ Q EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a progression toward the completion of the neighborhood park which began as a promise to the Mayflower Hills community when the Roanoke Regional Landfill was sited in their neighborhood in plans dated 1973. Roanoke County Parks and Recreation will manage the park built on Explore Park land and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has agreed to fund, by reimbursement, the actual costs up to $100,000. The design is completed, construction is scheduled for spring with seeding this fall. SiTMM_ARY OF INFORMATION: On May 28, 1997, the Board of Supervisors authorized $100,000 for advance funding of the Mayflower Hills neighborhood park to be managed by Roanoke County Parks and Recreation, and authorized County staffto notify the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority when the construction of the neighborhood park is completed and request payment for the actual amount, not to exceed $100,000. This is as result of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority having taken action to make a one-time grant, with the consent of the three localities, to fund the neighborhood park up to this level. Since this time finalization of park design and elements have been discussed in neighborhood meetings and a land survey has been completed in coordination with Virginia's Explore Park. The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority is prepared to take favorable action on this matter at their next meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance as prepared by the County Attorney. •. Respectfully submitted: Joyc Waugh ono c Development Specialist Approved: ~,,,, ~i ~~ ~~ / Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved () Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to No Yes Abs Johnson Harrison _ McNamara Minnix _ _ _ Nickens Attachment ' ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (MAYFLOWER HILLS) BE IT ORDAINED by the Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE OF OF REAL ESTATE FROM THE VIRGINIA AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County and pursuant to the authority found in §§ 15.2- 1800 and 15.2-1806 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the acquisition of any interest in real estate, which includes a lease of real estate for public park purposes, shall be accomplished by ordinance; and 2. That ,pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County the first reading on this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998, and the second reading was held on January 27, 1998; and 3. That this lease is with the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority of approximately 10 acres of real estate located on Rutrough Road (State Route 658) (Mayflower Hills) for public park purposes for a term of 99 years commencing the 1st day of February, 1998, for an annual rental of $1.00, payable on January 1 of each year; and 4. That the lease agreement setting forth the terms and condi- tions of this lease is incorporated herein by reference. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\MAYFLEAS.ORD _ ~~ 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute this lease on behalf of the County of Roanoke and to execute such other documents and take such other actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\MAYFLEAS.ORD ~°.w~i~ ,vim ~irnar~rNd anar~rna .~ ~a snovr~a~r~ sacrls a~,wn ,AYM~d~Yd .~9~178 3NL, .,n n~r,r ~~ ~~~~; ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~a ~~, , ~~ .~ -, ,~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ry~~~~ I ti $~W4a Wb~ ~~ti ea~maa boo ~~ W~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ O(~ ~~~~z~sW ~y, a o ZCD '~ pw H O ~ ~ '~S ~ W~~ o~~~rz~y°a~<_ ~`~E ~~; ~~~ ~~~Z<~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ O 0 a~w ~,~& HU Za mdq°o~°~ ~~ (5U RO',~ ¢s~ o ~W ~~" ~w ~~ W ~~ H~ a I ~~ g~Wm 3 3 ~~~ ?~ ~~ /i ~ ~~ N < ~~ ~~ _ ~ ~~~ . , ~ "^ /' 3, O~ ~~i y 2 /\ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~R o8~~~v~' ~~N~~~ r r~~A r V ~~~~ ~~ ~ ao ~l~1hTFb1~ _~ i i ~~~ ~. I ~~~t 0 \\ ~~~~ \\~ \\ ~y,- ~i - ~ ~~ ~ ~. j,~NE ~.irp.) '~ o ---WCNn-'DES a z~-- \~ W~~ N~~~~o< ; N ~~ ~ ~~>. ~ ~ti, ~~~~~ ~ --~-- M W~ w ~~~ ~~ ~~ ,~d, ~~ h y U ~~ ~ ~~a U > ~ ~~~ 4~ ~~~ ~~ti H ~~~ m 2 J U ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ s ~~ ~\ ~~ a ~~ ~m ~ ~ g~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~$ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ y ~m~ ` ~~~p~p ~~ \ i \` ~ ~ ~ ~ N "3 F-L ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Release and Reconveyance of Utility Easements (South Transmission Line) to Terry James Page and Larry Vernon Page, James B. Page and Alice M. Page, and Margaret T. Reynolds COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~~ BACKGROUND: In planning the south transmission line numerous water line easements were obtained by Roanoke County. During construction of this line some of these easements were relocated for various reasons. Two of these easements are located on the Page property (Tax Map No. 73.00-0 l -71) and the Reynolds property (Tax Map No. 73.00-02-10). SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The south transmission line is complete and the respective property owners granted new easements to Roanoke County for the revised location. The owners have requested that the County release and reconvey the original easement. FISCAL IMPACT: The release of these easements will have no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the release and reconveyance of these easements following the second reading of the ordinance on January 27, 1998. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robe on, P.E. Utility Direc or ACTION Approved ( ) Denied () _ Received ( ) Referred _ to Motion by: APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison _ _ _ Johnson _ _ _ McNamara _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens ~. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE AND RECONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENTS (SOUTH TRANSMISSION LINE AND THE STARKEY ROAD WATER PROJECT) TO TERRY JAMES PAGE AND LARRY VERNON PAGE, JAMES B. PAGE AND ALICE M. PAGE, AND MARGARET T. REYNOLDS WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the conveyance of any interests in real estate of the County be accomplished by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 1998; and WHEREAS, certain utility (water, or water and sewer line) easements were previously conveyed to the County by several property owners (grantors). These easements were subsequently relocated due to the realignment of the water transmission line. New easements were conveyed to the County, and said owners have requested that the County release and reconvey the original easements back to them; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of these easements was authorized by Ordinance 82493-9; and WHEREAS, the County having paid a fair market value for these easements, no further payment of consideration is necessary for these transactions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, these easements are hereby declared to be C:\OFFICE\W P WIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\REALEST\RELEASE.EST r--? surplus, and are no longer necessary for any other public purposes, and are made available for release and reconveyance back to the original grantors. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the release and reconveyance of the following utility easements to the hereinafter-named parties are hereby authorized and approved: 73.00-2-10 Margaret T. Reynolds DB1468 PG696 73.00-1-71 Terry James Page and Larry Vernon Page, James B. Page and Alice M. Page DB1451 PG490 2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be required to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of its adoption. C:\OFFICE\WP WIN\WPDOCS\AGENDA\REALEST\RELEASE.EST Gi AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE 110 398-9 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 779 (CATAWBA) FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTING VALUABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND ASSIGNMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the acquisition of real estate shall be accomplished only by ordinance; and, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 5, 1998, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, (the "County") intends to acquire approximately 377 acres of real estate, being a identified as a portion of Tax Map Number 7.00-1-5, and which is located in the Catawba Valley from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and which is known as the Catawba Farm, for the purposes of promoting economic development and protecting valuable environmental resources; and, WHEREAS, County staff has negotiated a Contract of Purchase and Sale for this real estate with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; and WHEREAS, pursuant to §15.2-1205 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors is authorized to donate and assign its rights under a Contract of 1 Purchase And Sale to the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), in furtherance of the purposes for which the IDA was created; and, WHEREAS, it is in the public interest of the citizens of Roanoke County to acquire this real estate in the Catawba Valley for these purposes. BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by contract of purchase and sale of approximately 377 acres of real estate located on State Route 779 in the Catawba Valley, and being identified as a portion of Tax Map Parcel No. 7.00-1-5, for the purposes of promoting economic development and protecting valuable environmental resources, for the sum of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the acquisition of this property shall be accomplished through deferred purchase money financing in ten (10) equal annual installments. The installment payments shall be subject to future appropriations by the Board of Supervisors. Nothing in this Ordinance shall constitute a debt pledging the full faith and credit of the County. That there is hereby appropriated from the Unappropriated Balance the sum of $110,000 to pay the initial installment and all costs related to this transaction. 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to assign the County's contract rights to acquire this real estate to the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, which shall proceed with acquisition of this real estate, 2 subject to the terms and conditions provided in the contract, and the IDA shall assume all obligations and responsibilities of the County provided for in the contract. 4. The County Administrator or Assistant County Administrators are hereby authorized to take such actions and to execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~- ~ . c./ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Melinda J. Cox, Economic Development Specialist Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment 3 s Action No. ~~ Item No. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of the ordinance to approve a purchase agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and the Commonwealth of Virginia for 377 acres of real estate known as the Catawba Farm, being shown on the Roanoke County land records as part of Tax Map Number 7.00-1-5 and authorizing the purchase of the property for preservation/ conservation, recreation, and economic development purposes. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: .~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Catawba Farm is 377 acres which is deemed valuable to the quality of life for our citizens. This tract of real estate is considered to be an asset to the County and is listed on the Virginia National Historic Registry. The staffhas reviewed the options for meeting the community's demand to "keep as is" and preserve the agricultural origin. Of addition note is the Appalachian Trail which abuts this property and provides additional incentive to protect this property via scenic easement or some form of land conservation initiative. In the past, the this farm has been considered as a site for a regional jail and a VDOT training center. Purchase ofthis property would expand the County site inventory, also grant the County the ability to develop, conserve, or preserve the property in the field of agribusiness, tourism, or recreation which WOULD meet the needs of the citizens. FISCAL IMPACT: The County will make the payment for this property over a ten year period. At closing, $100,000 will be paid. The balance will be paid at one year increments of $100,000 each. Interest will not be 1 ~~ charged. The first payment of $100,000 will need to be appropriated from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. For the first year, a total of $110,000 is requested to be appropriated. The first payment to Virginia Polytechnical Institute & State University will be $100,000 and an additional) $10,000 to cover expenses such as the appraisal, Phase I Environmental Assessment, new survey, closing costs, etc. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the second reading of the proposed ordinance approving the Purchase Agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University/Commonwealth of Virginia to acquire the property with ten equal payments of $100,000 without interest for a total purchase price of $1 million. Appropriate $110,000 for the first year's payment and to cover expenses from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. 2. Decline to exercise the option. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative No.l in order to acquire the Catawba Farm site for economic development, preservation, or conservation purposes. submitted: Approved: yu/ Melinda ~C.e~ ~ Economic Development Specialist ACTION Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Motion by: Attachment 2 No Yes Abs Harrison _ _ _ _ _ Johnson _ _ McNamara Minnix _-_- _- Nickens ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 779 (CATAWBA) FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTING VALUABLE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND ASSIGNMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the acquisition of real estate shall be accomplished only by ordinance; and, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 5, 1998, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, (the "County") intends to acquire approximately 377 acres of real estate, being a identified as a portion of Tax Map Number 7.00-1-5, and which is located in the Catawba Valley from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and which is known as the Catawba Farm, for the purposes of promoting economic development and protecting valuable environmental resources; and, WHEREAS, County staff has negotiated a Contract of Purchase and Sale for this real estate with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; and WHEREAS, pursuant to §15.2-1205 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors is authorized to donate and assign its rights under a Contract of Purchase And Sale to the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), in furtherance of the purposes for which the IDA was created; and, G:\ATTORNEY\PMM\CATAWVPI.ORD 1 ' - ~,.. ~ 17 WHEREAS, it is in the public interest of the citizens of Roanoke County to acquire this real estate in the Catawba Valley for these purposes. BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by contract of purchase and sale of approximately 377 acres of real estate located on State Route 779 in the Catawba Valley, and being identified as a portion of Tax Map Parcel No. 7.00-1-5, for the purposes of promoting economic development and protecting valuable environmental resources, for the sum of One Million ($1,000,000) Dollars, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the acquisition of this property shall be accomplished through deferred purchase money financing in ten (10) equal annual installments. The installment payments shall be subject to future appropriations by the Board of Supervisors. Nothing in this Ordinance shall constitute a debt pledging the full faith and credit of the County. That there is hereby appropriated from the Unappropriated Balance the sum of $110,000 to pay the initial installment and all costs related to this transaction. 3. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to assign the County's contract rights to acquire this real estate to the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, which shall proceed with acquisition of this real estate, subject to the terms G:\ATTORNEY\PNII+I\CATAWVPI.ORD 2 i ~ ~~ and conditions provided in the contract, and the IDA shall assume all obligations and responsibilities of the County provided for in the contract. 4. The County Administrator or Assistant County Administrators are hereby authorized to take such actions and to execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. G:\ ATTORNEY\PMM\CATAWVPI.ORD 3 A-011398-10 ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~ 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Roanoke Valley SUBJECT: Resource Authority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1 ROANOKE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR SENIOR AND CHALLENGED CITIZENS At their July 22 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the establishment of the above commission and the appointments of two individuals from each magisterial district who meet the criteria of being disabled, physically challenged, senior citizen or a family members who is a care giver of such a person. Appointments must be made from the Hollins Magisterial District. 2. LIBRARY BOARD Supervisor Eddy advises that Ed Kielty, member representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, has moved to Roanoke City and is no longer eligible to serve on this Board. 3. ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY The four year terms of Allen Robinson and Kate Schefsky expired 12/31 /97. He is eligible for reappointment. 4 SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Supervisor Eddy has received the resignation of Jan Dowling, representing the Windsor Magisterial District. Her term expires August 1, 2000. Supervisor Eddy has referred the nomination to Supervisor-Elect Joseph McNamara. 5. SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT FINANCING INC. 1 ( r~ ,. ~l-S The two-year term of Timothy Gubala will expire January 12, 1998. Since the December 16 meeting Mr. Gubala has indicated that he is willing to serve another term. SUBMITTED BY: ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens moved to Denied () ~ooint Douglas Anderson to serve a Received () four year term and Allen Robinson to Referred () serve another four year term on the To () Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Both terms will expire 12/31/2001. cc: File Roanoke Valley Resource Authority File VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison _ ~ Johnson _ ~ McNamara- x ._ Minnix _ x Nickens - x 2 r ~I -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION 139 - APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 13, 1998 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acceptance of a grant from American Electric Power Company for marketing of the shell building at Valley Gateway. 2. Request for acceptance of Empire Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of Millbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $62,938 V-Stop Grant for violence again women. 5. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $5,000 grant from the Family and Children's Trust Fund of Virginia. 6. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Mary F. Parrish, Libraries 7. Request to accept donation of a water line easement across the i property of George R. Webb and Nita Webb in Roselawn Court. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~' Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance J. R. Lavinder, Chief of Police Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Spencer Watts, Director, Library Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections 2 ~- ~, / _ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. that the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 13, 1998 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Acceptance of a grant from American Electric Power Company for marketing of the shell building at Valley Gateway. 2. Request for acceptance of Empire Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of Millbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $62,938 V-Stop Grant for violence again women. 5. Request from Police Department for acceptance of $5,000 grant from the Family and Children's Trust Fund of Virginia. 6. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Mary F. Parrish, Libraries 7. Request to accept donation of a water line easement across the property of George R. Webb and Nita Webb in Roselawn Court. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where ~ ~ --~ ~- ~ required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. . -> ,_ A-011398-6. a Item No. 1'" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, 5204 BERNARD DRIVE, SW., ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept a grant from American Electric Power Company for marketing of the shell building at Valley Gateway COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ~K~y~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~G EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Roanoke County applied for an economic development "mini-grant" from the American Electric Power Company for matching funds for the marketing of the shell building at Valley Gateway in eastern Roanoke County. Staff was notified in December 1997 that they had received approval of a $1,000.00 mini-grant. These funds will be applied towards the costs of preparing and distributing a marketing brochure for the shell building. Staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors accept the mini-grant funds and appropriate the $1,000.00 to the Valley Gateway Capital project fund. FISCAL IMPACT: Positive fiscal impact due to receipt of grant funds to offset costs of preparing and distributing the marketing brochure. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the economic development mini-grant funds from AEP and appropriate these funds into the Valley Gateway Capital Project fund. 2. Do not take any action at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve Alternative # 1. Respectfully submitted: ~^ ~~ ~ ~ Timothy W. Gubala, Director Department of Economic Development Approved: L/4~ru`~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator '' ,." ' ACTION VOTE No Yes i'~k ~ Approved (x) Motion by: Bob I_. Johnson to approve Harrison _ ~c Denied () Johnson - x Received () McNamara- x _. Referred () Minnix _ x To () Nickens - x _ cc: File Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance • t THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 011398-6.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF EMPIRE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described below was established May 11, 1971, and currently serves at least 3 families per mile, and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does not exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia: Name of Street: Length: From: To: Guaranteed right-of-way width: Plat Recorded Date: Empire Lane. 0.066 miles. the intersection of Rte 1775. 0.066 miles NW of intersection Rte 1775. 50 feet. May 11, 1971; Deed Book 8, Page 6, In the Roanoke County Clerk's Office. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor Johnson Seconded By: None Required 1 Yeas: Supervisors McNamara Minnix Harrison. Nickens. Johnson Nays: None A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation I ....... ... i .,, 77/6 C toa 14 1.72 AC L13 Ac ~. r0,~9 r s , c.~ '_ ~~ ~ nze s 29 r: a 22 ~ / 23 .o a ~ f. 77J5 ~O rr / 9 a a ° o i.ey a~ „ '° ~ „ .. p ~o~~ ~ i s~ 8 •° °~ 69J0 ) a 0~ 1.644[ ~1 77Z}'ti jO' y 28 ~ ! 2 i t~ ~5ro Y 77os= ~, ~a ~ ~ i ~a 17 S 's979 • 26 '~ ia~2 +a are" I ~ 7 ~ ~° `o xa • ~• ro. 'jr "' sl+r• J ; :"°~ ~ „r ''~ 1.66 Ac +8 .. rL _~ +f 18 27 ,~+" ~ Fd' ,+ ~ 10 2.92 Ac "b ~ rd21 fr'~~..., _ rl ~ 6l JO ~ , o ,,vv 7ftg 7G+0 y f . , ,oa 3 P9 ~'ti,, io a ~ \ .... .~.~ Rt. 221 ~' sage 4 G ~ ;~ it ~-- .: r 7 t O tuber ''~ ~ • 6910 ..u 6 t H ..r F 7609 Q t seas a °' 31 •, 4 ~7 p~ v J~J • • ~~ ~ °i. W Bau < . 6 1.074[ ti ~ J .+'j 6906 M ~ / . "~ ~. ~ ~..1 P ~• . tisilas" 25 ~. °'' ~ 'j 33 i ~/ p ~ n ,1.1 I Ac , Jr P8 '•I ~ i V, / 16.75 Ac 1.074c T1a5 ~ ~ I.:iE4c o , 717 ~ 71 M D 4 q ~~ a"7Y79 ~., sP r. 4jv?1 ~ / ~ Qr / 1.08 Ac la„ . ,~ no''' ~ c! 3 T1Jt"n ;~ Or,~ ./~ ~ op, co I.C6AC "+~ fO ~ / ? ' >~, ! , f'~ to ~ , .~ ~ 6.60 At •~~ '' ae~° i02AC(C~~ ~ / 6.61 Ac (Dl ~ y9~~..,, `~ ~~ Horon BopA'sJ CAurfA 7.43 Ac (C) t ..° ~ 0 . ~ ~~V^ ~ 71Bp ~ rS §J / 7711 O ./ ~ 9 "~ 1 I. f ~/ Y jy .• ~ O 2.474[ 1 ~~i 4.1 ~ ,.. ++ 7T f r 37 e6~i •~ 0° ~6~= 7 v ,~~ `~ it}T 34 33 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY ~~ DESCRIPTION: 1) EMPIRE LANE LENGTH: (1) 0.06 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 26 FEET ~ SERVICE: (1) 3 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF EMPIRE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA ENGINEERING & DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM INSPECTIONS DEPARTIIIEN?