Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/2003 - Regular Working Document -Subject to Revision Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda June 24, 2003 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for June 24, 2003. 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. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call All present at 3:03 p.m. 2. Invocation: Reverend Bruce Tuttle Cave Spring United Methodist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Mahoney added an item to the closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to pending litigation, namely Dixie Caverns Landfill and General Electric. Mr. Mahoney advised that Pete Giesen would arrive between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. for the legislative work session with the Board. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Roanoke Valley Greenways Program for winning the 2003 Virginia Environment Stewardship Award 1 Chairman McNamara presented the award to Jim Phipps, Chairman of the Greenways Commission and Liz Belcher, Greenways Coordinator. Pete Larkin, District Director for Congressman Goodlatte, was also present. D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on the results of a water and sewer user questionnaire. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director; Joel Shelton, Intern) Briefing presented by Mr. Robertson and Mr. Shelton Staff was asked to update the Board on the establishment of a regional water and sewer authority every third or fourth meeting, continue to communicate information to the citizens, and utilize RVTV for updates. It was also suggested that a joint meeting with Roanoke City be held in the future to update both localities. E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to accept an unsolicited proposal from Northrop-Grumman and authorization to proceed with Phase II scope of project development which also invites competition from other potential contractors. (Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) R-062403-1 JBC motion to adopt resolution URC 2. Request for approval of Vehicle Replacement Policy. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) A-062403-2 MWA motion to approve staff recommendation (adopt the Vehicle Replacement Policy) URC 3. Request to reappoint Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, authorizing the continuation of an agreement, and appropriate funding. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-062403-3 JPM motion to approve staff recommendation (reappoint A. R. Pete Giesen, Jr., as Special Assistant for Legislative Relations and appropriate $18,000 from the Board Contingency Fund) URC 2 F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by fhe Planning Commission. HOM motion to approve 1St readings 2"d readings and public hearings - 7/22103 URC 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct an accessory apartment on .5 acres, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential District, located at 3210 Lawndale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of James C.,III and Laura B. Parrish. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a primary educational facility on 4.76 acres, zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential District, located at 3432 Poff Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Elijah S. Carroll. 3. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a drive-in restaurant on approximately .75 acres, zoned C-2 General Commercial District, located near the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and View Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher H. Hanes. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance authorizing acquisition of the assets of the Suncrest Water Company, Inc., the creation of a special utility service district, namely "Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer District," appropriating funds for the acquisition and construction of water and sewer facilities therein, and imposing and allocating certain fees or assessments with respect to the development of property located therein. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) HOM motion to approve 1St reading 2"d reading and public hearing - 7/22/03 URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.118 acre parcel of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with improvements to Hardy Road for the Vinton Business Center, Vinton Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 3 0-062403-4 MWA motion to adopt ordinance URC 2. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing and approving execution of a lease agreement with NewPipe, Incorporated, for office space in the Salem Bank and Trust Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) 0-062403-5 HOM motion to adopt ordinance URC APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appointed by District) JBC advised that he will have a nomination at the next meeting. 2. Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board It was the unanimous consent of the Board to nominate Sheriff Gerald Holt to serve an additional two-year term which will expire on July 1, 2005. 3. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) JBC nominated Donna Wooldridge, Catawba District, to serve an additional three- yearterm which will expire on June 30, 2006. JBC advised that he will contact Robert List, Catawba District, to determine if he would like to serve another three-year term. 4. Virginia Western Community College Board J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM. WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-062403-6 JPM Motion to adopt resolution URC 4 1. Approval of minutes -June 10, 2003 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District), Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission, and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors A-062403-6.a 3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Elizabeth C. Angel after twenty years of service R-062403-6.b 4. Resolution in support of participation in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and in support of the distribution mechanism of Regional Competitiveness Funds R-062403-6.c 5. Resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned improvement to Interstate 81 R-062403-6.d K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS None L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS None M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None N. REPORTS JPM motion to receive and file the following reports URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 5 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2003 6. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in May 2003 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) personnel matter, performance evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney and Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to pending litigation, namely Dixie Caverns Landfill and General Electric. At 4:10 p.m., JPM moved to go into closed meeting following work sessions URC Closed meeting held from 5:30 p.m. until 6:50 p.m. P. WORK SESSION (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session with the Commissioner of the Revenue to discuss taxation and provision of other public services to Hill Drive (State Route 1095). (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue) The work session was held from 4:25 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. and presented by Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Horn. Mr. Mahoney advised that Hill Drive is located in Botetourt County, subject to their zoning jurisdiction, but is being assessed for real estate taxes in Roanoke County. A citizen who can get a zoning permit from Botetourt County has unsuccessfully requested a permit from Roanoke County and this brought up the question of uniformity. Mr. Mahoney advised that solutions include a boundary adjustment with Botetourt County or an administrative correction. Since this situation exists in other areas of the County, he wanted the Board's input before proceeding. After discussion, the Board directed Mr. Mahoney to meet with the Botetourt County Attorney to find an administrative solution, keep the Commissioner of Revenue and Registrar informed, and attempt to find along-range solution for other areas with similar problems. 2. Work session with the Special Assistant for Legislative Relations to consider initiatives for the 2004 Legislative Program. (Pete Giesen, Special Assistant for Legislative Relations) Since Mr. Giesen's arrival was delayed, this work session was held after work session #3 from 5:10 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Mr. Giesen advised that he sent a lengthy summary of the 2003 General Assembly Session to the supervisors and 6 that the session was very difficult due to the $2 million reduction in the budget. He reported briefly on several issues including the Smart Road, funding for teacher raises and Standards of Quality, the Interstate-81 upgrade and continuation of the State Tax Code Study. He asked for the County priorities for the 2004 Legislative Program. Chairman McNamara advised that these will be discussed at the Board Retreat to be held in November; however, he felt that equitable funding for the Smart Road and a cigarette tax remain County priorities. 3. Work session soliciting input for topics at the Board retreat. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. until 5:10 p.m. and presented by Mr. Hodge. Due to scheduling conflicts, the Board Retreat cannot be held on August 2, 2003, as previously announced. It was suggested that the Board Retreat be held on Sunday, November 9, 2003, before the Virginia Association of Counties Conference at the Homestead. Since this would be after the elections, the Supervisor-Elect from the Cave Spring District could attend the retreat. EVENING SESSION - 7:00 P.M. Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-062403-7 JPM motion to adopt resolution at 7:12 p.m. URC JPM advised that with unanimous consent of the Board, he was adding a New Business item. 1. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney R-062403-8 JPM motion to increase salaries 2% effective July 1, 2003 URC R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS None S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a private kennel on 2.21 acres, located at 1459 Mountain Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Randy Grisso. (Janet 7 Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed until July 22, 2003, at the request of the petitioner Chairman McNamara confirmed that this matter has been postponed until July 22, 2003, at the request of the petitioner. 2. Second reading of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30-93 Signs upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration. This item is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 2003. Chairman McNamara confirmed that this matter has been referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration and is scheduled to be heard on August 26, 2003. 3. Second reading of an ordinance declaring three parcels of real estate to be surplus and donating same to Habitat for Humanity, namely property located at 5441 Stearnes Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 0-062403-9 HOM motion to adopt ordinance with the following seven conditions added: (1) The structure built on the lot will be atwo-story, three bedroom home. (2) The building will include an unfinished basement. (3) The driveway will be on site. (4) The lot will be landscaped in accordance with the surrounding homes. (5) The building will have a septic tank and if this is not possible, it will be connected to the County sewer system. (6) The building will have air conditioning. (7) The building will be developed in substantial conformity with the plans in the Board's agenda and the conceptual plan (Attachment A, Enclosure 3). URC Two citizens spoke 4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 3.6 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential and I-1 Conditional Industrial District to C-2 General Office District to construct and operate ahotel/motel/motor lodge located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District upon the petition of Hollins Hospitality, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 0-062403-10 RCF motion to adopt ordinance with conditions URC HOM recognized former State Senator Granger Macfarlane who was present for this item. 8 5. Second reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 011299-6 "Roanoke County Community Plan" by the adoption of Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines, and the incorporation of development guidelines for this area, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 0-062403-11 JBC motion to adopt ordinance URC T. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora advised that he received a copy of the Regional Water Supply Study from Black and Veatch and requested a work session to review this information. Mr. Hodge advised that a work session will be scheduled. Supervisor Church advised that he is very proud of his son, Aaron Church, a graduate of Northside High School and James Madison University, who lives in Northern Virginia, and qualified on June 21 in Duluth, Minnesota, for the Olympic Marathon Trials. The Olympic Marathon Trials will be held in Birmingham, Alabama, on February 7, 2004, with 50 runners and only three will qualify to go to Athens, Greece for the Olympics. Supervisor McNamara advised that they are proud of all the folks in the Roanoke Valley. The Barber twins were at Cave Spring High School yesterday and they are truly a class act. Supervisor Minnix: (1) He also praised the accomplishments of Supervisor Church's son and advised that he ran in the Lewis Gale 10K/5K with him last year. He is a great athlete and a fine man. He wished him the very best. (2) He advised that he will be working at the Roy Stanley Golf Tournament which will be held this Friday and he encouraged everyone to attend. V. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to Monday, July 7, 2003 at 12:00 p.m., School Board Meeting Room, to attend School Construction Committee Meeting JPM adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. to July 7, 2003, to attend the School Construction Committee Meeting 9 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda June 24, 2003 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for June 24, 2003. 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. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Reverend Bruce Tuttle Cave Spring United Methodist Church 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. Recognition of Roanoke Valley Greenways Program for winning the 2003 Virginia Environment Stewardship Award D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on the results of a water and sewer user questionnaire. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director; Joel Shelton, Intern) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to accept an unsolicited proposal from Northrop-Grumman and authorization to proceed with Phase II scope of project development which also invites competition from other potential contractors. (Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) 1 2. Request for approval of Vehicle Replacement Policy. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) 3. Request to reappoint Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, authorizing the continuation of an agreement, and appropriate funding. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct an accessory apartment on .5 acres, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential District, located at 3210 Lawndale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of James C.,III and Laura B. Parrish. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a primary educational facility on 4.76 acres, zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential District, located at 3432 Poff Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Elijah S. Carroll. 3. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a drive-in restaurant on approximately .75 acres, zoned C-2 General Commercial District, located near the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and View Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher H. Hanes. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance authorizing acquisition of the assets of the Suncrest Water Company, Inc., the creation of a special utility service district, namely "Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer District," appropriating funds for the acquisition and construction of water and sewer facilities therein, and imposing and allocating certain fees or assessments with respect to the development of property located therein. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.118 acre parcel of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with improvements to Hardy Road for the Vinton Business Center, Vinton Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 2 2. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing and approving execution of a lease agreement with NewPipe, Incorporated, for office space in the Salem Bank and Trust Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appointed by District) 2. Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board 3. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) 4. Virginia Western Community College Board J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes -June 10, 2003 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District), Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission, and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors 3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Elizabeth C. Angel after twenty years of service 4. Resolution in support of participation in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and in support of the distribution mechanism of Regional Competitiveness Funds 5. Resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned improvement to Interstate 81 K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 3 N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2003 6. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in May 2003 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) personnel matter, performance evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney P. WORK SESSION (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session with the Commissioner of the Revenue to discuss taxation and provision of other public services to Hill Drive (State Route 1095). (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue) 2. Work session with the Special Assistant for Legislative Relations to consider initiatives for the 2004 Legislative Program. (Pete Giesen, Special Assistant for Legislative Relations) 3. Work session soliciting input for topics at the Board retreat. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) EVENING SESSION - 7:00 P.M. Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a private kennel on 2.21 acres, located at 1459 Mountain Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Randy Grisso. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed until July 22, 2003 at the request of the petitioner 4 2. Second reading of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30-93 Signs upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Referred to the Planning Commission for further consideration. This item is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 2003. 3. Second reading of an ordinance declaring three parcels of real estate to be surplus and donating same to Habitat for Humanity, namely property located at 5441 Stearnes Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 3.6 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential and I-1 Conditional Industrial District to C-2 General Office District to construct and operate ahotel/motel/motor lodge located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District upon the petition of Hollins Hospitality, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 5. Second reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 011299-6 "Roanoke County Community Plan" by the adoption of Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines, and the incorporation of development guidelines for this area, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) T. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS U. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS V. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to Monday, July 7, 2003 at 12:00 p.m., School Board Meeting Room, to attend School Construction Committee Meeting 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: June 24, 2003 Recognition of Roanoke Valley Greenways Program for winning the 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: a ~.,,~,K.,.,."` The Roanoke Valley Greenways Program, which was nominated by Congressman Bob Goodlatte, recently won the 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award in the Organization Category. The awards are sponsored by Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources and the Virginia Petroleum Council. The winners and runners-up in the four categories of Youth, Adult, Organization and Communications/Education Programs were honored at an awards luncheon in Richmond on June 19, 2003. The Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission was established by the signing of an Intergovernmental Agreement on Earth Day, April 19, 1997. It is an advisory body with appointed citizen and staff representatives from each the four Roanoke Valley jurisdictions. The Commission's role is to facilitate coordinated planning, development and maintenance of the greenway network. The Commission has developed a system of trails connecting the cities of Salem and Roanoke, and Roanoke County. Congressman Goodlatte regrets that he is unable to attend the Board meeting to participate in this recognition. District Director Pete Larkin will attend on his behalf. Ms. Liz Belcher, Coordinator for the Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission, will also be present. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. Q -1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing on the results of a water and sewer user questionnaire SUBMITTED BY: Gary Robertson Utility Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On April 14, the Utility Department mailed a questionnaire to our water and sewer customers regarding the proposed Regional Water and Sewer Authority. Customer feedback has afforded the department the opportunity to gauge a general level of support for the project and also to determine the sorts of questions and concerns our citizens have about the Authority. This gives us a chance to address these issues with staff, anticipate and answer questions from our customers, and helps us to begin to develop an information program to be used at civic league and other community meetings to be held in the future. On the questionnaire, customers were asked to answer five questions about the Authority, ownership in the Sewage Treatment Plant, and their willingness to attend a neighborhood civic awareness meeting. The answers we have received to these questions indicate strong qualified support for an Authority from those who took the time to complete and return the questionnaire. A total of 1582 responses were received either by mail or through the Utility Department's website. This is a very good response for amail-in questionnaire. Of those, 90% of respondents indicated that they would favor an equal Water and Sewer Authority if it provided the opportunity to lower their water bill within 3-5 years. 88% of respondents indicated that they would support a Regional and Water and Sewer Authority between Roanoke County and Roanoke City, knowing equality would be established. VJ- ~ 87% of respondents indicated that they believe it is important to have equal ownership in the wastewater treatment facility. 62% of respondents expressed an interest in attending a neighborhood civic awareness meeting concerning the Regional Water and Sewer Authority. Overall, respondents supported the Authority concept in overwhelming numbers and anticipated a number of benefits for County residents, including: greater water availability in emergency situations, increased efficiencies, cooperation with the City, and an eventual reduction in water rates. The questionnaire also included a `comments' section; this section is particularly useful to staff because it educates us as to what specific questions and concerns citizens are having as we work through the Authority issue. Most of the customers who favor the Authority in concept did not provide comments. Those supporters who did comment indicated enthusiastic support of the project, contingent on the eventual reduction of their water rates. One customer expressed that "anything to lower my water rates would be great." Another wrote that "if lower bills resulted in the immediate future- less than 5 years- and both County and City shared equally in maintenance and expansion, I would support it." One resident, age 85, stated that "the whole operation is a great idea and long overdue. Best wishes to continued success of your efforts." These remarks are typical of those who support the project. A majority of the comments returned to us posed further questions or expressed skepticism for the project. One customer writes that "we paid too much to have our new facility built to give up ownership." Another states that "Roanoke City could have established this earlier and prevented the shortages seen during the drought." In general, many citizens are interested in additional and more detailed information and have specific questions about the structure and organization of the Authority. A portion of the minority who indicated that they are unwilling to support an Authority is concerned about the County taxpayer's long- time investment in Spring Hollow. Based on this information, staff has determined that there is both strong support for an authority among water customers and a need to continue to provide citizens with information on the proposed Authority as soon as it is available and feasible to do so. As we continue to make progress in our discussions with Roanoke City, we hope to be able to provide more details to citizens and address their concerns, either in an additional `question and answer' mailing or at public meetings. A public information team has been established with the City to work through these issues. -i Regional Water and Sewer Authority ~~ f ~ u . ~ ~ -~ : 4~ . ~-~ Roanoke County and the -City of Roanoke are looking at the possibility of establishing a Regional Water and Sewer Authority. This service would include the supply, treatment, transfer, and distribution of water to the citizens in both localities. Also included in this service would be the collection and treatment of sewage. This Authority would be formed between Roanoke City and the County of Roanoke under the following three guidelines: • equal representation • the combining and sharing of assets, and • the equalization of rates Presently, Roanoke County does not own capacity in the regional wastewater treatment plant, but has a contractual flow allocation. Under this Authority the residents of Roanoke County would share equal ownership in the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, 55,000 customers from the City and the County would share payment of the Spring Hollow debt instead of the present 20,000 County customers only. Your input is important. You may respond to the following questionnaire by completing the online form at http://www.co.roanoke.va.us/utility or by taking a moment to answer by circling either "YES" or "NO" on the enclosed form and mailing it to: Roanoke County Utility Department 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Please complete and submit either the online form or the enclosed questionnaire by May 1, 2003. A space has also been provided on the questionnaire for additional questions and comments. ~~ REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS On February 27, 2003, the Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted to authorize and direct their staffs to jointly plan and create a regional water and wastewater authority. The county and the city wish to become true partners in meeting the water and wastewater needs of their citizens and businesses. Q. Why is a regional authority needed? A. Both water and wastewater issues are multi jurisdictional in nature. Water and wastewater capacity and resources are determined by drainage basins, not boundaries of local governments. The most efficient and effective way to manage and utilize the basin's water and wastewater potential is with a multi jurisdictional organization. In Virginia, the most appropriate way to organize a multi jurisdictional water and wastewater operation is with an authority. The recent droughts, the cost of developing new sources of supply, and the cost of wastewater treatment have convinced Roanoke and Roanoke County officials that a truly regional approach to these challenges is needed. Q. How will the regional authority benefit citizens in the Roanoke Valley? A. The regional authority will bring the most water with the lowest rate and best service to both Roanoke and Roanoke County. By sharing multiple water sources, both jurisdictions will have better drought protection and emergency backup, by optimizing water reservoirs. Q. What will happen to water and wastewater rates in the county and the city? A. Roanoke and Roanoke County Utilities staffs expect that rates in the two jurisdictions will be equalized over several years. They also expect that rates in the county would gradually decline and rates in the city would gradually increase as the cost and resources of Spring Hollow Reservoir, as well as other resource enhancements, including new interconnections, are spread over a larger customer base. However, the key issue for creating the authority is to better position citizens of both the county and the city to have reliable and adequate long-term, reasonably priced, water and wastewater service. Q. Who will pay for the count's debt obligation for Spring Hollow Reservoir? A. Both the county and the city have debt obligations for various water and wastewater facilities. With these debts come major facilities that are critical to providing reliable regional service. City and county officials expect that the new authority will assume or service debt for the water and wastewater facilities it will operate. Part of the study and analysis over the coming year will be to work out the legal and financial details. Q. Who will pay for necessary replacements to the city's older water and wastewater facilities? A. Some portions of the facilities in the city will need to be replaced with new facilities over a long- term future replacement program, just as many unserviced areas of the county will need to have new facilities constructed through a future expansion program. The new authority will make investment and construction decisions based on the needs of all of the water and wastewater customers, and future customers, and uniform rates will be designed to fund needed investments, both for replacement of old facilities and construction of needed new facilities. Q. Why is wastewater being included in the authority? A. Water and wastewater services are largely integrated, sharing personnel, billing systems, computer systems, equipment and management. In order to gain the most efficiency and synergy from a regional authority, it is necessary to include wastewater as well as water. Q. If a regional approach is the best way to deal with water and wastewater problems, why are Roanoke and Roanoke County the only proposed participants in this authority? A. In 2002, when Roanoke and Roanoke County first began analyzing the possibility of creating an authority, the other valley jurisdictions were not yet ready to investigate a regional water and wastewater authority. City and county officials wish to design and implement an authority that other jurisdictions can join later, under mutually agreeable arrangements, when those jurisdictions believe such a move is in their best interest. Q. What will be the impact on the water and wastewater services of other local governments who choose not to join the authority initially? A. Today, most local governments have contracts with either the city or the county for water supply or wastewater treatment. Those contracts will continue and the local government in question will receive the same service from the new authority. The new authority will honor the contracts the same way that the city or county did prior to creating the authority. Q. Who will serve on the board of the new authority? A. At this time, no decisions have been made as to who will serve. The governing bodies of the city and the county have agreed that there will be equal representation of the two jurisdictions. Whether the representatives will be members of the Board of Supervisors and City Council, or whether the respective governing bodies will appoint private individuals, or a combination of elected and appointed individuals, is one of the issues to be researched and considered along with a host of details to be investigated over the coming months. Q. If other local governments join the new authority at a later date, will they have equal representation? A. The makeup of the authority board, beyond this current agreement that there will be equal representation of the city and the county, is a detail to be worked out. The key objective will be to establish a board of manageable size that can work in the best interest of meeting the water and wastewater needs of the valley and the region. The new authority will be designed to allow other jurisdictions to join in the future. Q. Will the new authority really be more efficient, and does being more efficient mean laying off city or county employees? A. There are many areas where the new authority should be more efficient, including having a single billing system and eliminating the duplication of equipment, inventories and administrative systems. Future savings in reservoir operations, and new source development, are expected to be key issues in long-term efficient operations. However, implementing the new authority will take a great deal of planning and careful integration of systems, resources and personnel. Between retirements, attrition, personnel needs of other departments, and growth, the creation of the authority will not lead to the laying off of any current city or county employees. In addition, Roanoke and Roanoke County expect to involve employees in the planning, design, implementation and operation of the new authority, so employees of both jurisdictions will be knowledgeable and directly involved in this exciting opportunity to bring more reliable long- term water and wastewater service to the valley. ~__. QUESTIONNAIRE Regional Water and Sewer Authority 1. Would you be in favor of an equal Water and Sewer Authority if it provided the opportunity to lower your water bill within 3-5 years? YES NO 2. Do you think that it is important to have equal ownership in the wastewater treatment facility instead of contracting with the City of Roanoke for this service? YES NO 3. Do you think it is important to have more available water sources in times of emergency situations? YES NO 4. Would you attend a neighborhood civic awareness meeting concerning the Regional Water and Sewer Authority? YES NO 5. Would you support a Regional Water and Sewer Authority between Roanoke County and Roanoke City, knowing equality will be established? YES NO Additional comments or questions. Roanoke County Utility Department 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Pre-Sort Standard US Postage PAID Permit # 78 Roanoke, VA A AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-1 ACCEPTING FOR PUBLICATION AND CONCEPTUAL PHASE CONSIDERATION THE UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL FROM NORTHROP-GRUMMAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER UNDER THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) allows the Roanoke County to create apublic-private partnership to develop projects for public use; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 051303-4 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted procedures for the implementation of the PPEA by Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems has submitted an unsolicited proposal under the provisions of the PPEA to construct an emergency communications/public safety center for Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator has reviewed this unsolicited proposal and has recommended to the Board of Supervisors this unsolicited proposal be formally accepted for review, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there is a public need for an emergency communications/public safety center for Roanoke County. ~_ ~.,.._ 1 S ~ 2. That it chooses to accept the Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems unsolicited proposal for publication and conceptual phase consideration. 3. That it will proceed to use procedures developed that are consistent with procurement of other than professional services through "competitive negotiation", since doing so is likely to be advantageous to the County and the public based upon either (1) the probable scope, complexity or urgency of need, or (ii) the risk sharing, added value, increase in funding or economic benefit from the project would otherwise not be available. The scope and complexity of the development of an emergency communications center, information technology facility, and public safety center requires an innovative approach, such as competitive negotiation, to the design and construction of a new building as well as installing in that building up-to-date IT and communications equipment, and software to integrate that equipment to address the public safety needs of the citizens of Roanoke County. The replacement of an aging structure and obsolete technology and equipment in conjunction with the scope and complexity of the development of this project are such that competitive negotiation is necessary. 4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is directed to post and publish the required notice thus allowing an opportunity for competing preliminary proposals to be submitted. Due to the complexity of the proposed project and the County's desire to encourage competition, the notice shall state that competing proposals must be submitted on or prior to September 15, 2003 to be considered, rather than the minimum of 45 day allowed by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Public Private Educational 2 Facilities and Infrastructure Act. The County Administrator is also authorized and directed to take such other actions as may be necessary to implement this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H ton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner 3 TENTATIVE PPEA PROCESS SCHEDULE June 24, 2003 Board accepts Northrop-Grumman Proposal for "Publication and Conceptual Design Phase." July 1, 2003 Notice /Advertisement placed allowing other firms to submit preliminary proposals. September 15, 2003 County Administrator accepts other preliminary proposals for review. October 2003 County Administrator may recommend other proposals to be moved on to "Conceptual Design Phase" by Board. February 2004 Firm(s) complete conceptual design phase proposals. February - June, 2004 Competitive Negotiations to select winning proposal June /July, 2004 Board Action to select final firm subject to "Comprehensive Agreement" being negotiated. Sept. /Oct. 2004 Comprehensive Agreement between winning firm and County approved by the Board. NOTES: No obligation on the part of the County is made until the Comprehensive Agreement is negotiated and approved by Board. Construction expected to begin late 2004. 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept an unsolicited proposal from Northrop- Grumman and authorization to proceed with Phase II scope of project development which also invites competition from other potential contractors SUBMITTED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell Assistant County Administrator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge Z~f~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~c~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems has submitted a preliminary proposal to the County for the construction of a public safety communications center/ public safety building under the Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA). This submittal was discussed in a work session at the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 10. Staff representatives from Information Technology, Police, Fire and Rescue, Finance and Administration have reviewed the proposal. The needs for these facilities and communications upgrades have been well established in the CIP process and in discussions between Board of Supervisors members and staff. The proposal lays out three scenarios: 1) The Base package consists of a Public Safety Communications Center, IT facilities and an Emergency Operations Center. This would include all necessary dispatch and communications hardware and software in the facility, but does not include upgrades to the radio system. ~- l 2) Option One consists of the base package plus all new administrative space for both the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments. 3) Option Two consists of the base package, option one, and upgrades to the radio system necessary to prepare the County to move to a fully functional digital radio system. Under the proposal it is possible to proceed with the base package and the radio system upgrades without adding the administrative space for Police and Fire and Rescue. If the Board moves to accept the preliminary proposal, a process of competition is triggered. The County will place an advertisement in the Roanoke Times and other newspapers of our choice, notifying the public that the County will accept additional preliminary proposals from other firms. The initial proposal submitted by Northrop- Grumman would be available for review by other firms and the public, except for material deemed proprietary under the PPEA rules. It has been determined that the financing and cost section of the Northrop-Grumman proposal is proprietary, as revealing this information would harm the competitive process. The remainder of the document will become public record if the resolution is approved. If the Board moves to accept the preliminary proposal for publication and conceptual phase development, there is no obligation or commitment on the part of the County at this point. The approval of the resolution only authorizes the placement of the advertisements and the acceptance of additional proposals, the authorization of a process of competitive negotiation, and the approval for Northrop-Grumman to develop a detailed proposal forthe construction of a facility and upgrading of the public safety communications capacity of the County. As we move forward through this process of looking at our public safety communications requirements, the need to upgrade our radio communications in the field, in addition to the main radio transmission equipment, is becoming apparent. Our current radio system, while certainly adequate and fully functional when it was installed, will not meet the standard we need to protect our public's safety in the upcoming years. The PPEA process provides the necessary flexibility to determine how to meet these communications needs, as well as our most crucial space needs, before committing public funds to upgrade our facilities or communications system. FISCAL IMPACT: The section of the proposal submitted byNorthrop-Grumman dealing with costs and fiscal impact has been determined to be proprietary under the rules of the PPEA. Therefore it is not legally permissible to discuss costs or financing mechanisms in public at this time. If approved for review, Northrop-Grumman will forward a check in the amount of $45,000 to the County to pay for the County's cost to review the next phase of Northrop-Grumman's proposal. Northrop-Grumman initially submitted a check for $5,000 at the last Board Meeting to begin the review process. a ALTERNATIVES: 1) Alternative One -Accept the prepared resolution and move the process forward. The resolution allows until September 15 for other interested firms to submit preliminary proposals and allows Northrop-Grumman to move on to the development of a detailed proposal. It also authorizes the use of competitive negotiation as a procurement mechanism. 2) Alternative Two -Reject the initial proposal submitted by Northrop-Grumman. If this option is chosen, the County will need to consider other mechanisms to proceed with the upgrading of our public safety communications capability, as this is a high priority need for the protection of the public. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of Alternative One in order to move Northrop-Grumman proposal to the next stage of development and allow the County to review any alternative proposals that may be submitted by additional firms. ~-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FOR PUBLICATION AND CONCEPTUAL PHASE CONSIDERATION THE UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL FROM NORTHROP-GRUMMAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER UNDER THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) allows the Roanoke County to create apublic-private partnership to develop projects for public use; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 051304-4 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted procedures for the implementation of the PPEA by Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems has submitted an unsolicited proposal under the provisions of the PPEA to construct an emergency communications/public safety center for Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the County Administrator has reviewed this unsolicited proposal and has recommended to the Board of Supervisors this unsolicited proposal be formally accepted for review, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there is a public need for an communications/public safety center for Roanoke County. emergency 1 f ~- I 2. That it chooses to accept the Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems unsolicited proposal for publication and conceptual phase consideration. 3. That it will proceed to use procedures developed that are consistent with procurement of other than professional services through "competitive negotiation", since doing so is likely to be advantageous to the County and the public based upon either (1) the probable scope, complexity or urgency of need, or (ii) the risk sharing, added value, increase in funding or economic benefit from the project would otherwise not be available. The scope and complexity of the development of an emergency communications center, information technology facility, and public safety center requires an innovative approach, such as competitive negotiation, to the design and construction of a new building as well as installing in that building up-to-date IT and communications equipment, and software to integrate that equipment to address the public safety needs of the citizens of Roanoke County. The replacement of an aging structure and obsolete technology and equipment in conjunction with the scope and complexity of the development of this project are such that competitive negotiation is necessary. 4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is directed to post and publish the required notice thus allowing an opportunity for competing preliminary proposals to be submitted. Due to the complexity of the proposed project and the County's desire to encourage competition, the notice shall state that competing proposals must be submitted on or prior to September 15, 2003 to be considered, rather than the minimum of 45 day allowed by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Public Private Educational 2 ~_1 Facilities and Infrastructure Act. The County Administrator is also authorized and directed to take such other actions as may be necessary to implement this resolution. 3 ~-\ TENTATIVE PPEA PROCESS SCHEDULE June 24, 2003 Board accepts Northrop-Grumman Proposal for "Publication and Conceptual Design Phase." July 1, 2003 Notice /Advertisement placed allowing other firms to submit preliminary proposals. September 15, 2003 County Administrator accepts other preliminary proposals for review. October 2003 County Administrator may recommend other proposals to be moved on to "Conceptual Design Phase" by Board. February 2004 Firm(s) complete conceptual design phase proposals. February - June, 2003 Competitive Negotiations to select winning proposal June /July, 2004 Board Action to select final firm subject to "Comprehensive Agreement" being negotiated. Sept. /Oct. 2004 Comprehensive Agreement between winning firm and County approved by the Board. NOTES: No obligation on the part of the County is made until the Comprehensive Agreement is negotiated and approved by Board. Construction expected to begin late 2004. ~-~ NOR'TNROP GRlJ--fM.4N ~'- County of Roanoke, Virginia MsSiOn Syste/!7S PPEA Conceptual Proposal for Public Safety Facilities • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Northrop Grumman Mission Systems is pleased to submit for consideration to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors this unsolicited proposal for new Public Safety Facilities under the Virginia Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA). The PPEA was passed by the Virginia General Assembly to enable local and state governments to have at their disposal an additional tool in procuring needed infrastructure quickly, and at a reasonable cost, by utilizing the entrepreneurship of the private sector. Further, it was designed to foster partnership and collaboration to bring to the public sector innovation and creativity in meeting the needs of citizens. The PPEA is not an attempt to bypass procurement regulations, as it still requires open disclosure and competitive advertisement. It does, however, afford governments an opportunity to hear ideas from the private sector that may aid in the procurement of critical needs under non-traditional methodologies. The Board is to be commended for its willingness to explore this approach. Public safety is the primary duty of government. While threats to the community have always been present, in the past 100 years they have been mostly "home-grown," such as criminal acts, or natural occurrences, such as floods, blizzards, or tornadoes. Unfortunately, public safety needs have often taken a backseat when placed in competition for the monetary resources that governments must allocate for education, health, economic development, public utilities and myriad other functions governments must provide by necessity, statute, or custom. In the 1980's and 90's, some progress was made in equipping our public safety responders with needed tools and technology to better protect our citizens and save lives during emergencies. These tools were often purchased by • individual agencies and were not compatible with other systems. Further, many of those systems are now outdated and cannot meet the demands being placed on them because of aging populations, greater cell phone use, and other demographic changes. The competing needs in other areas of government responsibility have not afforded the men and women in public safety the opportunity to obtain the working environment and tools needed to perform their tasks in today's world. September 11, 2001 changed forever the way each of us views the world. But, more important, it changed the priority, focus, and the requirements of public safety officials and the responsibilities of first responders. They still need to protect the community from the localized or transient criminal acts, and respond to injuries and natural disasters, but added to that already daunting responsibility, now they must be able to communicate via voice and data instantly in order to use information to save lives and protect the citizens they serve and to stay ahead of the increasing ingenuity of criminals. Further, they must be able to save documents, data and information and have the ability to disseminate and share that information quickly with other local jurisdictions, as well as state and federal agencies, to protect us all from the newest threat, terrorism. After September 11, 2001, other agencies were added to the traditional "public safety" list. These include health departments, public utilities, and transit agencies. The fact that Roanoke County is far from traditional "target" areas no longer affords it protection. Our new adversaries seek out the weakest points in our national public safety chain and exploit them, just so we will not feel secure by distance. More to the point, Roanoke County's public safety agencies need new technology to communicate internally and externally and they need space to conduct this business properly, and in accordance with evidentiary requirements and security mandates. In planning for this need, they must do so in a • manner that assures that scarce resources expended will fill the immediate and future needs of the County, as well as provide the functionality and interoperability that will keep the technology fresh ES-1 Use of disclosure o/data contained on this page is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal or quotation. NORTJ~,R+CP GRl1,MMAN County of Roanoke, Virginia Miss%an Syste/tls PPEA Conceptual Proposal for Public Safety Facilities • and expandable for the coming years. "Stove piping" systems within