` i ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Empire Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: u~ ~~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Empire Lane is a private subdivision street in southwest Roanoke County serving three (3) families. Empire Lane is priority eighteen (18) on the 1998-99 Rural Addition List. The property owners have submitted a check to match fifty percent of the construction costs. Staff has coordinated with VDOT for the various corrective actions required bringing this road into the State Secondary System. Prior to acceptance by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the assigning of a state route number, staff has to submit a completed package of information, including a Board Resolution requesting acceptance of this road. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for engineering and administrative work on this road was within the yearly roadway activity of the Engineering and Inspections Department's budget. Road construction funds are available in the accounts administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting the acceptance of Empire Lane into the Secondary Road System. ~"' SUBMITTED BY: A`r~e~Cd Oovey, Director Engineering and Inspections APPROVED BY: ~~' ~? Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION I VOTE Approved ()Motion by: Denied () Harrison Received () Johnson Referred McNamara To Minnix Nickens No Yes Abs ~~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION INTO THE VIRGINIA SECONDARY SYSTEM REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF EMPIRE LANE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT) WHEREAS, the street described below was established May 11, 1971, and currently serves at least 3 families per mile, and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does not exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia: Name of Street: Length: From: To: Guaranteed right-of--way width: Plat Recorded Date: Empire Lane. 0.066 miles. the intersection of Rte 1775. 0.066 miles NW of intersection Rte 1775. 50 feet. May 11, 1971; Deed Book 8, Page 6, in the Roanoke County Clerk's Office. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: _ Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ' 775 ~ ,.° la .... _,. 1.7z Ao LI3Ik ~ / •..,, • 7716 . . J '- 7 ro+9 r Q ~ s ~ ~ ) Q9: ~` G n ~ ~ f 77J6 d ~ ~ 2 4 s 29 .s 23 ~O,O ~ ~~ ~ "° ~ 9 ^ 5 • ~0s1 1.95 Ac ,+ . ~ ~ ~ , •r 69J3 f J •A 1.64 AC ?C] ~ 7TZf'4 •°' • y 29 ~ ~ 2~ 1 no ~ 0 ~ 14 ' ~p Y } ~~,t,19 ~ i ,° 17 S 'i979 • 26 a t0 ,,+ a°s . ~ • " 11 •° p` xD r rsi • .` ~'' 774/ • '• .+° ~ n• •• .8 .. • 0..~ ~ 18 27 ,,• ~ ~R4• ,• ~ ..' 10 ~ ~ ' ' I.96 Ac ? 2.92 Ac + "tl ., s a ~ 6lJO , 0 a , »021 ti ' + ~ ~ ,,.. r , , a ~'? '+•, G~° '' .°. ~- Rt. 221 ~" 77398 s 4rh~ y 22 ~ 6930 : 6 ° S~ .x / .~~ - r ... c . `JF 7509 4 •+7s~4 a 31 :'D~ '•7.°~.: + cr.~ t ' . 32 •+ ~ P ~ ~+ • + g x 23 173A5 L OTAC t ~ ! . f 690Q « ~ / ~ ,~ / > 25 ,. ~ . ~ ~ • • ~ ~ti ~~ ~. ~~ f P ~• "° ~ y y 33 ot 6 ' ` ~ 1.0 4c s re tti 36 ~ , 5 n I.I14t ~` 1r 28 '•~ +P ,p / 16.75 Ac LOTAC 7335 .I ~ S 1.3E 4c ~ 7374 7J4/ D ~ ~y :7.X79 .+ 4 4V/ / {a ~f ' u 1.09 ac 7341 '' 4 ,Cb~~ • ~ O l ~ ~------~ I • • 1.06 4c 2 1 ' ,.+% 10 / ~O 9~ '7574 • ~ 36 6 60 A / ~ r ~ ~. ~ ' ~ a oo ac l Dl ~r o~3 302ActC~~ 7 c 4 ' . _~ ~y / 6.61 ACIDl .•' ~ 9j~...,,~ ~~ HoronBoplial CAv~'A w 7.45 Ac (C) y \~ t •~ ~ ~t 7 rr+I Mo~ 380 a lsy ~° ~ / 2 O g ~/Iiri •• ~ '3S »27 "' + •• c~ 0 2.47AC~ h4 1 ','' 37 ,6~~ • r 34 33 0~ 461= ? o . ,~~ .'. ;t//3 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) EMPIRE LANE LENGTH: (1) 0.06 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 26 FEET SERVICE: (1) 3 HOMES ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF EMPIRE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM ._ 9~~ ~- 3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 13, 1998, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 011398-6.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MILLBRIDGE ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision tree Requirements. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be fonnrarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor Johnson Seconded By: None Required Yeas: wit pervisors McNamara, Minnix. Harrison. Nickens~Johnson Nays: one A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING & WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION 15 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT c7'V ~/~ s" ~ . t~ f ITEM NUMBER ~` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Millbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: L&S Enterprises, Inc., the developer of Woodbridge 15, requests the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.1275 miles of Millbridge Road, from the intersection of Stonemill Drive to the south, to the beginning of the temporary cul- de-sac. The Engineering and Inspections staff, along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation, have inspected this road and finds it acceptable to all ordinances, standards and policies. FISCAL IMPACT: No County of Roanoke funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept Millbridge Road into the Secondary Road System. SU~iMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections APPROVED BY: ~~~~ ,~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator _~- 3 ACTION VOTE Approved () Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied () Harrison Received () Johnson _ Referred McNamara To Minnix _ Nickens 2 ~=3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MILLBRIDGE ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: _ Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Mary Allen, Clerk to Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering and Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation File K ~~ / d - a, l/ =g86 y ~ ~sf I~t ~,, ~~ ,~ A, ,~'' ~s~s ~aiw /7B ~ 8a ~. 146// 67 +" ~a ~ ,,, ~ .+ ~ ~~ ~ '~°~ ~~ 0 9 ~ d ia~ °' ~7 p~ia ? ` ~• ~ Y a N °;~ M A t `'~ ' >i Haan y73 ,Cf 's 65 ~ - % `~ /1 • _ 12 is 7n ~ ~ j Cw ~° G' ~ e _~ ~ D ~ '41 ° 0 10.20 Ac - I~~g = ~ ~~ 74,v a :~ 30~ .., ~, ~b3o~.'' . 19 ~• e' s d , • ~ oriGt9 - ~ ~ ~' 6 ~9 r ~ 53 H - 124 9 $ iio.si i9 ;° 62 "° ~ 54 ~ "' '~ ~~ m ~~ ~a5~ r'. .~`• 4 '+ `'~ E rn q - - ~ _nl m DESCRIPTION: 1~ 0•~3~ •' ~ . ~,~ ~, 1 . ®'" 3 '-~j~' p I c /67 ~~ 0~ `fie 1~-~~ Stony ~ 8 0 ~ ~' ioo : y7 ~'6Z .~1 / ~ :9e/6S IiLN zn asPt fi~10 Or. i _ 9.97 Ac r. ;g`~~ p+ 15915 ~+ » ~ a( :s+t `sy ~ f6 56„~ 57 ~ 17 4, o~° ~~ 1927 ~ ..3 ~`b,b W3DLaJI Z tts.sz ie~sz PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY Millbridge Road -- from the southern intersection of Stone Mill Drive to the beginning of the temporary cul-de-sac LENGTH: 0.1275 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: 50 FEET PAVEMENT WIDTH: 30 FEET SERVICE: 8 HOME`S ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING & WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION 15 INSPECTI DNS DEPARTMENT s i Y A-011398-6-d ACTION NO. ..•~ ITEM NUMBER: ,,,.L " AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: Request acceptance of V-Stop Grant #98-B9327VA97 (Violence Against Women) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: ~~,~~~~~ The Roanoke County Police Department re-applied for a grant for the prevention and investigation of violent crimes against women. If accepted, the department will receive forty-seven thousand, twenty-nine dollars ($47,029), 75% from the Department of Criminal Justice. The Police Department would be responsible for fifteen thousand, nine hundred nine dollars ($15,909), 25% in matching funds from the current budget. The total grant would be $62,938.00. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: V-Stop is a five year federal program aimed at reducing violence against women. The program is in its third year with funding administered through Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. Funding is expected to continue for at least two more years. For the Roanoke County Police Department, the grant would be used to continue the investigations and prevention of crimes of violence against women, to utilize other personnel, as needed, in the enormous case load, follow-ups, and to train personnel in interviewing/interrogation and crisis management. In addition, the assigned person would: - Investigate sex crimes against women and children. - Follow-up, investigate, and act as a resource for victims of reported cases. (In November 1997, 150 cases received attention.) • ~~ r" ~ - Analyze and investigate Voyeuristic ("Peeping Tom") acts and stalking cases. - Make public presentations. Z- `/ - Form specialized teams in exigent circumstances, stalking and "Peeping Tom" cases. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant period is from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. Forty-seven thousand, twenty-nine dollars ($47,029.00) is in D.C.J.S. federal funds; fifteen thousand, nine hundred nine ($15,909.00) is in local funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends acceptance of the grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services. SUBMITTED BY: ,~- _ y2~ t,~---_. 'nder of of Police APPROVED: /, ~" Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Motion by:_Bob L. Johnson to approve VOTE No Yes Abp Harrison _ x _ Johnson _ x ^ McNamara_ x _ Minnix _ x _ Nickens x cc: File J. R. Lavinder. Chief of Police Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance i A-011398-6. e ACTION N ITEM NUMBER: ,~ " S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: Request acceptance of grant from the Family and Children's Trust Fund of Virginia. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Police Department applied for a grant from the Family and Children's Trust Fund of Virginia. Five thousand dollars ($5,000) was awarded. There are no matching funds required. The funding will be used to support the Police Department's Violence Against Women unit. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Family and Children's Trust Fund (F.A.C.T.) is a grant that runs from January 1, 1998 until June 30, 1998. FISCAL IMPACT: None. r' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: l ~ ~~ The staff recommends the acceptance of the grant from F.A.C.T. SUBMITTED BY: r ,' nom- . Lavmder~ ~` ief of Police APPROVED: ~/ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison _ .~ Denied () Johnson _ x Received () McNamara- x _. Referred () Minnix _ x _ To () Nickens _ ~ _ cc: File J. R. Lavinder, chief of Police Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance ~~ _1.-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION 011398-6.f OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF MARY F. PARRISH, LIBRARY WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish was first employed on April 14, 1989 as a Library Assistant; and WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish has also served as Senior Library Assistant; and WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish has, among other endeavors, ably and responsibly represented her colleagues on the Employee Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to MARY F. PARRISH for over eight years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 1 Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Spencer Watts, Director, Libraries Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources 2 r ACTION NO. •~" ITEM NUMBER #•" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Mary F. Parrish, Library ~''OUN'7'Y ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS: Ms. Mary F. Parrish, Library, retired on January 1, 1998, from Roanoke County with over eight years of service. She has requested that her resolution be mailed to her. It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Clerk to mail it to Ms. Parrish. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, `` ~~~~~~-x~ - , > _, Brenda J. Holton Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION Motion by: VOTE No Yes Abs Harrison Johnson McNamara Minnix Nickens " ~ ~"~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF MARY F. PARRISH, LIBRARY WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish was first employed on April 14, 1989 as a Library Assistant; and WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish has also served as Senior Library Assistant; and WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish has, among other endeavors, ably and responsibly represented her colleagues on the Employee Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, Mary F. Parrish, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to MARY F. PARRISH for over eight years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. A-011398-6. g ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~"' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Accept Donation of a Water Line Easement across the property of George R. Webb and Nita Webb in Roselawn Court Subdivision ('OtTNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: As part of the Roselawn Court Subdivision, the developer acquired a 20-foot water line easement across the property of George R. Webb and Nita N. Webb. The developer has since installed the water line along the easement and has received tentative acceptance by Roanoke County. Prior to final acceptance by Roanoke County, all utility easements must be dedicated to Roanoke County. The easements within the subdivision were dedicated to Roanoke County as part of the record map. The developer has requested that Roanoke County accept the donation of the attached water line easement. FISCAL IlVIPACT: This easement is being donated by the developer and will have no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the donation of this easement. SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robert on, P.E. Utility Direc r APPROVED: ~~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator s~ ACTION' VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (Y) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to approve Harrison _ ~ Denied () Johnson _ x Received O McNamara_ x _~ Referred O Minnix _ x ~~- To () Nickens _ ~ __ cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, director, Engineering & Inspections h o~ ~a ~,-' v ~ . .Q o~~ H Q~'m ~ . ~0•~ ~ ~ Q. K~^ ~~ h I DoT 7 \ 6or 6 '~ IE?OSELA\WN GONRT ~ (uN~eE\ a~En) 20' WAr~Rr WNE EASM'T. • NEW 20' W~~Eg l,lNE EAtiEMEN1' _ m ~ ' w ' ~~~~ , oO~s ~'' t-' oa~o ti ~ws~ :~ e Q~Q m~ c~ o~ ' PAkGEp "q'' N rAX ~ 06.05-6-1.2 ~ PROPERTY OF ~EOkfE R, WEI~g By N(TA N. WE90 1.00 AGRE ~ 9,g. 1542 Py, 4N/ P, 4, l9 PEI. 160 Dk~ ONE DVERNEA9 EGEGrKIG DINE __ I----- EX16r - PRVEMENT ~ --- .~ OZ ~, o by ~ N Z r, O~ta~ ~~ J r ~ o~~ QQ.VcC _v~- ~ o~ c °v- " a ~ 2 !-- N 62,°.-4' 40" E, 216,75 _ VA, SEGON~A~Y ,p~uTE ~ 692 ~Su~Ar~ ~ ~W~~~~IE j 120A~) NOTES: 1) THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN HEREON, 2) THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY. PLAT SHOWING • NEW 20` WATERLINE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKB FOR PUBLIC USE BY GHQRGB R, $: NITA N. BBB THRU PARCEL "A" (P.,B, 19 PG.. 160) ~~~T$O~ SITUATED ALONG SUGARI,pAF MTN, ROAD C ~•/3(~Q7 ~p CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA VINCENT " ' ,U ,,, Y SCALE: 1 = 50 DATE: 31 OCTOBER 1997 ~, 14288 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. ~ ~ q ~04 ENGINEERS-SUFIV EYORS-PLANNERS ROANOKE VIRGINIA ~ ~ , ac- ~cr z-~ U,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,s,,,,,,,,,u,,,~~~",I,,,,,~~,,,~~~~,ss~i~1~lis~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~rrrrrrrrrsrrirrrrrirrrrrirrrrrrrlrrlilfifil,l,t! - - O ~~ 0 ~~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ° AGENDA ITEM NO. ° ° s e a_ a 7^r~' ^Tr' ^~n~ •~ ^(/~~y~~1~•~ Y F~ T ° e 1 $i i tJ V.i./ ~Q~iJ~ i - ° PUBLiC HEARING ORDINANCE / CITIZENS COMMENTS 0 ° ~ e s ~ s ~ /7 a~ v SUBJECT: ~ f ~ {F '7 ~, ~ /~ V ~~~y [. <~.~ ! ~ c i9 nrcf~ ~'.~ , e 0~ t wti. ° :~ ° ® ° ° c I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the ._ meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS c FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY~ THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: -- ., ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment c whether speaking as an individual or epresentative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speakin on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of~the Board to e ~_- do otherwise. ° ® --- ® ° ° ® Speaker will be limited to a presentation of their point of ~ view only. C Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ° e ° e_ c ® All comments -must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ~ c ° a~ s ss ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ° ° ° ® Speakers are requested to Leave any written statements and/or comments c with the clerk. ° ° ,~ a INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. s ° .. ~~ a~ ~~ ~~ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK ° i ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ a~ ° o~ ~~ ~ ~~ i~ a ~~ s~ ~~ ° ~~ ° ~ mlillillllllllllllill1111111111111g111111111111[111111111ilillillllllllllllit111111111111111111111111111lliilllillllllllllllillim ~v-/ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Audited Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 9,614,873.00 9.69% Addition from 1997-98 Budget -Transfer of Garage Operations to the County 200,000.00 Aug 19, 1997 First installment payment on West County Business Park (1,000,000.00) Sept 23, 1997 Revenue Sharing Payment to Botetourt County through June 30, 1997 (158,280.86) Oct 28, 1997 Eminent domain for communications facility (107,000.00) Dec 2, 1997 Underground storage tank removal (65,983.00) Dec 16, 1997 Carson Road sewer project (150,000.00) Balance at January 13, 1998 $8,333,609.14 8.40% Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $8,333,609.14 West County Business Park -balance (2,000,000.00) Reserve for R.R. Donnelly - Phase II (730,700.00) $5,602,909.14 5.64% Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues 1997-98 General Fund Revenues $99,264,769.00 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $6,204,048.06 Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\B oard\Gen97. WK4 N-~ CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Beginning Balance at July 1, 1997 $1,113,043.00 Revenues from sale of vehicles 1996-97 38,406.64 Audited Balance at July 1, 1997 1,151,449.64 Amount added from 1996-97 operations per rollover policy 744,687.00 October 14, 1997 Transfer to Future School Capital Fund (1,113,043. Balance at January 13, 1998 $783,093.64 I ote: $100,000 of these funds have been temporarily advanced to the Mayflower Hills Park project. Respectfully Submitted, Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Cap97.WK4 ~~ RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 1997-98 Original Budget $143,000.00 October 14, 1997 Design of South County Park (20,000.00 Balance at January 13, 1998 $123,000.00 Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance M:\Finance\Common\Board\Board97.WK4 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~""~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on the Proposed 765 KVA Wyoming-Cloverdale Tranmission Line COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a joint work session with American Electric Power to discuss the proposed 765 KVA Wyoming-Cloverdale Transmission Line. Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No. Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Harrison _ _ Denied () Johnson _ _ _ Received () McNamara- _ _ Referred () Minnix _ _ _ To () Nickens _ _ _ cc: File ~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION 011398.7 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Certification Resolution and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Executive Session L R AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION 011398-8 SUPPORTING AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER'S WYOMING-GLOVERDALE 765 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. WHEREAS, thousands of residential, commercial and industrial customers of Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power ("AEP") in Roanoke County, Virginia rely upon AEP to supply their electricity needs economically and reliably; and WHEREAS, the availability of reliable and reasonably priced electricity is essential to the social and economic well being of the citizens, businesses and industries of the County, as well as other areas served by AEP; and WHEREAS, beginning in 1990, and in applications filed on September 30, 1997, with the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power has proposed the construction of a 765 kV transmission line from its Wyoming Station near Oceana, West Virginia to its Cloverdale Station, at Cloverdale, Virginia ("the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line"), to provide needed electric capacity to serve the Company's Central and Eastern areas; and WHEREAS, the Virginia State Corporation Commission stated in a December 13, 1995, Interim Order in an earlier proceeding on the proposed line that, based on the record, there is "...compelling need for additional electric capacity to serve Appalachian's Central and Eastern Regions ..." and that the proposed transmission line "may be the most reasonable method of addressing this compelling need..."; and WHEREAS, in its August 1996 Report to the President in the wake of the recent blackouts in the Western U.S. during the summer of 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy identified delays in the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line as one of only two areas of significant concern within the United States regarding reliability of the nation's electricity supply. WHEREAS, in a report issued to the Department of Energy in March 1997, an independent body of experts from three area electricity reliability councils concluded that the delayed completion of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line will result in a significant risk to the power supply reliability affecting a large area of the eastern United States, and that the proposed line is an effective way to mitigate the potential for widespread power interruptions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia recognizes ~, that an unreliable power supply, and even the prospect of an unreliable power supply, can exert a powerful negative effect on economic development and could sap the vitality and competitiveness of existing business and industry, and affect their expansion decisions, in the County and surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that interruptions of the power supply to the citizens and businesses of the County could cause significant economic damage and other serious health related and safety impacts in the County and surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the Board also desires that AEP be mindful of the natural beauty and historic integrity in the areas where the proposed transmission line project may be located. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA as follows: 1. The Board hereby expresses its support for AEP's proposed Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 kV Transmission Line. 2. The Board requests that AEP minimize as much as possible any negative impact on individual properties, the mountain viewsheds and historic areas that may be located near the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale Transmission Line. 3. In light of the growing urgency of the need for transmission reinforcement, the Board hereby requests that the Virginia State Corporation Commission complete its assessment of AEP's application in a timely manner and approve the proposed transmission line and a Virginia location for the line. 4. The Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to send certified copies of this Resolution to the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the United States Forest Service. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• ~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 2 .~ ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: Request to adopt resolution supporting American Electric Power's Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 KV transmission line project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: American Electric Power {AEP) has requested a resolution of support for the Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 KV transmission line. AEP is requesting support from local governments and business and community leaders because adequate electric power is an important criteria in encouraging new economic development efforts and existing industrial and business expansions. Additionally, power failures always put an additional workload on public safety functions in local governments. The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke City Council have already adopted resolutions of support. Attached is a draft resolution for your consideration. It emphasizes the importance of a reliable electrical power supply to the economic growth of our community and the negative health and safety aspects of power interruptions. It also requests that AEP minimize any impact to the mountain viewsheds and historic areas near the proposed transmission line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: _ Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution and that the Clerk to the Board forward copies of the resolution to the agencies listed in the resolution. Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Johnson _ _ _ Denied () Harrison _ _ _ Received {) Minnix _ _ - Referred () McNamara _ _ _ To () Nickens _ _ _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER'S WYOMING-CLOVERDALE 765 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. WHEREAS, thousands of residential, commercial and industrial customers of Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power ("AEP") in Roanoke County, Virginia rely upon AEP to supply their electricity needs economically and reliably; and WHEREAS, the availability of reliable and reasonably priced electricity is essential to the social and economic well being of the citizens, businesses and industries of the County, as well as other areas served by AEP; and WHEREAS, beginning in 1990, and in applications filed on September 30, 1997, with the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power has proposed the construction of a 765 kV transmission line from its Wyoming Station near Oceana, West Virginia to its Cloverdale Station, at Cloverdale, Virginia ("the Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 kV Line"), to provide needed electric capacity to serve the Company's Central and Eastern areas; and WHEREAS, the Virginia State Corporation Commission stated in a December 13, 1995, Interim Order in an earlier proceeding on the proposed line that, based on the record, there is "...compelling need for additional electric capacity to serve Appalachian's Central and Eastern Regions ..." and that the proposed transmission line "may be the most reasonable method of addressing this compelling need..."; and WHEREAS, in its August 1996 Report to the President in the wake of the recent blackouts in the Western U.S. during the summer of 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy identified delays in the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line as one of only two areas of significant concern within the United States regardireliability of the nation's electricity supply. WHEREAS, in a report issued to the Department of Energy in March 1997, an independent body of experts from three area electricity reliability councils concluded that the delayed completion of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line will result in a significant risk to the power supply reliability affecting a large area of the eastern United States, and that the proposed line is an effective way to mitigate the potential for widespread power interruptions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia recognizes that an unreliable power supply, and even the prospect of an unreliable power supply, can exert a powerful negative effect on economic development and could sap the vitality and competitiveness of existing business and industry, and affect their expansion decisions, in the County and surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that interruptions of the power supply to the citizens and businesses of the County could cause significant economic damage and other serious health related and safety impacts in the County and surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the Board also desires that AEP be mindful of the natural beauty and historic integrity in the areas where the proposed transmission line project may be located. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA as follows: 1. The Board hereby expresses its support for AEP's proposed Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 kV Transmission Line. 2. The Board requests that AEP minimize as much as possible any negative impact on individual properties, the mountain viewsheds and historic areas that may be located near the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale Transmission Line. 3. In light of the growing urgency of the need for transmission reinforcement, the Board hereby requests that the Virginia State Corporation Commission complete its assessment of AEP's application in a timely manner and approve the proposed transmission line and a Virginia location for the line. 4. The Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to ser~certifiied copies of this Resolution to the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the United States Forest Service. ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER E '~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Request to adopt resolution supporting American Electric Power's Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 KV transmission line project COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: American Electric Power (AEP) has requested a resolution of support for the Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 KV transmission line. AEP is requesting support from local governments and business and community leaders because adequate electric power is an important criteria in encouraging new economic development efforts and existing industrial and business expansions. Additionally, power failures always put an additional workload on public safety functions in local governments. The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors has already adopted a resolution of support. Attached is a draft resolution for your consideration. It emphasizes the importance of a reliable electrical power supply to the economic growth of our community and the negative health and safety aspects of power interruptions. The resolution also requests that AEP minimize any impact to the mountain viewsheds and historic areas near the proposed transmission line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution and that the Clerk to the Board forward copies of the resolution to the agencies listed in the resolution. Respectfully Submitted by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by: Eddy _ _ _ Denied () Johnson _ _ Received () Harrison _ _ _ Referred () Minnix _ _ _ To () Nickens _ _ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER'S WYOMING-CLOVERDALE 765 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. WHEREAS, thousands of residential, commercial and industrial customers of Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power ("AEP") in Roanoke County, Virginia rely upon AEP to supply their electricity needs economically and reliably; and WHEREAS, the availability of reliable and reasonably priced electricity is essential to the social and economic well being of the citizens, businesses and industries of the County, as well as other areas served by AEP; and WHEREAS, beginning in 1990, and in applications filed on September 30, 1997, with the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power has proposed the construction of a 765 kV transmission line from its Wyoming Station near Oceana, West Virginia to its Cloverdale Station, at Cloverdale, Virginia ("the Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 kV Line"), to provide needed electric capacity to serve the Company's Central and Eastern areas; and WHEREAS, the Virginia State Corporation Commission stated in a December 13, 1995, Interim Order in an earlier proceeding on the proposed line that, based on the record, there is "...compelling need for additional electric capacity to serve Appalachian's Central and Eastern Regions ..." and that the proposed transmission line "may be the most reasonable method of addressing this compelling need..."; and WHEREAS, in its August 1996 Report to the President in the wake of the recent blackouts in the Western U.S. during the summer of 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy identified delays in the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line as one of only two areas of significant concern within the United States regarding reliability of the nation's electricity supply. WHEREAS, in a report issued to the Department of Energy in March 1997, an independent body of experts from three area electricity reliability councils concluded that the delayed completion of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line will result in a significant risk to the power supply reliability affecting a large area of the eastern United States, and that the proposed line is an effective way to mitigate the potential for widespread power interruptions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia recognizes that an unreliable power supply, and even the prospect of an unreliable power supply, can exert a powerful negative effect on economic development and could sap the vitality and competitiveness of existing business and industry, and affect their expansion decisions, in the County and surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that interruptions of the power supply to the citizens and businesses of the County could cause significant economic damage and other serious health related and safety impacts in the County and surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the Board also desires that AEP be mindful of the natural beauty and historic integrity in the areas where the proposed transmission line project may be located. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA as follows: 1. The Board hereby expresses its support for AEP's proposed Wyoming- Cloverdale 765 kV Transmission Line. 2. The Board requests that AEP minimize as much as possible any negative impact on individual properties, the mountain viewsheds and historic areas that may be located near the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale Transmission Line. 3. In light of the growing urgency of the need for transmission reinforcement, the Board hereby requests that the Virginia State Corporation Commission complete its assessment of AEP's application in a timely manner and approve the proposed transmission line and a Virginia location for the line. 4. The Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to send certified copies of this Resolution to the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the United States Forest Service. SPORN ~ American Electric GAVIN OUN EER i ~ Power - ~, % Southern Bulk ' ~ ~ Transmission System ~~ ~~~~. ^ Coal-Fired 765 kV Lines j` `"~~,'~'';.,. Power Plants ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 345 kV Lines ,,r ~AMOS ~ 765 kV Stations „ ~ Preferred New Q 345 kV Stations Route KANAWHA RIVER BIG SANDY ' • Oceana z WYOMING Hinton ~, • Mullens " ; we•h ~GLE • Princ on Bluef ~ arisbu Blacksburg B1 • Roanoke • Radford • °fi° ,~, T a I ' Christi sburg • Pulaski si ~ n 1 ON ER ~ Routes 81 Studied The route above has the least impact on people and the environment. All routes that were studied are shown on the map to the left. r~~~irrp~i~ AEP: ~lnterica's E~aetgy Partner" . - o uncUO - ,.,.,..,,...,..,..,. SPIIn ~ •, i ~~ v ~ s s i ~~ Williamsburg _ - _ ~e allison °~- eola yv Ashwood Q' LE 765kV PROJECT .92~ ~~ °~ spaings P J ~~ ~ Carloove~ 4; ,~q Naturals ~' (~ ~ Well ~ ~DOUT A~ INE CORRIDORS ~ .,~~ Brig 7~ `ST Q o,. ~A G H A Y ~~~~~ Blue ~uipn nnoo Grassy Springs ~ 5e ` v~ ~~~/ _ learwate Clifton FOrgel ongc on Meadows Asbury White Su hur332~ ca ~'; Par ivermont r .n Sulp ~'~Fr, sburg • allag ~J ngs `•' ~ ~ 1ao Sprl gS ,~g Sel Iron ~`~~ 12 ~ F,n ~ ~ o to ~~ Low Mo Gate ~. aldwell r~ ao ts5 11za • .eFa'''•...:., i;• 3945• (~ ~ ~ ~• ,Oy G C & ~ •LIC ~T Mtn `};;, {a3 Roncever e o b Run LEGEND Wilde GI Wilton ~ ~•Ide s nJ~o Fort "' e3 : ~~`,~~ Judson ~~~~ ~ Spring rgan C ~~~~~~~~~~ PROJECT STUDY AREA :, ch zzo ..::~~.~ ~: P :: ~ PC =PREFERRED CORRIDOR ~::~~:r / t2 : :'•'*"'-..~*,,,:v:~::::...,. ,•:: •' :;:~ Xr' Gala ~ ' ' . ~~ o '•' •~ ~t i ~ ~ ~ ^ AC =ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR QP ~~ ~' ~.• Wolfcreek • Sinks .~ ~~,;; / Pe p'~ Sp ""gs ~ a Grove 219 NON-JNF=NON-JEFFERSON ~ garb I; - Ic ~ ~ ~ ~ NATIONAL FOREST CORRIDOR S :.. ,3330 Pickaway gle !';` 34z3 ~•~ STATE LINE ~ c . Way de 5 0 5 10 15 ~.~~ Salt Sulphur .Union aQ ~I ~.`'~ Springs G c r`~ ._:,•~~s9o• ~~o SCALE IN MILES ~~ O ~, ;~, reenville Gap Mills / ~ ~ ``s ~°V arCreek ~~~ Q~\ ~~ ~~ Q° atwoods Springwood . Red Sul hur ~ • ei P 11 3 su ~ri~~uiumuuun ~~~-!i~ a ni~nnu Pr,ngiuuunii ~~~~~~i..: • ~'~ ncastle ~i, ~ ~ ~ J~/ DAL.EV0.LE, VA ~ Ballard ,~~(~' '•~ ~~ R .~`'~ ~ `" 22 jLi i ~~ '~ • Waite) `~rt, / [...• 3[ C ' Lindside'~ _ ~ 0 a~~ 42 a~O ~ ty n $pe < 0 -(~ • • Maggie e~/ /.638 P ~°f``` ~ille ~ ~J~ ~ ~ Gee Abb t ~°°:~~ e Q'~ nterior ~~' os ~~=::~ CL rLEtvill Villa ont P rs ~~ ,~ E:i:. ~°~ ~ 3u ~o<<,~,..,,. ~.•.. `.. T T 10 • Goldbond ~S Simmo villeQ .;l"' at a.•. ::,,~. ~mballton • ~: // i ~ ~oun~ayn NE H A f 5~4~'.rS,~ <=` Sp Clov I ~' Lake /~`• <..::,'... ~~ ;....,, ebsxe Porter • •q N o~ ``a.~~i`rt : o G 3 isbi re aeo ~ :: adshaw o _ PEARISBURG, V ' .'~~ .ta~S 06 • P ectdale Newpo ~' ~~ ~ ~ McD Wald ggleston ~ Mil1 "~::_ ~~ Stewarts - Bane 20 Goodwins Tabor ~~ ~`~• F° Gle ,:: .. :. 'A 19 erry ....,: ' 43 I~MILL,VA .. A sA~Er,v 2g ~~ .:. i. `1 - •``~ • aco Lusters Gat ~~ ~ r 's, .• ,/ McCoy rrtc I sburg ~> ~' _ ~.~.~ - /-f' Iron EII ton » ~~ ~ CI xo'ok ''~,~'' ^B~el rig ` ' EII tt et ~` ~'~' hawsvil. Fair wn ~ alton ttn ontom ry Q°° B -: ,.:~ ioo~ Ne ~ e ~ ~~ Alleghany Is~oun ai ~..• :;.:.. .r...,.. (uei H •~~ Boones BOOKE TWA GT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ Ilf~nnnninin ~iui s '. Cahas Mtn I Burnt MONi Dubli Burlington e; ey ~ opper Hill 22ot, K ~ ~ YTOR ~. E':.< Rlner .. ~22~ ~S1ATE q `Ghlldr s / uffville .o'. etreat Pilo nowvil •~ ~.2: Calfee Knob Terrys t! '2813 Fork Simpsons Che c f ~ t ~ ~ wood ~ 1 ,nom Ctn~P n ~ ~ 1191 ~ -. .1 .. L. -EII ,1 i~ i• • ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE WYOMING-CLOVERDALE 765kV TRANSMISSION PROJECT IN VIRGINIA ~lL Economi~ImpacfsPaper senre~r men ~IMLRKAN- E~ RK r-, u L ~~ I• ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE I• WYOMING - CLOVERDALE 765 kV TRANSMISSION PROJECT IN VIRGINIA 1• It 1• 1 +~ 1• SEPTEMBER 1997 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY d/b/a AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER 1• i• HIGHLIGHTS: ' THE APCO TRANSMISSION PROJECT WILL PROVIDE VIRGINIA WITH: i• ^ Reliable Electricity ^ Economic Development Benefits . Transmission Infrastructure for IPP Project s Development ^ 700 Temporary Construction Related Jobs . 400 Permanent Jobs ~ ^ 0.6 Million Tons of Additional VA Coal Mined Yearly • ^ $9.3 Million in Additional Tax Revenues Yearly ^ $14.2 Million in Additional Payroll Yearly • ^ Total Economic Benefit: $39 Million Yearly i i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae n n u r~ Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Growth in Electric Demand 5 Economic Development 6 Reliable Electric Power Supply 7 Impacts Of An Unreliable Electric Power Supply 9 Costs of An Unreliable Power Supply 12 Current Economic Impacts 15 Coal: APCo/AEP System Fuel of Choice 16 Additional Jobs: Independent Power Producers 16 Additional Jobs: Construction 17 Additional Tax Revenues 18 Real Estate 19 Tourism 20 Timber Sales 23 Herbicides 23 GIS Data Base 24 Rates 24 APCo Obligations 24 APCo Commitments 25 Conclusions 25 Exhibits 27 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project LIST OF EXHIBITS ~~ • n u f Exhibit Title 1 AEP System Southern Service Area 2 Counties and Independent Cities Included in APCo/KPCo Areas 3 Central/Eastern Areas Connected Load Growth 4 Appalachian Power Company -Transmission System Map 5 Impacted Area from Possible Blackout Scenario Winter 2002-2003 6 Summary of Economic Benefits for Virginia I• I• I• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~` Appalachian Power Company (d/b/a American Electric Power) has filed applications with the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission seeking the necessary approvals to construct a 765 kV transmission line from the Company's Wyoming Station at ~ Oceana, West Virginia, to its Cloverdale Station at Cloverdale, Virginia. Detailed information provided in those applications establishes that there is a compelling need for the proposed transmission line in order to maintain a reliable supply of electricity to the Company's customers in southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. In response to a previous application filed by the Company in 1991, the ~ Virginia State Corporation Commission confirmed the compelling need for the proposed line. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the likely adverse impacts on the regional economy if the power line project is not built, as well as the positive economic impacts on the region if the proposed power line is built. Those impacts are summarized as follows: ~r • EFFECT ON FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The importance of a reliable power supply in sustaining and promoting economic development is often overlooked. Nevertheless, when industrial and commercial businesses are considering whether to build or expand a facility in ~ a particular region, the reliability of the power supply in that region often is a critical factor. Most businesses cannot operate efficiently and remain competitive if their operations are interrupted periodically by power outages. .Mining and manufacturing operations in particular often suffer significant costs as a result of power outages. Without the proposed power line, ~ southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia face an increasing and unacceptable risk of widespread power outages. It is beyond dispute that this growing risk will have a powerful adverse effect upon the economic development prospects for the region. r • EFFECT ON THE EXISTING ECONOMY: Just as an unreliable power supply will exert a powerful dampening effect on economic development, it will also sap the vitality and competitiveness of existing businesses in the region. Persistent electric service reliability problems ultimately could lead many companies to relocate or go out of business altogether. This trend will result f in a depressed and declining regional economy. ~ RIPPLE EFFECT OF AN UNRELIABLE POWER SUPPLY: The serious adverse effects of an unreliable power supply on industries and other commercial enterprises are magnified by the • ripple effect throughout the regional economy as the influx of income to area residents and businesses in the form of wages, salaries and local purchases declines. ~ 2 Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project • COSTS OF A SINGLE POWER OUTAGE CAN BE GREAT: The U.S. Department of Energy estimated that the 1977 New York City blackout cost approximately 5350 million in 1977 dollars (5836 million in 1996 dollars). The Company estimates that the cost of a one day power outage in Virginia alone could be as much as 5670 million in 1996 dollars, excluding additional unquantifiable costs such as the endangerment of the health, safety and general I i welfare of the citizens of this region. • ADDITIONAL JOBS: The proposed power line will make available at least 500 MW of additional transmission capacity to independent power producers 1"IPPs") that may develop in I. southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. Any new IPP development in the region as a result of this additional transmission capacity will provide new jobs at the IPP plants themselves and in the mining sector as the result of increased coal purchases, as well as other jobs indirectly created in the local economy. Construction of the line itself is expected to ~ create approximately 233 direct and indirect jobs, with an annual payroll of about $6.7 million. • ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES: Upon completion of the proposed power line, the Company estimates that it will pay over 51.1 million in additional property taxes each year to the Virginia ~ localities in which the line and related facilities are located. The construction of IPP facilities in the region as a result of the line would also result in a significant addition to the tax base of the host localities. ~ • EFFECT ON ELECTRIC RATES: The Company estimates that the future impact of the proposed line on electric rates paid by its customers will be negligible due to increased efficiency and an improved capacity to provide transmission service. ~ ` • ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BUILDING THE LINE WILL BE NEGLIGIBLE: The Company does not expect the construction of the proposed line to have any appreciable adverse economic impact on the regional economy. The Company will pay fair market value to landowners for the rights-of-way required for the line and, if the landowner desires, will ~ purchase outright the land needed for the line. Extensive studies have shown generally that transmission lines do not negatively affect real estate values. Available evidence suggests that the line will not have a negative effect on tourism, hunting, fishing, hiking or timber sales. ~~ ' + 3 I• I• • ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE • WYOMING-CLOVERDALE 765 kV TRANSMISSION PROJECT IN VIRGINIA i~ Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project INTRODUCTION * In March 1990, Appalachian Power Company ("APCo") announced plans to meet the future electric power requirements of its customers in southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia by reinforcing the extra-high voltage transmission system serving those areas. Those plans involve the construction of a new 765 kV transmission line from the Company's Wyoming Station near Oceana, West Virginia to its Cloverdale Station near Roanoke, Virginia. The paramount issue driving the need for the proposed project is APCo's obligation to provide a reliable supply of electric energy to all of its customers in both Virginia and West Virginia. By providing reasonable assurance of reliable electric service well into the 21st century, this transmission ~ line project is expected to meet that obligation and will have a major favorable impact on the area's future development and the well-being of its citizens, thereby enhancing the economies of the two states. Effective July 1, 1996, § 56-46.1 of the Code of Virginia was amended and reenacted. The revised statute states in part that "the Commission (i) may consider the effect of the proposed facility on economic development within the Commonwealth and (ii) shall consider any improvements in service reliability that may result from the construction of such facility." This paper presents both economic development and reliability considerations, as well as other economic considerations, • associated with the proposed project and their effect on the economy of Virginia. Many of the potential economic advantages to be derived from the construction of the line are easy to quantify and predict because they are similar in scope and character to existing situations and can be based on known facts or actual experiences. Other economic effects, both positive and ~ negative, are more difficult to predict because they are based on forecasts and anticipated actions and reactions. For example, many investment decisions by businesses will be based on how their managers perceive the reliability and cost of an area's power supply and how it will affect their business. Nevertheless, every effort has been made to make this report as accurate and complete as • possible. To achieve this goal, a number of information resources, governmental and private, have been utilized in compiling the data presented. The year 1996 is used in this report because it represents the Company's most recent year of typical operation and all figures are based on 1996 dollars, unless otherwise noted. i GROWTH IN ELECTRIC DEMAND For purposes of integrated planning, the AEP System's' bulk transmission network within its ~ 'The term "AEP System" is defined as the aggregation of the generating units, transmission facilities, distribution network, and all related and appurtenant equipment and facilities owned and operated by subsidiaries of American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP"), which collectively form the physical system by means of which electricity is generated and delivered to customers, whether ~ 5 ~~ Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project southern service area is divided into three sub-areas designated respectively as the Northern APCo area, the Central APCo area and the Eastern APCo area. The counties included in these areas are shown on Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. As shown on Exhibit 3, the winter connected peak demand for customers in Central/Eastern ~~ APCo areas has grown by 136% between the winter of 1972/73 and the winter of 1995/96. By the winter of 2002/03, the Company forecasts that the winter connected peak demand for these areas will be 183% greater than the 1972/73 level, when the last major "backbone" transmission line into these areas was completed. As Exhibit 3 illustrates, the Central/Eastern APCo areas have experienced and will continue to ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1• experience an increasing demand for electricity. However, much of the generation resources that provide power to these areas are located in the Northern APCo area. Customers in the Central APCo and Eastern APCo areas depend on the AEP System's southern transmission network to reliably deliver power to them. However, with continued growth in demand for electricity in these areas, the transmission system is becoming overloaded during certain conditions, and under certain scenarios widespread power outages may develop. The effects of such outages will be discussed further in the section on the impacts of unreliable electric power supply. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Completion of the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV line is essential to maintain the reliability of the electricity supply, which, in turn, is vital for the continued health and growth of the economy in southwestern Virginia. While reliable and reasonably priced electric power may not be the sole reason a firm decides to locate within a particular area, it is always an important concern. Economic developers are consistently questioned about reliability and power quality concerns by firms investigating potential sites for a plant. If other factors are nearly equal, then reliable electric power may be the deciding factor to persuade a firm to locate within a given area. On the other hand, unreliable electric power is a definite deterrent to economic development. Most manufacturing processes cannot operate efficiently with significant interruptions of electric power. Therefore, if an area is plagued by periods of power interruptions, many firms will prefer an alternative site to locate a new plant. Furthermore, the continued operation of existing industrial plants may become less economically viable if they are affected by recurring outages, i.e., they may become candidates for closure during a period of corporate streamlining. There is further discussion on the effects of electric power outages in the section on unreliable electric power. end-users or resellers. In a broader context the "AEP System" is also the aggregate of all AEP subsidiary companies, their management, their operations and their properties. Three of those subsidiary companies are APCo, Kentucky Power Company ("KPCo"1 and Kingsport Power Company ("KgPCo"). 6 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project When a firm locates a plant within a given area, this has both direct and indirect effects on the . local economy. Some of the direct effects can be measured by the number of jobs and the earnings of the employees at that plant. The indirect effects "ripple" throughout the local economy and include additional new job creation as a result of the influx of income into the local economy in the form of wages and salaries to the plant workers and lant urchases of nods and servi p p g ces from local ~ businesses. For example, anew textile mill was recently located in southwestern Virginia with approximately 205 workers earning approximately 54.5 million annually in wages and salaries. Taking into account the "ripple" effects, this plant would generate an estimated total effect of 386 employees and 510.3 million in annual earnings in Virginia. ~ Using this example, it is clear that siting an industrial plant in an area has a much greater effect on the local economy than just the number of employees at that plant. Likewise, removing a manufacturing plant from an area will also have a negative ripple effect on the local economy, since many more jobs are lost than those at that one particular plant. ~ Reliable electric power has traditionally been a strong selling point for encouraging plants to locate in southwestern Virginia. If this regional asset is allowed to deteriorate, then it can have devastating effects on the area's economic development efforts and result in a stagnant local economy. Maintenance of a reliable electric supply is essential to support continued economic growth in the ~ region. RELIABLE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY Over the years, the reliable supply of electricity has become one of the main, and often ~ overlooked, engines driving American society forward, increasing economic productivity, and improving our health, safety, comfort and general welfare. Electricity is essential in home life, in the work place, and in sustaining health, safety, sanitation and transportation systems. Economic growth and its resultant benefits to society are intimately coupled with growth in electricity usage. The high degree ~ of electric supply reliability in the United States, which is not shared by many regions of the world, has contributed to such service often being taken for granted. This high degree of electric service reliability has not been accidental, but has resulted from efforts by the nation's electric utilities to plan, design, construct, maintain and coordinate their electric system development to meet present and projected ~ demands for electric power and energy. Under applicable federal and state law, electric utilities have an obligation to provide reliable electric service to the public they serve. APCo must have adequate transmission and distribution resources to fulfill that obligation. Equally important, in planning to meet the needs of its customers, APCo must be concerned about the safety and security of operation of its power system. Without adequate security (the ability of the power system to withstand sudden disturbancesl, the outage of a transmission facility in one area can affect other parts of the system and could ultimately result in 7 Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project a cascading failure throughout the service area and into the service areas of other utilities. A cascading ~ failure of the transmission network recognizes no corporate or geographic boundaries. An appreciation of the potential impacts resulting from widespread transmission-related blackouts can be gained by reviewing five noteworthy blackouts experienced in the 1965-1996 period. The best known and largest cascading loss of electric service in history occurred November 9, ~ 1965. The loss of one transmission circuit in Ontario, Canada, initiated a sequence of events leading within minutes to cascading failure of the power system affecting eight northeastern states in the United States and parts of eastern Canada, interrupting electric service to a population then estimated at 30 million. The social disruption and estimated economic cost of that outage, which lasted as little I ~ as a few minutes in some areas to as much as twelve or more hours in other areas, was enormous. Impacts included 600,000 stranded subway passengers, rail service shut downs, massive traffic jams, airline flight cancellations, lost work hours, residential power interruptions, police, fire and hospital service impairments and business disruptions. The total economic loss directly and indirectly ~ attributed to the blackout, was reported by the Federal Power Commission to be 5100 million in 1965 dollars, which translates to 5458 million in 1996 dollars. A 1977 New York City transmission-related blackout, which was initiated by severe thunderstorm activity, resulted in even greater economic costs and social upheaval, including looting ~ and rioting, than the 1965 blackout. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated the total costs of this outage, which lasted up to 25 hours or more in some areas, to be 5350 million in 1977 dollars (5836 million in 1996 dollars). The estimated cost of looting and other damages to businesses alone was estimated to be 5155 million (1977 dollars). I ~ In 1990, Washington, D.C. experienced a blackout due to an overloaded transmission system. Local utilities, following public appeals on radio and television, were able to maintain control of the power system only through extensive load shedding (i.e., controlled blackouts of certain portions of their service territories). The affected utilities interrupted electric service to some 280,000 residential, ' ~ commercial and government customers in a controlled manner, in order to prevent an uncontrolled cascading blackout over a wide area. Quite recently, in July 1996, a major Western power outage occurred when a heavily loaded 345 kV transmission line sagged too close to a tree, creating a short circuit and initiating a series of events that cascaded across 14 western states, two Canadian ~ provinces, and the northern portion of Baja California, Mexico. About two million customers experienced some interruption in electric power. The impact of these outages was significant enough for the President of the United States to direct the Department of Energy to provide a report, within 30 days, on the causes, responses, and preventability of the incident, and also its implications for ~ electric reliability in the United States. On August 10, 1996, five days following the August 5, 1996 release of the U.S. Department of Energy Report on the July 1996 disturbance, the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC) ~i 8 Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project experienced another major system disturbance that separated the Region into four islands and ~ interrupted service to over seven million customers for periods ranging from several minutes to nearly six hours. In addition to interrupting service to a large number of customers, this severe disturbance tripped fifteen large thermal and nuclear generating units in California and the southwest, thereby further delaying restoration of service. A few large units did not return to service for several days, ~ requiring operators to purchase emergency power at considerable additional expense to serve the increased demand experienced during the following days as a result of hot weather. It is worthwhile to note that the AEP System has been a leader in the industry in the planning and construction of bulk transmission systems. That expertise was called upon by the Federal Power I ~ Commission (FPC1, the predecessor to the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, following the 1965 Northeast blackout when the Commission was directed by President Lyndon Johnson to examine the root causes for the blackout and to develop measures to prevent similar events in the future. System planners from the AEP System had a leading role in that study effort which led to, I ~ among other things, the widespread codification of many of the basic planning principles that the AEP System had employed for many years. Those principles, as well as other planning and testing criteria used previously by the AEP System, were adopted in 1967 by the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement (ECAR1, one of ten reliability councils comprising the North American Electric ~ Reliability Council (NERC), founded after the 1965 Northeast blackout. Appalachian Power strictly adheres to these concepts, based on criteria in use on the AEP System and elsewhere for well over 30 years. I ~ IMPACTS OF AN UNRELIABLE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY Reliable electric service is important to customers because it reduces the chances of service interruptions which have real costs (e.g., lost work time, food spoilage, equipment damage, impacts on health during severe cold or heat, etc.). Thus the reliability of electric service, or the lack thereof, I ~ will be an important factor influencing the health and strength of a region's economy. A utility, such as APCo, that is able to maintain both low electric prices and a high level of service reliability will have a competitive advantage in attracting new, and retaining existing, customers to its service area. Unreliability is characterized by service interruptions, which may include complete loss of I ~ service (outage) or degraded service quality (low voltage). The costs of unreliability are the costs incurred by customers in the event of an electric service interruption. Such costs are not uniform but will vary from customer to customer. For example, some industrial plants, such as glass manufacturers, may incur damage to production facilities in addition to losing their work-in-process, ~ ~ employee time, etc. as a result of even a short outage. Conversely, some commercial service customers, such as retail stores, may incur only lost employee time, lost sales opportunities and customer goodwill. '• 9 Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project As important as reliable electric power supply is to the well-being of the economy, it is equally • if not more important to the health, safety and welfare of the public. In the health area, electricity is vital to the essential services provided by hospitals and nursing homes, the preservation of blood supplies, the heating of homes and schools, the purification of water supplies and the treatment of sewage, to name only a few vital uses. In the safety area, electricity powers traffic signal and street • lighting systems as well as communication systems used by public agencies such as fire and police departments, and radio and television broadcasters. It is virtually impossible to put a dollar value on these and other life-impacting functions, but their value to society is beyond dispute. I. Degraded E/ectric Service Re/iabi/ity and the Manufacturing Sector The manufacturing sector would be affected by unreliable electric service most directly through increased operating costs and reduced revenues directly attributable to service interruptions. The magnitude of the increased costs would vary among manufacturers because of differences in I ~ production processes and plant operations. In most cases, electric service disruptions would adversely affect businesses in many ways including: 1) employee productivity, 2) product cost, 3) employee safety and morale, 4) equipment operation 5) product delivery schedules, 6) customer goodwill and 7) wages. I ~ A persistent electric service reliability problem can ultimately force manufacturers to relocate operations to other areas having a higher degree of reliability or to simply shut down, since their products would not be competitive due to higher costs of production as a result of unreliable electric service. I ~ More and more industries are adopting just-in-time inventory, which depends on predictable product delivery schedules. If manufacturers cannot rely on continuous electric service, they cannot confidently forecast product delivery schedules. Such a situation would put those manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage relative to other manufacturers with more reliable supplies of electricity. ' ~ An area which has unreliable electric service will not only have difficulty retaining existing manufacturing facilities for the reasons already noted, but will also be unlikely to be successful in attracting new facilities unless other costs, such as employee wages, are sufficiently low to offset the increased costs arising from unreliable electric service. Such unreliability, over time, can lead to a ' ~ declining industrial base and a reduced standard of living in the area. Ripple effects on other sectors of the local economy would include diminished commercial activity, population migration to other areas, declining tax base, and the need for expanding expenditures for social programs, resulting in higher taxes. In a vicious cycle, these effects may then pose a further deterrent to economic development. ' ~ In summary, a strong manufacturing base is important for a healthy regional economy. Unreliable electric power supply will, over time, lead to erosion and decline of the manufacturing base. Should that condition persist, the region's economy will inevitably decline. ' 10 • li Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project Degraded E/ectric Service Re/iabi/ity and the Mining Sector • Reliable electric service is particularly important to underground mining operations. If electric service and mine ventilation equipment are interrupted for 15 minutes or longer, federal health and safety regulations require mine evacuation until power is restored and air quality is verified to have returned to an acceptable level. Afifteen-minute interruption would then typically result in at least four or five hours of lost production time. In some mines, methane as build-u oses a critical hazard 9 PP because such build-up would increase the chances for life-threatening fires and explosions. Reliable electric service also helps to prevent peril to miners and damage to mining equipment from mine flooding. Thus, reliable electric service is essential to underground mines as it helps to ensure the • safety of the miners, avoids production stoppages, minimize lost production time, and helps to protect mining equipment from flood damage. The mining industry is faced with a different set of problems than the manufacturing industry when it encounters unreliable electric service. Mine operators must mine coal where it is naturally ~ located. As electric unreliability becomes a more persistent problem, the costs of mining rise. Increased costs are either recouped by the mine operator through higher coal prices or the profit margin on the mining operation is reduced. In either event, the mines operating in a region with unreliable electric service are placed at a competitive disadvantage. For an area such as Virginia that exports ~ significant quantities of coal, the competition in coal markets comes not only from other regional and U.S. coal producers, but also from coal producers in other countries. The long-run effect of unreliable electric service would be an erosion of the export and/or domestic coal markets for local coal producers due to higher outage costs associated with declining electric service reliability. Degraded E/ectiic Service Re/iabi/ity and the Commercial Sector Reliable electric service is important to commercial businesses, including such diverse operations as warehouses, supermarkets, gasoline service stations, hotels, theaters, banks, insurance ~ firms, restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes, retail stores, and schools and many other enterprises. The requirements and uses of electricity by commercial customers are also diverse. For example, electricity powers computers to monitor inventories, runs refrigeration in grocery stores, drives automation equipment in warehouses and powers magnetic resonance imaging equipment in hospitals. ~ As in the mining and manufacturing sectors, electric service outages result in costly lost productivity for commercial firms. Many commercial businesses will experience lost sales, which in turn will result in reduced local and state tax revenues that will not be made up at a later date. Some commercial establishments have a critical dependence on electric service. For example, hospitals and ~ nursing homes typically must have costly back-up generation to maintain essential services. In addition, the commercial sector is influenced by the manufacturing and mining sectors. If deterioration of electric power supply reliability significantly impairs and erodes the strength of those • 11 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project sectors, resulting in a declining regional standard of living, then the commercial sector will suffer ~ negative indirect effects in addition to direct impacts of service outages. Degraded E/ectiic Service Re/iabi/ity and the Residential Sector The loss of electricity to the residential sector can result in extremely severe impacts on the • health and safety of the community. The impacts are especially acute for a winter peaking utility such as APCo. Widespread loss of electric service in cold winter periods can create alife-threatening situation for the aged, the very young, or persons suffering from various illnesses or disabilities. Extended loss of electricity forces people to endure life threatening cold or use what may be unfamiliar alternative heating sources such as wood stoves, fireplaces, and kerosene heaters, each posing potential health and safety hazards. In addition, costly damage can occur from pipes freezing and bursting. Electric service interruptions can threaten the lives of individuals relying on vital life-support systems. These special customers are dependent on a reliable supply of electricity to meet their critical health needs. Inoperable traffic and street lights from power outages can cause traffic fatalities. Lengthy outages can result in increased incidence of crime. Extraordinary strains are often placed on fire, police and ambulance services. Water and sewage treatment can be impacted, affecting the ~ health of the community and its safety due to the spread of contaminants and reduced water pressure at fire hydrants. While an economic value can be placed on many of the impacts to the residential sector, no simple economic value can be placed on the health or safety of the community. Therefore, the ~ immeasurable economic costs for these factors cannot be quantified in this report. COSTS OF AN UNRELIABLE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY Simulation studies, based on conditions expected to emerge by the winter of 2002/03 -- or ~ sooner -- have identified numerous situations that could result in widespread electric supply disturbances affecting many customers served by APCo in Virginia and West Virginia. These studies also have revealed that some of the situations are so severe that customers of electric utilities neighboring APCo and beyond could also be adversely affected. ~ The second-to-second delivery of electric power and energy to APCo's customers and many customers of Kentucky Power Company Ia neighboring AEP System company) relies heavily on the AEP System's 765 kV transmission lines extending to the south and east from the Kanawha River and Ohio River Valley areas illustrated in Exhibit 4. The status and power loading of the 240 mile 765 kV ,~ transmission line, constructed in the early 1970s and completed in 1973, from the Baker Station near Ashland, Kentucky, to the Cloverdale Station in Cloverdale, Virginia, are critical to the continuity and reliability of electric power supply in the region. This high-capacity transmission path, equivalent in ~ 12 i~ Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project power delivery ability to about five 345 kV transmission lines, is comprised of the following segments: • a) Baker-Broadford, b) Broadford-Jacksons Ferry and c) Jacksons Ferry-Cloverdale, each of which is interconnected together through circuit breakers at the terminal stations. The Baker-Broadford 765 kV line is regularly loaded with 2,000 MW of power or more, which is equal to approximately one-third of the total APCo area power demand. It is worth noting that while much of the Baker-Cloverdale 765 • kV transmission corridor is located outside of Virginia, Virginia has benefitted greatly over the last 25 years from the existence of this major transmission pathway. Simulation studies of future conditions have demonstrated that during outages of the Baker- Broadford or Broadford-Jacksons Ferry 765 kV lines, other APCo transmission facilities may, at times, • be overloaded by the increase in power flows resulting from such an outage. On those occasions, loadings could be experienced on 345 kV and 138 kV facilities in excess of circuit capability, setting the stage for an uncontrolled cascading failure of the APCo and neighboring utilities' transmission networks. I a The uncontrolled outages of these transmission circuits would be accompanied by low voltages that would interfere with the normal operation of electrical appliances and equipment in many communities of southern West Virginia, southwestern Virginia, and eastern Kentucky (see Exhibit 5). Limitations in computer modeling of such cascading system failures preclude precise identification of • the ultimate area impacted. The blackout area represented in Exhibit 5 is, therefore, a conservative illustration. Engineering judgment suggests that a complete cascading failure of the APCo transmission system could ensue, and would not only affect the areas identified in Exhibit 5, but also would likely interrupt electric service to a much larger area, including a large portion of the APCo service area in ~ Virginia, and parts of neighboring systems. An independent assessment, conducted by a tri-regional study group organized by the ECAR, MAAC and SERC regional reliability councils in response to the DOE's recommendation to President Clinton in the aftermath of the July 1996 blackout in the western U.S., concluded that there is a I' potential power supply reliability risk due to delayed completion of the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV line. This reliability risk involves contingency events that could result in transmission overloads and voltage collapse conditions in Virginia and West Virginia. The report also concluded that such reliability problems could potentially trigger awide-spread power interruption that could extend into I ~ neighboring regions. The table below reflects the range of costs that may be expected for a one day service outage under the given outage scenario. For residential customers, the minimum cost is derived from the dollar value of the lost electric service, i.e., the revenue that would be generated had service not been ' ~ interrupted. For the other sectors, the minimum cost also reflects the value of lost work time, with the assumption that no work in progress is lost and that sales and production would be made up later. The upper bounds in the table below reflect an upper range for estimated costs associated with a given ' ~ 13 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project one-day service outage. For the residential sector, the upper bound reflects the value of lost time for ~ those adults that are not employed. For the other sectors, it reflects the value of lost production or business activity. The upper limit does not fully capture maximum costs associated with a given outage, as it does not take into account certain measurable and immeasurable costs, such as burst pipes, equipment damage, health-related, safety, comfort and other costs. ~ The estimated economic effects in the winter of 2002/03 on the population, workers and firms in the total area and the Virginia sub-area shown in Exhibit 5 are: ~ Estimated Area Costs* of a One Day Service Outage (1996 Dollard Total Affe cted Area Virginia P ortion Sector Low Hi4h Low Hi4h Residential 5 1,700,000 540,300,000 5 500,000 514,400,000 Commercial 36,000,000 67,000,000 1 1,800,000 19,400,000 • Manufacturing 12,100,000 23,000,000 5,800,000 10,900,000 Mining 7,600,000 16,900,000 1.700,000 3,600.000 Total 557,400,000 5147,200,000 519,800,000 548,300,000 I • *Excludes immeasurable health-related, safety, comfort and other costs. Expanded /mpacts The Company's filing with the Virginia State Corporation Commission for approval and certification of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV line and related facilities includes information about ~ 18 distinct individual and overlapping outage conditions during the winter peak period of 2002/03. Of the 18 contingencies that caused problems, as many as 16 could lead to power interruptions throughout the Central/Eastern APCo areas, the Northern APCo area and neighboring systems to the I northeast, east and southeast. ~ The simulation studies of future system performance lead to one inescapable conclusion. The likelihood of a major, widespread catastrophic failure of the APCo transmission system is increasing with each passing day. This trend can most effectively be corrected by reinforcing the transmission system. The addition of the 765 kV transmission line extending from the Wyoming Station in Oceana, ~ West Virginia, to the Cloverdale Station in Cloverdale, Virginia, is the most cost-effective means of providing ahigh-capacity transmission path, thus relieving the overburdened 345 kV and 138 kV transmission networks and assuring the reliability of power supply to APCo's customers for many years into the future. ' ~ The foregoing evaluation of the costs of service interruption generally focused on the effects on APCo and KPCo customers. When a major outage of the type described occurs at a critical time, the potential is created for a cascading failure of the transmission system that may extend far beyond ~~ 14 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project the boundaries previously discussed. The Company has estimated costs potentially associated with ~ a cascading failure of the transmission system which could conceivably affect all of Virginia and all or parts of neighboring states of West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and beyond. The measurable costs to the Commonwealth of Virginia alone, including areas served by APCo and those served by other suppliers, range from a low of 5304 million to as much as 5670 million or more, • excluding immeasurable costs such as threats to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Virginia. This analysis has concentrated on potential outage conditions that may exist in the winter of 2002/03, since the target date for the completion of the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale project is December 2002. However, under certain scenarios, the transmission network in the Central/Eastern APCo areas may become severely overloaded prior to that date. In the event that overload conditions develop in interim years, the Company will utilize controlled rotating blackouts in the attempt to maintain control of the transmission network. These rotating blackouts will not be administered randomly, rather they will be controlled by the Company and utilized in emergency situations to avoid widespread uncontrolled cascading outages that may result when the transmission network becomes overloaded. Such rotating blackouts should not be considered along-term solution, as they will have short- and long-term costs associated with them. Initially, these controlled rotating blackouts may be ~ perceived as an inconvenience to local customers. In the short-term, continued use of these rotating blackouts may prove to be very disruptive to local businesses and households. Moreover, rotating blackouts can be expected to have a severe adverse effect on economic development efforts for as long as this procedure is relied upon as a means of ensuring transmission system security. With • continued load growth in the region, the transmission network in the Central/Eastern APCo areas will become progressively overloaded and the potential for more frequent use of rotating blackouts will increase. In addition, it should be noted that the costs for the outage conditions noted above were for a one-time occurrence of service interruptions. With continued overloading of the transmission • network and without the Wyoming-Cloverdale project, there may be multiple occurrences of similar and perhaps more wide-spread outage conditions. CI~RRENT ECONOMIC IMPACTS • APCo has been a productive and responsible corporate citizen in Virginia for over 80 years and has continually worked to increase economic development in the state. In contemplating the future economic impact of an APCo project such as the proposed 765 kV transmission line, one must consider the following points in connection with APCo. • • 15 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project Employment ~ APCo provides over 3,600 direct and indirect jobsz with over $140 million in earnings in Virginia. Taxes APCo is one of the largest single taxpayers in Virginia. In 1996 alone, Appalachian • paid over $23 million in state and local taxes in Virginia. Coal Purchases Over the last four years11993 to 1996), APCo purchased an average of over 2.1 million tons3 of Virginia coal at an average cost of $70.2 million per year. • In summary, Appalachian Power Company expects to follow its long-standing policy of primarily purchasing coal from states in which it serves. • CQAL: APCO/AEP SYSTEM FUEL OF CHOICE About 87% of the electric energy produced by the AEP System comes from coal-fired generating plants, and the Company sees no reason why that share should change. It is quite evident that coal is now APCo's and the AEP System's primary fuel for generating electricity. Coal will remain the S stem's fuel of choice for the foreseeable f r utu e. APCo and h ~ Y t e AEP System are cognizant of the economic value of coal and appreciate its abundance in the coal-rich regions of southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. Coal is the fuel that will enable the Company to economically meet the growth in demand for electricity during the foreseeable future. • ADDITIONAL JOBS: INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS While the primary, and most critical, purpose of the proposed transmission line is to improve the reliability of the APCo transmission system in Virginia and West Virginia for connected load • customers, shortly after the project was announced, APCo committed that it would make one-fourth (25%) of the improvement in system transfer capability available for independent power producers (IPPs) in its service area. APCo believed this would provide for additional coal mining and plant operation jobs in the coalfields. ~ Therefore, in addition to providing the necessary transmission capability to support load growth in the area, the completion of the proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV line will provide the 2 Indirect jobs include all jobs produced through the community as a direct result of APCo's coal • purchases and plant expenditures as well as APCo employees' expenditures and purchases in the area. The estimates of indirect jobs and earnings were provided by Dr. Tom S. Witt and David Greenstreet of West Virginia University. s Tons of coal purchased for plants either owned by APCo in Virginia. • 16 Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project transmission infrastructure that would allow potential IPP developers to transmit power from ~ southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia to external markets. The Company expects that the completion of this 765 kV line will make available at least 500 MW° of transmission capability for IPP use, to the extent such use is consistent with FERC Order 888-A. The development of IPPs within the area would have a positive effect on the local economy. For example, if 500 MW of coal-fired IPP • power plants were developed in the region, they would add an estimated 148 permanent power plant jobs and 672 permanent coal mining and related jobs in the APCo service territory. The total economic impact in 1996 dollars from the development of 500 MW of coal-fired IPP power plants is estimated to be $28.1 million in additional earnings and 531.8 in additional coal sales annually. I, It is impossible at this time to determine what percentage of these 820 potential jobs would be located in Virginia and West Virginia. For the purpose of assessing benefits in this example, the economic impact of building a 250 MW coal-fired IPP power plant located in each state was evaluated. It is estimated that a plant of this size in Virginia would result in 401 direct and indirect jobs with $14.2 ~ million in annual earnings. As a result of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) and FERC Order 888-A, the wholesale market for electric generation has become even more competitive. In addition, many states, including Virginia, are evaluating further competition in the electric utility industry. As a result of the changing ~ competitive nature of the industry, IPPs can be expected to capture a larger share of the electric generation market. The completion of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV line would enable IPPs locating in southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia to be more competitive in the electric generation market, with the area benefitting from the resultant jobs associated with the IPP development. I ~ The proposed 765 kV line is a major step in developing a solution to the problem of inadequate transmission capability that IPPs face, and would allow them to enter the emerging competitive electric generation market. ' ~ ADDITIONAL JOBS: CONSTRUCTION The jobs which will be created by the construction of the transmission line will provide a substantial short-term economic benefit to Virginia and West Virginia. It is estimated that approximately 184 direct and indirect two year jobs with annual earnings of 55.3 million will be created ' ~ in Virginia by the construction of the transmission line itself. In addition, if IPP power plants were to be developed in Virginia and West Virginia, then the construction of the 500 MW of IPP power plants, as discussed in the example in the preceding section, would create jobs during the construction period. If it is assumed that half of the 500 MW ~S °The 500 MW of transmission capability can be expanded for sales to the north or west as IPP sales to these areas would not be constrained by the same factors applicable to sales to the east and the south. ~ ~ 17 ~~ ~~ ~~ I• ~~ ~! ~~ ~~ ~~ Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project of IPP power plants are located in Virginia, then it is estimated that approximately 517 direct and indirect jobs with annual earnings of 514.9 million will be created during the four year construction period. Although these construction projects will be temporary in nature, the economic impact from these projects will have a significant beneficial impact to the economies of both states. Again it is impossible at this time to predict what percentage of the construction of IPP power plants will take place in each state. ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUES APCo is one of the single largest taxpayers in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 1996 alone, APCo paid over 523 million in state and local taxes. The citizens of Virginia, local school systems, counties, municipalities, and the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole have benefitted significantly from these tax revenues and will gain an additional benefit from the tax revenues which will be generated by this transmission line project. It is estimated that APCo will pay over 51.1 million in additional property taxes each year once this line is completed. Assuming that the line is constructed utilizing the preferred route and the associated facilities at the Cloverdale and Joshua Falls Stations are installed, these taxes will be allocated as indicated below: County Preferred Corridor Bland Co. 5 145,100 Botetourt Co. 171,000 Campbell Co. 99,800 Craig Co. 4,100 Giles Co. 188,100 Montgomery Co. 155,800 Roanoke Co. 279,000 Rockbridge Co. 2,000 Tazewell 88.500 Total 51,133,400 Additional taxes will also be paid by any IPP operator that locates in Virginia. If it is assumed that 50% of the potential 500 MW of IPP generation discussed above is developed in Virginia, then the Commonwealth and its citizens will benefit from $7.6 million annually in additional property taxes from these IPP operators. In addition, a 250 MW IPP plant would result in 5627,000 in consumers' sales ~ 18 Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project tax, personal income tax and corporate net income and business franchise tax annually. The total ~ increase in tax revenues to the Commonwealth of Virginia, for taxes enumerated above, is estimated to be over $9.3 million each year. REAL ESTATE I. Land Value /mpacts: Right-of--way APCo intends to pay property owners 100% of the fair market value of easements acquired for rights-of-way for the transmission line. Property owners will continue to retain ownership of interests within the rights-of-way, subject to the limitation that they would not be allowed to construct buildings I • or other obstructions thereon which would interfere with the operation or maintenance of the line. Property owners will retain the right to use the easement area for growing crops, pasturing, yards or gardens, together with the right to fence the area, as long as such activities do not unreasonably interfere with the operation and maintenance of the power line. I ~ While APCo normally purchases only an easement from the property owner, the Company will agree to purchase the right-of-way area outright if the owner so desires. In the past, agreements on the price of right-of-way were reached with approximately 95% of the property owners with whom the Company has dealt. In those few instances where agreement I ~ were not reached, property owners have be assured of fair value compensation by the eminent domain procedures of the Commonwealth. Land Va/ue /mpacts: Outside the Right-of--way ' ~ There have been numerous and extensive studies conducted on the impact of transmission lines on the value of real estate outside the right-of-way. In general, these studies show that there have been no negative impacts. In 1975, R. S. Thompson, Jr., SREA, MAI, completed a study for APCo that examined the ' ! effect of a 50 mile segment of the Broadford-Jacksons Ferry 765 kV line on real estate values. The study showed that, with one exception, the value of real estate outside of the transmission line right- of-way was not decreased by the presence of the line. Mr. Thompson conducted another study in 1983, reviewing properties in Bedford County, ' ~ Virginia along the route of Appalachian's Cloverdale-Joshua Falls 765 kV line. His conclusion from that study was the same. Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated, Landscape Architecture and Planning of Alexandria, Virginia conducted a study in 1990 for Virginia Power on the impact of a transmission line on the value of I ~ property outside of the right-of-way. This study was conducted in Northern Virginia, Central Virginia and Eastern Virginia. It showed that there is no difference between the sales price of properties proximate to electric transmission lines and those farther away. John H. Lipscomb, MAI, Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant, completed a study for APCo in 19 '• i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project April, 1992. After analyzing data on sales of lots in four subdivisions that were bisected by the ~ Cloverdale-Joshua Falls 765 kV line in Bedford County, Virginia, and comparing those sales with the sales of lots not in close proximity to any power line, Mr. Lipscomb concluded that property values consistently showed little, if any, price sensitivity to the proximity of the power line. In addition to the above studies, Real Estate Counseling Group of Connecticut, Inc., (RECGC), ~ headed by William N. Kinnard, Jr., conducted an extensive 1984 study to define the effects of transmission lines on land in New York State. This study was in response to a $66 million lawsuit brought by 63 claimants against the New York Power Authority, claiming the proximity of a new power line created "consequential damages" that reduced the value of their lands. RECGC studied land sales • in Orange County, New York for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1987 and found that "there is no discernible or measurable difference in real sales price per acre for vacant land associated with distance from (or proximity to) the Marcy South transmission line right-of-way." In 1992, the New York Supreme Court agreed with the New York Power Authority that, there was "no ~ basis in the record ...for consequential damages" and denied any consequential damages award. Goldman Associates, Inc. completed a study in November 1992 of the effects of 765 kV lines on West Virginia property values. A survey of realtors and appraisers taken as part of this study concluded: "Power lines did not appear to have any effect on the sale and purchase of real estate values in this survey." TOURISM Transmission lines of the size proposed by APCo have been in operation for over 25 years, with ~ no documented negative impact on tourism. While the line may be deemed by some to have a negative impact on aesthetics, this does not necessarily translate into a negative economic impact on tourism since there is a positive economic impact on tourism from the reliable electric service the transmission line will provide. ' Anew highway, for example, may not enhance an area aesthetically, but it can bring tourists to nearby attractions, thus providing an economic benefit to the area. The New River Gorge bridge in West Virginia radically alters the natural setting of the New River, yet it is an economic benefit to tourism in that area. A landfill is not an aesthetic attraction, but it produces an obvious positive ~ aesthetic effect, in comparison with the trash it accommodates from being dumped alongside roads and streams. There are no broad scientific studies of the economic impact of a transmission line on tourism. One can, however, measure the impacts or lack of impacts on certain tourist attractions, or types of tourist attractions. Available evidence of the effect of existing transmission lines on tourist attractions allows one to predict the impacts of this transmission line on parkways, the New River, the Appalachian Trail, hunting, fishing and various other tourist activities. When such available evidence is considered, it indicates that there should be no measurable negative economic impact on tourism 20 I• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project from the proposed line. ~ The following examples consider specific types of tourist attractions in more detail. New River Parkway The proposed New River Parkway would extend from Princeton, West Virginia to Interstate 64, I ~ generally parallel to and at times alongside the New River. The proposed APCo line could cross the parkway either near the town of Athens (Parkway Alternate II or near the New River (Parkway Alternate II). The best analogy to a proposed New River Parkway crossing by the 765 kV Line is the existing ~ crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway in two locations by APCo's 765 kV lines. The first APCo 765 kV crossing was built in 1977-79, and is located in Bedford, Virginia. Visitation to the Blue Ridge Parkway has increased substantially since then and indicates the line crossing has no impact on parkway tourism. I ~ The second 765 kV crossing was built in 1983-85, and is located in Floyd County, Virginia. Again, visitation has increased and is projected to continue to increase. It is well documented from National Park Service (NPS) visitation numbers that the 765 kV crossings had no effect on Virginia tourism. NPS officials have stated that they have not had a single complaint about the lines. I ~ Today, the technology for choosing a crossing site is even more advanced than the process used in 1983 on the Blue Ridge Parkway crossing. The Universities Study Team which conducted the line siting study utilized perhaps the most advanced computerized Geographic Information System (GIS) technology ever used for a power line crossing in the U.S., as well as state-of-the-art computerized ~ visual simulations. In addition, APCo has proposed detailed mitigation measures for both construction and maintenance that should result in the absolute minimum impact possible. Considering the comparative analogy of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the state-of-the-art crossing I ~ selection methodology and the extensive environmental mitigation plans, it is extremely unlikely there will be any negative economic impact on tourism from the line as it crosses the New River Parkway. New River I ~ The routing studies for the transmission line considered all factors along the entire route to strategically locate the least environmentally impactive and most visually acceptable crossing point on the New River. The preferred corridor crossing point is located near Goodwins Ferry, Virginia. Upstream of the crossing, the river is used for tubing, bank fishing, boat fishing, canoeing, camping, ~ and numerous other recreational activities. The take-out point for most tubers is at McCoy Falls which is upstream from and out of sight of the proposed transmission line crossing. Downstream of the proposed river crossing is the Town of Eggleston which has similar recreational activities as the McCoy area but is better known as a boat access location. I• 21 i• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project Considering the surrounding river recreation opportunities, the Universities Study Team routed • the transmission line corridor between these two recreational attractions along the New River. Abend in the river at the crossing would help reduce visual perception of the transmission line and thereby minimize the impacts to the local recreational experiences. In 1963, APCo built a 345 kV line across the New River at Cooper Branch (Mile 27). Corps of I ~ Engineer records indicate there were over 1.2 million visitation days at this portion of the New River in 1996. In 1980, APCo built a 138 kV line across the New River in West Virginia about 2 miles upstream from Thurmond. While the National Park Service has no visitation numbers on this section, I ` numerous whitewater outfitters indicated no decrease in use of this section as a result of the line crossing. The river section from Prince to Thurmond has a total of six other line crossings, as well. In addition, the Thurmond to Cunard to Fayette Station sections of the New River, which are the main whitewater sections, have five line crossings, the most recent constructed in 1972. I ~ Nonetheless, visitation has increased from a few thousand users in 1970 to over 100,000 in 1996. In fact, the National Park Service and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources had to put a cap on the number of outfitters and the number of customers that will be allowed on the New River, due to overcrowding. I A Based on all available data, there has been no decrease in river visitation on the New River due to a power line crossing. In fact, despite numerous crossings, river usage is up dramatically on the New River. I ~ Trai/s and Hiking The preferred corridor for the 765 kV power line crosses the Appalachian National Scenic Trail near Angel's Rest on Pearis Mountain in Giles County. The crossing is parallel to the crossing of APCo's existing Glen Lyn-Claytor 138 kV line. The Appalachian Trail is the nation's best-known hiking ~ trail and is crossed numerous times by transmission lines. Accurate visitation records are available only for short segments and only for the period 1989-1993. The best estimate of knowledgeable Appalachian Trail Conference personnel, however, is that trail use continues at a steady pace despite numerous existing power line crossings. It is not expected that the proposed transmission line will ' ~ diminish the use of existing trails or discourage hiking. Hunting, Fishing, Wi/d/ife The impact of a power line on wildlife has been studied by utilities, universities, state game ' ~ commissions and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWSI. For most species, a power line that is built using proper environmental practices will have no overall negative impact. The change in vegetation produced by selective clearing for the right-of-way and the encouragement of low growing plant species is more beneficial to some species than to others, but 22 '• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project overall will have a positive impact on most species. Many animals such as bear, deer, grouse and quail • will find an improved habitat. No animal species should experience any significant negative impact. In the area of the proposed power line routes, care has been taken to plan for the lowest impact line crossing of migratory bird routes. Similar migratory route crossings by other APCo transmission lines have not impacted migratory birds in any known way. In fact, there are no recorded (~ instances of migratory bird mortalities from any APCo transmission line. The Company has found no evidence of negative effects to raptors from its power lines. The relative risk to raptors depends on the configuration of the towers and wires. For the proposed 765 kV line there should be no risk to raptors from electrocution, since ground wires are spaced well apart I, from energized conductors. Because of the lack of significant impacts to most species, and to all game species, there should be no negative economic impact to hunting or fishing from this transmission line. . TIMBER