individual agencies is no longer fiscally responsible, or feasible. In the three day information gathering session we held with County staff, numerous subsequent follow up conversations, and through the leadership provided by your County Administrator, we have undertaken a comprehensive examination of Roanoke County's existing public safety capabilities. While the County and its staff have done a commendable job with the resources available to them, there are gaps. Facilities and equipment are aging. Space for personnel is running out. New state and federal mandates are adding to the burdens of an already over-stretched system. Population growth and the large growth in traffic along I-81 are creating additional demands. That is why we believe a comprehensive approach to updating the existing public safety infrastructure is needed. Northrop Grumman, the second largest defense contractor in the nation and the largest non-retail employer in Virginia, has initiated aPPEA-based program that: • Assists state and local governments in obtaining these needed facilities and technologies now, at affordable prices • Structures the acquisition in a manner that cuts years off the procurement process • Reduces the overall cost by as much as 20% when compared to traditional procurement and financing • Provides technology refresh to ensure that no individual component is obsolete. Northrop Grumman, in developing this "one-of-a-kind" public safety facilities enhancement • program, has assembled a team of "best of breed" partners that includes each of the disciplines involved: building architecture, construction, communications, and systems integration. Our partners include local companies that have the knowledge and expertise to ensure successful construction and keep jobs in the region. The thrust of our overall partnership is focused on first class facility construction, state-of-the-art technology, and the ability to design systems to meet today's needs, while allowing for tomorrow's expansion. After September 11, our management charged us with developing a program that would help bring the expertise of our 120,000 employees around the world to the local level. Technologies developed in the past decade to help the U.S. military now have broad applications to help meet the needs of citizens. And those innovations will continue. Unfortunately, there has not been, until now, a coordinated approach to spread the use of these systems to ensure an efficient and effective public safety program. We have developed an approach that allows localities to tap these innovations, and be ready when new ones emerge, to serve their citizens. It has been packaged in a way that controls costs and improves service delivery. The program provides a development and delivery methodology designed to minimize the delivery cycle and optimize the financial metrics for facilities and systems. The client jurisdiction is provided commercial-off-the-shelf products that meet their immediate and short- term future needs, while using open systems architecture to allow expansion and additions to the systems as new technologies are developed or procured. Customization, often the most costly aspect of systems acquisition, is initiated after the users have become comfortable with the products in their • operational environment, and are then able to specify exactly what their additional needs and/or ES-2 Use of disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal or quotation. NORTh/ROP GR[IJ-lfM.4N Mission SYstents County of Roanoke, Virginia PPEA Conceptual Proposal for Public Safety Facilities • requirements are. Customization is then performed on a time and materials basis; this assures the least cost and risk, and the fastest implementation. These activities, when paired with a very attractive financing structure, ensures that what you are purchasing works, and is delivered years ahead of traditional means, before any public funds are expended. Included in this proposal, which is conceptual in nature and may be modified at the County's discretion, is a plan to obtain needed public safety infrastructure consisting of: • Anew communications center • An emergency operations center • An information technology center • A police and fire administration building • An upgraded radio system for public safety and other County agencies. Our plan allows the County to obtain this infrastructure in two years or less, and at an affordable cost. The plan not only fills an immediate need, but it also meets the County's projected public safety systems requirements for the next 15 to 25 years, and completes its building requirements for nearly forty years. Northrop Grumman personnel are available to meet with County representatives at anytime to further explain this proposal. We look forward to becoming true partners with Roanoke County in providing first-class working space and technology for the men and women protecting this • community. E-~ ES-3 Use of disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal or quotation. 1VCiRTHAOP GRlJMM.4N' ~~ l ~~~ Couniy of Roanoke, Virginia / MisSiDO SystentJS PPEA Conceptual Proposal for Public Safety Facilities • 2. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 2.a SCOPE OF PROPOSED PROJECT needs and requirements: • Base Offering: Public Safety Communications Center for Dispatch, EOC, and ITS Group • Option 1: Expansion of the PSCC facility by the addition of an Administrative wing • Option 2: Addition of radio infrastructure equipment into the PSCC The base offering and options is described in greater detail below. 2.a.1 Option Descriptions Base Offering -Public Safety Communications Center (IT/EOC/Dispatch) Our base offering will provide Dispatch facilities, Emergency Operations Center, and • accommodations for the Information Technology Systems Group for the County for police and fire to meet current and future requirements of the County, as detailed in this conceptual proposal. This baseline configuration provides for all required facilities, basic infrastructures, systems, adjacencies, backup capability, security, communications, utility structure, and connectivity to City and other required public safety agencies. Particular attention will be paid to ensure that this facility meets all local, state and federal environmental and safety requirements for the customer. In this baseline, the Dispatch Terminals operate in a "remote" configuration, and rely on a link back to radio infrastructure equipment located at the original call center in Southview. This link will be a County-furnished landline. Option 1-Police and Fire Administration (PFA) Wing This option is for a separate connected office building on the same site as the PSCC to accommodate the administrative needs of the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments. The existing (baseline) PSCC lobby will serve as a common entry point for both wings of the enlarged facility. Figure 2-1 depicts the Baseline configuration with the addition of the Option 1 PFA wing. Option 2 -Radio Infrastructure As noted above, the baseline configuration includes new consoles at the PSCC linked back to the existing radio infrastructure at the Southview site. Option 2, shown in Figure 2-2, replaces the equipment at Southview with new equipment at the PSCC that will perform the same functions for the radio infrastructure. This new equipment will not be identical to the Southview equipment, since • some of that equipment is obsolete. 2-1 Use of disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal or quotation. The Northrop Grumman Mission Systems team proposes a new Public Safety Communications Center (PSCC) facility including a Central Dispatch, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and space/accommodations for the Information Technology Systems group for the County, and an Administration facility for fire and police. The proposed facilities will be new construction on secured county land. Our proposal contains a base offering, with two options to meet the County's NOii?"HROP GRLlMAfAN ~~' County of Roanoke, Virginia Mission Syste/71s PPEA Conceptual Proposal for Public Safety Facilities • The microwave hub at Southview will remain in place to provide connectivity to the remote radio sites (base stations). Some of the microwave equipment currently installed in the schoolhouse will be relocated to a shelter near the Southview microwave tower. As in the baseline configuration, a link is still required between the new PSCC and the microwave hub at Southview. As part of Option 2, we will install a microwave (m/w) link to replace the County- furnished landline that was included in the baseline. 2.a.2 Facilities 2.a.2.1 Building Site The County-provided site will require approximately 10 acres of developable land, with public utilities to the site and ample service to facilitate the planned development. The developed site will accommodate an approximately 90,000 square foot Public Safety Communications Center (PSCC) and Administration building, public and staff parking, truck/ loading areas, and other facilities desired by the County. 2.a.2.2 Proposed Buildings The proposed center will include one level below grade and two levels above. Figure 2-3, 2-4, and 2- 5 show the floor plans for the three levels. The building will be designed with two distinct wings: The Public Safety Communication Center (PSCC) and the Police and Fire Administration (PFA) wing. This configuration not only allows for operational integrity, but gives the additional flexibility for the possible phased development of the project should it be desired by the County. i The proposed Roanoke County PSCC will be designed to be a secure and safe building, which can operate during potential disaster conditions. All mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communication services will have redundant features to reduce possible down time during power outages or other natural disasters. The facility will also have fuel storage and back-up generators to allow for a minimum of 72 hours of self-sustained operation if outside public power fails. The building structural system will be upgraded from general commercial building standards. Central Building Lobby. The Main Lobby, which overlooks the visitor parking area, is the link between the two building wings. It is also the critical interface between the general public and PSCC personnel. The Lobby is designed to welcome the public while restricting their access to strategically located areas with service desks, conference rooms and media information walls. Figure 2-6 is a notional rendition of the Lobby. The Public Safety Communication Center Wing. The Public Safety Communication Center wing will be a nerve center for monitoring county wide public safety needs. The basement level of the PSCC will accommodate the building's main utility service areas. The lower level will house the water, fire, electrical, and mechanical equipment rooms as well as radio/ telecommunication rooms, IT server room and uninterrupted power supply system room. This area will serve mainly as the back-up infrastructure area. The balance of the basement level houses men's and women's locker rooms, exercise areas, network tech rooms, offices and storage areas. r~ U 2-3 Use of disclosure of data contained on this page is subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal or quotation. KpRTMROP GRUMMAK ~'~~ -------` County of Roanoke, Virginia _ Mission Systems PPEA Conceptual Proposal for Public Safety facilities ,, ACTION N0. A-062403-2 ITEM NO. E-2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval of Vehicle Replacement Policy SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Vehicle replacement has been handled in the past through a combination of available funding in departmental budgets, special requests to the Board, and occasional budget allocations. During the recent budget process, the Board participated in a work session reviewing past practices, and directed Staff to prepare a vehicle replacement policy including a process and criteria for replacing vehicles and funding mechanisms. The County Administrator designated the Director of General Services to develop and administer a vehicle replacement policy. Under her direction, a team comprised of the two assistant County Administrators and the heads of impacted departments has met for several months and drafted a policy for approving, prioritizing and funding vehicle replacements. A copy of that policy is attached. The Team codified the informal process which has been used in the past, and identified options for obtaining vehicles, including leasing and purchasing program cars from dealers and rental agencies. Additionally, the policy includes several recommended funding sources, and a process for ranking vehicles which are being replaced. The Team used these criteria in recommending replacement vehicles for the upcoming budget year. s VOTE: Supervisor Altizer motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: Action File Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Wanda Riley, Executive Secretary, Policy Manual COUNTY OF ROANOKE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUBJECT: Vehicle Replacement Policy POLICY NUMBER GS001 DATE ISSUED July 1, 2003 PAGE 1 OF 3 LAST DATE REVISED July 1, 2003 AUTHORIZATION PURPOSE To provide a procedure for approval and funding of replacement vehicles, both during the budget process and throughout the fiscal year. DEFINITIONS Vehicle Replacement Committee -committee charged with reviewing and prioritizing requests for replacement and additional vehicles and allocating available funding. The committee consists of the Assistant County Administrators, the budget manager, the Sheriff, and the heads of the following departments: police, fire and rescue, parks and recreation, general services, real estate assessment and community development. The Director of General Services shall serve as the chair for the committee, and is responsible for administering the Vehicle Replacement Policy. Vehicle Replacement Fund -money available outside departmental budgets for replacing vehicles. This funding includes proceeds from surplus auctions, special appropriations, savings from refinancing bonds, and other sources as determined by the Board of Supervisors. POLICY On an annual basis as part of the budget process, the Vehicle Replacement Committee will review departmental requests for new and replacement vehicles. The requests will be ranked by the committee based on the following criteria: Programmatic need for vehicle: If the request is for a replacement vehicle, the committee will determine whether a vehicle is still necessary in that particular function, based on programming and service delivery needs provided by the appropriate Department Head. If the request is for additional vehicles, the committee will determine whether the request meets at least one of the following criteria: SUBJECT: Vehicle POLICY NUMBER DATE ISSUED LAST REVISION DATE: Page 2 of 3 Re lacement Policy GS001 Jul 1, 2003 Jul 1, 2003 1. Additional vehicles or equipment are necessary to carry out the work of County Government. 2. An inadequate number of suitable vehicles exist either in a department or in vehicles awaiting the surplus auction. 3. The cost of reimbursement to an employee for use of a personal vehicle is equal to or greater than the cost of purchasing and maintaining a vehicle by the department. 4. Demonstrable significant performance enhancement or economic benefit to the County of Roanoke is gained by adding to fleet. Replacement Criteria: When the request is to replace an existing vehicle, the committee will consider the following criteria: Age and mileage: Sedans and SUVs -emergency 100,000/5 years Sedans and SUVs -non-emergency 150,00019 years Pick up trucks 150,000/9 years Vans 150,000/9 years Dump Trucks, single axle 120,000/9 years Refuse Trucks 150,000/8 years This does not include fire and rescue equipment, which has a separate set of criteria approved by the Department and the Volunteer Chiefs Board. Life time maintenance: If the life time maintenance cost of the vehicle is more than half the replacement cost, the vehicle should be strongly considered for replacement. Purchasing Criteria: The Committee will review the cost of the proposed new or replacement vehicle and determine whether a smaller and/or more economical vehicle should be substituted. Included in this review should be a comparison of state contract prices, "program car" prices from dealers, and lease or lease/purchase options. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ - of AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: June 24, 2003 Request for Approval of Vehicle Replacement Policy Anne Marie Green Director of General Services Elmer C. Hodge ~'1'I County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Vehicle replacement has been handled in the past through a combination of available funding in departmental budgets, special requests to the Board, and occasional budget allocations. During the recent budget process, the Board participated in a work session reviewing past practices, and directed Staff to prepare a vehicle replacement policy including a process and criteria for replacing vehicles and funding mechanisms. The County Administrator designated the Director of General Services to develop and administer a vehicle replacement policy. Under her direction, a team comprised of the two assistant County Administrators and the heads of impacted departments has met for several months and drafted a policy for approving, prioritizing and funding vehicle replacements. A copy of that policy is attached. The Team codified the informal process which has been used in the past, and identified options for obtaining vehicles, including leasing and purchasing program cars from dealers and rental agencies. Additionally, the policy includes several recommended funding sources, and a process for ranking vehicles which are being replaced. The Team used these criteria in recommending replacement vehicles for the upcoming budget year. '- - ~~. FISCAL IMPACT: The policy identifies several funding sources: Departmental budgets -many departments currently have vehicle replacement line items in their budgets, which are used for the most critical needs. This has not been sufficient in the past to keep the fleet at an appropriate level, which has often necessitated special requests for funding. Interest drop off from refinancing bonds -During the adoption of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year, the Board designated the interest drop off from refinancing bonds, $212,000, to fund vehicle replacement. This will allow the County to purchase at least nine vehicles outside of the departmental line items, which will greatly improve the fleet. Proceeds from surplus auction -currently, the proceeds from auction of surplus goods is placed in the general fund, even though the cost of the goods originally came from departmental budgets. The team recommends that this be placed in the vehicle replacement fund in the future. In the past, the County has earned around $20,000 from these sales, after expenses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Vehicle Replacement Policy. c ~- ~- COUNTY OF ROANOKE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUBJECT: Vehicle Replacement Policy POLICY NUMBER GS001 DATE ISSUED July 1, 2003 PAGE 1 OF 3 LAST DATE REVISED July 1, 2003 AUTHORIZATION PURPOSE To provide a procedure for approval and funding of replacement vehicles, both during the budget process and throughout the fiscal year. DEFINITIONS Vehicle Replacement Committee -committee charged with reviewing and prioritizing requests for replacement and additional vehicles and allocating available funding. The committee consists of the Assistant County Administrators, the budget manager, the Sheriff, and the heads of the following departments: police, fire and rescue, parks and recreation, general services, real estate assessment and community development. The Director of General Services shall serve as the chair for the committee, and is responsible for administering the Vehicle Replacement Policy. Vehicle Replacement Fund -money available outside departmental budgets for replacing vehicles. This funding includes proceeds from surplus auctions, special appropriations, savings from refinancing bonds, and other sources as determined by the Board of Supervisors. POLICY On an annual basis as part of the budget process, the Vehicle Replacement Committee will review departmental requests for new and replacement vehicles. The requests will be ranked by the committee based on the following criteria: Programmatic need for vehicle: If the request is for a replacement vehicle, the committee will determine whether a vehicle is still necessary in that particular function, based on programming and service delivery needs provided by the appropriate Department Head. If the request is for additional vehicles, the committee will determine whether the request meets at least one of the following criteria: ~,_. SUBJECT: Vehicle POLICY NUMBER DATE ISSUED LAST REVISION DATE: Page 2 of 3 Re lacement Polic GS001 Jul 1, 2003 Jul 1, 2003 Additional vehicles or equipment are necessary to carry out the work of County Government. 2. An inadequate number of suitable vehicles exist either in a department or in vehicles awaiting the surplus auction. 3. The cost of reimbursement to an employee for use of a personal vehicle is equal to or greater than the cost of purchasing and maintaining a vehicle by the department. 4. Demonstrable significant performance enhancement or economic benefit to the County of Roanoke is gained by adding to fleet. Replacement Criteria: When the request is to replace an existing vehicle, the committee will consider the following criteria: Age and mileage: Sedans and SUVs -emergency 100,000/5 years Sedans and SUVs -non-emergency 150,000/9 years Pick up trucks 150,000/9 years Vans 150,000/9 years Dump Trucks, single axle 120,000/9 years Refuse Trucks 150,000/8 years This does not include fire and rescue equipment, which has a separate set of criteria approved by the Department and the Volunteer Chiefs Board. Life time maintenance: If the life time maintenance cost of the vehicle is more than half the replacement cost, the vehicle should be strongly considered for replacement. Purchasing Criteria: The Committee will review the cost of the proposed new or replacement vehicle and determine whether a smaller and/or more economical vehicle should be substituted. Included in this review should be a comparison of state contract prices, "program car" prices from dealers, and lease or lease/purchase options. 1~ "' SUBJECT: Vehicle POLICY NUMBER DATE ISSUED LAST REVISION DATE: Page 3 of 3 Re lacement Polic GS001 Jul 1, 2003 Jul 1, 2003 Funding: Budget Process: After approving and prioritizing the vehicles to be purchased, the committee will review the funding available in the Vehicle Replacement Fund and determine whether additional funding should be requested during the budget process. If additional funding is requested but not approved, the Committee will be responsible for allocating the available funds, based on the prioritized list. During the Fiscal Year: If the need arises during the fiscal year for a new or replacement vehicle, the appropriate Department Head will forward the request to the Director of General Services for review by the Vehicle Replacement Committee. The Committee shall use the criteria set forth above in deciding whether to approve the request. If the Vehicle Replacement Fund was depleted during the budget process, departments will be responsible for either funding the vehicle or making a special request to the Board of Supervisors. t ACTION NO. A-062403-3 ITEM NO. E-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Reappointment of Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, authorization to continue an agreement, and an appropriation of funds COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This action reappoints A. R. Pete Giesen, Jr. as Roanoke County's Special Assistant for Legislative Relations. It also continues the agreement with Mr. Giesen previously approved. Finally, it appropriates funds for this agreement from the Unappropriated Balance. FISCAL IMPACTS: The County will pay James Madison University for the services of the Special Assistant at a rate of $15,000 annually. In addition, the County will reimburse the Special Assistant for certain expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board (i) reappoint A. R. Pete Giesen, Jr., as Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, and (ii) appropriate $18,000 from the Board's Unappropriated Balance for these purposes. 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~.'3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Reappointment of Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, authorization to continue an agreement, and an appropriation of funds SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This action reappoints A. R. Pete Giesen, Jr. as Roanoke County's Special Assistant for Legislative Relations. It also continues the agreement with Mr. Giesen previously approved. Finally, it appropriates funds for this agreement from the Unappropriated Balance. FISCAL IMPACTS: The County will pay James Madison University for the services of the Special Assistant at a rate of $15,000 annually. In addition, the County will reimburse the Special Assistant for certain expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board (i) reappoint A. R. Pete Giesen, Jr., as Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, and (ii) appropriate $18,000 from the Board's Unappropriated Balance for these purposes. ACTION NO. ~..3 ITEM NO.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances; Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for July 22, 2003 The titles of these ordinances are as follows: The petition of James C., III and Laura B. Parrish to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory apartment on .5 acres, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential District located at 3210 Lawndale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2. The petition of Elijah S. Carroll to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a Primary Educational Facility on 4.76 acres, zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential District located at 3432 Poff Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 3. The petition of Christopher H. Hanes to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a drive-in restaurant on approximately .75 acres, zoned C-2 General Commercial District located near the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and View Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 1 t MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for July 22, 2003. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1_3, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney a • County of Roanoke For Staff UseOnly Community Development Date received ~~`~ ~ Received by:"~`~~'1j .mss ~ `° ~ ~' Planning c& ~oni.n:g ~ Application fee: V PC/BZA date: ~~ _ ~~~~~~~ 5204 Bernard Drive ,l }~ ~ BQX 29800 Placards issued:/ BOS date: ~~?z~- ~~~`°~~ Roanoke, VA 2401$-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAQ (540) 776-715 Case Number ~ y .-' G (;~ s' ~, ~{~~~Ie~k~~'S r Check type of application filed (ch ck all that apply) ecial Use Variance S i Waiver Administrative Appeal p ng Rezon Phone• ~~~.tt' ~`~I~O Applicants name/address wlzip ~°' " -; Work: 1 ~ ~ a~¢j~-- 1...:r~.,.~r-a~. ~ _ ~ar Cell # • -1 ~ ~ - ~ --~ ~ 3ZI b T.,~wr,dA1~ Fax No.: Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: Work: ~~~ Fax No. #: Property Location Magisterial District: \~!1-a~~ ~~~.,~ ~jZ1D l~,w~«~~ Community Planning area: Tax Map No.:..r-fir ~~ .,,. ~_ ~-7 Existing Zoning: ~„• ..- Size of parcel(s): Acres D. I Existing Land Use: ~~~~~i~ arW-.. ~. ''t7e~r5~'ali ~ } s~:..~ ~L '` it F~~Zub~7~~'~F,D"` ~1~E,E~, t,~"`,„TC~t''f~TS fR/S'~~ - ,~ tdL+`Z©1~` ~'(~ 5P ~~1~. JE` r KtrM~„~t.~t« ~~ i:~ 7 z,t~ •~ Proposed Zoning: - 'R-~ , ~~~ • Proposed Land Use: ~,~.~.ye~t' ~ ~~j~'A~'~''~`~'' Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIItED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIlZED FIIt~T If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No t ,.,a N v .,~ a is '~".,,~'~~ C rf~/" 14kP~1 -ryY^,~+~. ~,-,~ f~-~p{{^.k'a .. hx ,~kF~"~C ~v~ x~ '~ t~,~ucT~;~+ ~a~ ~ 'f' ,~A ~ ~~ a~R ~! ~~G~'C.L~ M~~~~" ~.y~~~.'aS~l M2t~o.':'~hs??4,6 e~~.we ,:` .r~t«Zi7d1 Ft Nw r .+a., "~} A , .. to , :ter. ~.I ~>~.,a.. .i^:-. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Variance/Waiver of Section(s) Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of interpretation of Section(s): Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to ~" 1 Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII.,L NOT BE ACCEP'T'ED IF' ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W YlAA R!S/W V/AA R/S!W Y/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan, Application fee Application - Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Water and sewer a hcation Adjoining property owners justification z. pp T hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature 2 'TC~,mT,t~ni ~~~1Z~:ZO~I~C~, S~'~(I:~i ~igT YE~~-~'~ OR 1~":~;I`v~~~;'~i`~~~i ~ .pplicant 'he Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for ed• Pange in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Jsis~ additional space if necessary. ?lease explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as rrie purp~an ~~ullu a~ ~,~ Beginning of the applicable zoning district elassincation in the Zoning Ordinanc,.. C7 ~ G$fp~ Gatvlvnu~~ ,~~ ~1u$~- cs~na~. t s~ - ~~ & ~i aa1 ~ , ~~ / -~ 1 i ~,.~, air ~+;,~ ~tb~-b~- ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ _ - w a Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. ~ ~,~.- ~ ..~,. ~- ~ ~~ ~=~~'~ ~~'`a ~~. r ~: I c5.y-~ , _4~, ~s5~ ~~. _ ~,~:.~~~~~~ dom. ~~,~~ ~5~ .~a 3 ,~ g {~ ti fir! ~~ +y ~'~~~ ~'~~ a L~ ~i."i`'~`'1~,•~ )~~`SL, tA'i~~1. °7 ~j~C"~'~ i""tR, Gt4~'E ~~°~'j~~`` ~ ,/ ~ Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as weu as the impacts on public services and facilities, including waterCsewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ~ ~f t 3 ~~ ~- ~- -- ,, r. ~~~.1~i~~r: SCR z~ _~~ i~iCE ~Q~.rL~ ~ Laplicant ~ ;ne of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a ~a e can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describehow the request meets ;acu factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. II .The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose or rye Zoning Ordinance. 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance wouia proauce unuuc uaLU~iuY, a u~u~u~r ~..~...~ ~-rr-~-____ distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. L 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity, by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. . should be addressed The variance will not be of a to the adjacent properties ar the character of the t- _ ~ 4 TI,~TIIi~7GC~'F`IQN £+~??~..4T~.l~VII~iS~'.~'~?~VIJ ~~I;+A:IJ~~QT'~Sr€' t,!~, 5 ~- Applicant Pi 'respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. CONCEP.~ PL~~ C~C~.I6'' - - A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the '- •d use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or gn issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deizciencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of de*ail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items ,but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS - a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties _ e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. - f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties . _ g. All property lines and easements _ h. All buildings, e:~isting and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZOMNG and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site _ 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers - m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals _ n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections - o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants _ p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed _ q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule , I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Signature of applicant Date ,~ _ _., 6 ~- - 1 - 1-- ~. ~. :YE M.D.'s e C er~tr® Vistar E HAD D. ALBRIGHT, M.D. COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY V~s~on ~ Surgery Spec~al~ts LAS1K 8 REFRACTIVE SURGERY ON P. BRISLEY, M.D. COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY CATARACT & LENS IMPLANT SURGERY May 23, 2003 IOBERT L. BROWNLOW, JR., M.D. DISEASES & SURGERY OF THE RETINA 'IMOTHY R. BYRNES, M.D. DISEASES & SURGERY OF THE RETINA RANK COTTER, M.D. City of Roanoke Disability GLAUCOMA & CATARACT SURGERY LASIK & REFRACT/VE SURGERY CURT W. L. GUELZOW, M.D. 7R~E: Laura Parrish, Chart #: 385148 a E~MPLASTEC &! RECONSTRUCTOIVE SURGERY DOB: 8/9151 JOHN L. NINES, M.D. DISEASES & SURGERY OF THE RETINA To Whom It May Concern: N. K. HUMPHRIES III, M.D. COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY DAVID A. KINSLER, M.D. Mrs. Laura Parrish is along-standing patient of mine for the past ten CATARACT & LENS IMPLANT SURGERY years. Her ocular history is somewhat complicated, although she suffers from LAS1K & REFRACTIVE SURGERY ALAN J. LePETER, M.D. retinopathy of prematurity as well as toxoplasma retinochoroiditis and multip e COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY retinal detachments. Presently her visual acuity is no light perception in the left THOMAS P. MARTIN, M.D. eye and 20/300 in the right eye, which is considered legally blind. She is being CORNEA & EXTERNAL D/SEASE ~- & REFRACTIVE SURGERY treated at the present time for ocular inflammation and also rubeosis in the nght ~~,..ALD J. RACE, M.D. eye. At the present time her eye seems quiet, although I do not see or project any COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY ANTERIOR SEGMENT SURGERY visual acuity improvement. ANN B. SOWERS, M.D. COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY PEDIATRIC OPHTHAL. & STRABISMUS Laura has limited fUnctionability with her right eye and she must remain In SCOTT A. STRELOW, M.D. a somewhat guarded state when mobilizing. I hope you understand that any help CORNEA & EXTERNAL DISEASES that the City of Roanoke or any other program can ve Laura would aid her LASIK & REFRACTIVE SURGERY KENNETH D. TUCK, M.D. considerably since she is a very motivated individual. I hope this information is COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY helpful. If there are any questions, please feel free to call. ANTERIOR SEGMENT SURGERY JOHN R. WOOD, M.D. CATARACT & LENS IMPLANT SURGERY Sincerel , LASIK & REFRACTIVE SURGERY Y ~.... COMPREHENSIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY OPTOMETRISTS CHARLES C, PEGRAM JR., O.D. D. MAC SCOTHORN, O.D. Mac Scothorn, OD KATHY P. COWAN MS/bp ADMINISTRATOR For Appointments Ca11 540-855-5 1 00 OFFICES LOCATED AT: 3320 FRANKLIN RD. SW 707 S. JEFFERSON ST. 426 W. MAIN ST. 1138 SECOND ST. ROANOKE, VA 24014 ROANOKE, VA 24011 SALEM, VA 24153 ROANOKE, VA 24016 540-342-0801 540-344.4000 540-389-8639 540-345-0486 395 S. MAIN ST. 548 BLUE RIDGE AVE. ROCKY MOUNT, VA 24151 BEDFORD, VA 24523 540-483-3655 540'-586-5700 375 HERSHBERGER RD. ROANOKE, VA 24012 540-563-4455 ~~,.-, y - - .e• ~4 ;h' ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~. S t , h ,~y... p i i pw 7711 ~ ; - t `~ ~~ i Ji , M1 ':'~`5 "' Z " :._ _ . i : ' i ~, I ,~ Y 3' ~ f~, •`, e', . G ~ " Vi i `. +v ~ I . _ `J , ' ~ ' ` 1 ; ~ 5 ~ ~ r~ ~,b ,..' ry`.~r A :: 7iyF~`. ~.} .: .~; : ,1 e , , P F dV~~ rit ~ ~ ~ St 6%~i"r t ~ f -- .c .. ~:.. o-,,. e, r mr-'rA,: ~: :. tr_ r. - *ya.r , :~ ~YF.. ~•' .: ,.:Ki~ . x,-.. ...~.. - - te : ,:: - - . ;: ..i.'n:: 4':~.: -r'•, `~! '~ - -:~f , gyp . *. t •• ~ .:: u; ~"~55'`.~: r. ..Ji ;~+.S.X'_. . . ~:.~~:'r.". - .:r~ . ,..t, ~~ y ` ~ ` ipG -:.i4y ,. ,.. .~.4 7 ~ .e .~:.. fi. ig yt . . _ ,• ;=.'. ,.. .._. a..c :~::~~~ r._:. ~.Z.~: :_.~. ~. ~._ ,~. .., i.~:::. :.:..~•~..:.. ....:.~~-~- : ~.. e. ' " `J ~ ' h! • fit .'. !3a;. f g , n: ~~- ':Y ~.9.'.~:e: ~.u _ __ . t .:~- Y t • T\ •,f_ . c-' Si.: ~. q qn~! ' . r ,?S `...,; ..i r+ ter.. " Y1 x .^ = _~ t ],;._.yk. ._.r.... ,: .... ,a,.:4.,~..i~..:.:_ .e.5}`L~ . i~,~ ...g: .: ~ '~' t:~.tv~ - :..t ay;. :w~~'~ `-~,° '~ r 4 ;~ e+i~5 ~~ ' ~~ :x. ~ ~y i ,.~.,. :.i.:~i ;~ • ~ : t` ; . n q..:r ~ Kr ~ f ~ - ~I _... s>>" ti :.;: '.. f .-, '. = _ " -. : . ~P :~ . s . _ , . S~ f .. . _ :-.. f~ . • .. v :::::. ,..., ,. _• . Ei -` .~ .. ... ~ 1. . h VKU141l~PK Lf DDDR - - - ----------------- -1 I -_~-- -__~ _.________________ i I `Mi I' I r Wf-0PP VN.VS - - - - -' i" ~ H t C WATER ~ pi7~TlntIDN Pl,lN IS PGX DINED~LN~ ON.Y. 1 I I, I I DRAM pq wnrlou g ~vv.LnrloN eY ~, ~.ECTro ir.~xECnaa z n°rQad~. i I I I LJ~i 1. BYLGYIV.~.DG.9~kELrORNAVYJG.11a~CtION. I ^ ~~ ~. i i I I I 1 'i -1 I. I I I I I ~ , t ~i ~ ~ y 0A5EnINf `J'IG~E DETEG?OR TO BE UdRED I I I I fOR SRAA.iANEUlS OPERATIGN tl1AP PER LE4EL .I I I I ~ SMOKE DEfEGTOR 8Y PVRLNA5ER ~ I I I I All OOUPNS 11!1" NWHER i ~ ~ C' LG.17M1510 ~ 9Y PIRt]!A~ ~ • 7 x 8 UIOOD GIRDER WA LAYERS I I I I . F{y3L7ATlOt1 WALL 6E~ORE 50.L L SDJELr r0 W~ktL. 8 P7PROV. pY I.LYN. 1A6' 059. I ~ I I } ~ rs wSTAr.Lm oua.Dwri w~zcrcR. ~ _ ~ r - ~ I I r-~ ~ t-! 1 1 ~- r-, r r-, L-J L-J I I ~ _I _ L_J I. I -J L ~ g~q~~ I L--, I I r~~ r-0" I t I ~ r ~~ ra„ ', ~---I I I ~ ~ 1 ~ .. I 1 ~I i ~~N/ CLOS~t" ~f~Ci.~ \ J I -I I Cl16GPP VN.V~ I I r- __ i I ( iT-0.. J { I I 1 ---_ _ I I L----------~------- ----- --------------- ----_ ---------- ----------- ------------------ - ,Jr ~._----------. `tI GF DAR ~ .___..~, VXl3-A DPLX ~~~~~~io~ ~~~~ l ~~~~M_~ _ ~ ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Jamei ~c Laura B. Parrish DEPARTMENT OF 'Zoning: Existing R 1, Proposed Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ;Tax Map No. 77.10-7-27 .' .County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & caning 5244 Bernard drive P ®B~x 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 T'or Staff I.ise ®niy Date received: ~ I~ceived by: Acation Fee: PClBZA date: Piacazds issued: B05 date: y 7 ~, .~i?i~D ;y Case Number Check type of application hied (check all that apply) Rezoning Special Use / Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: o) ~ ~ 5 - t-L, n Work: S ~ ~ ~~ ~~r~~a1-~ ~j~ L~¢~rru ~ I Cell #' gib y'i U - C~ 7/,S \ ~`.i i i.a ' c~hlt,s w~eAc~ Jinx ~ Ira i ~ r~' o`1`~t? 1 ~ Fax No.: Phone #: S `~U~ `~ ~7 - ~ a'~7 name/address w/zip Owner 's r - ~ l~it~l~c~rc~ ~eL.{~v1q ~~, ~c~ ~a0`} Work: Sn-~- #: N F o. J ax o n Property Locati Magisterial District: ~,~ S ~;~,~ ( ~ ~ 3 ~ 1 d ~ ~ ~-~-'~- ~- Community Planning area: ~~~ J..~ S ~,-t ~ Tax Map No.: ~ ..7 , { ~ _ ~ _ ~ .y Existing Zoning: ~ Size of parcel(s): Acres: ~~ / Existing Land Use: til~,v Y c~. (,a ~1 ` 1 ~ t~ ~v~,,.~~ R -11~P~It t ` IS tR~'S/~~ , T±~~ ~ ~. R~ZJ~~'Ir'4G SPE~'ZAT; IISE'~ERt1rTT~'~.VD W ~ ..:- Proposed Zoning: - ~i ~.. / S P ~ c r"~' ~ S ~. /°~ ~r''n-- %t Proposed Land Use: ~/` I vtitrr C ~;i,v ~c~ r^ ~ ~~~ ~ /~ fy VI'1_ c~ n -~'~ S y n r , Ste- ~ the parcel meet the minimum Iot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No IE' NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUII2ED FIRST. No Y es oes the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? IF NO, A VARIANCE I5 REQUIlZED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No 3 - T L '~ Yf ~ A~ 5 'VAIt1-A'tVC~. !~~IT~~~?~ ~1rI) .~,Dc1~tI ti~~ZZ~ ~'~~'1~k~ ~PF~ t~'L'> -3.1~~ L.Zt ~i~TS ~'`S~'';`~ ~~~ Variance/Waiver of Section(s) ~/~ of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to ~~ Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF AN'Y OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. 1t/S/w tilAA x/5/w. Y/AA R/S/W v/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners ~I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature 2 _` ;:, . _ - ;;F+LTS'T~'IC P'I'TON f GL~ ~2GN~iG, S~'ECl:i, €; ~~;.1'~R~^~ld~' RJR yST_~l~v~~ R~Q~ LST ~ _ 7 Applicant 'T" ° Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for ;;hange in terms of public health, safety, and geaeral welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classincation in the Zoning Ordinance. :~-'' ~~ 3 Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water(sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ~-Z ~y ROANOKE VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4523 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 2401$ (540} 989-3096 I do not feel that there would really be any impact on the surrounding houses. There is only on neighbor to the property and you can't see the house through the trees. We were also planning on planting a row of evergreen trees on 10 ft centers just for our own privacy, but also to give the neighboring house privacy. The street is a dead end after the driveway. It is accessible enough for any rescue vehicles. It is on a septic system. But if needed we would change over to county sewer systems. ~~ ROANOKE VALLEY MONTESSORI SCHOOL 4523 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 989-309 The preschool would conform to the guidelines you have set forth because we would have less people coming to and going than the last users of the property. The property backs up to Stonehenge Apartments, but you can really not see them through the woods. We would not have a constant flow of traffic. We have children that show up between 7:45 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. the children are picked up between 12:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.. The parents are really nice and respected people of the community. Some of our parents have seen the property and they love it. The property is kind of a center point with all the other schools in the area. Most of the parents have older children that go North Cross, Cave Spring Elem., and Penn Forest Elem. It would be convenient to a lot of our parents. The street up to the property is a public access road that dead ends after the turn in to the property, so no one drives past the property for any reason. _" ~- y,3 ROANOKE VALLEY 1'vIONTESSOR~ SCHOOL 4523 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 (540) 989-3096 I am requesting a special use permit for 3432 Poff Ln. The property is zoned R-2 and in the Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use guide, labels the property as Neighborhood Conservation. I would like to use the property as a Montessori Preschool. (I have enclosed a packet that we would give inquiring parents so that you could get a "feel" for what a Montessori preschool is). The property is perfect for our preschool. It has a building that the interior of would be perfect for the sort of classroom that the Montessori method suggest. The outside of the property is on 4.67 acres and is totally surrounded by trees and a forest. In the Land Use Guide under neighborhood conservation it mentions institutional centers which says schools. So we would be following the guidelines that you have set forth. o m wd'~ 6 3 OcV~ ~ ~ a \OZ Q O w~vl Z ~ x ~ ~ 1 J Q ~ m ~ xro ~ ~s a S ` S Yrc roaZ w ~a~ 0 iN^°' ~a i ~ N 1 6 )wf- 1~ 1~4~ w !o3a! ~xr-o W S fl M N X O ,~ ~N ~ N ~< ~N ~W ~~ 70 w ~O i2 9"r`^.. L n i 0 i X r =O U T N a ~ m 'J` mo U Vasa W ~ ~ mm O W W i~ Z O ~ m ~21-~ M .pO,LS.SZ S ,9-'S l£ w N o- a~ N U O ~ rn~ d' ~ ~ d' O N 4 ~ 0 ? Oa' ~ wo a= n m c4~^ a "~ a 0 Z ~~~ m~ ~m ~~o 0 o m W ~ ~_ O N Ol r ~ ~ '~ O H '~" W r ~ rr^^ ~ vJ ~ . ~ O ti h ~ Q ~ ~' V w ~ ti o~~ ~~~ a ~ ~ ti ~ O ~ W N ~ I - Qo ~ o L~ ~' M O U m~~~ P '/ Q / C 4~ v1Oi / pStOa n i o ,~ / II ' z ~ ~ ~. o ~ I I / g ~~ / I /, a Z w F OW / G ~ A F. F rq U °' °w ~: ~- ~ v 4 I ~ n v m o a n ~~~ . F II zwo orm I \ 4VV I I ~a4 a„>a I ~ ~'°: ,69'ZLL # ~ o / I ?.FS 3 .pp.S£.4Z N I I o i~ ~1p r~ A~'i o ~ ~ d+}+ I I ~ Wpm ~~ =~a ~~, I I x ~ ~.ho .Opl try I'•'~b3 / ,. / I I bpd °jdy / II /// ISyI 8 p Y. IoI ICI ~ ~ a ~ N ~ 16 I / ,~-, ~ , I i / ~ ~ y / ~ S ti I I •~ 3 z o ~rc y ~' L n o .. .O£ N -'d03..'~ -- 0 w m `~- ~~ Oa W~~ / ~~ ~4K ~ ~ / '> 0. W_ ~ O ~ W V LL K .~i a°4o ~ O n O J pG ~ ~ o y y p; y o6 S I a n ~ m v Y' e n ~ r. n p w s. ~- ~ 355 ~I 10 h ~ .- sss. 359 ~co 01~ ~ ~~ 3yyk 6 ~ 1100 `O ~~ I o ~~, 551 ~ 12° s. Shy ~ I 1 0 ~ 3 553' I' ss 3558 o di '~ ,~. ~3 o i 20 s. co I m' ~`' N 3555 ~~ 1 . N ss ~, ~~ ~ $~ ^~ .., s. ~I ~. 6g s~, 3551 cfl °j `~ / .s~. 120 C~21 s• / ~~ 35592om ~ ~ ~~, ~0 ~-F- ~ 6t ~I / s. 35 12° / y ss / ~ / /~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~ N ~~ /~~~ o moo ~" ~ U~ oo / a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ,~ 41 ~ on > ~ v ~o ^mm i 9- v ~° O~~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ o ~ v .~ I .oN xol ^ I Q Q ~ p0 ~ (r ~ ¢ m Q o~ ~ //' r~7 C'') I ~ O d. / ~ . ~ I o~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~,~" ~~ ~ i o Ltj ~NI ~h ~ ~ / V -~ ~ ~`~ ~ i ~ ~ i '~ N ~NI IoN -~ ~ a J~ S ~ I oo I ~ d'' j N S ~1 ~~' \ . Oa / ~ ~v ~ _ S~~ r..., Q / ~IM~ ~~~ / ~ ~ '~~ / ~ ~ ~ Q r' o, /1 . ~~ ~~ ~~~ s--I I Q Q ~ \\ ,--1 +~.~ ~ ~ • v u~ r~ ~ O ~..-. ~ 50.9 a .~-i ~ o N c_ n xrr 1. 1. ZW b. _ V - i '~1 _ - i6~ .3 - 14. s - ~ 19. ~ 1 mie 2i0 •', 3. B. 9s ~~ a~7t 5.1 ,Ar 2.6 - ~.~.4 - .mr aig - ... - ~ ~ ~ - .,e~ ..r ur 2.9 - ~r _ som~`~ a xw~w.8 a fA7r~YBFB ie7J R7Sb _ ~r~ ~ tt-r-' ,~, ~, .>; ~ ~a¢a ,i+a+ 14. ~ %~y ?L~ s. 4• s ,,-.~ M - - 3. ue M t.eo M 'aii ~c3 J ZOnting: R k~ e. 2Q ~ 3+~0 - C/eorriew Boptist Chuirh. ~ ~.n ~ x.1878 11.1 tae ~n.(D) xx~ ~ scre t.te b. c 11. '~ tas ra.fol `~ 1J0 MC 8. e. 10 Zoning: R2 Zoning: R2 ,~: w _ 12. aae M Foroet Co~ru t~.~ su ,l~ .use 1$• '9~ 12. ~ !/nrY 14. .swe ~d~. ` 10.1 18. '~ ~` ~ -~~~ 'R 17.E sr~r ~ S. x'11. ~ 1~`I ~' 1 4 .~~ G~ i% 14, srer 4 io. !~ so. ~~ ` ~iov ,>dw~ sMr i 9. ,'q~.=` se. Y9. '~'~Crs ~_ P/0 87.14-3-2 1~ 1, 3~~~ ''~•~~~~0~; \\ 21. ,ore 8 1'100' 79. t.ai tio. s i ~.--J~ ~~ Zoning: IfCS ~. ~ ROANOKE COUNTY '. Applicants Name: Elijah S. Carroll DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Ex~ist~ing R2, Proposed Spec~,al Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `Tax Map No. 87.10-3-13 J County o£ Roanoke Community Development Planning & ~on~.ng 5204 Bernard Drive P 0 Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 {540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-715 .~.. ,. `;`ALL' . ~ n~'T~ICAl~l fS _ Check type of application fried (chec all that apply) Rezoning Special Use Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Phone: ~ ~1--~ - y~_ Applicants name/address w/zip , l ~. ~ r ~i ~Z> ~ 1^JZ.! ~ t-tCit~ ~ W ork: G ~ - ~ ~ C..) ~ , cell#~= S ~ .~5"~72- L~:,.rsv~ Ls Fax No.: ~ ~ ~ Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: ~~, ~, ` ~ ~ C.,~ Work: 7 Fax No. #: Property Location ~r'6 D ,-~` h ~ ~ -~,~ Magisterial District: ~W v Q. ~ j-s +l(,~ area: ~¢dQ Plannin 5 r. n Communit .^~~ ~~Q.9 . g y Tax Map No.: .~ + ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Existing Zoning: .- ~- r~~ Existin Land Use: 4A - Size of parcel(s): Acres: --~-'° g ~,~ ~~ _ f :' i~ .:. w~. _ `i xcbh is .: S '. rr ~fi; s i = 1 ~ _ ~ _ .. ~~~~~u~Irr~ ~~~~~ ~sE ~~r.~v~.~~T~~R ~~.~~~r~~~z~~°`~r~s~~- ..E' _, . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,. ~~ , : ,,, ~~ul, . ~~,t., ~ ~ Z s v r Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: ~~ ~ ,~ `~r v CO ~'~i'~ Cy ~ d T' Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes / No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIltED FIRST. / N o Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Tyge? Yes / II+ NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No ~ I } +,it~:t~3.10~!.wi rz.'~~4~~. ~~r .. ~ ;., a~'~n~ ~;?Flfi'~"~4~~ia'" ~-.~~I-~i~~l" t'~'~4r~~~+~'~~t~ I iC ~.: x ~ ~ ~~ s~Fw ~: ~ 1 ~iak ~~fi •' , ~ , , „, k ~ ~ s ;;; t~'~~1+~Z ''~I''~'~` ~~' ~'S~ Q ~ - v ~ ., i. '~AtT`1'~LR~~ ~l7"~III~.~~~Ts YA~~Ai'~'+:E ~~ ~ . . .z '.^ p _ ~._.,, rt ~~.~. ?C.Pkd M°~.-~~~ ,',~`r.. -K ~ - idS ~ br rrY..:'~"d~s. ~d t4...Y.' .&~it `~ tic ~~"x . ~... 5 ?L..+k~14+„ ' Variance/Waiver of Sections} of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to _ _ ,n r ~r~n'+ ar,+ w (~r&'p'['Ti'Tl T&` ANY f)F 'T`N ~3 Is the application complete? Please checx u enciosea. ArrLi~Als~iti vr1.L,L nv= LL n~....:,~ ~-•--- -- ---•- -- --SSE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. . avs/w viAA x/stw v/AA R/s/w viAA Consultation 3 1(2" x I1" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the roperty or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the lmowledge and consent of the owner. ~~9 Owner's Signature 2 ,. $...Y ~' ,T,t~,S1~~ i~'~?~a~~~R REZC~I:~'G.S~'~C?A~ ~~~ ;?~..R~,:l~~ OR ~~:~~'~~R~'~L~ST ~ '. - - ,I, Arrlicant .,~ t ~ - ~ ~~ ~.. _ The Planning Comrrlission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for change in terms of public health; safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. .se additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Grdinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district elassincation in the Zoning Ordinance. ~, f ; f ~p p r v~~ ~ 6~ ~ en~elQ. c,lP~~a, w~,~Qsaw,..~ by/s~~~s3 0~ ~~ dd.`..._! ~~a f.'~ C.e..~f,.~ ~ '~~' ~ S Q '~'~ r ~ n ~ s}-~ i J ~f,- f GE ®~~ -~ t- e ~ ssi. v ~~.'~ ~ e" ~' + / "l ' f P s~ ~-/~ ~ ~ r r Lr ~-- 1 ~ 1 i~ .~ 1~ "[ ~r ~.e" r /^~ t Q..~ { f/ ~ (~ ~ rB~.aar ~1~ r Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and poll es contained in the Roanoke County Comrrcunity Plan.S~, rp ~~.~ ~ 0 eS" !~f U ~ S t ~ /1 A- ~ !'r4/9 f 1 ~~ ~® "$ C '/~ ~- .. _ _f r,~c,.,~ O~l~'. ~'',~ ~ , ~ s ,~ v`-~-r ! ~ ~j ~ fl C.s~-°~'~ C-~ `~011P1 ~ f ~ ~ ~~J 0 f / _r --'j ~t~~` ('iV'er ~'~ ~! /~ l~s !l' T` l~ ~T ~ r4-`! . (rl..~e- w c~ e i ~~ ino ~ -- Flease describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. t ~ - t 1 ~ ~~'~ I.c. ~ ~ ,~ ,~ric1 h - S D~ f • ~ e. S ! t,,- • ~''v ~n ~} v ~ ,~-~ ~-~-F ©dl S v ~ ~ r (~'~C-(-.,e ~~ o'^ ,Q,`-~-~ !j-e c+4u i ~E. ~-"~ t S a ~l ~rr9p"'t ~ '~1 ~/~ r /`~'n r ~ ~~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ r./ ~ r .~P ~e s~ s r t r`~, Gus T-~ ~ ~e ~f' ~,~-~ pie bvft n S 6 r ~-' . ~r G~ ,~ t #' , wt fir; t ~ ~' M P ~~- 1n0 ~ yet, vC,~'l Gll~^ L~ ° S ~' t r~a-~n ¢t-w~, r ~ ri ~ v Et Ld ~ t 3 7 / ~ y 1 ~ ~// 1n' D v 1, `~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ f ~" ~, ~ ~ C..lh~ 'Q..r ~ ~ H./"i • ! r ` r f mss ~ ,~ ~ ~ 6 ~- ®~ ,,~,, ~ e~~~- l ~ ~ ~~~ ~.~-~ ~.. "~ ~ ~~ ,pt/i C.ar p -t ~ a ~~~C"^ ,,4~,.~ 0~'~1 ~ 6.~ o ~ d ~~ /~ ~ w : l ~. 1 6~~~d i r (~/~~I ~ l P ~ l °'~~ c~ t 6~s ~ ~~~f ~ s ~.-~~ x-11® C~~iCE ~~~~~ C~'~3~i5"~ 1 a~ . A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or sign issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the .tore use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that rriay not be manageable by County permitting regulations. - . The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations . A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow _ c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions _ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. _ f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties _ g. All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development - j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZt~NING and SPECIAL USE PERNIIZ'APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site - 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants _ p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed _ q. 1 If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. ~~,.7 Signature of applicant Date ~ - ~z. J 6 0 ~r9 !'°e °``~ C),H. 1119 PG. 8Q1, f'lN ~ S 30 55'36" E OLD 5 3 X36 a'S2 23.1'• OlO Pith'` ~~~ 72~ ~-~ ~~ ~ LOT ~ ~ t-,r~ • ~ ~ ~ ./' I v~'~ 1 ~ ~'+, { . J ~ a J ~ °: f f fZOf ERTY OF ~~ N U.7b3 ACR ES 151.,.~,ND SUN 7Do VE1-~o aQ08,1GR0UE' BOUNDED BY Ca Olu T ~ 'n t 1tInU v To t rr~~ p,p, F3~6, PC. 18,9 ~~, . 111 cA o I11C1.UISvE Plt`I LJ . .C~ ~ .- ~ - ~ •-~. z t Q Pl BRACT 2 m sE ~ ~; a.2s4 Ac. ~ ~ i cn ~n ~~; ~i.r TRACT 1 i -' ~.~ HARRIS CD 0.05 J~IC. ~ -r ° . - . ~ ~ N Q' _----rte Ol 0 z E'll I ~~ •~. 6+lC~9 ~~, ~ ~~ L~J 1~ ~ I,ilt~PERTY OF o~ ,'o °E' • ~ ~ iN L EBY, .~Z :T, . 6 "~ ~:• `~ c ~4 ~ ~ PA3~ZfgA 5_ E~31 SS.. ~! , •~ '~r o. (~}iJ 1'AX ~ 77.1G-Q1UE1 ,~ r. f 19 l ''C-. ~'~,~ ~ ~.,,t,M ' ~ s~ r o.f3. ta4s, PG. • ~C •(C~~sB~~~~\,4,~ ~' .,.,,~• ~, T1t1S DOU21DJ~f2Y SIIR~~~ ~ is pAS~D Ott A CUf2RElf 1 ~'J~ / S ~T ••.1 ~ '~~4p ~ o ~ .~_. F1ELD St1RVEY ~,ru) ? o- ~ ,oy~4R Fc ! >>j q~ ~ pFSCIIiP ilOta ltr D.B. 1 t t 1 • 'e ~~5~ / <OT- '!0• ~ f'C. t302 ~ p.II. 1118, F'G. 6' PROPERTY of ~°~ J icy .~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~''~"~ ~_~'~°--oa H. LAV~RE3~GE do ~a S sE=T (o~~•. • fzA7~arao c. ~ xs, ~-•5• ~~RY R. R1C~ T ,~--+ . i'Ax ~ 77.1fl-0•i-32,33,34 Q ~ ~ ~ ~~L~iI ~'~ ~ j n.~. 113;, PG. 516 ,~~'. `~ ~~'' ~~' / // ~, ~ i t ~~ ~ / ~ x w { .~ `. ~~ ` /' _ ~ i 1 -~ s W Z O I-- LL1 J to m R0~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: First Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of the Suncrest Heights Subdivision Water and Sewer Systems and Appropriation of Funding from Water and Sewer Surplus Funds SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Gary Robertson, P.E. Utility Director Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND .-e The Suncrest Water Company, owner/operator of the water system and sewage collection and treatment systems that serve the Suncrest Heights subdivision has approached Utility Department staff several times in the last 10 years regarding conveyance of ownership of the subject utilities to Roanoke County. Suncrest Heights is located at the southern end of the Clearbrook community on U. S. Route 220. Attached are copies of letters dated October 11, 1996, June 10, 1999, and February 6, 2003, from Suncrest Water Company representatives requesting that Roanoke County assume ownership and operation of the water and sewer facilities. This conveyance would include the water distribution system, well supply, sewage collection system, wastewater treatment plant, all water and sewer easements and associated real estate. The system currently serves 26 residential properties with 17 additional vacant lots available for sale as shown on the attached map. A community meeting was held on Thursday, March 27, 2003, at Clearbrook Elementary School to discuss the alternatives available to the residents of ~-1 Suncrest Heights for the continuation of reliable water and sewer service. Fifteen (15) property owners attended the meeting. Following the meeting, letters were mailed to 27 Suncrest Heights homeowners, which transmitted a property owner agreement concerning payment of applicable water and sewer capital improvement fees and assumption of ownership and operation of the Suncrest Heights water and sewer systems by Roanoke County. To date, 24 property owners have signed or verbally agreed to the agreement. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff has evaluated the water distribution, sewage collection and wastewater treatment systems and has determined that work will be required in the future to bring the infrastructure up to Roanoke County, state and federal standards. It is estimated that approximately $200,000 would be required to accomplish the short term improvements to the water and sewer systems. Staff has contacted the Western Regional Office of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) who has indicated that upgrades of the wastewater treatment plant will be required in the near future in order to meet more stringent state and federal discharge requirements. It is the Utility Department's intention to install a sewage pumping station and force main to transport wastewater to the regional treatment facility. A draft consent order has been received from DEQ, which contains a proposed schedule for constructing the sewage pump station and force main and abandoning the existing wastewater treatment plant . Although some of the water lines are dated and not sized for fire protection, it is staff's opinion that the distribution system can be adequately maintained. Our intention would be to interconnect the water system to the County system within a reasonable period of time. The attached ordinance establishes a special water and sewer service area for the Suncrest Heights subdivision with each participating property owner paying their share of the cost through special water and sewer capital improvement fees. These fees are $2,600 and $3,900, respectively, for a total of $6,500.00 per customer to help defray the cost of anticipated water and sewer infrastructure improvements. The ordinance also establishes a method of financing the $6,500 capital improvement fee for property owners for a period of ten (10) years at an interest rate of 5% per annum. Participants who choose financing must agree to execute a promissory note and a lien document to secure the installment debt. At least three property owners presently have their residences on the market. They have requested that payment of the $6,500 capital improvement fee be deferred until sale of the property. Staff has requested and they have agreed that a lien of $6,500 shall be assigned against their property. ALTERNATIVES: -i Alternative 1: Establish a special water and sewer service area for the Suncrest Heights subdivision, which could potentially serve 43 properties, as indicated on the attached sketch. Approve construction of a sewage pump station and sewer force main, as well as, water distribution system improvements. Monies appropriated from the water and sewer surplus accounts would be used to construct water and sewer infrastructure improvements estimated to cost $200,000. Alternative 2: Do not approve acquisition of the water and sewer facilities, which serve Suncrest Heights, from the Suncrest Water Company. FISCAL IMPACT: If Alternative 1 is selected, the total construction cost for water and sewer infrastructure improvements would be $200,000, which would be financed from monies appropriated from water and sewer surplus funds. Water and sewer capital improvement fees of $6,500 collected from each property would be used to reimburse the water and sewer unappropriated fund balance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Alternative 1 be approved and that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached ordinance after the second reading and authorize staff to proceed with acquisition of the Suncrest Heights water and sewer infrastructure with the following conditions: • Said ordinance shall approve appropriation of $200,000 from water and sewer surplus accounts. • Property owners with developed lots shall have the following payment options: a. Payment of entire $6,500 water and sewer capital improvement fee within 30 days of adoption of this ordinance. b. Upon execution of a connection contract by property owner, Roanoke County shall finance the $6,500 capital improvement fee in 120 equal monthly installments at an interest rate of 5% per annum. Property owners shall agree to execute a promissory note and lien document to secure this installment debt. c. Any owner of improved real estate within this special utility service district, who does not elect by agreement to participate by paying the cost of extending or improving the public utility system to their property as provided in paragraph a. or b. above, the cost of such improvements in the amount of $6,500 shall be assessed, imposed, and apportioned as provided in Article 2, Chapter 24, Title 15.2. This assessment against (~ - ~ each property shall be reported to the Treasurer of Roanoke County, who shall enter the assessment as provided for other real estate taxes. • Payment of the assessment as provided in paragraph c. above or the payment of the fee as provided in paragraphs a. and b. may be postponed for elderly or permanently and totally disabled property owners until the sale of the property or the death of the last eligible owner. In either event the entire amount of the assessment or fee shall be paid no later than ten years from the creation of the Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer Service District. If, and when, vacant lots are developed, a water and sewer capital improvement fee of $8,125 would be paid without County financing. The $8,125 fee shall incorporate the $6,500 fee for all water/sewer capital improvement and off-site fees plus 25%. 5 40 ;~ is ^ :' i)'-, '- ,ti «!~ I~ ~ ~ ~ `}. .i ~• :1119 ~ 1 PHONE AREA CODE 1~,7~3~774-4441 ~' ~ 6 ~- (f ~' `~ '-~ ~'. ~ : ~ '' r FAX AREA CODE (703) 774-4443 1~ OAT 9~ 10 OJ JOHN 1~. HALL & GOMPANY~ INC. 6 6 6 1 4825-S RTA~RICY ~ZO QrS.W W ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24014_6617 October 11, 1996 County Of Roanoke Attn: Mr. Gary Robertson, Utility Director 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, Virginia 24153 SUNCREST DR. OFFICE (STARKEY ROAD) ~_~ RE: Suncrest Heights STP & Water System Dear Mr. Robertson: With regards to our recent conversation and previous corre- spondence pertaining to Roanoke County taking over and operating the water and sewer systems for the residents of the Suncrest Hgts. Subdivision in South Roanoke County just below the Clearbrook Area. We are enclosing a copy of our Waste Water Permit No. VA0028711 effective until July 30, 1998. Also, we are enclosing discharge Mon- otoring Reports for the past two years, together with a letter not- ing the only exception for the period. Water and Sewer rates are structured in accordance with Roanoke County rates published July 1, 1995 and we bill our customers quarterly. Also, to the best of our knowledge, we are in full compliance with the many varied ,requirements of the Department Of Health regard- ing our water system. I will be available for any and all questions that you may have until October 31, 1996. After this date, please direct ail questions and correspondence to Mr. John A. Hall, Jr., Secretary of the Cor- poration. His telephone number is 540/362-9728 and address as above. We and the residents of Suncrest Heights will appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, JOHN A. HALL & COMPANY, INC. Larr~artman Y LWH/bm Vice-President Enclosures: Cc: Mr. John A. Hall, Jr. All puotations and apr••m•nts an mad. upon •xbUnp fright rat•t old with th• und•rstandtnp that vw tu• not to b• haW Ibbl• for hllun M t»-f•rm ony eblipsahtn or any part then of wham such bib+r• b dtr•ely ar tidlr«ny oensi•n•d br r•ren of any war, Imrssten, inaumeeien. Wedud•, rbt, food, •anlquak•; an of tiod, fire, atr~k• or other tabor dbturbanas, ddaya by 9orrhxs, ar or truck ahorhp•, fallen of sours of aut~y a erlar auaas byend cur oentrol. ~- 1 SUNCREST WATER . <~l~ ~~S HANGAR I8 ~ WOODRUM FIELb ~"~'~~ s rtoar~o~, veRGiNU~ ~,J u~ c~C~fL S~ ~.,~~ ~ao~a June 10. 1999 MR. GARY ROBERTSON 1206 KESSLER MILL ROAiJ SALrfN. ~JA 2.153 Deer MR. ROBERTSON OVER THE LAST SEVER,4L YEARS THEIR HAS F~E.~~ ` A GROWING INTREST W?TH OJR RESIDENTS IN SUNCREST HEIGHTS REGARDING "'~~ POSSEBILITY OF ROANOKE COUNTY TAKING OVER AND SUPPLY!~;G THEIR V+JATER ANC ;SWAGE NEEDS. WE WOULD LIKE Tc REQUEST THAT ROANOKE COUNTY TAKE OVER THIS WATER AND SEWER COMP.a.NY. t"JE REALISE THAT TH~:S iS A VERY SMALL Sl1BDIVISiON WITH 25 HOfJI~S RECEIVING OUR. uERVICES ANEW 13 AVA1LA13LE LOTS FOrR SA.!_E. U'~JE WOULD LIKE TO HEAD: FROM YJ:. REGARDING THIS RcQUEST. ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND OUR PRESENT BILLING PRICES AND RECEIPTS FROM OUR LAST QUARTER. IF Y"GU AVE ANY '?UESTIONS PLEASE Cri.L JOhN HALL OR ANGIE ROWS AT 540-362-9723. JOHN A. HALL PRESIDcNT SUNCREST WATER CORPORATION v StiUN~CRElST ~YATER CO~IIpANY TO: Suncrest Water Customers FROM: Suncrest Water Company DATE: February b, 2003 Dear Customer: As you are aware, we have been in discussions 47th the County of Roanoke Utility Department regarding the transfer of the ~•ater and wastewater systems of Suncrest Water Company to the County. At this time, we have come to an agreement with the Caunty for them to take aver the systems. Through our discussions with the County, we understand that they will require a $6,500 connection fee per customer. This amount can be assessed over a 10-year period, which will result in an assessment of approximately $55.00 dollars per month on the County's monthly utility bill. We believe that this transfer will greatly benefit the Suncrest Heights customers and avoid the necessary rate increases this Company would require to operate in accordance with State and Federal Regulatory guidelines. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call our office and/or Mr. Gary Robertson with the County of Roanoke Utility Department at (540j 387- 61.04. Sincerely, John A. Hall, Jr. President cc: Gary Robertson, County of Roanoke Utility Dept. Fuzzy Nlinnia~, Roanoke C;ount~~ hoard c?f Supervisors _.~ r~ F.O. Box 21173, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 • (540j 344-9800 • Fax (540) 344-980b (~-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS OF THE SUNCREST WATER COMPANY, INC., THE CREATION OF A SPECIAL UTILITY SERVICE DISTRICT, NAMELY "SUNCREST HEIGHTS WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT," APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN, AND IMPOSING AND ALLOCATING CERTAIN FEES OR ASSESSMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN WHEREAS, the Utility Director has negotiated an agreement to acquire the assets of the Suncrest Water Company, Inc. owned by the Suncrest Water Company, Inc. and John A. Hall & Co., Inc.; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing was held on July 22, 2003; and WHEREAS, notice of this ordinance has been published as required in Section 15.2-2400 and 15.2-2409; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, Sections 15.2-2243, 15.2-2400 and 15.2-2404, et seq. authorize the County to create and establish a general water and sewer improvement program for a designated area of the County having related and common sewer and water conditions, to install certain public works improvements, and to impose fees, charges and assessments 1 (s - ~ for said improvements; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water and sewer systems, the creation of a special utility service district, and the acquisition of the assets of the Suncrest Water Company, Inc. and John A. Hall & Co., Inc. will alleviate public health and safety problems and promote economic development; and WHEREAS, the Board hereby establishes the "Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer District"; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition and acceptance of the assets of the Suncrest Water Company, Inc. and John A. Hall & Co., Inc., serving an area located in Roanoke County as shown on the map designated as Exhibit "A", from the Suncrest Water Company, Inc. is hereby authorized and approved. These assets include three parcels of real estate identified as Tax Map Nos. 98.02-01-53.1, 98.02-04-11.1 and 98.02-01-89, all easements, machinery, equipment, and other personal property. 2. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, acquisition of water and sewer facilities for the Suncrest Heights community from the Suncrest Water Company. That pursuant to the authority of Section 15.2- 2243, the Board establishes a general water and sewer improvement program for the Suncrest Heights community. Total construction cost of this public water and sewer project is estimated to be $200,000, to be assessed against the properties within the special utility service district as shown on the attached Exhibit A. That there is hereby appropriated for this project the sum of $200,000 from the 2 ~~ ~ ~ Water and Sewer Surplus Accounts. 3. That the Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer District is shown and designated on the attached plat entitled Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer Service District prepared by the Roanoke County Utility Department, dated June 2003 (Exhibit A). The Utility Department shall construct in and adjacent to the Special Utility Service District sewer and water lines and appurtenant facilities as shown in the map of this area, and shall acquire easements for these lines and facilities. 4. That the owner, subdivider or developer of vacant property (i.e. a lot or parcel with no residential structure located thereon) located within the Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer Service District shall, on or before September 24, 2003 pay or provide for the payment of a share of the cost of construction of the sewer and water facilities, in the total amount of $6,500. Property owners of vacant lots who wish to connect to the water and sewer system after the September 24, 2003, deadline (other than new property owners) shall pay $8,125 [$6,500 construction costs plus 25%]. 5. The "Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer Service District" is created for a period of ten years. Any owner of improved real estate within this service area may participate in and benefit from the public water and sewer in this service area by paying the following fees: $2,600 for water and $3,900 for sewer for a total of $6,500 per customer. Said costs to be paid in full and in advance of connection to or use of the public water and sewer systems or financed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6. 6. That the Board authorizes and approves the payment by the property owners in the project service area who elect to participate on or before September 24, 2003, of 3 /' ~~ their portion of the cost of extending or improving the public utility system to their properties in accordance with the following terms and conditions: (a) Payment of $6,500 to be financed for a maximum of 10 years at an interest rate of 5% percent per annum. (b) Property owners agree to execute a promissory note or such other instrument as the County may require to secure this installment debt. (c) Property owners further agree to execute such lien document or instrument as may be required by the County; said lien document or instrument to be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. This lien instrument or document shall secure the repayment of the promissory note by the property owners to the County and shall be a lien against the property of the owners. Property owners also agree to pay the County any Clerk's fees or recordation costs which may be required to record any lien instrument or documents in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. (d) New property owners (defined as persons who acquire ownership of real estate within the Project Service Area after the date of the adoption of this Ordinance) shall have sixty (60) days from the date of their acquisition of the real estate to participate in and benefit from the public water/sewer extension or improvements to this service district by the payment of $6,500, said costs to be paid in full and in advance of connection to or use of the public water/sewer extension or improvements. New property owners are not eligible to participate in the installment financing payment method described above. 7. Any owner of improved real estate within this special utility service district 4 ~_ . ~ who does not elect by agreement to participate by paying the cost of extending or improving the public utility system to their property as provided in paragraph 6 then there is hereby assessed, imposed, and apportioned the cost of such improvements in the amount of $6,500 as provided in Article 2, Chapter 24, Title 15.2. This assessment is hereby determined not to be in excess of the peculiar benefits resulting from the improvements to such property owners. This assessment against each property shall be reported to the Treasurer of Roanoke County, who shall enter the assessment as a provided for other real estate taxes. 8. The payment of the assessment as provided in paragraph 7 of this ordinance or the payment of the fee as provided in paragraph 5 of this ordinance may be postponed for elderly or permanently and totally disabled property owners until the sale of the property or the death of the last eligible owner. Eligibility for postponement shall be subject to the conditions set forth in Section 58.1-3211 of the Code of Virginia for such elderly or permanently and totally disabled persons. In either event the entire amount of the assessment or fee shall be paid no later than ten years from the creation of the District. 9. That the County Administrator orAssistant County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as maybe necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 10. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. 5 ='~~~~ 49 Occupied Lots (Yes) - 22 Z a~•~% 2.ss Ac Occupied Lots - 4 ~~tL Vacant Lots - 17 __ . ~• 1.50 Ac. __>s- :.1,56 Ac. •r.~ 1 A...; • r~ ~ ~ J '` '~ 2545 f ~ `.,~ ' % f.~_ , ~ " ~ "' 4 )1 . 1.64 Ac. ~ 1 ~. o ?~ i` ~T~ a + Ac. •ti~ e~ ?,~ ~ •11 ?mss ~ ~~ ,,~s .. -;, ~.: 957 1.50 A0. 1~~,~• '~~ o _ '~.?,DS 22.39 ~ f+?F3+o ., ~~ rn „._, ~~.. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ u . G 49.45 'mom ~ ~ ~ S.S,~7 - f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 7 ~ ~~ M ,. W 5 ~, . ~ ,B8 \ , ,. ~ a, 12. 57 Fe r: ~ N ~ ~ TO / ~ "Ir~ ~ u.T ~A~/ SJ ~g h~` ro •_ ~ 1 S~ We~~ 'D 95 ~ 17 .10 ~ ~'~'~ LOI t 2$,03 wi ~ 1J5 ~ ~ 'J`~.~ - 2A3 i7S , _' , ; , y` J 8 68, I ~ ~' ~~ ~,~~," i~ „~ '` Wofer o. °~ t~sx{ rn ~, 160.42 284.3 ~ ~ h-r N 15343 '' ~:..Y " (m(~,~ ~7~.2~ .~~;' _ ~~.~ ' ~+ry N ~ .\ .. ~ 17 j ! ~. ,' ,~-+ ~ ld f ~. ~t7~ Cvrx74 ~ ~ ~ ~ 7.9A 2G.~2 141z - I~ N Jt~. ~ Q ~ ~.N y .',' , f 176.68 :~ I ~.,, ~~<: 58 ~'.;;ti` ~ - ~~/~ 18.08 ~~y 1: 5 3 . 177. Ern iqs 11.42 ~` i ._ ''~ 34~9k :~ ~ 1.09 Ac ~ `,._ ~ \ `-g3 b1.a~~ - ~~_ O J > -'_ I~ .J iO J f) { ~ O?~S _ ... _ 150 , •~ rn ~3~. u 6sl ~~ _ -- ---- 082 `~ G~7~ - .~:,. bA ?T~ 43.17 . 2QG ~ ee.. 7E3 l _ . ~,~±+ 1 1 0 190.5 ~32.0j ."C ~ - ~ aSf(r ~ t ~ ~f F s r: ~~ ~ - 1+.: .. 4 ~! 167 6 t ~-19.43 q~, ~2 f , f 174 95 ~~ ~I a f y ,146:7 121.es, ~ ~ ~ ,~^~ . ~ "~,...~• .n~~ ~ ~-)~i .• ~ ?. •~> a E1j .18 t,6 ~~ i 11 7 22.36 ~ ^~ ~~.~ ~,~: 5g`~ S ,~~. rn 3p0 ~ s6~d • , ".° ~ 60 r,~ _ 62 6 `~ 9 t ~ ~ 1 '15v ~ 156.23 x7.25 125.?3 --- ~; 3 ,>~ {L~~ r~ aa~ - e~ >~ - ~ '~" ~s ~ t~t.93d - ----` 353g ~3` s 0 Ip1.8S ~ ~ 1 . 96, 1 ~. lg6 1 i 362.3 _Y 103.48 7 2.76 ,.,~ ~s 0 2~2s ~ . o ~ir~ . 1ti9 ~ • '+ y ~ t ~ ,, ~ 86.38 s ,% ~yo ~~~ ~~~ X34• gd~- ~i ~i ~~ 2.58 Ac. ---~ ~~ , }~c. ~~ 84.1 , sro _"_. .~~~~ 4.08 Ac. ~ ~=' .• ' J_,_ SUNCREST HEIGHTS WATER & SEWER SERVICE AREA EXHIBIT "A" ~5 -- ~ 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE 062403-4 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 0.118 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IN CONNECTION WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO HARDY ROAD FOR THE VINTON BUSINESS CENTER IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton has undertaken various public improvements associated with development of the Vinton Business Center, including the widening of Hardy Road; and, WHEREAS, the Hardy Road improvements have required the acquisition of parcels of real estate from the adjacent property owners to provide adequate width for the road project, with the conveyances being made to the locality in which the property is located; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated August 2, 2002, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument#200222848, Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark conveyed a 0.118-acre parcel of land to Roanoke County, Virginia, for said road widening; and, WHEREAS, the Clarks have raised concerns about access to their property until such time as the road improvements are completed; and, WHEREAS, staff has coordinated with the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Town of Vinton, and the Clarks to resolve the issue by conveyance of the 0.118-acre parcel to the Commonwealth of Virginia, thus providing the Clark's with public road frontage; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke 1 County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 2003; and a second reading was held on June 24, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been, and hereby is, declared surplus and is being made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Hardy Road improvements; and, 2. That conveyance of the parcel of land, consisting of 0.118 acre, adjacent to Hardy Road along the front of the property of Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark (Tax Map No. 71.07-1-44) in the Vinton Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, having been acquired by Roanoke County, Virginia, from the Clarks in deed dated August 2, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument #200222848, to the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby authorized and approved, subject to specification that Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark shall have access to their adjacent parcel (Tax Map No. 71.07-1-44), upon compliance with VDOT entrance permitting requirements. 3. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: 2 AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner William E. Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation 3 • fe,~c e \~ ~ ~ 1 ~ Gerald' H. & o Ruby D. Clark a D.B. 1471. PG. 1598 Z Tax # 71.07-01-44 N ~ I 2.562 Acres (Deed) 0 i' i i i i i ~~ ~~~ Charles Dewey Mitchell ~ D.B. 1117, PG. 172 c'D -0.118 Acres (RfW,) ~~ Tax # 71.07-01-45 = z ~ 2.444 Acres (Net) ~ ~ a N ~ J i ~ .}~ zo' oa ~~~ r~' 1- ~ i O'f M ~ i ,~ I!] i~ '~ 100' Wide ~ ~ APCO Easement ~ ' ~ '`~ iv~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o y~j ~~ I ( ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O L O ~~ I a t0 -~ / / ~ W ~O ro ~ n: M Proposed i ~ -: ~ U' ~ o ~ t; 3 .~ rn _"~ sY R/W Line i i w ~m~ s ° ~ ° Z ~.,.,:... ~~~ 0.118 AC. ~.. ~ ~ Proposed R/VN I w i LEGEND f~ PROPERTY LINE RAW RIGHT OF WAY LINE SHADED AREA DENOTES STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TO' BE ACQUIRED. PERMANENT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA - 5,126 SQ. FT. (0.1 18 AC.) • o~~~~yTH OF Gr~'c v DAVID A. PERFATER 9~ No. 1847 ` ~~ ~~ ~~~ MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. 7D1 FIRST STREET ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 . TELEPHONE (540)345-9342 ~~°? "E' j . o n ,a~W. Sa~_ ~- a ,m i i ~q <1„w ~~i~?~ w RpY ,,.~;,=yo Riw vA ROq p $ ~ 6~~' It R/FS `` FOG Aq ~MeN „~ 8, fO re ' \ r mp~e ~~ `_ STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING GRANTED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY GERALD H. 8e RUBY D. CLARK ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1 " = 40' DATE: DEC. 6, 2001 TAX N0. 71.07-01-44 ~- i EgHIBIT A 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.118 acre parcel of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with improvements to Hardy Road for the Vinton Business Center in the Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~`~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town of Vinton, in cooperation with Roanoke County, is developing the Vinton Business Center, formerly known as the McDonald Farm property, and has pursued acquisition of the necessary right-of-way for the widening of Hardy Road as part of this economic development project. Since a section of the road is within the County of Roanoke, the parcels acquired within this area have been conveyed to Roanoke County. On October 8, 2002, the Board authorized acceptance of a number of properties for the Hardy Road improvements, including a 0.118-acre parcel of land conveyed by Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark. A copy of the plat showing this parcel is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Clarks have recently raised concerns about access to their property, which no longer has public road frontage, until such time as the road improvements are completed. County staff has worked with the Clarks, the Town of Vinton, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to resolve this problem by conveying the 0.118-acre parcel to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This conveyance would provide the Clarks' property with public road frontage and the deed would specifically provide that the Clark would have access upon compliance with VDOT's entrance permitting requirements. This conveyance would be necessary, in any event, when the road improvement project commences. t -=~. . ` FISCAL IMPACT: None. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached ordinance to authorize conveyance of the 0.118 acre parcel of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Hardy Road improvements. 