SALES Even though much of the proposed transmission route passes through forested areas, there will be no significant economic impact from lost timber sales. At the time the right-of-way easement is purchased, the landowner is compensated fully for the fair market value of the timber within the right- of-way. In addition to full cash compensation, the property owner retains the ownership of the timber cut from the right-of-way and can receive further compensation by offering the timber for sale. HERBICIDES ' ~ In its application to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia, the Company indicates that, except in areas where there is little or no compatible vegetation, selective clearing techniques will be used to clear the right-of-way. This means only taller-growing species will be removed while low growing species, such as dogwoods, redbuds and rhododendrons will remain in the right-of-way. I ~ Only herbicides that have obtained registration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the West Virginia Department of Agriculture will be used for right-of-way maintenance. "Registration" means that, when applied in accordance with label instructions, these herbicides will not cause adverse impacts on man or the ~ A environment. The aerial spraying of herbicides will not be used to maintain the right-of-way. Instead, portions of the right-of-way will be maintained by using herbicides which are applied on a very selective basis by hand with backpack sprayers, while many sections, which have conductor to ground design ~ clearance greater than 100 feet, will not be cleared at all. Since any herbicides used will be applied by hand, there should be no impacts beyond the right-of-way. Since herbicides will not be sprayed on crops, pasture land, tree farms, orchards, streams, rivers and wetlands, there also should be no economic impact within the right-of-way. 23 I• I• Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project GIS DATA BASE ~ As part of the proposed Wyoming to Cloverdale transmission line project, APCo has funded the creation of astate-of-the-art geographic data base, or GIS covering the greater part of an eight county and three independent city area in Virginia, including Bland, Botetourt, Craig, Giles, Montgomery, Pulaski, Roanoke and Tazewell counties and the independent cities of Radford, Roanoke and Salem. • The GIS data base currently contains in excess of several gigabytes of data about the economic, ecological, physical, social, and cultural conditions of southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. It is one of the most complete and extensive data bases ever assembled for the region. Information covers geography; road networks; hydrology and surface water; ecological resources; ~ wetlands; historical and archaeological sites; scenic trails; trout streams; historic districts; land use; airports; radio, TV, and navigation beacons; major recreational areas; utility transmission lines and gas pipelines; and administrative boundaries. The potential for using this GIS data base for economic development to benefit southwestern ~ Virginia and southern West Virginia is considerable. The GIS is ideal for marketing the resources of an area, attracting new industry and supporting the existing employment base. A data base of this type can become an integrated information source to serve both public and private enterprise in southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. I~ RATES While the future impact of the proposed line on electric rates cannot be known with certainty, the Company's best estimate indicates that the incremental impact on rates after 2002 may be an ~ increase of no more than 0.5% under the current industry structure. However, the electric utility industry is changing and there is some movement toward unbundled rates for generation, transmission, and distribution. The effect of such changes on customer billing is unknown at this time. Nevertheless, the improvements in overall transmission system performance provided by this I ~ reinforcement program will restore reliability margins and permit expanded use of the existing system. In sum, the proposed transmission line could have little or no upwards effect on APCo's customers' rates. ' ~ APCO OBLIGATIONS To meet its public service obligation, the Company has proposed the construction of the Wyoming-Cloverdale project for commercial service in December 2002. The EHV transmission reinforcement program is planned to provide relief to the AEP System's overburdened transmission ' ~ facilities so as to avoid the economic costs and other immeasurable social disruptions associated with wide-area blackouts, as previously described. Furthermore, the development of the proposed EHV transmission reinforcement program and I 24 i~ Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project the benefits flowing therefrom will provide sufficient energy delivery capability required to ~ accommodate projected increases in consumer demands for electricity, which will provide a sound basis for economic growth for years to come. APCO COMMITMENTS • The analysis presented in this study of the economic impacts of the proposed transmission line presents a strong argument that the line will provide overall economic contributions to the benefit of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This conclusion rests in no small part on certain commitments made by APCo to follow policies that will benefit, above all, the residents of its own service area. I. It is clearly evident from past practices that APCo is committed to using coal from within its own service area. APCo is committed to providing its customers with reliable low cost electricity and to continue I~ to assist in every way possible the economic development of its service territory. CONCLUSIONS The proposed line is a necessary link required to reinforce the transmission system and insure reliable electric service to southwestern Virginia and southern West Virginia. The benefits from a I ~ reliable supply of electric power and energy are well known but often taken for granted. The residents of Virginia should be aware that failure to build adequate transmission facilities is likely to impose severe social and economic cost on Virginia. Even aone-day service outage caused by a failure of the transmission system could cost the residents, businesses and industries in southwestern Virginia up ~ to $48.3 million. Furthermore, a failure within the APCo transmission system that initiates an uncontrolled cascading failure of other transmission circuits could affect all of Virginia, and all or parts of neighboring states. Such a catastrophic failure of the interconnected electric power system, initiated within APCo, could cost the economy of Virginia as much as 5670 million per day or more. To avoid I ~ such a catastrophic failure of the interconnected electric power system, the AEP System's plans call for implementing controlled rotating blackouts to maintain control of the transmission network in the Central/Eastern APCo areas. When all of the impacts are weighed, the citizens of Virginia will greatly benefit from a more ~ secure, reliable transmission system. The improvement in electric service reliability and the other economic benefits from the proposed line will increase the already positive economic impact that the AEP System and APCo have on the Commonwealth. Exhibit 6 is a summary of the economic benefits which Virginians will reap from the proposed I w line. This project will generate an additional 400 permanent jobs for the residents of Virginia. The total economic benefit will be at least 539.4 million per year, which includes, at a minimum, 59.3 million in additional tax revenues and 514 million in additional earnings. I 25 ~--. Economic Impacts of the Transmission Project APCo and the AEP System have made a commitment to do what is best to meet their ~ obligations to the citizens of Virginia. It is hoped that this document will help Virginians evaluate that commitment and the necessity, as well as the economic value, of the Wyoming-Cloverdale transmission line project to the citizens of Virginia. ~~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~~ I • 26 i• r~ r~ I• C: I• I• It C ~• EXHIBITS 27 EXHIBIT 1 I• i• I• I• l~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~~ AEP SYSTEM SOUTHERN SERVICE AREA ~ r OS ~ ~ ~ VJ .~ ~ J ~ f ,, f w ~I JACKSON MASON ROWAE ~ ^y.~ ~ LEBiS REENUP~ ~ PUTNAY CLAY Ashland"U AeELL ~ Charleston OY[3 KANA'NHA NICHOLAS CRRTER ROWAN WAYNE LINCOLN ELLIOTT FAYETTE I,AINRENC~ 900NE GREEN6HlER YORGAN '~Dy tiYj~ ~~ry ~-y LOGAN RAL'ElGH w4`' l CQ~,~. ~ co 15YONING ~ NONROE BREATHITT /~ FLDYD PINE ~ MERCER ~ ' C OWSLE ~ ~ NCOOYIELL ~ GlLES ~~ KNOTT ~ ` ~ ~, t9UCNANAN / U CLAY F~9y LETCNER/ ptCKENSO TAZEWELL BLAND "~ t ~ PULASK } LESLIE +f WISE RUSSELL YiYTHE FLDYD SNYTH CARROLL PA1 SCOTT tNASHINGTON GRAYSON ~~ /~w + - }- ~ -~ King O SULLiVAN ~ HAlIK1NS NASHINO- / TN TON I },/Z~ lJ NELSON F" AyHERST SUCKING!{AN gOTETOURT AP]'6 BEDFORD MATTOX ~K ,orRoanoke {;AMPl1ELL FRANKLSN Y~l HENRY j ~ ~ I ~~ NC ~ Counties Where Retail Service is Supplied in Whole or in Part by Appalachian Power, Kentucky Power and Kingsport Power Companies. 1• EXHIBIT 2 I• I• I• ~~ It I• 1• 11 1• y ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ o U ~ w'> ~ ~'~ ~° ~ E U ~ ~ b ~ -b a ~.. c ~ -v ~ a? oQAC7a~~4a4v~ ~ : .~ ~ ~ ~ aaw3 VUr' xz~ '~' ~ .~ a ¢mAgWpgUUUwww ¢ y Cd W ~ ~ o ~ ~ ± ~ ~. 6111 >~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ x~3 U a~ U ~_ • p ~ y ~ '~' ~ O ~ ~ p H ~ ~ V ~ ~ z F-~ v ~ t n ~ .+ °~iaa~~~oaa ~Uw . a - r ~ ~ ~ ~c U '~ * ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0..o a .c ~ ? ~, a~ ~~ 3 o c a~ o 0 o an ~ a a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on ,c A ~ •~ o 3 m°wc~xaa~~z~~a~v~3 .., U ~ ' c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° 2 a ~, ~ aAc~~~~H33 a aa 0 ~ 3 U a >, ~ . ~ a~ 3 ~ •3 •~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ pC1UWU.~~1p4 0 ~ U U ~ •~ o ~ ... ~~. N ~ o z ~ ^' > * ~, c '~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ •o v ~~ ~ ~ ~, o~ a~.~e ~ ~ a ~ o 3 . o o 0 ~ .~ ~ ~ A, 1• ~~ ~~ C~ I• I• [~ 1• 1• ~~ EXHIBIT 3 0 ° Wa y Y QQ WO ~ ~ a a a Q, zz a ~ O Q ~ ~a 0 ~ J Y Z Z ~ ~ V ~ W Z ~ ~ ~O W V ~a s ~ a i o ~ ~, _ ~, ~ W ,_ ~ Z 00 3 O " ^~ ~, ti v M n o °o °o °o °o °o °o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o ti ~ ~ e r e+o ~ i ~ SILVMV93W y .a ,D o°oe V c .~ ' ~ M W ~vp p\ N m ~„~ N Q O 7a! m~ y~ N O ~ ei e M x .~ ~u o~ ~ ~~ ~ o~ a °~ v 0 ~ a ~ ~~ a °~ ~~ r • • • • 1 1~ ~~~) Cf _J ~~ 1 4i \~" ~y /`) ~. '-\'. ~~ ~~ J' :F,I -~r, I ~~ LESUE ~ / J INTERCONNECTION WfIFi Va POWER j / ~/ LE7(INGTON J ~ WOLF CREE }IELMA \\ MARTIKI.~ \ 1 DEWEY ,~ ~) / /A~ J Z ' ~ INTERCONNECTION ;1 wDH vaPOwER AtnoNY FADS BETS` ~ \~ YNE SKIMMER 015~~ ~~^REUBENB / BREMO-0OOM9 118 kV UNE RED HILLINTERCONNECTION WITH V0. POWER SCOTTSVILLE ~~ ~ INTERCONNECTION WRM VA POWER GUFFORD BREMO RtvEP 1 --' BOMVOOD SPICEWOOD MONEL ~MINGD J ~ RNERJILLE METERING ~ ALTAMBTA BOONSBORO~ / ; r ~ HMBERT ~ I n JOSHUA PALLS METERING DPfll M( HILL - CREEK M~ ~~ E LYNCHBURG FOREST BEAVER CR. ENT6MLLE PEAKSVIEW NEW LONDON BROOKM ~ • I r INTERCONNECTION WffH i.VA • TION WER 1Q COPPER RIDDED Q% ~p ~ OPoSSUM CR. TAVENN \S. LYNCHBURG CANDLERB MfN. JOHN60N RUBTBURG MOUNTAIN OTTER INTERCONNECTION WTM VA. POWER _ ALTAVISTA .\J~l~ _~' ~ LEEBVILLE 11~^ ~'~Sn.~ ~~/\ BMRH ~~ JUNTAIN J INTERCONNECTION ~l 111 WIiM VA POWER / BANISTER \ ~11~11~11~11~11~11~11~11~11_~I~J1~11~11 ~OE~~ ~MDNU--~ ~ PMIPPB BEND _ INIERCIXJNECTION~ 1 _KIN4SPORf MOREW .Il^11~11~1~ ~~ SULLNAN ~ WITH T.VA P i ~_~ ~ ~ TENNESSEE o: ~~ H ~: ~ ~ ~°~" ~~ ~./ O~S~ INIERCDNNECTWN G4RDEN91 /"-" WDH C. P.8 L ~ 1 ~. OHIO AINER1cAl11® ~~~cr~~c ~~R P: America's Energy Partner ANOINO ROCK EXHIBIT 4 I A-' ~ANSMISSION SYSTEM MAP O%YGEN !•~~ \7ED.EPDNTECTRIC POWER SUPPLY FACILITIES ~~ 765 kV ----- - KENTUCKY ~'~"' - - - - - 29D kV KEN 500 kV 13B KV ra .>• ~ 345 kV KENTUCKY ELECTRIC STEEL° TEAM PLANT O STATION IYDRO PLANT O EHV STATION CFWDWICK -~ BAKeR LHL'UMPED STORAGE TO &O SANDY SCHE ASTOF 12~1~6 1TIES BEEFHIOE FLEMING ~~~ _~~~ ~`~'~~ ~, a~~~~~, .~ ,~'--~~ E DANMLLE \l 1 i/ ^1 1111 ^11 ^11~11~11~1If11~11~IT -INTERCONNECTION WRH C.P.B L ROl®ORO I• EXHIBIT 5 ~~ ~~ ~• I~ ~• ~~ ~~ I• ~• ^~ s `~ ~ /.-.r,o ' ~.•` ~~~ ,, • c ~ of ~ ~" Z /E Y ¢ •, Q . / ~ ~ _ ~, Q j `~ C'7 ~ E... , LL ~ ' ~ w ~ z `~ ~.,; ...~: ``' ~ r ~~ ~ ~ m ~ ~,' ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~ I i s t ~ tL ~~ C3 ~ ..~J'~'~~ ~ ~~ ~ .~. ~ .....: ~\ t > Z ~ °- U • ~ a 0 > > ~' ~ > , Q~ ~_~ d ~~~~~ W `~ ~ ~ ~ _ o .~ rn rn ~~ I• • a z c~ oc O W Z W O Z O W • 0 • Q • y EXHIBIT 6 y Q ~ Z ~ W ~ Z Z Q m Y wv~ ti ~ ~ _ ~ZI- LL. V W J W Q Q ~~ Q ~ W N C O O ~ O ~ ~ H ~ C O ._ ._ . C ~ N ~N-O ~ '~~ X00 to to ~~~ E>~} ~p EA M ~ O O O ~~ ~~ ~ M ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~~ c .~ ti N .~ NfR E 0 a~ E 0 U 3 N O C O U J H ~ W Z Z Q m W ~ ~ Z ~O UW N O ~ p ~ C O tD O ~ d C = •~N O = COO , ~ i r Q ~ O (h ~ N ~ N y} b4 ~ N i i i i N m .L (I) ++ C O ~WHU 00 w ~ ~c~~a I-U ~~ >QUU 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 ~ s c O a n o ;° ~ ~ - Qa ~' ~ Q 1 1 Q 1 O 0 ~ ~ ~ a a U H C O O N M N EA r V a E V N •~ ~° o o ~ O ~ W ~ 1 N 0 H i i i i W ~ ~ ~ O ° ~- c ~ c Z °w >w O °~a =~ U > ~ c ' c ~ Q ~ ~, , Q +• , L , ~ L Q ~ O U} ~ ~ a V ~~ a~ c N s c 0 0 0 r aNi 3 Q m C N •~ .n 0 >. N '~ O N O ~ ~ 2 'c v rn 'rn c c ~~5 14 Z `o Q :~, / ~ a N E v N rt_. Nom. ~Ec ~ ~ ~°a ~~ ~~o ~~ a~ ~ _ °-'_~ O Q O ~ U r v _ y C ~ y .N ~ ~ o ~~ .~ c ~ ` E N'C ~cc O t'0 u/ d N U W Ea°t ~o ~OO r ~ r r Q N ~, J I• I• I• I• [~ [~ I~ I• It [~ I• THE GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY IN THE APCO SERVICE AREA OF VIRGINIA A White Paper October 1997 AMERICAN° ELECTRIC POWER THE GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY IN THE APCO SERVICE AREA OF VIRGINIA AND THE NEED FOR THE WYOMING - CLOVERDALE 765 KV TRANSMISSION LINE 1970 -1996 October 3, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Overview of the Growth in Demand III. Population Growth vs. Household Growth IV. National Trends V. Growth in Customers VI. Growth in Electricity Use VII. Wholesale Growth VIII. Sales to Other Utilities IX. Projected Growth in Demand for Electricity X. Consequences of Inadequate Transmission XI. Summary XII. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Peak DemandLoad Growth 1960 - 1996 Exhibit 2 Growth of Population, Households, Customers, and kWh Exhibit 3 Growth of Electricity Usage (kWh) by County Exhibit 4 Blackout Scenario Page 3 3 4 6 7 7 11 12 12 12 13 15 2 I. INTRODUCTION: Appalachian Power Company (APCo), a subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP), has proposed to build a 132 mile 765 kV transmission line from Wyoming Station near Oceana, West Virginia to Cloverdale, Virginia to meet the projected demand for electricity in the APCo service area. As required by law, APCo has previously submitted an application and presented evidence to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) to support the fact that the line is needed. The SCC determined that the line was needed in its Interim Order issued on December 13, 1995. While the Company has developed comprehensive documentation of this need to present to the Commissions in Virginia and West Virginia, the complex nature of this project makes it difficult for the public to properly evaluate the highly technical data. In addition, because population growth has remained relatively flat since 1980 in APCo's service area in Virginia, the perception exists among some Virginians that there is little or no need for additional electricity for their state, and therefore no need for or benefit from this transmission line for their part of Virginia. This perception of a lack of need for Virginia is understandable, although it is not accurate. The increasing demand for electricity is affected today not only by population, but by issues as diverse as changes in the size of the family, the availability of various natural resources and innovative new electric technologies. This white paper will attempt to explain the reasons for the increased, and steadily increasing, demand for electricity in Virginia. While that demand may not be apparent at first, we hope that this paper will make the growing demand for electric services in Virginia easier to understand. This paper will also address the claim that this project is not needed for APCo's own customers, but is being built instead to allow for sales to other utilities. Finally, this paper will briefly discuss the short and long term consequences to the citizens of Virginia of inadequate transmission. II. OVERVIEW OF THE GROWTH IN DEMAND: During the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the demand for electricity in APCo's entire service area (WV and VA) continued to grow steadily. Between 1973, when APCo's last major reinforcement of its transmission system occurred, and 1996, peak demand (kW) grew by 136% (See Exhibit 1) in the impacted region and annual electricity usage (kWh) in Virginia grew by 137%. (See Exhibit 2) Projections show future increased growth in APCo's peak demand and total electricity usage with peak demand projected to increase by the year 2003 to over 183%. (1973 - 2003) Demand for electricity in APCo's Virginia service area has increased far more dramatically than has population growth. While this may seem to be an apparent contradiction, such growth in demand is quite typical today and has also occurred in other regions of the United States which have experienced little or no population growth. The growth in demand in APCo's VA and WVA service area has been, and will continue to 3 be, the determining factor in establishing the need for the proposed transmission line. This paper will present and analyze various growth statistics for APCo's Virginia service area to better illustrate the causes of the growth in demand for electric service in Virginia. A careful review of the data presented in this paper will demonstrate that the construction of the Wyoming to Cloverdale transmission line is essential, and that the most significant portion of the growth in demand comes from Virginia, in addition to other parts of the APCo service area. POPULATION GROWTH VS. HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: One commonly used m easure of the growth in an area which is easily calculated and understood is changes in popula tion. For each of the counties in APCo's Virginia service area the population for the years of 1970, 1980, and 199 0 was as follows: POPULATION B Y COUNTY (Source: U. S. Census) 70-80 80-90 70-90 COUNTIES: 1970 1980 % inc. 1990 % inc. % inc. Albemarle 37,780 55,783 47.7 68,040 22.0 80.1 Amherst 26,072 29,122 11.7 28,578 -1.9 9.6 Bedford 26,728 34,927 30.7 45,656 30.7 70.8 Bland 5,423 6,349 17.1 6,514 2.6 20.1 Botetourt 18,193 23,270 27.9 24,992 7.4 37.4 Buchanan 32,071 37,989 18.5 31,333 -17.5 -23.3 Buckingham 10,597 11,751 10.9 12,873 9.5 21.5 Campbell 43,319 45,424 4.9 47,572 4.7 9.8 Carroll 23,092 27,270 18.1 26,594 -2.5 15.2 Craig 3,524 3,948 12.0 4,372 10.7 24.1 Dickenson 16,077 19,806 23.2 17,620 -11.0 9.6 Floyd 9,775 11,563 18.3 12,005 3.8 22.8 Fluvanna 7,621 10,244 34.4 12,429 21.3 63.1 Franklin 28,163 35,740 26.9 38,549 10.7 40.2 Giles 16,741 17,810 6.4 16,366 -8.1 -2.2 Grayson 15,439 16,579 7.4 16,278 -1.8 5.4 Henry 50,901 57,654 13.3 56,942 -1.2 11.9 Montgomery 47,157 63,516 34.7 73,913 16.4 56.7 Nelson 11,702 12,204 4.3 12,778 4.7 9.2 Patrick 15,282 17,647 15.5 17,473 -1.0 14.3 Pittsylvania 58,789 66,147 12.5 55,655 -15.9 -5.3 Pulaski 29,564 35,229 19.2 34,496 -2.1 16.7 Roanoke 67,339 72,945 8.3 79,332 8.8 17.8 Russell 24,533 31,761 29.5 28,667 -9.7 16.9 Scott 24,376 25,068 2.8 23,204 -7.4 -4.8 Smyth 31,349 33,345 6.4 32,370 -2.9 3.3 Tazewell 39,816 50,511 26.9 45,960 -9.0 15.4 Washington 40,835 46,487 13.8 45,887 -1.3 12.4 Wise. 35,947 43,863 22.0 39,573 -9.8 10.1 Wythe 22,139 25,522 15.3 25,466 -0.2 15.0 4 CITIES: 1970 1980 Bedford 6,011 5,991 Danville 46,391 45,642 Galax 6,278 6,524 Lynchburg 54,083 66,743 Martinsville 19,653 18,149 Radford 11,596 13,225 Roanoke 92,115 100,220 Salem 21,982 23,958 TOTAL 1,078,453 1,249,926 70-80 % 80-90 % 70-90 inc. 1990 inc. inc. -0.3 6,073 1.4 1.0 -1.6 53,056 16.2 14.4 3.9 6,670 2.2 6.2 23.4 66,049 -1.0 22.1 -7.7 16,162 -10.9 -17.8 14.0 15,940 20.5 37.5 8.8 96,397 -3.8 4.6 9.0 23,756 -0.8 8.1 15.9 1, 266, 590 1.3 17.4 This data demonstrates that during the 1970s, the population in most Virginia counties and cities in APCo's Virginia service area increased. During the next ten years, 1980 to 1990, the growth in population varied. Overall, for the 20 year period from 1970 to 1990, the total population in these counties and cities increased by 17.4%. Since 1990, population has begun to climb at a higher rate again in Virginia. Population however, is only one measure of growth. Changes in the number of households, in fact, is a better indicator of the growth in demand for electric services because each household will require some amount of electricity to meet all or part of its energy needs. For example, each home will use electricity for lighting, refrigeration, hot water, etc. For each of the counties and cities in APCo's Virginia service area, the number of households for the census years 1970, 1980, and 1990 was as follows: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS (Source: U.S. Census) 70-80 80-90 70-90 COUNTIES: 1970 1980 % inc. 1990 % inc. % inc. Albemarle 10,541 18,862 78.9 24,433 29.5 131.8 Amherst 6,468 8,950 38.5 9,827 9.8 51.9 Bedford 7,849 11,915 51.8 17,292 45.1 120.3 Bland 1,582 2,111 33.4 2,244 6.3 41.8 Botetourt 5,503 8,036 46.0 9,148 13.8 66.2 Buchanan 8,372 11,790 40.8 11,061 -6.2 32.1 Buckingham 3,014 3,851 27.8 4,341 12.7 44.0 Campbell 12,763 14,997 17.5 17,952 19.7 40.7 Carroll 7,244 9,746 34.5 10,463 7.4 44.4 Craig 1,117 1,463 31.0 1,676 14.6 50.0 Dickenson 4,526 6,460 42.7 6,457 0.0 42.7 Floyd 3,092 4,161 34.6 4,763 14.5 54.0 Fluvanna 2,208 3,448 56.2 4,518 31.0 104.6 Franklin 7,658 11,836 54.6 14,655 23.8 91.4 Giles 5,194 6,302 21.3 6,461 2.5 24.4 Grayson 4,966 6,004 20.9 6,468 7.7 30.2 - 5 70-80 80-90 70-90 COUNTIES: 1970 1980 % inc. 1990 % inc. % inc. Henry 14,763 19,517 32.2 21,771 11.5 47.5 Montgomery 13,285 20,849 56.9 26,241 25.9 97.5 Nelson 3,494 4,257 21.8 4,807 12.9 37.6 Patrick 4,723 6,197 31.2 6,908 11.5 46.3 Pittsylvania 16,582 22,215 34.0 20,613 -7.2 24.3 Pulaski 9,027 12,424 37.6 13,349 7.4 47.9 Roanoke 19,887 25,286 27.1 30,355 20.0 52.6 Russell 7,020 10,544 50.2 10,641 0.9 61.6 Scott 7,414 8,740 17.9 8,966 2.6 20.9 Smyth 9,006 11,418 26.8 12,234 7.1 35.8 Tazewell 11,955 16,993 42.1 17,309 1.9 44.8 Washington 12,447 15,906 27.8 17,483 9.9 40.5 Wise 10,639 14,596 37.2 14,513 -0.6 36.4 Wythe 6,764 8,944 32.2 9,852 10.2 45.7 CITIES Bedford 1,975 2,305 16.7 2,475 7.4 25.3 Danville 15,465 17,517 13.3 21,712 23.9 40.4 Galax 2,153 2,639 22.6 2,750 4.2 27.7 Lynchburg 17,475 23,880 36.7 25,143 5.3 43.9 Martinsville 6,021 6,623 10.0 6,839 3.3 13.6 Radford 3,107 3,833 23.4 5,207 35.8 67.6 Roanoke 31,928 40,016 25.3 41,030 2.5 28.5 Salem 6,650 8,643 30.0 9,161 6.0 37.8 TOTAL 323,877 433,274 24.9 481,118 11.0 48.5 For the years 1970 to 1980, the household data indicates rapid growth for all counties and cities as does the population data. From 1980 to 1990, the number if households grew again by an average of 11 %. Overall, for the twenty year period from 1970 to 1990, counties and cities in APCo's Virginia service area exhibited household growth, with an average increase of over 48%. IV. NATIONAL TRENDS: The growth trend exhibited in Virginia in the number of households is not unusual. For the nation as a whole, the population grew from 203 million in 1970 to 247 million in 1990, for an increase of 21 %. Households, on the other hand grew from 63 million in 1970 to 93 million in 1990, for an increase of 47%. Number of households, which is a better indicator of electricity needs, has grown at a higher rate than population growth in both Virginia and for the nation as a whole. This pattern of change reflects the declining number of persons per household, which is in part due to smaller families and more people living alone. This trend is expected to continue through the nineties. 6 V While growth in the number of households in APCo's Virginia service area is up by over 48%, this percentage is only an indicator of residential growth. Abetter measure of growth is the total number of APCo customers in Virginia, which includes industrial, mining, and commercial, as well as residential customers. The chart below shows the growth in the total number of customers in APCo's Virginia service area from 1970 to 1996. In 1970, APCo served 267,016 customers in Virginia. By 1990, the number of customers increased by almost 150,000 customers to 411,897, which reflects a 54.3% growth. The number of customers has continued to increase each year since then, and by 1996 had increased by more than 60% over the 1970 level. VI GROWTH IN CUSTOMERS: GROWTH IN CUSTOMERS: VIRGINIA (APCo Service Area) 70-80 70-90 70-96 Customer Type 1970 1980 % inc. 1990 % inc. % inc. Residential 238,170 313,099 31.5 361,741 51.9 64.2 Industrial 909 1,162 27.8 1,289 41.8 93.8 Mining 449 377 -16.0 235 -47.7 -63.3 Commercial 25,575 32,964 28.9 44,328 73.3 100.5 Other 1,913 3,450 80.4 4,304 125.0 170.5 TOTAL 267,016 351,052 31.5 411,897 54.3 68.4 GROWTH IN ELECTRICITY USE: Finally, the ultimate measure of the growth in demand is the measure of increased electricity purchases by all customers. In 1970, APCo Virginia customers used 7.6 billion kWh. By 1990, Virginia customers used 15.3 billion kWh, up by more than 100%. By 1996, kWh use increased by 136.6%. The breakdown by type of customer is as follows: GROWTH IN ELECTRICITY USE': VIRGINIA (APCo Service Area) 70-80 70-90 70-96 kWh 1970 1980 % inc. 1990 % inc. % inc. Residential 2,355,082,163 3,890,952,015 65.2 4,776,297,310 102.8 155.2 Industrial 2,839,392,342 3,524,548,399 24.1 4,330,957,389 52.5 83.1 Mining 413,243,175 803,995,007 94.6 1,040,881,506 151.9 118.9 Commercial 990,277,695 1,634,960,233 65.1 2,365,598,628 138.9 189.9 Other 968,004,625 1,996,544,346 106.3 2,753,265,167 184.4 201.4 TOTAL 7,566,000,000 11,851,000,000 56.6 15,267,000,000 101.8 136.6 losses. ~ Based on billed and accrued kWh including wholesale sales within the state of Virginia and 7 While population has grown in Virginia by 17%, between 1970 and 1990, the number of households in APCo's Virginia service area has increased by 48.5%, the number of customers grew by 54.3% and the use of electricity is up by 101.8%. Measured through 1996, growth in numbers of customers increased by 70% and electricity usage increased by 136.6%. By 2000, the projected growth in usage will be 160%. (See Exhibit 2) The graph below for the APCo area of Virginia illustrates that growth in electricity use over the past twenty seven years has been steady and that the trend indicates continued growth for the future. 20 18 16 N 14 r c ~ o_ m 12 APCo SERVICE AREA IN VIRGINIA Annual Electricity Usage 10 8 ~ i 6 ~ ~ ~ i i i l i i i i~ I i l i p i I i i I ~ 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 136.6%. An important underlying factor in the increased demand for electric service is the further electrification of the home and work place. Increased usage of electricity by homes and businesses has occurred while, at the same time, the energy efficiency of many goods has greatly increased. Since 1970, the average household has added more devices that consume electricity, for example, air conditioners, heat pumps, microwave ovens, and electric clothes dryers. (See table below) Furthermore, residential electricity consumption from electric appliances has also grown due to increased usage of electric appliances, including hot water heaters, lighting, and air conditioners. In fact, even with continued energy efficiency improvements in appliances, the average kW consumption of anon-electric heating customer of APCo increased by 22.1 % between 1980 and 1996. 8 RESIDENTIAL USE OF ELECTRICITY Saturation of AppliancesZ (APCo VA and WV Service Area) Electric Appliance 1980 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 Space Heating (includes heat pumps) 26.9 30.0 33.5 39.4 46.8 48.3 Central Air Conditioning 17.5 24.1 28.1 34.5 44.5 54.9 Water Heating 62.4 67.3 69.5 69.7 72.6 71.5 Heat Pump 3.4 6.7 10.0 14.3 20.2 26.8 Range 75.3 78.9 82.2 83.1 84.1 84.1 Microwave Oven 10.2 35.2 62.7 77.1 81.1 89.1 Clothes Washer 82.2 84.3 84.3 85.8 86.2 88.4 Clothes Dryer 66.5 72.1 74.9 78.2 80.5 82.3 Dishwasher 28.5 32.2 34.2 34.3 37.7 43.7 Color TV 71.8 N/A N/A 93.7 N/A N/A Computer N/A 6.6 10.1 11.8 16.9 25.8 VCR N/A N/A 40.8 57.8 67.3 75.5 Outdoor Security Lights N/A N/A N/A 16.8 21.0 32.0 Commercial businesses have also added more electric devices, such as computers, grocery store refrigeration, air conditioning, and increased lighting. There are so many computers today that computer systems account for 5 percent of total commercial electricity consumption in the U.S. The further electrification of the home and work place is expected to continue into the future with increased saturation of existing goods and the introduction of goods not yet readily available in the market place, such as the electric car. Population growth varies by county, as does household growth, growth in customers and growth in demand for electricity. If we look at some representative counties, for example, we see that demand can vary greatly by county and by year. In Botetourt County, the rate of growth was up in the seventies, eighties and nineties, for a total increase of 152.0% (1970-1996). Roanoke County growth is also .typical with a steady increase ftom 1970 to 1996 of 127.2%. Giles County is another example of the sustained growth in the APCo Virginia service area. The growth in annual energy usage in Giles County from 1970 to 1996 was 104.1%, thereby more than doubling the annual demand for electricity which AEP had to supply over the twenty seven year period. 2 Percent of homes with each appliance. 9 BOTETOURT COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 450 152.0% 400 `- j 350 N L C ~ ° 300- Y 250 200 ~~,~ j f I i 150 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 152.0%. Increase in usage after 1984 primarily due to the addition of Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative. 3500 ROANOKE COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 3000 i 2500 ~- t c Y ~ ~I 2000 I 1500 - 27.2% 1000 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 127.2%. ~~ r_ GILES COUNTY Annual Electrlclty Usage 320 300 280 II,~ 260 m 240 L C O Y ~ 220 200 180 160 140 - i~104.1 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1998 of 104.1°i6. The growth in electricity usage from 1970 to 1996 for other counties in APCo's Virginia service area is illustrated in Exhibit 3. VII. WHOLESALE GROWTH: APCo makes sales of electricity to several different types of customers. The vast majority of these sales (approximately 90%) are to retail customers, as described earlier. Another type of sale which APCo makes is to wholesale customers. These sales are typically bulk power sales to municipal entities or other electric companies such as Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative. These wholesale customers then resell the power to homes, offices, hospitals, etc. in their own service areas. If these wholesale customers were not able to buy from APCO, then they would be forced to purchase higher prices electricity from other sources. For example, Craig-Botetourt paid over $1.6 million to purchase power from APCo during a recent 12 month period. If Craig-Botetourt had purchased the same quantities of electricity from its other supplier, then it should have paid approximately $2.2 million, or an additional $0.6 million. This difference represents a savings to Craig-Botetourt residents of almost 34% 11 Wholesale sales are of enormous value to APCo's Virginia retail and wholesale customers because they result in lower rates, in Virginia job growth (as a result of lower rates and increased coal purchases), and in Virginia tax revenue (due to increased electricity sales, business activity and coal sales). In the past, APCo has been able to supply power for the growing needs of Virginia's wholesale customers. In 1970, Virginia's wholesale customers purchased 716,274,800 kWh. By 1980, this number had almost doubled to 1,406,267,254 kWh and by 1990 was almost 3 times the 1970 level with 2,014,073,713 kWh. In 1996, APCo's wholesale sales in APCo's service area of Virginia were at a level of 2,056,311,551 fora 187.1 % increase over the 1970 level. Obviously, if APCo is to continue to supply reliable service to meet the increasing demand from its Virginia wholesale customers as well as its Virginia retail customers, then transmission system development must keep pace with the growth in demand for electricity. VIII. SALES TO OTHER UTILITIES: Claims have been made that this line is not being built to meet the electricity needs of APCo's own native load customers since APCo also makes sales to other utilities. Yet such sales are of substantial benefit to APCo's own native load customers. Such sales are only made from reserves remaining after APCo's own customers demand is met, while the revenue that APCo derives from these sales is used to hold down rates for its own native load customers. Transmission capacity is built to meet the annual native load peak demand for a utility, which in APCo's case for Virginia and West Virginia, occurs in the winter. At times other than peak periods, low cost utilities such as APCo can make use of their reserve capacity by selling electricity to higher cost utilities. These "off-peak" sales to other utilities enable companies like APCo to hold down rates and therefore benefit its own customers in Virginia. In addition to helping hold down APCo's rates, these sales benefit Virginia with additional jobs, coal sales and tax revenue. IX. PROJECTED GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY: As customer demands continue to increase in the future the stability and reliability of the transmission system becomes a more critical factor. Based on APCo's 1997 load forecast the demand for electricity from APCo's Virginia service area is expected to grow at annual average rate of 1.2% over the next twenty years (1998-2017).3 X. CONSEQUENCES OF INADEQUATE TRANSMISSION: APCo is dedicated to providing safe and reliable electric service to all customers in its service 3 ~ Specifically, the usage of electricity in APCo's Virginia service territory for 1997 is forecast to be 18,342 gWh. The forecast for the year 2007 is 20,894 gWh and the forecast for the year 2017 is 24,127 9~• 12 territory. The proposed transmission line will insure continued reliable service. Growth in APCo's service territory is already placing a strain on APCo's ability to meet its service obligations. Excessive loadings on the transmission lines have already forced AEP to curtail some short-term sales, and to purchase power from outside the AEP system, resulting in reduced economic benefits for APCo's service area. For example, during the summer of 1993 AEP experienced loadings on its transmission system that exceeded recommended limits on eleven separate days, forcing the Company to drop sales to other utilities and to reduce generation at Amos, Sporn, Mountaineer, and Kanawha River Plants and, on occasion, to purchase power from other utilities. The forced drop in generation curtailed coal use in the APCo area by more that 15,000 tons with a value of well over $500,000 and resulted in decreased tax payments. These problems developed even though, with the exception of one instance, the transmission system was normal (i.e., all lines were in service). While these are relatively small problems, it is becoming increasingly evident that without transmission reinforcement APCo's current transmission capability will be impacted more each year. An even greater risk resulting from inadequate transmission capacity is the very real possibility of blackouts. (See Exhibit 4) Unfortunately, many line opponents have tried to downplay the fact that the risk of outages is steadily increasing. The western U.S. outages in the summer of 1996 provide an example of what could occur in APCo's service area. In July, an overloaded transmission line caused a cascading blackout for over 5 million people. In response to a request by President Clinton, a study was done by the Department of Energy. Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, wrote to the President on August 3, 1996 that steps had been taken to make future outages unlikely. On August 10, 1996, another cascading outage hit 10 western states and parts of Canada and Mexico, affecting over 7 million people for up to 13 hours. Due to the extensive delays in gaining approval for the 765kV project, today APCo is developing plans for possible emergency load shedding, using rotating blackouts. If such a measure is employed it is certain to affect current and future economic development. Everyone in APCo's service territory should be aware of the very real consequences of inadequate transmission. XI. SUMMARY: Although there is a perception that there has been no increase in demand for electricity in Virginia, electricity purchases have been steadily increasing over the past twenty six years. While the population growth has been essentially flat, the number of households grew by over 48% (1970-1990) and the number of AEP customers in Virginia (1970 - 1996) increased by over 70%. The usage of electricity in Virginia (1970 -1996) grew by over 136% and projections call for continued growth in the usage of electricity from Virginia for the foreseeable future, with a projected growth of 160% by the year 2000. 13 As customer demands for electricity increase in the future, transmission constraints will become more and more of a problem. Such constraints will continue to cause power curtailments at APCo plants, as they did in 1993. Such curtailments of generation will translate into lost opportunities in terms of jobs, coal sales and tax revenue and a resulting negative economic impact. The risk of outages and blackouts will continue to increase without additional transmission capacity. To continue to provide safe and reliable service, APCo must reinforce the existing transmission system, and the best way to accomplish the reinforcement, at the lowest cost to consumers, is the proposed 765 kV power line. 14 EXHIBITS 15 Z V ~~~ W~3 W ~~~ 0 z Q W O Q W a oc W_ M Zo ~ N 3 M ti * ~ Z" W O W a a !h ~ a~ 00 C c o .c G Wa Y oo O r 0 J O ~ M ~ o N ~~ .r ~ wI` ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 3r Exhibit 1 o ~ o ~ N 0 O O O N o~ O O O T ~ U a a W ~o O `~° a ~ ~Y T ~ d ~ 7 d . ~ ~~ oU ~~ ~Y ~ ~ c ~~ e7 E " ~.~ T O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O M Exhibit 2 ~ Increase in Population Households, Customers, and Usage of Electricity ~~o 200 180 AEP service Area of VIRGINIA 160% 160 ~-Projected 140 120 100 80 60 40 G~ ~~~ o~~` 102% ~~ J~ 137% 71 % to~e~~ 70% 57% 54%j%~~/ ~%~ eh Ids 9% 34~/g.~/; ~Nous . ~ 41 /o 26% ~~~:%31 20 ~~~~~ Population • .......................17% .. • • •'' 16% 17% 0 1970 1980 1990 YEAR Usage of Electricity ----- Number of Customers '96 '97'98 '99 1995 2000 2005 --------- Households •••••••••••• Population Percentages are changes from 1970 s~s~s7 EXHIBIT 3 15 Pages ALBEMARLE COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 110 90 ~- i ~ c Y •_= 70 ~- 50 '~ 150.1 30 ' 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 150.1 %. AMHERST COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 750 - 700 - 650 600 '- 550 ~- L o 500 - 450 - 400 '- 350 - 300 - 250- . 200 ~- 214.6% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 214.6%. BEDFORD COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 900 800 I~ 700 t ~ i ~ •_°- 600 500 400 300 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 183.6%. BLAND COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 75 - 70 '- 65 - 60 '- 55 - s c ~ ° 50 - Y 45 - 40 - 35 - 30 - 25 ~ 166.9% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 166.9%. BOTETOURT COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 450 400 '~ ~~ 350 iL N ~~ L C ~ ~° 300 ~- ,c ~ ~; ~ ~~ ~~ ~-~ 152.0% ^ ~~ r' 250 ~ 200 ,~ ~~ .= 150 , 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 152.0%. Increase in usage after 1984 primarily due to the addition of Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative. BUCHANAN COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 1100 - 1000 900 800 r ~ ~ -_= 700 600 500 400 300 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 ,96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 206.9%. BUCKINGHAM COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 14 13 F 12 11 ~~ 10 9'i v> 8 t C i ~ -° 7 Y 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 36434.8% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 36434.8%. Increase in usage after 1983 primarily due to the addition of Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. CAMPBELL COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 1800 1700 - 1600 - 1500 - 1400 - t c 1300 - ~ o -" ~ 1200 - 1100 - 1000 - 900 - 800 119.2% 700 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 119.2%. CARROLL COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 370 - 350 '~ 330 ~- 310 ~- 290 '- 270 r o 250 ~ ~ 230 - 210 - 190 - 170 - 150 - 130 - 110 '- 199.7% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 199.7%. CRAIG COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 45 - 40 - 35 - 30 - ~ ~ ° ~ 25 - 20 - 15 ' 10 - \ 1^ 526.6% l~ 5 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 526.6%. Increase in usage after 1984 primarily due to the addition of Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative. 98 DICKENSON COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 300 250 200 Ilr-- r ~ ~ -° Y 150 ;- 100 I_ 50 -- 95.9% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 95.9%. FLOYD COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 130 - 110 - 90 - ~ c o Y 70 - 50 - 197.5% 30 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 197.5%. FLUVAN NA COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 1300 ~I 1200 ~ 1100 '- I 1000 ~ ~ ~ ~ 900 r- Y ~ I L ~ 800 700 - 600 - 101.2% r 500 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 101.2%. FRANKLIN COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 610 -- 560 '.- 510 - 460 - L ~ 410 - ~ o 360 - 310 - 260 - 210 - ~ 199.6% 1/ l 160 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 199.6%. GILES COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 320 ' 104.1 300 ~- i 280 I'~ 260 ~ 240 ~'^ s c '~ ~, Y ~ 220 '- 200 i` 180 '- 160 - ~, 140 ' 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 104.1 %. GRAYSON COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 400 - 350 - 300 - >L ~ > ~ Y 250 - 200 - H 112.5% IF-~ ^ 150 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 112.5%. HENRY COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 1400 1300 ~~ 1200 - 1100 '~ ~ I L C Y •~_ 1000 ,-- 900 800 I~- 700 - 600 - 103.2% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 103.2%. MONTGOMERY COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 1500 - 1400 - 1300 - 1200 --- 1100 - L o 1000 - Y ~ 900 - 800 - 700 - 600 - 500 - 210.1% 400 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 210.1 %. NELSON COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 100 90 80 ~- 70 L ~ 60 ~~- ~ -°_ 50 ~- 40 I~ 30 ',~ 20 '~ 463.4% 10 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 463.4%. PATRICK COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 300 250 200 L C O Y 150 100 50 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 174.2%. P ITTSYLVAN IA COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 1700 - i 1600 ',~ 1500 - 1400 - 1300 ~- ~ ~~ L c ~ ~_= 1200 - 1100 - 1000 '- 900 I- 800 - 700 - 75.5% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 75.5%. PULASKI COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 600 550 -- 500 - ~, 450 -- L C O_ Y ~ 400 350 - 300 -- r 250 -- ~70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 97.2%. 97.2 ROANOKE COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 3500 i I 3000 ~'~ 2500 '- ~ ' ~ ~ ~ -° Y 2000 ~- 1500 127.2% ' 1000 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 127.2%. RUSSELL COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 400 380 - 360 - 340 - ~ ~ 320 - ~ o 300 - 280 - 260 - 240 -- ~~ / 220 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 65.0%. 65.0% 88 90 92 94 96 98 SCOTT COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 240 220 200 ~~ i 180 ~ ~ '~ ~ -_= 160 'I~ ~, 140 120 - 100 ~- 80 ' Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 150.8%. SMYTH COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 550 500 - 450 - 400 - L C ~ ~° 350 300 - 250 200 ' ' 150 Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 178.4%. Year 150.8% ^ 178.4% TAZEWELL COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 650 600 ''~ 550 I-- ~ 500 '~ >L C > O I Y ~ 450 '~- ^ 400 - 350 300 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 98.8%. WASHINGTON COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 500 - 450 - 400 -- °, 350 - L C O_ Y ~ 300 - 250 - 200 - 137.6% 150 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 137.6%. 98.8% WISE COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 90 r i 85 80 75 N 70 s ~ ~ o ~ 65 60 55 50 45 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 87.5%. WYTHE COUNTY Annual Electricity Usage 400 350 300 L C O_ Y 250 200 150 140.8% 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Year Indicates growth from 1970 to 1996 of 140.8%. Z V WVW W ~W~ W O Q J a az W O W of OC V =o ~ H ~y 3~ F- M~ ~ o~ Q ~ LL~ Q ~ ~J Z~ ~ m ~> dJ~~ ~ m mZ ~~ ~ W Ii Z H Exhibit 4 (~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGII~TIA FOR AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER'S WYOMING-CLOVERDALE 765 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT. WHEREAS, approximately ten thousand (10,000) residential, commercial and industrial customers of Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power ("AEP") in Botetourt County, Vuginia (the "County") rely upon AEP to supply thew electricity needs economically and reliably; and WHEREAS, the availability of reliable and reasonably priced electricity is essential to the social and economic well being of the citizens, businesses and industries of the County, as well as other areas served by AEP; and WHEREAS, beginning in 1990, and more recently in applications filed on September 30, 1997, with the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission, Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power ("AEP" or "Company") has proposed the construction of a 765 kV transmission line from its Wyoming Station near Oceans, West Virginia to its Cloverdale Station, at Cloverdale, Virginia ("the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line"), to provide needed electric capacity to serve the Company's Central and Eastern areas; and WHEREAS, the Virginia State Corporation Commission stated in a December 13, 1995, Interim Order in an earlier proceeding on the proposed line that, based on the record, there is "...compelling need for additional electric capacity to serve Appalachian's Central and Eastern Regions ..." and that the proposed transmission line "may be the most reasonable method of addressing this compelling need ..."; and VVI~REAS, in its August, 1996, Report to the President in the wake of the recent blackouts in the Western U.S. during the summer of 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy, identified delays in the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line as one of only two areas of significant concern within the United States regarding reliability of the nation's electricity supply. WHEREAS, in a report issued to the Department of Energy in March, 1997, an independent body of experts from three area electricity reliability councils concluded that the delayed completion of the Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Line will result in a significant risk to the power supply reliability affecting a large area of the eastern United States and that the proposed line is an effective way to mitigate the potential for widespread power interruptions; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County recognizes that an unreliable power supply, and even the prospect of an unreliable power supply, can exert a powerful damping effect RI~/0604494.WP0 GM: 011380.0047401 on economic development and could sap the vitality and competitiveness of existing business and industry, and affect their expansion decisions, in the County and surrounding region; and WHERE~.S, the Boazd of Supervisors of the County recognizes that interruptions of the power supply to the citizens and businesses of the County could cause significant economic damage and other serious health related and safety impacts in the County and surrounding region; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGII~iIA as follows: I. The Boazd hereby expresses its support for AEP's proposed Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 kV Transmission Line. 2. In light of the growing urgency of the need for transmission reinforcement, the Boazd hereby requests that the Virginia State Corporation Commission complete its assessment of AEP's application in a timely manner and approve the proposed transmission line and a Virginia location for the line. 3. The Clerk of the Boazd is hereby directed to send certified copies of this Resolution to the V'~rginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the United States Forest Service. RI~f06041W.WPD CIA: 0113Y0~0047{-01 Upon a call for a yea or nay vote the same stood as follows: f Yea Nay Not Present The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, Virginia hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on , 1997 and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present and that a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors approved the resolution. WITNESS MY HAND this day of , 1997. Clerk, Board of Supervisors, Botetourt County, V'~rginia RI0:~060MD4.WP0 GM: 011380.OOi74-01 Item No. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, 5204 BERNARD DRIVE, SW., ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGII~TIA ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: January 13, 1998 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of acceptance of offer and authorization of the sale of 37.86 acres of real estate located in the City of Salem (the Lloyd Property-Tax Map No. 194-1-1) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Salem has made an offer to Roanoke County for property designated as "surplus property" located in the City of Salem, known as the Lloyd property, for economic development purposes. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the first reading of the attached ordinance accepting an offer for and authorization of the sale of real estate for economic development purposes contingent on environmental and other issues. .2. Do not take any action at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve alternative number 1 approving the first reading of this request, approving the attached ordinance. Respectfully submitted: GtJ Timothy W. ubala, Director Department of Economic Development Approved: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved ( ) Denied () _ Received ( ) Referred to Motion by: No Yes Abs Harrison _ _ Johnson _ _ _ McNamara _ _ _ Minnix _ _ _ Nickens y h AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 37.86 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM (THE LLOYD PROPERTY - TAX MAP NO. 194-1-1) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus, and has been made available for sale; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 1998; and the second reading on this ordinance was held on January 27, 1998, concerning the sale and disposition of 37.86 acres of real estate located in the City of Salem, and known as the Lloyd Property; and 3. That an offer has been received from the City of Salem to purchase 37.86 acres of real estate for the sum of and this offer is hereby accepted; and 4. That the proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County to be expended solely for the purposes of acquisition, construction, maintenance, or replace of other capital facilities; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as are necessary to accomplish the 1 C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\REALESTILLOYD.PRO ,. conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. C:\OFFICEIWPW INIWPDOC SV2EALESIILLOYD. PRO 2 O`~ ROANp~~ ~ ~ f- ' p Z L7 ~ 2 °v' a rsas COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE (540) 772-2004 Ms. Mary F. Parrish 6525 Greenway Drive, Apt E-55 Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Ms. Parrish: January 14, 1998 (540) 772-2005 I have been informed that you retired on January 1, 1998 from employment with the County of Roanoke. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and its citizens, l wish to offer my appreciation for your many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to the County. 1 am pleased to send you a Resolution of Appreciation adopted by the Board at our meeting on January 13, 1998, and notification that Roanoke County has purchased a $100 Savings bond in recognition of your years of employment with the Counfy. This bond will be forwarded to you from the Federal Reserve Bank at a later date. If you would like to have your resolution framed, please bring it to the Clerk's Office, at the Roanoke County Administration Building, 5204 Bernard Drive, at any time. It has been our experience That framed resolutions may be damaged when mailed. On behalf of each member of the Board and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept this Resolution of Appreciation and savirl~rs bond, together with our best wishes for a productive retirement and continued success in the future. Sincerely Bob L. J non, Chairman Roan my Board of Supervisors Attachment BLJ/bjh cc: Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Spencer Watts, Director, Libraries 4 C~~~xx~#~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2193 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOB L. JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JOSEPH MCNAMARA WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FENTON F. "SPIKE" HARRISON, JR. CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL: DISTRICT ® Recycled Paper O~ AOANp,F~ ti ^ ~ z c~ 2 J 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 15, 1998 Mr. Douglas J. Anderson 4308 Kings Court Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mr. Anderson: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to-appoint you as a member of tl~e Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for afour-year term. This term began December 31, 1997, and will expire on December 31, 2001. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: John Hubbard, CEO, RVRA C~a~xx~t~ ~f ~o~x~o~~ ® p~~ p~ O~ ROANp~.~ .> A i ti '''_9 2 "` L7 z ~ a~ rasa 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 15, 1998 Mr. Allan C. Robinson 4819 Buckhorn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24014 Dear Mr. Robinson: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service as a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to re-appoint you as a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for another four-year term. This term began December 31, 1997, and will expire on December 31, 2001. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, y~'t~~ ~~ Gzcc~N-- Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: John Hubbard, CEO, RVRA ® aecyaed Pape 0~ ROANpf~ ~ ~ z c~ J ~ aZ 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD ~aar~~~ ~~ ~~xxY~a.~.~ P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 January 20, 1998 The Honorable Joseph McNamara Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Supervisor McNamara: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK This will inform you that at the meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you to the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization to complete the unexpired three year term of Lee B. Eddy. This term will expire on July 1, 1999. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, bjh Enclosure Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors ~;:.,~ - cc: Mr. Wayne Strickland Fifth Planning District Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24011 ® Recycled paper o~ ROANp,F~ ~ '~ 9 z c~ z J .ate rsas MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD P.o. Box z9soo 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 January 20, 1998 The Honorable Joseph McNamara Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Supervisor McNamara: BRENDA J. HOLTJN DEPUTY CLERK This will inform you that at the meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you to the Fifth Planning District Commission to complete the unexpired three year term of Lee B. Eddy. This term will expire on June 30, 1999. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosure cc: Mr. Wayne Strickland Fifth Planning District Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24011 ®R~.ya~d P~ O~ AOANp~~ ~ •~ z c~ z °v' 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 20, 1998 The Honorable Joseph McNamara Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Supervisor McNamara: BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK This will inform you that at the meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as Board Liaison to the Clean Valley Council to complete the unexpired two year term of Lee B. Eddy. This term will expire on June 30, 1999. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Masters, Executive Director Clean Valley Council P. 0. Box 523 Roanoke, VA 24003 ® q~~ p~ INTER MEMO 0 ~ ~ I ~ E ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance FROM: Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors '"`~-''" DATE: January 20, 1998 SUBJECT: AUDIT COMMITTEE At the January 13, 1998 Board Meeting, Supervisor Joseph McNamara was appointed to serve on the Audit Committee replacing Supervisor Johnson. Would you please furnish Supervisor McNamara with any information that you feel necessary concerning this committee. He can be contacted either through the County office or at his home address which is listed below: Joseph McNamara 2318 Brookfield Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Office Telephone: 772-3950, Ext 12 Home Telephone: 774-7932 cc: Supervisor McNamara ~~~: INTER MEMO ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ F F I C E CLERK'S OFFICE TO: Dr. Deanna Gordon, School Superintendent FROM: Mary AUen, Clerk to Board of Supervisors DATE: January 21, 1998 SUBJECT: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE At the January 13, 1998 Board Meeting, the Board appointed Supervisor Joseph McNamara to represent them on the School Construction Committee. Would you please furnish him with information concerning this committee along with the meeting dates. He can be contacted either through the County office or at his home address which is listed below: Joseph McNamara 2318 Brookfield Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Office Telephone: 772-3950, Ext 12 Home Telephone: 774-7932 Thank you. cc: Supervisor McNamara .~..;~_ 4~ FAANO'~F G Z ~ o~ ~~ 1838 MARY H. ALLEN, CMC CLERK TO THE BOARD Mr. Terry L. McMahan American Electric Power P. O. Box 2021 Roanoke, VA 24022-2121 Dear Mr. McMahan: January 16, 1998 BRENDA J. HOLTON DEPUTY CLERK Attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 011398-8 supporting American Electric Power's Wyoming-Cloverdale 765 KV Transmission Line Project. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 1998. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, bjh Attachment cc: Mr. William Damon USDA, Forest Service George Washington & & Jefferson National Forests 5162 Valleypoint Parkway Roanoke, VA 24019 Mr. William J. Bridge, Clerk State Corporation Commission Case No. PUE 970766 Document Control Center P. O. Box 2118 Richmond, VA 23216 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2'4018-0798 (703) 772-2005 FAX (703) 772-2193 Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Ms. Sandra Neal, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of West Virginia Case No. 97-1329-E-CN 201 Brooks Street P. O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 ® Regded paper t JAN-15-1998 16 03 ROANOKE 1?IBTRICT OFFICE. -.. .. .r. ~~. .ti. V• 1V V Mr. Wiliam Damon USDA; Forest Setvke George Washington & Jetter~aon National Forests 5182 Valleypaint parkway Roanoke, VA?.gQ19 twr. VYdNam J. Bridge, Clerk State Corpgratti0rt CgRxnission Cane Na. PUE 97QTGG Document Control Cent P.4. Box 2918 RIChln011de VA 23298 M5. Sandra Neal, Executive Seer~elary Public ServiOe C~ommissign of West Virginia Cast Na. 97-1329-E~CN 2q1 Bt+ook6 street P.C~. BOx $12 Charfestan, WV 25323 ~ ~.. ~-~ ~y1a~Aw..1 ~.rry `~ D . `~ ~ ~ zoo. ~ • ke 11~ ~~0~.7•-121 ~t , °a"' Post-it" Fsx Note 7671 Date ~ ~ #- ~/ TO ~ FrOT ){ CoJDept Co. # P~ # ~.7- 3 6G1~ ~~" 77Z•.~19 ~"" S~~Zg88 15409852985 P.01i01 rcx,~ el ,. TOTAL P. 01 • ~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 18-24, 1998 A5 CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WEEK IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, certain offices in localities are authorized by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Constitutional Officers elected to fill these positions provide a variety of services to the citizens; and WHEREAS, the men and women who fill these offices across the Commonwealth provide valuable services and honorably fulfill their duties; and WHEREAS, in Roanoke County, the constitutional officers are responsible for prosecuting crimes, keeping court files and records, assessing business and personal property taxes, providing jail and court room security, making payments on behalf of the County and collecting real estate, personal property and other taxes and fees; and WHEREAS, the week of January 18-24 is "Constitutional Officers Week" in the State of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby designate the week of January 18 - 24, 1998 as Constitutional Officers Week in Roanoke County; and offers its sincere appreciation to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Commissioner of the Revenue, the Treasurer, the Sheriff and the Commonwealth's Attorney for their dedication to the citizens of Roanoke County. From: To: Date sent: Subject: Copies to; "Timothy Gubala" adm01/ech Mon, 15 Dec 1997 AEP grant adm01/mha < ADMO1/TWG > 11:17:37 + 0000 I talked to Charlie Saul about having an AEP rep available at tomorrows BOS meeting at 3 p.m. to present the "check" for $1,000. Charlie said AEP was reluctant to have a public presentation because they will be asking the County for their support on the transmission line route. I suggest that I write a Board report for the January 13, 1998 meeting -consent agenda, describing the grant program and acknowledging receipt of the funds. Mary Allen -- 1 -- Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:18:42 I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Community Services 2. Commission for Senior and Challenged Citizens. 3. Fifth District Planning Commission 4. Library Board ~ _ f-3 5. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority HCN NOMINATED DOUGLAS ANDERSON TO SERVE A 4-YEAR TERM EXPIRING 12/31/2001. 6. Social Services Advisory Committee 7. Southwest Development Financing Inc. ECH DIRECTED TO RECOMMEND EMPLOYEE FROM ECO NO MIC DEVELOPMENT DEPAR TMENT. ~ -,~-~ ow ~, ; ~~~n a C~Cp~" ~ , h 9 LBE ADVISED HE SENT MEMO REGARDING APPOINTMENTS HE HELD A A SUPERVISOR. FFH AGREED TO SERVE ON THE 5TH PDC RURAL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE y ~ ,8 E- sz~ ~ l1 ~ /~g % ~/e. to ~"~'~ J. CONSENT AGENDA S ~i~p~ ~21)")!> ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-121697-10 FM MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT RESO AFTER DISCUSSION OF ITEMS 2, 3AND5 ~-~ MEMO - 12/12/97 To: Supervisors, Joe McNamara From; Lee B. Eddy ~~~~ Subject: Appointments I have held four Board-appointed positions that will need to be filled after January 1. A brief description and related information follow: 1. Member, Fifth Planning District Commission: Roanoke County has five seats, three for elected officials and two for citizens. The other seats are now held by Spike Harrison, Fred Anderson, Steve Garrett and Pat Dean. They meet monthly at the PDC office in Roanoke. I recommend that a member of the Board be chosen for the seat I have held. 2. Member, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). This group, associated with the 5PDC, is becoming more important regarding transportation planning and funding in the Roanoke Valley. Roanoke County has two members, currently Spike Harrison and me. The members do not have to be elected officials, but that has been the practice, particularly because the MPO usually meets just prior to the 5PDC each month, at the same location. 3. 5PDC Rural Transportation Planning Advisory Committee: This group consists of two members from each of the SPDC localities outside the Roanoke metro area. They meet once every three months in Fincastle. The intent is to have one elected and one appointed official from each jurisdiction. Currently Terry Harrington and I represent Roanoke County. 4. Liaison to the Clean Valley Council: The CVC meets once each month at the Jefferson Center. The County appoints a regular board member who is currently Vince Reynolds. I am not sure why Roanoke County has a liaison position. I have never noted any other jurisdiction having such a position. Fuzzy Minnix has served in this capacity in the past. At the last meeting, the CVC elected me to be a regular board member, not representing any particular jurisdiction. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding these positions. copy: Elmer Hodge Mary Allen INTER MEMO 0 F F 1 C E ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Spike Harrison ~~~~~ _ DATE: December 23, 1997 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS At our last meeting, I volunteered to take Lee Eddy's position on the Fifth Planning District's Rural Affairs Board. Mary Allen informs me that he sits on this body as a citizen and not as a Board member. I do not wish to replace Mr. Eddy on this Board. He has served the Fifth Planning District long and well. With your permission, I will withdraw my name. FFH/bjh cc: Elmer Hodge Mary Allen Joseph McNamara I N T E R MEMO O F F I C E ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Spike Harrison ~~~~~ _ DATE: December 23, 1997 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS At our last meeting, I volunteered to take Lee Eddy's position on the Fifth ;t Planning District's Rural Affairs Board. Mary Allen informs me that he sits on this body as a citizen and not as a Board member. I do not wish to replace Mr. Eddy on this Board. He has served the Fifth Planning District long and well. With your permission, I will withdraw my name. .. i FFH/bjh cc: Elmer Hodge Mary Allen Joseph McNamara ~~ ~1~ From: "Elmer Hodge" <ADMO1/ECH> To: "Mary Allen" <ADMO1/MHA> Date sent: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:11:38 + 0000 Subject: Re: Bob Johnson Reso From : "Mary Allen" < ADMO 1 /MHA > To: adm01/ech, adm01/amg, adm01/bjh Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:37:07 +0000 Subject: Bob Johnson Reso I am trying to think of accomplishments during 1997 that can be included in Bob Johnson's reso of appreciation for serving as chairman. Do either of you have any ideas? I'LL THINK OF SOME I thought of: NO............the reaccreditataion of PD, PROBABLY NOT..........the completion of the Dixie Caverns Cleanup, YES.establishment of the Blue Ribbon Commission and beginning of 120 million school construction projects, Joint meetings with City of Roanoke in the spirit of cooperartion resulting in joint dental insurance program and joint 800 mhz system Opening of the first Greenway in the Roanoke Valley Any others or more important ones. HELP! Roanoke in spirit Mary Allen, Clerk to Board 772-2003 Elmer Hodge Mary Allen -- 1 -- Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:08:54 DR,4FT - 1/6/98 - 3:00 P, M, ROANOKE COUNT1(BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA JANUARY 13, 1998 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Cierk to the Board at (540) 772-2005. We request that you provide at least 48-hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Fiag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of Bobby Scruggs, Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Department. i 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Bob L. Johnson for his service as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors during 1997. D. BRIEFINGS ~ ~,~,~ E. NEW BUSINESS ~ ~ O ~, h ~, g ~ Q S-~ 1. ..._ Re uest fora royal of the 1998 Holiday SchedQle and q pP amendment to the Employee Handbook. (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources) Request for approval of $13,500,000 of industrial revenue bonds for Hollins College Corporation for the construction of a new library and making various building renovations on the campus. (Tim Gubala, Director of Economic Development) Approval of 1998 Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Board. (Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board) F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance to ratify an agreement with Bell Atlantic for use of their tower on Poor Mountain. (William Rand, General Services Director) 2. First reading of ordinance to amend and reenact Section 10-3 Article I of Chapter 10 "License" of the Roanoke county Code in order to conform with a state code amendment to eliminate charging a license fee to certain businesses subject to a license tax. ~~ . a 3. First reading of ordinance to vacate afive-foot portion of a sanitary sewer and drainage easement located on Lot 8A and shown on the subdivision plat of Nottingham Park as recorded in Plat Book 20, Page 77, and located in Windsor Hills Magisterial District at the request of Triangle Developers, Inc. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) 4. First reading of ordinance to vacation a 20-foot drainage easement recorded in Plat Book 16, Page 128, Lot 1 and Lot 23, Section 2, Plantation Grove as recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 175, located in Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering and Inspections) G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES SC c a r~o~f 1. reading of ordinance approving a purchase agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and the Commonwealth of Virginia for 377 acres of real estate known as the Catawba Farm and authorizing the purchase of the property for economic development purposes. ((Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors 2. Commission for Senior and Challenged Citizens. 3. Library Board 4. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 3 I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. L.-~he ~.E._ V~d~d 1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. 2. Acceptance of a grant from American Electric Power Company for marketing of the shell building at Valley Gateway. ~~ ~ '? 3. Resolution of support for increased funding from the d v . Virginia General Assembly for Virginia's Planning District Commissions. 4. Request for acceptance of Empire Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 5. Request for acceptance of Miilbridge Road into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 4 r 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund O. WORK SESSION 1, Joint work session with American Electric Power to discuss the proposed 765 Kva transmission line. P. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A Q. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R. ADJOURNMENT 5 ~ N a~~~~ y ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~~c~~~ ~~, ~ ~'. ~A ~ ~~ ~ z~~~~~ ~_~~ ~ a o ~ 0 ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~g ~ ~ a ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ /~ ~+~+ x ~' \+ O ~ ~ " ,~c ~+\ ~ ~ x x nR~ ~\ $ ~ ~ 4\*~* 2 ~~ 2 m o a~~ 0 ~~~ a ~~~ ~< a \\\ +~ ~~: \x\ f ~*~~D X`~ 1 ~ ,~ I~~ ~o ~~ , I ~~ ~IQd x , .~~N~ ~ -~ o a 4330,--N~---- ~ o ~ ~,dy,1) 3N~1 , ~ ~ ~ a n ~~C~T `~ ~~ ~ ~~~ N ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ y ~ \\ f\ri ~ l 1 y i t ~ ~1 666 ~~ a ~ ~ ~~ Apt ~ ~` 5 ~z i ~ ~~ ~ v ~, ~ ~ ~N Oy ti ~ V/p~ V~ ~~~ r /~ /~ D by ~ O C ~~~ Z ~ ~ i ~ O D Z ~ r m ~ ~ o ° D a ~ m NZ myr - ' ~Z ~ '~ ~ Z ~ ~~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ s~~•~ 3 ~ Z~C ~- ~ N C7 N> y~ ~ 0 0 ~~ ~ Z~= ~ ~ ~n ~ D~O 0 ,..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~~ .~ 2 ~~ ~~ n n Cl ~~ ~~ a o~ ~~ m~~ k ~~ ~ w~~o ~~ ~~'<° ~~~~ c°j„ ~ m ~~ ~a n rz ~a ~~ '~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ n ~ ~ p !-' a ~ ~~ OJ ~~~ x a~ ~ ~~ o~ a ~o ~~ ~-C t'' R° ~o ~~ ~ ~ ~o. .. ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~+ O ~~~~~~ #~~ 3 O p c~ ti ~ma~~ ~'~~~o ~~"'~o ~~~ ti ~ti~ Z ~ ~~ 0 ti~~ ~~~~ n ~y~ n n =" "w~ ~~~ti ~~~~g~ ,~ ~~ ~\ 1~ L~ ~,~ ~,\ ~ ~~. ~` ~ +~~\ ~ r AA ~~ \ ~~ ~C ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~a~ ~~ ~~e~$ ~~ ~ C A/ER/aVAN AR" "7HE BLUER/DLL PARKWAY UN/7ED STAIFS DEPAR7AfENT 01~ 7NE /N7EJ?/A4 NAAGN/AL PARK SEIPNCE PRGbECT ~1 N AIAP ,/!"10 __}_ h i ~v t, or ~ 6 0>• 6 ~ °~ Q ~ '' ~O~iELA~INN G puRr „ Q? ~ ~ (uN~eECoR~En) ti ~0 \ 70' WAT~Qi G/NE EASM'r. ~~ ~ ~~Q y 59° 87' 4'1" W, ~- 716, Iy• ~~~ h~~ NEW 70' ~ _ o VY~l~g SINE EASENJENr _ m N ~~ ~ N ~ , o O ~ ~ J ~~ O + ~ ~ Own ~- ~ ~ m ~ ° °o o ~ N TAX ~ 76.0 - 6 - -. 2 ~ ~ ~ ~~ * Q J ~ o PROPE-~TY OF 4EDRCE R. WEgg ~v NIrA N. WE9g ~. °' ~' ~ ~ N 1.00 AG2F ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9.9. 1542 Py. 44'1 ~ c ~ ~ P. 9, l9 PCB. 160 o~ DNE ~- ONE OV6RNEA4 EGEGT~ZJG G~NE _ __ ~ _------ --PRVEMENT ~ - ~ ~ ~bT - ,.~.,__~------- r '- 75 7x6 ' - - - TO R.09E GAWN R..~ 40 . E~ r N `~ ~ ~4 ' ~iEGON~A~Y ,~pCItE * 692 VA . (~jufAl~i GOAD MIN, 120Ar~) (~.~ W VAR! E5) NOTES: 1) THiS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS NOT SHO(dN HEREON, 2) THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY, PLAT SHOWING NEW 20- WATERLINE EASEidENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR PUBLIC USE BY GEORGE R. $_ NITA N. WEBB THRU PARCEL "A" (P.,B~ 19 PG. 1.60) ~,~4~~$ U~ SITUATED ALONG SUGARI~QAF MTN .. ROAD ~1 CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAi~ DISTRICT i.~31~y7 ~ ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA VINCENT is,.-,'~~ SCALE: 1-~ . 5 0 ' DATE: 31 ocTOSER 19 9 ~ . ---N~ . ------ - ~, 14288 ~ LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C. EN G I N EERS-BURN EYORS-PLANNERS ~, 3impE`I~'4'?' ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMM. ; 9d - 76/ To: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO1/ECH > Subject: Re: Urban Partnership Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:19:57 Thanks, that's what I thought. So BLJ will continue as representative. > From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO 1 /ECH > > To: "Mary Allen" < ADMO 1 /MHA > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:40:43 +0000 > Subject: Re: Urban Partnership > We are members and the Chairman is the BOS representative. No change > From: "Mary Allen" < ADMO l /MHA > > To: adm01/ech > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:10:15 +0000 > Subject: Urban Partnership > Elmer, are we still members of the Urban Partnership? That is one of > the organizations that the Board appoints one of the supervisors to. > Mary Allen, Clerk to Board > 772-2003 > Elmer Hodge Mary Allen -- 1 -- Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:19:57 To: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO1/ECH > Subject: Re: RVRA appointments Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:19:20 Thanks, I' 11 remove it from the agenda for now. > From: "Elmer Hodge" < ADMO 1 /ECH > > To: adm01/mha > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:41:40 +0000 > Subject: RVRA appointments > Talked with HCN. > the Tues agenda. > Elmer Hodge Will discuss appointments this weekend and add to Mary Allen -- 1 -- Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:19:20 From: "Elmer Hodge" <ADMO1/ECH> To: adm01/mha Date sent: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:41:52 + 0000 Subject: Comments for FZ Recommend approval of these changes. Most are housekeeping. I do recommend retaining the fee for those businesses grossing less thatn $100,000. Elmer Hodge Mary Allen -- 1 -- Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:42:30