2. Retain title to the 0.118 acre parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ~. - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 0.118 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IN CONNECTION WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO HARDY ROAD FOR THE VINTON BUSINESS CENTER IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton has undertaken various public improvements associated with development of the Vinton Business Center, including the widening of Hardy Road; and, WHEREAS, the Hardy Road improvements have required the acquisition of parcels of real estate from the adjacent property owners to provide adequate width for the road project, with the conveyances being made to the locality in which the property is located; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated August 2, 2002, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument #200222848, Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark conveyed a 0.118-acre parcel of land to Roanoke County, Virginia, for said road widening; and, WHEREAS, the Clarks have raised concerns about access to their property until such time as the road improvements are completed; and, WHEREAS, staff has coordinated with the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Town of Vinton, and the Clarks to resolve the issue by conveyance of the 0.118-acre parcel to the Commonwealth of Virginia, thus providing the Clark's with public road frontage; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 2003; and a second reading ~-~- '~ was held on June 24, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, 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, and hereby is, declared surplus and is being made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Hardy Road improvements; and, 2. That conveyance of the parcel of land, consisting of 0.118 acre, adjacent to Hardy Road along the front of the property of Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark (Tax Map No. 71.07-1-44) in the Vinton Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, having been acquired by Roanoke County, Virginia, from the Clarks in deed dated August 2, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument #200222848, to the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby authorized and approved, subject to specification that Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark shall have access to their adjacent parcel (Tax Map No. 71.07-1-44), upon compliance with VDOT entrance permitting requirements. 3. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 I~ • \~ ten ce ~ , i i ~ i~ ~ Gerald H. & ~~~ o Ruby D. Glark ~~ a D.B. 1471, PG. 1598 ~ Z Tax # 71.07-01-44 . ~~~ Chorles Dewey Mitchell N I 2.562 Acres (Deed) ~ D.B. 1117, PG. 172 oD -0.118 Acres (R/W) ~~ Tax # 71.07-01-45 = z I 2.444 Acres (Net) ~ ~' N~ J ~// 1 i fZn~ O i~ F- ~ i i Of ~ i M ~ !1') ~ i ~i 100' Wide ~~ ~ APCO Easement ~ i ~~ i ~~~ ~ i ~ ~ i Ttf) ~ I~ ~ O ~ `' cD I ~ / / / OVi O O r" ~ W O t0 / ~ 3~d~ w n ~ ~Iv= o Pro osed ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M R/W Line i ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ i W ~,m~ ° ~~~ 0.118 AC. I > o ~ °z ~ ~ Proposed R/W w ssss~,o ?"f -i :.. i D„ .. O ~.,.... Sc .._ ~' LEGEND f~ PROPERTY LINE RAW RIGHT OF WAY LINE ~~,. ` W R wD ARR~q D es ~~~ SHADED AREA DENOTES STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TO' BE ACQUIRED. PERMANENT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA - 5,126 S0. FT. (0.1 18 AC.) • ~~~~yTH OF `r'P ~~ '~ /~/O/ cr STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ~, BEING GRANTED TO U DAVID A. PERFATER ~ R OA N O K E COUNTY No. 1847 gy ~~ GERALD H. & RUBY D. CLARK SUFLN 0 ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. 701 FIRST STREET SCALE: 1" = 40' ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 DATE: DEC. 6, 2001 ~ TELEPHONE (540)345-9342 TAX N0. 71.07-01-44 ~it,FNT~ fo Tempe Or `~ ~~ EBHIBIT A t ~ s .- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE 062403-5 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEWPIPE, INCORPORATED, FOR OFFICE SPACE IN THE SALEM BANK 8~ TRUST BUILDING AT 220 EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VA, OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner of several parcels of land, containing .68 acre, located at 220 East Main Street in the City of Salem, Virginia, and designated on the Salem Land Records as Tax Map #106- 13-6, #106-13-2, and #106-13-1, and commonly referred to as the Salem Bank and Trust Building; and, WHEREAS, said property was purchased on May 15, 2001, subject to leases with the County of Roanoke to provide office space for the Department of Social Services and Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the building, and subject to a number of commercial leases for the first and second floors of the building and the rooftop for antenna space; and, WHEREAS, the County leased the property to the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority for the issuance of bonds to finance the purchase, and the property was leased back to the County for operation of the premises and generation of the revenue, through the existing leases, for payment of the debt service on the bonds; and, WHEREAS, one of the commercial leases assumed at the time of purchase was with Trading Worldcom Incorporated/Seth Longo, for 300 square feet of office space in Suite 212 on the second floor of the building, and said lease has expired; and, WHEREAS, NewPipe, Incorporated ("NewPipe"),anew company being operated by Seth Martin, formerly Seth Longo, has negotiated with staff to continue leasing the premises for a period of one year from April 1, 2003, at a rental of $370.71 per month, with the option to renew the lease for an additional year at $400.00 per month; and WHEREAS, the lease agreement with NewPipe would include provision for payment of back rent due on the premises by July 1, 2003; and, WHEREAS, it would serve the public interest to continue leasing the premises to NewPipe in order to have the office space occupied and maintained, and to generate revenue to be applied to meeting the bond obligations; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003; and the second reading was held on June 24, 2003. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That lease of 300 square feet of office space in Suite 212 at the Salem Bank and Trust Building, located at 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia, to NewPipe, Incorporated for a period of one year at an annual rental of $4,448.52, payable monthly in the amount of $370.71, commencing as of April 1, 2003, and ending on March 31, 2 2004, with the option for NewPipe to renew said lease for an additional period of one year at an annual rental of $4,800.00, together with provision for payment by NewPipe of back rent in the amount of $5,004.71, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney. 3. That the funds generated by this lease shall be placed in the Salem Bank and Trust Building revenue account. 4. That this ordinance shalt be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: /~-~~~ Brenda J. Hol on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~"a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance authorizing and approving execution of a lease agreement with NewPipe, Incorporated, for office space in the Salem Bank and Trust Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green Director of General Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge F# County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: NewPipe is a technology company which has been located in Suite 212 of the Salem Bank and Trust Building since February, 2000. The company wishes to renew its lease on the 300 square feet located in this suite. The term of the lease is for one year beginning on April 1, 2003 and renewable for an additional year on April 1, 2004. The rent is $370.71 per month or $14.82/square foot, which is comparable to other rental fees in the building. If the tenant chooses to renew the lease for an additional year, the rent increases to $400.00 per month. FISCAL IMPACT: The County will receive $4,448.52 from the tenant during the first year of the lease, and an additional $4,800 if the lease is renewed. These funds are deposited in the Salem Bank and Trust Account for the upkeep and maintenance of the facility. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative One: Adopt the ordinance authorizing and approving execution of the lease agreement with NewPipe, Incorporated. Alternative Two: Do not adopt the ordinance authorizing and approving execution of the lease agreement with NewPipe, Incorporated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative One. The space occupied by NewPipe is fairly small and not easily rentable. It is not practical to use this suite to increase the space next door because the suite on one side is already fairly large, and the tenant on the other side is not interested in renting more space at this time. -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEWPIPE, INCORPORATED, FOR OFFICE SPACE IN THE SALEM BANK & TRUST BUILDING AT 220 EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VA, OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner of several parcels of land, containing .68 acre, located at 220 East Main Street in the City of Salem, Virginia, and designated on the Salem Land Records as Tax Map #106- 13-6, #106-13-2, and #106-13-1, and commonly referred to as the Salem Bank and Trust Building; and, WHEREAS, said property was purchased on May 15, 2001, subject to leases with the County of Roanoke to provide office space for the Department of Social Services and Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the building, and subject to a number of commercial leases for the first and second floors of the building and the rooftop for antenna space; and, WHEREAS, the County leased the property to the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority for the issuance of bonds to finance the purchase, and the property was leased back to the County for operation of the premises and generation of the revenue, through the existing leases, for payment of the debt service on the bonds; and, ~~ WHEREAS, one of the commercial leases assumed at the time of purchase was with Trading Worldcom Incorporated/Seth Longo, for 300 square feet of office space in Suite 212 on the second floor of the building, and said lease has expired; and, WHEREAS, NewPipe, Incorporated ("NewPipe"),anew company being operated by Seth Martin, formerly Seth Longo, has negotiated with staff to continue leasing the premises for a period of one year from April 1, 2003, at a rental of $370.71 per month, with the option to renew the lease for an additional year at $400.00 per month; and WHEREAS, the lease agreement with NewPipe would include provision for payment of back rent due on the premises by July 1, 2003; and, WHEREAS, it would serve the public interest to continue leasing the premises to NewPipe in order to have the office space occupied and maintained, and to generate revenue to be applied to meeting the bond obligations; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003; and the second reading was held on June 24, 2003. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That lease of 300 square feet of office space in Suite 212 at the Salem Bank and Trust Building, located at 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia, to NewPipe, Incorporated for a period of one year at an annual rental of $4,448.52, payable monthly in the amount of $370.71, commencing as of April 1, 2003, and ending on March 31, 2 ~~-a 2004, with the option for NewPipe to renew said lease for an additional period of one year at an annual rental of $4,800.00, together with provision for payment by NewPipe of back rent in the amount of $5,004.71, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney. 3. That the funds generated by this lease shall be placed in the Salem Bank and Trust Building revenue account. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (Appointed by District) The five-year term of Richard L. Jones, Jr., Catawba District, expires on June 30, 2003. 2. COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAM REGIONAL COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD The two-year term of Sheriff Gerald Holt expires on July 1, 2003. 3. PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM ADVISORY COMMISSION (Appointed by District) The following three-year terms will expire June 30, 2003: (a) Robert List, Catawba District - Mr. List was appointed January 13, 2003, to complete the unexpired term of Wayne Gauldin. (b) Donna Wooldridge, Catawba District 4. VIRGINIA WESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD The four-year terms of Geoffrey Ottaway and James W. Arend expire on June 30, 2003. Mr. Ottaway and Mr. Arend are not eligible for reappointment since they have served two consecutive four-year terms. Supervisor McNamara has expressed an interest in serving on this Board. .,,.> " "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 24, 2003 designated as Item J -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -June 10, 2003 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District), Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission, and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors 3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Elizabeth C. Angel after twenty years of service 4. Resolution in support of participation in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and in support of the distribution mechanism of Regional Competitiveness Funds 5. Resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned improvement to Interstate 81 That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required bylaw to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. 1 On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~~ Brenda J. H on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Joesph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Gerald S. Holt, County Sherrff 2 ~i June 10, 2003 527 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 10, 2003 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 2003. IN RE; CALL TO ORDER Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Bill Booth, Vinton Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Mahoney added a closed meeting pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion regarding the disposition of the County's interest in .June 10, 2003 529 The Board welcomed Ms. Sawada to Roanoke County, and Mr. Hodge presented Ms. Sawada with a Roanoke County lapel pin. 2. Resolution of congratulations to paramedic/firefighter William Chrimes for receiving the following national awards: Forestry Heroism Award and Firefighter Gold Medal ~ ACA AA7 A Chairman McNamara presented the resolution of congratulations to paramedic/firefighter Chrimes. Also present at the meeting were Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Captain Rodney Ferguson; Kenny Shelton, Roanoke City EMT/Firefighter; David Altizer, Paramedic/Firefighter; Lieutenant Eddie Chitwood and Captain Dennis Fisher. The Board members extended their congratulations to paramedic/firefighter Chrimes and thanked him for his service to the citizens of Roanoke County. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 061003-1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WILLIAM R. CHRIMES, PARAMEDIC AND FIREFIGHTER FOR RECEIVING THE 2003 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS' FIREFIGHTER GOLD MEDAL AWARD AND THE 2003 STIHL NATIONAL FORESTRY HEROISM AWARD June 10, 2003 531 Principal. Ms. Graves read selected portions of her original story "Signs of Courage in Big Stone Gap, 1968" ©. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing ~ County Attorney on legislative tr~i to Washington, D.C. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne Mr. Mahoney reported that on June 3 he participated in a trip to Washington, DC for the purpose of representing Roanoke County as part of the Virginia West Coalition, a legislative coalition of area chambers of commerce, in attempting to have an impact on legislative matters at the federal and state levels. Mr. Mahoney recognized Joyce Waugh, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, for her instrumental role in building the Virginia West Coalition. Mr. Mahoney reported that a meeting was held with the Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation where the focus of discussions was on the re-authorization of the TEA-21 grant program, surface transportation (I-81), additional airport funding, and support for passenger rail service. Following this meeting, the group met with Congressman Virgil Goode, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and Senator George Allen. He reported that in a meeting with the Assistant Secretary -Department of Labor, there was discussion regarding the re- authorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). Mr. Mahoney expressed his appreciation to Lisa Link and Beth Doughty, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, for their efforts in organizing the trip. He stated that although no additional funding commitments were obtained, he felt it was June 10, 2003 533 Attachment A and outlined the agreement between Roanoke County PR&T and Roanoke County schools. Ms. Pitts stated that PR&T is very pleased to have the opportunity to continue this partnership with the school system and to provide quality and affordable licensed childcare for Roanoke County families. She noted their long history of working together to provide facilities and services for citizens, and stated that the ASK program is just one aspect of that partnership. Mr. Pete Haislip, Director of PR&T, reviewed Attachment B outlining the support provided to the school system and highlighting the extent of the partnership. He indicated that the schools allow the County to utilize undeveloped property or property that they own and in return, they benefit through the maintenance of their fields by PR&T staff. He also noted that capital improvements to school-owned sites (through the 1992 bond program) totaled $462,521 and the PR&T matching grant program has funded 30 projects at school sites totaling $179,961 in grant funding. Supervisor Minnix expressed his appreciation to Mr. Haislip, Ms. Pitts, the PR&T staff, the School Board and their staff. He indicated that they have a long history of working together to the benefit of the schools and the County. Supervisor Church noted that when the work session was held several months ago with the School Board, there was some alarm. He indicated that it is beneficial to work with a local organization that can provide a service that is equal to or June 10, 2003 535 Mr. Robertson stated that the Stearnes Avenue well lot consists of three small parcels that, when combined, will form a single parcel slightly less than 0.4 acres. The well lot is property that was acquired by Roanoke County when it assumed ownership of the Crescent Heights water system several years ago. The wells and concrete reservoir located on this property are no longer in use and are not considered suitable as a standby water supply for Roanoke County. The land value is presently assessed at $17,200. Mr. Robertson indicated that should the Board of Supervisors decide to approve the donation to Habitat for Humanity, a second reading and public hearing will be held on June 24, 2003. Prior to that meeting, staff will contact adjacent property owners to inform them of the plans for the property. Supervisor Minnix commented that he did not want the citizens in this area to be alarmed. He indicated that the home to be built on this lot will be comparable to the homes in the area, and that Roanoke County staff will be working on the construction of the home. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for June 24, 2003. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None June 10, 2003 IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 537 1. Second readin of an ordinance authorizing the quitclaim and release of an existin 20 ft. waterline easement within the proposed right-of-way of Matisse Lane Plat Book 19, Page 122 Cave Spring Magisterial District. Community Development) Arnold Covey" Director of Mr. Covey reported that there had been no change in this item since the first reading. There was no discussion on this matter. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 061003-3 AUTHORIZING QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF A 20' WATER LINE EASEMENT CREATED ON PLAT OF SECTION NO. 5, THE GARDENS OF COTTON HILL, IN PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 122, AND NOW WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF MATISSE LANE ADJACENT TO LOTS 1 AND 2, SECTION NO. 7, TULIPS IN THE GARDENS, PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 169, IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, in order for Matisse Lane to be accepted into the state secondary road system, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right- of-way be free and clear of any third party rights or encumbrances; and, WHEREAS, VDOT requires quit-claim and release to the Commonwealth of Virginia of all existing easements within the boundaries of Matisse Lane, namely a 20' water line easement, shown and created as "20' W.L.E." on `Plat of Subdivision for Strauss Construction Corporation Creating Hereon SECTION No. 5, THE GARDENS OF June 10, 2003 539 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 2. Second reading of ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne 0-061003-4 Mr. Mahoney stated that there had been no change in this item since the first reading. Mr. Church requested verification of the amount of the salary increase. Mr. Mahoney reported that the increase totals $269.89 per year for each supervisor. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 061003-4 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain June 10, 2003 541 three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. 3. Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors It was the consensus of the Board to reappoint Elmer C. Hodge to an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-061003-5; R-061003-5.f Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 061003-5 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 June 10, 2003 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 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -May 27, 2003 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Clean Valley Council, Library Board, and Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Board 3. Request for appropriation of the 2003-2004 Roanoke Valley Regional School Fund 4. Request for acceptance of federal grant (03-A4226CR02) in the amount of $12,000 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services 5. Request to accept donation of drainage easements from Integrity Windows, Inc. and F&W Properties II, Inc., Vinton Magisterial District June 10, 2003 543 IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Minnix moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Clean Valley Council 6. Update on the status of Phase 2 School capital re uest IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora: He congratulated the recent Roanoke County high school graduates. Supervisor Church: He stated that he has received a letter from Mr. Beamer regarding the Dantzler farm. He indicated that "enough is enough" and that he will be pushing for a resolution to this matter. He noted that he has visited the site, and he requested a meeting with Mr. Mahoney to determine what can be done regarding this situation. Supervisor McNamara: He stated that the County recently received an award from Perdue Pharma as part of a child intervention program to improve outcomes June 10, 2003 545 cabin project. The volunteers installed the interior walls, the floor, and the ceiling of the log cabin. In addition, they completed the electrical work and installed the decks, ramp, and steps. To date, the volunteers have donated 443 hours of service to this project. The second group award was presented to Ted Susac, Jesse Williams, Tony Clifford, Jack Russell, Bob Smith, John Kleven, and Greeley Wyatt for their work on the deck project. The deck was constructed outside the dining hall at Camp Roanoke and serves as a central gathering point at the camp. The architecture and quality of construction are outstanding, and the volunteers have contributed in excess of 750 hours to this project. Following the presentation of the awards, there was a reception honoring the recipients from 4:35 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Presentation from Northrop-Grumman for construction of a new ublic safety center under the Public Private Education Facilities Infrastructure Act of 2002 P( PEA)• Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) The work session was held from 5:03 p.m. until 6:17 p.m. and was presented by Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator. Mr. O'Donnell advised that an unsolicited proposal has been received from Northrop-Grumman for construction of a new public safety center. He indicated that the current building has become a "maintenance challenge" and is problematic for June 10, 2003 547 story police and fire administration building. The building is constructed to allow for expansion and will contain administrative offices, storage areas, and locker and break rooms. (3) Option Two: includes the base package, option one, and an upgrade to the radio infrastructure. It will provide a partial digitization of the radio system. The County is not able to switch to full digital signal until Roanoke City, who shares radio communications with the County, also switches to digital. This option would involve moving the microwave equipment at the Southview call center into a new shelter at the base of the tower. This would be connected by microwave to the new facility. Mr. Miner introduced the following individuals who will be participating in the project: Bruce Bower, Assistant Director for Public Safety and Transportation at Northrop-Grumman; John Thurston, DVA Architects; and Adam Joseph, J. P. Morgan Chase. Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to continue moving forward with this process. Staff is to review the proposal in detail and bring the matter back to the Board at the June 24 meeting for approval to continue. 2. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30-93 Signs' Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; David Holladay, Planner The work session was held from 6:27 p.m. until 7:28 p.m. and was presented by Janet Scheid, Chief Planner, and David Holladay, Planner. Members of the Planning Commission present at the meeting included: Don Witt, Martha Hooker, June 10, 2003 549 number of billboards throughout the County. He indicated that there is no feasible way to buy back the billboards, and therefore they must be removed through attrition. Mr. Mahoney indicated that in drafting the ordinance, he structured the guidelines to assist in meeting the goals of the Planning Commission. Ms. Hooker reported that there has been a significant increase in the number of requests for billboard permits from out-of-town individuals wanting to set up billboards in Roanoke County. She indicated that this was a source of real concern for her. It was noted that there are 115 billboards in Roanoke County, of which approximately 70 are non-conforming. Mr. Covey, Director of Community Development, stated that conforming locations are in C-2, I-1 and I-2 zoning areas. Ms. Hooker indicated that in keeping with the visioning process and the community plan, agricultural areas are not appropriate for billboards in order to protect the scenic vistas of the area. Supervisor McNamara indicated that the Board needs to address the critical decision points submitted by Ms. Scheid. He stated that the Board must decide if they support the goals set forth by the Planning Commission. Supervisor Altizer voiced his support for adopting a cap on the number of billboards. He indicated that this would address the issue of preventing out-of-town companies applying for permits to build billboards. Supervisor Minnix questioned what the Planning Commission's goals were for the sign industry in the next 20 years. Supervisor McNamara indicated that the Planning Commission has been fairly clear with their goals which includes decreasing June 10, 2003 551 Supervisor Church indicated that he was not in favor of billboards but he questioned how the Board could arbitrarily declare that a sign which was previously conforming is now non-conforming due to a change in zoning. He stated that a "happy medium" needs to be found. Mr. Mahoney indicated that this is a fundamental concept of zoning and that localities change the zoning to reflect changing conditions. He stated that the government has often zoned or re-zoned property so that what was once permissible is now different. Supervisor Altizer questioned if the proposed ordinance had been in effect for the last 10 years, how many fewer signs would be in Roanoke County today? Mr. Witt indicated that there would be 10 less signs. Ms. Scheid further clarified that this number would depend on the type of signs involved. If 10 non-conforming signs were removed, 10 conforming signs could be installed resulting in no change in the total number of signs. If some conforming signs were lost, then the conforming sign would be lost, as well as anon-conforming sign. This situation would result in an overall reduction of one sign. Ms. Scheid stated that the majority of the situations, however, would result in no change in the total number of signs because the majority of the signs in Roanoke County are non-conforming. Supervisor Minnix questioned what the Planning Commission's goals were for the sign industry. The Planning Commission members indicated that they would like to see fewer non-conforming signs. June 10, 2003 553 supporting a free market environment if they implement a cap because they will be preventing other individuals from entering this industry. He noted that the other side of this issue is the value of commercially zoned land that will be reduced because the cap will prevent the landowner from placing a billboard on the site. He stated that no matter which decision the Board makes, someone will be adversely affected. Mr. Mahoney stated that placing a cap on the number of billboards will make the current non-conforming locations more valuable. In response to a question from Supervisor Minnix, Ms. Scheid reported that Botetourt County and the City of Salem do not allow any new billboards. She stated that the sign ordinance in Roanoke City is very restrictive. It was the consensus of the Board to send this matter back to the Planning Commission to resolve the remaining issues with the sign industry. Supervisors Altizer and Church urged the sign industry to take the opportunity during this last round of negotiations with the Planning Commission to bring forth new ideas from their side. 3. Work session to discuss the status of the following economic development projects: Dou Chittum, Director of Economic Development): a. Ongoing infrastructure improvements to the Roanoke County Center for Research & Technology The work session was held from 7:38 p.m. until 8:09 p.m. and was presented by Doug Chittum. Mr. Chittum outlined the improvements that have been June 10, 2003 555 240 days. Mr. Covey indicated the pre-construction meeting was held today (June 10), and construction is ready to begin. c. Sims Automotive Land Rover development ro'ect in the Clearbrook overlay area The work session was held from 8:10 p.m. until 8:14 p.m. and was presented by Doug Chittum. He reported that the project is growing in scope and now consists of five dealerships and a service center. As the project scope continued to increase, the drainage needed to be connected to the federal government drainage system on the parkway. Staff has worked through the easement issues regarding drainage, and construction is ready to proceed when the weather improves. The site will consist of four 5,000 square foot buildings for the following dealerships: Mercedes, Volvo, Land Rover, and Jaguar. The fifth site is still being negotiated. d. Other miscellaneous ro'ects The work session was held from 8:14 p.m. until 8:15 p.m. and was presented by Doug Chittum. Mr. Chittum reported that Fink's has completed their site plan, Economic Development has performed an expedited approval, and the site plan has been reviewed by the Community Development Department and returned to Fink's. At present, the project is waiting for VDOT to submit their comments. The closing was scheduled for Friday but had to be postponed pending receipt of the information from VDOT. June 10, 2003 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT 557 Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. until Monday, June 23 at 12:00 p.m., School Board Meeting Room, to attend School Construction Committee Meeting. Submitted by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Approved by: Joseph P. McNamara Chairman ACTION NO. A-062403-6.a ITEM NO. J-2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointments to the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District), Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. PARKS, RECREATION ~ TOURISM ADVISORY COMMISSION (APPOINTED BY DISTRICT) At the June 10, 2003 meeting, the following nominations were made: (1) Supervisor Flora nominated Deborah George, Hollins District, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. (2) Supervisor McNamara nominated Paul Bailey, Windsor Hills District, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. 2. ROANOKE VALLEY-ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION At the June 10, 2003 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated J. Lee Osborne to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. 3. ROANOKE VALLEY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1 ~w- At the June 10, 2003 meeting, it was the consensus of the Board to reappoint Elmer C. Hodge to an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments to the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Board, Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Beard of Directors be confirmed. VOTE: Supervisor McNamara motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission File Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission File Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors File 2 C r~• ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ c~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointments to the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District), Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ l ~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. PARKS, RECREATION 8~ TOURISM ADVISORY COMMISSION (APPOINTED BY DISTRICT) At the June 10, 2003 meeting, the following nominations were made: (1) Supervisor Flora nominated Deborah George, Hollins District, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. (2) Supervisor McNamara nominated Paul Bailey, Windsor Hills District, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. 2. ROANOKE VALLEY-ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION At the June 10, 2003 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated J. Lee Osborne to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. 3. ROANOKE VALLEY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU BOARD OF 1 ~~ ,.. ~i ~- At the June 10, 2003 meeting, it was the consensus of the Board to reappoint Elmer C. Hodge to an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments to the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Board, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors be confirmed. i ,~ s~ -' "+ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-6.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF ELIZABETH C. ANGEL, SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHEREAS, Elizabeth C. Angel was employed by Roanoke County in the Sheriff s Office as a cook for the jail on April 4, 1983, and subsequently became a Deputy Sherifffor Prisoners and Confinement; and WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel retired from Roanoke County on June 1, 2003, after twenty years and two months of service; and WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel has served with professionalism and integrity, and 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 ELIZABETH C. ANGEL for more than twenty years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: 1 ~ ~ AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: -~-~..~- Brenda J. Ho on Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Gerald S. Holt, County Sheriff Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Resolutions of Appreciation File 2 i l ~~, ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: June 24, 2003 Request for approval of resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Elizabeth C. Angel, Sheriff's Office, after more than twenty years of service Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge Flt County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Human Resources Department has notified us that Elizabeth C. Angel, Sheriff's Office, retired on June 1, 2003. Ms. Angel has requested that her resolution be mailed to her. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and direct the Deputy Clerk to mail it to Ms. Angel with the appreciation of the Board members for her many years of service to the County. ,, ~ _ ~-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF ELIZABETH C. ANGEL, SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHEREAS, Elizabeth C. Angel was employed by Roanoke County in the Sheriff's Office as a cook for the jail on April 4, 1983, and subsequently became a Deputy Sheriff for Prisoners and Confinement; and WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel retired from Roanoke County on June 1, 2003, after twenty years and two months of service; and WHEREAS, Deputy SheriffAngel has served with professionalism and integrity, and 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 ELIZABETH C. ANGEL for more than twenty years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. ., ~, !. ..,,1 ' ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-6.c IN SUPPORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT REGIONAL ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM OF REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FUNDS WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was created in 1997 by local governments to promote increased levels of inter jurisdictional cooperation in orderto improve the region's economic competitiveness; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is currently a participating member government of the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance; and WHEREAS, the Regional Alliance is making application to re-qualify as a regional competitiveness partnership under the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act (RCA); and WHEREAS, the Regional Competitiveness Act requires that each participating local government within the region must approve by resolution: (1) its intent to continue participating in the Regional Alliance and (2) a methodology for the distribution of incentive funds under the RCA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia agrees to participate in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance with other local governments in the region; and furthermore, approves the allocation of any regional competitiveness funds be paid to the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance to be used to help implement the regional programs and projects as presented in the Regional Economic Strategy (adopted by the Alliance in July 2002). On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: 1 AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. H Iton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Wayne Strickland, Secretary to the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~1'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution in support of participation in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and support of the distribution mechanism of regional competitiveness funds APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~'~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was formed in 1997 under the Virginia Regional Competitiveness Program, which is intended to heighten the level of regional cooperation and to help promote a region's economic competitiveness by providing funds to pursue strategies presented in a regional strategic plan. The Commonwealth of Virginia designated the Alliance as the regional partnership to serve the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, and Roanoke; the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem; and the towns of Vinton and Clifton Forge. The Alliance is governed by a 41-member Board of Directors composed of government, business, education and civic leaders throughout the region. The Regional Competitiveness Act (RCA) requires that each participating local government within the region approve by resolution: (1) its intent to continue participating in the Regional Alliance and (2) a methodology for the distribution of incentive funds under the RCA. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the resolution in support of participation in the Regional Alliance and the ~-~I distribution mechanism of regional competitiveness funds. 2. Do not adopt the resolution in support of participation in the Regional Alliance and the distribution mechanism of regional competitiveness funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. a J -`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT REGIONAL ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM OF REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FUNDS WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was created in 1997 by local governments to promote increased levels of inter jurisdictional cooperation in orderto improve the region's economic competitiveness; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is currently a participating member government of the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance; and WHEREAS, the Regional Alliance is making application to re-qualify as a regional competitiveness partnership under the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act (RCA); and WHEREAS, the Regional Competitiveness Act requires that each participating local government within the region must approve by resolution: (1) its intent to continue participating in the Regional Alliance and (2) a methodology for the distribution of incentive funds under the RCA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia agrees to participate in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance with other local governments in the region; and furthermore, approves the allocation of any regional competitiveness funds be paid to the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance to be used to help implement the regional programs and projects as presented in the Regional Economic Strateay (adopted by the Alliance in July 2002). AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-6.d SUPPORTING RAIL ALTERNATIVES TO COMPLEMENT PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSTATE 81 WHEREAS, the I-81 corridor is increasingly the route of choice for trucks traveling between the northeast and the south and southwest because of congestion on I-95 and expanding shipments generated by the North American Free Trade Act; and WHEREAS, two multi-national corporations, Halliburton and Fluor Corporations, have submitted proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to expand the number of lanes and other appurtenances on I-81; and WHEREAS, Norfolk-Southern Corporation estimates that seventy percent (70%) of truck traffic on I-81 passes through Virginia to destinations south or north; and WHEREAS, the minimal rail freight proposals included in the Star Solutions and Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight potential in the whole I-81 corridor; and WHEREAS, these same proposals provide no option for passenger rail, although upgrading the corridor's main rail line secures the passenger rail option; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is now planning the future of the I-81 ~ corridor, those decisions containing dramatic impacts for the future of western Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia's decision on this corridor will determine whether I-81 and connecting interstates will become amulti-state "East Coast Truck By-Pass;" and WHEREAS, the increased use of railroads to move freight will improve safety by reducing dangerous vehicular congestion on I-81, improve energy conservation by reducing the amount of diesel fuel consumed for freight transportation, and improve the 1 J ~ t health of people and other forms of life in western Virginia by dampening the rate of increase in diesel engine-generated toxic emissions along I-81; and WHEREAS, the creation of additional freight rail capacity paralleling I-81, in Virginia and Tennessee, may spur creation of new freight rail capacity nationwide, resulting in more shipping options at lower cost for the Nation's businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its support for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to I-81, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long-distance freight traffic from trucks on I-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to I-81. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. S S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: APPROVED BY: Resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned improvements to Interstate 81 Elmer C. Hodge F~f County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ...~ Two multi-national corporations, Halliburton and Fluor Corporations, have submitted proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation to expand the number of lanes and other appurtenances on Interstate 81. The minimal rail freight proposals included in the State Solutions and Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight potential in the whole I-81 corridor. The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission has asked local governments to adopt a resolution of support for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to I-81, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long-distance freight traffic from trucks on I-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to I-81. The City of Roanoke approved a resolution at their meeting on June 2, 2003. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned improvements to Interstate 81 J ~ 2. Do not adopt the resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned improvements to Interstate 81 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. ' ' 1 ^.. ~"} ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RAIL ALTERNATIVES TO COMPLEMENT PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSTATE 81 WHEREAS, the I-81 corridor is increasingly the route of choice for trucks traveling between the northeast and the south and southwest because of congestion on I-95 and expanding shipments generated by the North American Free Trade Act; and WHEREAS, two multi-national corporations, Halliburton and Fluor Corporations, have submitted proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to expand the number of lanes and other appurtenances on I-81; and WHEREAS, Norfolk-Southern Corporation estimates that seventy percent (70%) of truck traffic on I-81 passes through Virginia to destinations south or north; and WHEREAS, the minimal rail freight proposals included in the Star Solutions and Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight potential in the whole I-81 corridor; and WHEREAS, these same proposals provide no option for passenger rail, although upgrading the corridor's main rail line secures the passenger rail option; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is now planning the future of the I-81 corridor, those decisions containing dramatic impacts for the future of western Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia's decision on this corridor will determine whether I-81 and connecting interstates will become amulti-state "East Coast Truck By-Pass;" and WHEREAS, the increased use of railroads to move freight will improve safety by reducing dangerous vehicular congestion on I-81, improve energy conservation by reducing the amount of diesel fuel consumed for freight transportation, and improve the 1 J _ ,~ health of people and other forms of life in western Virginia by dampening the rate of increase in diesel engine-generated toxic emissions along I-81; and WHEREAS, the creation of additional freight rail capacity paralleling I-81, in Virginia and Tennessee, may spur creation of new freight rail capacity nationwide, resulting in more shipping options at lower cost for the Nation's businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its support for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to I-81, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long-distance freight traffic from trucks on I-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to I-81. 2 N_t GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Balance at June 30, 2002 July 1, 2002 Explore Park Loan Repayment May 27, 2003 Design and Construction of bike lane for Mountain View Road (Route 651) Balance at June 24, 2003 Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $9,070,656 6.93%~ $25,000 (118,000) $8,977,656 6.86% $8,977,656 $8,977,656 6.86% 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 2002 - 2003 General Fund Revenues $130,889,561 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $8,180,598 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator N -~ CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount Balance at June 30, 2002 $1,380,050.57 Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 2002 9,020.97 Amounts used in 2002-2003 original budget: IT Infrastructure Upgrades (500,000.00) Stormwater Management-NPDES (200,000.00) Virginia Western Community College Site Preparation (32,267.00) Close out of completed 1993 GO Bond subfund 285,963.02 4/22/2003 Renovations to Salem Office Supply Building (582,595.00) Balance at June 24, 2003 $360,172.56 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator ~I- 3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA From 2002-2003 Original Budget August 13, 2002 Special Assistant for Legislative Relations January 14, 2003 Consultant for Roanoke Regional Airport Alliance Balance at June 24, 2003 Amount $100,000.00 (18,000.00) (12,500.00) $69,500.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ~`~7 County Administrator N-y FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund FY 1997-1998 Original budget appropriation Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation FY 1999-2000 Original budget appropriation Less increase in debt service Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation Less increase in debt service FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation Less increase in debt service Savings from 2001-02 debt fund FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation Less increase in debt service Balance at June 24, 2003 Reserved for Future School Operations 2,000,000 (1,219,855) 2,000,000 (1,801,579) 2,000,000 (348,806) (116,594) 2,000,000 $670,000.00 1,113,043.00 2,000,000.00 321,772.00 2,000,000.00 780,145.00 495,363.00 198,421.00 1,534,600.00 (2,592,125) (592,125.00) $8,521,219.00 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation July 11, 2000 SW Co Regional Stormwater FY2001-2002 Original budget appropriation July 1, 2001 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle July 1, 2002 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle July 1, 2002 Transfer to Operating in origina12002-03 Budget Balance at June 24, 2003 $1,500,000.00 (290,000.00) 1,500,000.00 (1,858,135.00) (35,047.00) (566,818.00) 250,000.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 4y w ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~-,5 ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE GOUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of May 31, 2003. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: SUNTRUST CAP 410,161.26 410,161.26 CASH INVESTMENT:: ALEXANDER KEY -LIR 5,295.77 5,295.77 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN 100,000.00 100,000.00 COMMERICAL PAPER: BRANCH BANKING &TRUST 997,933.33 EVERGREEN 995,535.58 MORGAN-KEEGAN 997,779.17 2,991,248.08 CORPORATE BONDS EVERGREEN 1,577,363.35 ALEXANDER KEY -FED 222,370.42 1,799,733.77 GOVERNMENT: ALEXANDER KEY 4,000,000.00 ALEXANDER KEY -Sub Acct 3,377,547.50 EVERGREEN 3,061,030.85 SUNTRUST -CAP 8,801,301.73 19,239,880.08 LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION (G.O.) 8,987,736.36 8,987,736.36 MONEY MARKET: ALEXANDER KEY -LIR 16,669,996.49 EVERGREEN 5,737,157.74 FIRST UNION 2,291,205.34 ALEXANDER KEY -Sub Acct 376,644.72 SUNTRUST -CAP 5,882,730.24 1 of 2 .k ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER ~V - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: June 24, 2003. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and PortFolio Policy, as of May 31, 2003. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: MONEY MARKET: (con't) SUNTRUST -SWEEP 11,138,235.01 42,095,969.54 REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: EVERGREEN 1,793,301.00 1,793,301.00 TOTAL 77,423,325.86 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectf Ily Submitt by ~/ ~-9-03 Alfred C. Anderson County Treasurer Approved by: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 2of2 do ~,p,, I. a -~. eyhAMN' ®~~®~~lls~~~iY Qf V' 1L~~~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219.2000 PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER June 9, 2003 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: N-~ JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER The enclosed report contains a list of all changes to the Secondary System of State Highways in your county approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer in May 2003. All additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System are effective the day they are approved by the State Secondary Roads Engineer. This date appears in the far right column of the monthly report. If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Martin Law at 804-786-7399. ~0 James S. Givens !;~ ~ ,'~~ ,_~-~,;,,~ Director of Local Assistance JSG/MII VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING I M ~ b ~' ~ ~ M O O ~ '~ ~'' V w `" ~ v=, ', ~ ~n o, O W f/~ C p O O~ O~ ~~~ N ~ ~ C ~ ~ A ~ ~ b~ ~~~rr ~ C ~ ~ O ~ iG i ~ _ w ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ 0 ~ o `~-~ O 0 F- ~ ~o W a~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o W ~ G ~ a' ', ~ ' ~p ~ ~ [~ ~ M ~ O ~, O CG L O v~ w ~ w 3 ~, p i, O O w tl O~ o w •= b o ~ r d ~, ~ o a C ~ a ~ o o H ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ d CO J _N 'ti ~ , ~ Q y ~ Q 'O p ~ ~ ~/ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ /SCI C~ ~ ~ U E 7 ' j G~ 7 ~ [ ~ c a z ~ c ~ c ~ ~ w Q W 0 y +.+ ~ h ~ ~ ce ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ as L F ~ C" 0 ~ U M O ~ ', O~ O N ~ O M l~ O I O I CA CC C .~ bD C U Z 0 F~ a~ ~ '~ ~ ~, F ~t Qi O w o, 0 Q i C N ~ i !V ~~ O O ~V a N I ~ O '~ I O I O r O O O n, r 0 s 0 3 0 U S d ,N i r N U ti .. 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session with the Commissioner of the Revenue to discuss taxation and provision of other public services to Hill Drive (State Route 1095) SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Nancy Horn, the Commissioner of the Revenue for Roanoke County, and Jay Etzler, Commissioner of the Revenue for Botetourt County, have determined that a subdivision located on Hill Drive (State Route 1095), located off of Glade Creek Rd. and east of the Blue Ridge Parkway is located in Botetourt County, but is being assessed for real estate taxes in Roanoke County. Approximately 20 lots or parcels are effected. It appears that other Roanoke County services, including trash collection, public education, and voter registration are being provided to this subdivision. Botetourt County exercises its zoning and development jurisdiction over this property. Ms. Horn and Mr. Etzler believe that it is necessary to correct these inconsistencies and to correct the public record in order to conform services and land records to the actual location of this property in Botetourt County. It is proposed to make these corrections effective for the calendar and tax year commencing January 1, 2004. These corrections may have significant impacts upon these citizens. Before proceeding with these corrective actions, a public meeting with the effected property owners should be scheduled to discuss these impacts. With both Board's concurrence it is proposed that this public meeting be scheduled in late summer at the Blue Ridge Library. Unfortunately there are many other similar situations along Roanoke County's boundaries, not only with Botetourt County, but also Montgomery and Floyd. Therefore this correction will raise similar problems in other areas. The Commissioners and County staff will seek guidance from the Board on how to proceed. s ___ __~ -- -- ~ - - - °' i A ~~~ a~ e` a~ W ~~ o m a° e ~-...~ W 2 ~ U / ~ _ 0 _~ ._._~ /^/\ ~, / ~~ 2 V ~ \~ J oaa ~~e ~~ J A~ ~ ~n i I ~ - ~ i z -_ -- W 9 / ~~ ~- a /_ -- p ~ J w °~ ~ Z~W ~o~ 0 ~- P°` UZ} W W ~ ~ ~ Z \ 70 ~ ~ Rt 606 !~ ~ `°~~°~ R~ Q a ~ ~~ Ow0 ~IuNE 1 6, 2D03 ~ ~ U 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session with the Special Assistant for Legislative Relations to Consider Initiatives for the 2004 Session of the Virginia General Assembly SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A. R. "Pete" Giesen, Roanoke County's Special Assistant for Legislative Relations will be present to discuss with the Board the 2003 session of the Virginia General Assembly, and the County's legislative efforts and successes during this past session. He will also discuss with the Board issues facing the General Assembly in 2004, and determine the Board's initiatives for the 2004 session. 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session soliciting input for topics at the Board Retreat SUBMITTED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~f County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to ask for suggestions from the Board members concerning topics that they would like to discuss at their retreat. The Board Retreat has been scheduled for Saturday, August 2, 2003, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at Camp Roanoke. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed 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 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed 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 closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Closed Meeting File r. a %_. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 062403-8 ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased from $126,990.04 to $129,529.84. 2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from $108,128.65 to $110,291.22. 3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July 1, 2003. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~ Brenda J. Ho ton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources Ragena Jordan, Human Resources i~ 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: June 24, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution Establishing Salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney SUBMITTED BY : Diane D. Hyatt Chief Financial Officer SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County Administrator and the County Attorney receive annual evaluations conducted by the Board of Supervisors. The attached resolution establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for the 2003-04 fiscal year. ~. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased from $126,990.04 to $ 2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from $108,128.65 to $, 3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July 1, 2003. S'- PETITIONER: Randy Grisso CASE NUMBER: 12-6/2003 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: July 22, 2003 (Continued from June 24, 2003) A. REQUEST The petition of Randy Grisso to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a Private Kennel on 2.21 acres, located at 1459 Mountain Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. (Petition has been continued by request of the Petitioner) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Linda Oliver, 1672 Mountain Heights Drive, stated she is fearful the dogs will dig under the fence jeopardizing the safety of the children in the area. J.M. Oliver, 1440 Mountain Heights Drive, stated he has noticed a lot of barking since the front yard fence was installed. Cleo Oliver, 1440 Mountain Heights Drive, stated her father, B. O. Martin, built the Mountain Heights Subdivision and applied restrictions at that time. Paul Shumaker, 1541 Mountain Heights, stated he was concerned other requests would follow if this request is granted. Calvin Waldron, 1456 Mountain Heights Drive, expressed concern about the safety of his children if the dogs get out of the yard. He stated he was concerned the petitioner would get more dogs. Christopher Brennan, 1504 Mountain Heights Drive, stated the dogs are a nuisance and the situation is not fair to the neighborhood. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Chris Lowe presented the petition. Ms. Hooker asked the petitioner if he had received complaints on the dogs. He stated yes, he had received one and thought it had been resolved. He stated that two of the dogs are outside a considerable amount of time but the three small dogs are primarily inside animals. Mr. Azar tried to establish the amount of time the two dogs are outside. The petitioner stated he works from home and his wife is at home so the dogs are in and out throughout the day and evening hours. Ms. Hooker stated that it seems that the barking is the primary problem that is bothering the neighbors. Mr. Witt asked the petitioner if he had considered any type of device to limit the dog barking. Petitioner said no but he would be willing to consider it. D. CONDITIONS 1. The Special Use Permit shall limit the number of dogs on the property to five (5). E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Martha Hooker made a motion to deny the rezoning. She stated that the neighbors have established that the dogs are a nuisance. This motion passed 3-0. - ~ F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Grisso Private Kennel Request: Special Use Permit for Private Kennel Location: 1459 Mountain Heights Drive Salem, VA 24153 Magisterial District: Catawba Suggested 1. The Special Use Permit shall limit the number of dogs on the Conditions: property to five (5). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ~~ This is a request for a Special Use Permit for a Private Kennel at 1459 Mountain Heights Drive. The property is designated as Transition in the Roanoke County Community Plan, and is currently zoned R-1. This request is for a Private Kennel. The request involves (1) one parcel, consisting of 2.21 acres. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Private Kennel is Permitted in R-1 Zoning District with a Special Use Permit. Private Kennels in R-1 shall follow the regulations set forth in Sec. 30-82-4 in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 1. Minimum lot size: One (1) acre. 2. A private kennel shall be permitted only when accessory to asingle-family dwelling. 3. Exterior runs, pens and other confined areas designed to house four (4) or more animals shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. For the purposes of this section, perimeter fencing of a yard shall not be considered a confined area. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Back rg ound -Currently the petitioner has 5 dogs. A115 dogs stay in the home at night. The petitioner's yard is completely fenced in. Two dogs, which are medium sized dogs, run in the front yard where the petitioner has just recently put up new fencing. The remaining three dogs are miniature-sized dogs and are let out in the rear yard on a need to go basis. Most of the time is spent in the home. The petitioner has roughly 1.5 acres of property fenced. Topo ra hy/Ve etation - The petitioner's property has a continuous slope from side to side. To the rear of the property is a wood line, which is also on his property. S-~ Surrounding Neighborhood -The surrounding neighborhood consists of residentially zoned properties. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture -The property is a single family residential home. The site is a 2.21- acre site with approximately 1.5 acres fenced. Access/Traffic Circulation - V DOT anticipates that the existing entrances are acceptable and that this request will have no impact to Mountain Heights Drive. Fire & Rescue/LTtilities -Fire and rescue services will continue, as they currently exist. The Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department primarily serve the site. Utilities are not currently provided to this property. Public water is currently provided while sanitary sewer is not currently available. This Special Use Permit does not affect the existing public water and sanitary sewer systems Department of Economic Development -The Department of Economic offer no objections. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated as Transition in the 1998 Community Plan. This particular use is not identified in the Community Plan, but does follow the pattern of different categories of housing within this planning area. Transition is defined as a development area, which should discourage strip development and encourage access and aesthetics. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request for a Special Use Permit for a Private Kennel. The request involves (1) one parcel, consisting of 2.21 acres on Mountain Heights Drive. Though this use is not identified in the Roanoke County Community Plan the site has ample space to conform to all applicable development standards. As long as the current conditions of the property and the suggested conditions requested by staff are in place, then no negative impacts are anticipated. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: 12-6/2003 Chris Lowe PC: June 3, 2003 BOS: June 24, 2003 2 f nnn#v of T2nannlZP For Staff Use Only ~_ .~.,... ..~ .,. ~z.,._......_.._ Community Development - Date receiv d: Rece~ed by: Planning & Zoning ~ ~ t~ a ~ ~ -7 5204 Bernard Drive Application fee: ~~(~ ~ ~' PCBZA date: ~ -~ O P 0 Box 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-715j Case Number ~ ~- ~Q ~ ~ Q ',:`AZ.L APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply} Rezoning Special Use Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal A licants name/address w/zip Phone=~~j ~ ~`t ` Work: ' C ~~ - f -~ ~ ,. ~CZISSc ~ L( fl`~ .5.`_ Cell #~ ~` ~' = ' . ` ,~ - - J~ , ( ~~~t Q~-~ c~;~ F-t ~.ic ~,~ Fax No.: A~ ~ h-F ,~ 'a ` ,S 3 Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: Work: ~'~'"~~' Fax No. #: Property Location Magisterial District: Community Planning area: ~ ,~ 'Tax Map No.: Existing Zoning: ~.- , Size of parcel(s): Acres: Existing Land Use: . _, f RE~Ol~1'7NG S,PL~TCIA'L L7SE PER.1FfTa`ND`14~:-11T LR fI'PPl.ICf11V~'S (R;~SIti~~ ; _ ~ Proposed Zoning: ~_-\~j, ~~r ~} ~~ ~ts ~.'vL Proposed Land Use: t ~ ~~~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 5 ~ ~,~~ 1 e parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? es ,-1 No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. oes the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VARIANCE,. W1~Il?ER'AZYfl'ADNI~N;fiS~'Z~TItiE<1_PPE~._~1'nLI~4N~S {iF/Wl.4~A) ': Variance/Waiver of Section{s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. x/S/w V/AA R/s/w V/AA .32 Z°-~ . APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF AIVY OF THESE R/S/W V/AA / Consultation 8 I/2" x 11" concept plan. Application fee Application etes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water dew plication Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of e property or owner' agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. f "'-~-Owner's Signature 2 JCTS',1'~~F~C.~q'fON FOR i~:Zt~NING: SPECi~~, LJ51=, f'~t'~~LI~ OR Yti:~1V~R R~(~L~S'~' Applicant ""he Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for se change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain ho''~v the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Please explain how the project conforms to the`general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Plan. ~\ Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ~. 3 J[JSTII'f(r'.~TION FOR ~'AI~[~~tiCE ~(~L-EST S- Applicant '''he of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a riance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describehow the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The strict application of the zonir~ ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege,or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the e zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zonin Ordinance. . The variance will nat be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties o the character of the district. 4 '~ GONCEi''P I'I:AN C~CKLIS'I' `,-~` A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the 'and use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or resign issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow _ c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions _ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties etc. ound cover natural watercourses, floodplain, _ e. Physical features such as gr , f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties - g. All property lines and easements _ h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS _ k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers _ m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections _ o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants _ p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. i Signature of applicant Date 6 J1- _4 1517 '~ 0 cv '~~ W S-~ ,.,,',' ti ~~ ~1 ~ a c~ .,.., o ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Randy Grisso DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: R-1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Proposed Zoning: R-1 S. U.P Tax Map No. 35.04-1-22 / Zoning: R-1 20. Zoning: -1 21. No 14s~ _ 149 _ '~ - Zo "ng: R-1 °~~~ 2 2 . 2 5 . ~. 1456 2~ 14~FT 8 . Qz, ~~ 14.j9 ~~ ~~ ~. s-a PETITIONER: Roanoke County Planning Commission CASE NUMBER: 4/2003 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 5, 2003 (Reconsideration) Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 26, 2003 A. REQUEST The petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30-93, Signs. (Board of Supervisors referred petition to the Planning Commission for further consideration) B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Roger Holnback spoke in favor of the off-premise (billboard sign) revisions. He stated that viewsheds in the rural areas of the County are increasingly threatened and proactive measures must be taken in order to preserve the quality of life in Roanoke County. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. David Holladay presented a summary of the work leading up to the proposed amendments, including the discussion at the 5/6/2003 afternoon work session regarding replacement of non-conforming signs. Mr. Witt asked if a separate motion was needed to add the alternative amendments dated April 30, 2003. Mr. Holladay suggested including reference to the alternative amendments in the motion to forward the petition. There was no further discussion. D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason made a motion to approve Draft #4, Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments, dated April 23, 2003, including the Alternative Amendments to Sec 30- 93-11.Nonconforming Signs, and Sec. 30-28. Definitions dated April 30, 2003. Motion carried 3-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission DRAFT #4 Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments Apri123, 2003 SEC. 30-93. SIGNS. Sec. 30-93-1. Purpose. (A) These regulations are intended to define, permit and control the use of signs. They have been established by the board to achieve the following community goals and objectives: Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 2. Promote the economic growth of Roanoke County by creating a community image that is conducive to attracting new business and industrial development. 3. Distribute equitably the privilege of using the public environs to communicate private information. 4. Permit reasonable legibility and effectiveness of signs and to prevent their over-concentration, improper placement and excessive height, bulk, density, and area. 5. Promote the safety of persons and property by requiring that signs not create a hazard due to collapse, fire, decay, or abandonment. 6. Ensure that signs do not obstruct fire-fighting efforts, and do not create traffic hazards by confusing or distracting motorists or by impairing drivers' ability to see pedestrians, obstacles, or other vehicles or to read traffic signs. 7. Provide for the reasonable advertising of business and civic products and services, with recognition of the effects of signage on the character of the community. Control visual clutter, and encourage high professional standards in sign design and display. 9. Establish clear procedures for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Sec. 30-93-2. Permitted Signs. (A) Any sign displayed in Roanoke County shall be comply with: All provisions of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; and, 2. All applicable provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code and all amendments thereto; and 3. All state and federal regulations pertaining to the display of signage. (B) If any two (2) or more sections of the above referenced regulations are in conflict, the provision that provides the most restrictive standard shall apply. Sec. 30-93-3. Exempted Signs. (A) The following signs shall be exempted from regulation, and maybe displayed within Roanoke County without obtaining a sign permit. However, an electrical permit shall be required for any sign requiring or incorporating electrical service: Official traffic signs or similar regulatory devices, identification, directional or any other signs owned, erected and maintained by a duly constituted governmental body. 2. Signs required to be displayed or maintained by law or governmental order, rule or regulation. 3. Memorial tablets or signs, provided they are displayed by a public or quasi-public agency. 4. Directional signs provided that each such sign does not exceed ~~~ .., three (3) square feet per sign, a ~'' " "''°" ~--~~--- ., a. o,.~; ~ .,~+~ 5. Street address signs, not exceeding ten (10) square feet in size. 6. Non-illuminated signs, not more than three (3) square feet in area warning trespassers or announcing property as posted. 7. Signs displayed on a truck, bus, or other vehicle while in use in the normal conduct of business. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the parking for display purposes a vehicle to which a sign is attached or the use of such a vehicle as a portable sign. 8. Flags and insignias of any government except when displayed in connection with commercial purposes. <J~ 2 ,' 9. On-premises real estate signs in residential or agricultural zoning districts not exceeding five (5) square feet in area, or on-premises real estate signs in commercial or industrial zoning districts not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in area. On-premises real estate signs larger than these exempted allowances maybe installed as temporary signs in accordance with Section 30-93-8(B). 10. Clocks that display time and temperature through the use of mechanical means or the controlled display of lights, provided these devices do not display any other message. 11. Political campaign signs provided that they are located outside of the public right-of--way, and are removed within fourteen (14) days after the campaign. 12. Signs displayed between Thanksgiving and Christmas associated with the sale of Christmas trees and wreaths. 13. Signs on the inside of establishments, except those signs specified in Sections 30-93-4(A)5. and 7., which shall not be excluded. 14. On-premises agricultural product signs associated with the seasonal and/or incidental sale of such products on property where the primary land use is residential or agricultural, provided such signs do not exceed four (4) square feet in area. 15. Signs that are displayed by or promote civic, religious, educational or charitable organizations or causes, provided such signs are displayed no longer than thirty (30) days per calendar year. Sec. 30-93-4. Prohibited Signs. (A) The following signs are prohibited within Roanoke County: Any sign that due to its size, location, color, or illumination obscures a sign displayed by a public authority for the purpose of giving traffic or safety instructions or directions. 2. Any sign that contains or consists of pennants, ribbons, spinners, or other similar moving devices. 3. Any sign, except an official public notice, which is nailed, tacked, posted, or in any other manner attached to any utility pole, or structure supporting wire, cable, or pipe; or to public property of any description. ~-_ 3 4. Any sign located within a public right-of--way, except for signs displayed by a duly constituted governmental authority. Flashing or revolving lights, or beacons intended to direct attention to a location, building or service, or any similar device otherwise displayed that imitates by its design or use, emergency service vehicles or equipment. 6. Any sign that simulates an official traffic sign or signal, and which contains the words "STOP," "GO," "SLOW," "CAUTION," "DANGER," "WARNING," or similar words. 7. Any sign or portion thereof that rotates, or otherwise moves through the use of electrical or wind power. This prohibition does not include the changing of messages on electronic message boards. 8. Signs advertising activities or products that are illegal under federal, state, or county law. 9. Any sign that obstructs any building door, window, or other means of egress. 10. Any electrical sign that does not display the UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC label, unless such sign is constructed, installed, and inspected in accordance with Section 30-93-9(B). 11. Signs or sign structures that are erected on, or extend over, a piece of property without the expressed written permission of the property owner or the owner's agent. 12. Any sign that due to its size, location or height obstructs the vision of motorists or pedestrians at any intersection, or similarly obstructs the vision of motorists entering a public right-of--way from private property. 13. Portable signs.. 14. Roof signs. Sec. 30-93-5. Sign Permits. (A) Except as provided in Section 30-93-3, no sign may be erected or displayed in Roanoke County without an approved sign permit. Applications for a sign permit maybe obtained from the Roanoke County Department of community development. Signs that are not visible from a public right-of--way do not have to conform to the provisions of Section 30-93-13, District Regulations, and the ~_"_ <~-- 4 square footage of such signs shall not be included when calculating allowable signage on a lot. (B) Any owner of a parcel of land upon which a sign is to be displayed, or any authorized agent of such owner may apply for a sign permit. (C) Every application for a sign permit shall include a sketch of the property indicating the lot frontage. The application shall also indicate the square footage of all existing signs on the property, and the area, size, structure, design, location, lighting, and materials for the proposed signs. In addition, the administrator may require that the application contain any other information that is necessary to ensure compliance with, or effectively administer, these regulations. (D) Anon-refundable sign permit fee is due and payable with the filing of a sign permit application. More than one sign on one building or group of buildings located on the same parcel of land may be included on one application provided that all such signs be applied for at one time. ~~. ~ ~ ,. ,. ~„ ~ ,,,. rn~ ~~,;,-~ a a' i „ate ~ ~ r ~ r r~ 1 ~ '!1 .a 4L, 4 ort 4 ~ ~ 41,0 0 1.,, J ~ Y Y^ ~ ~a„ z (E) After the issuance of an approved sign permit, the applicant may install and display any such sign or signs approved. Once installed, the administrator may inspect the sign(s) for conformance with the approved sign permit and this ordinance. If the displayed sign(s), due to size, location, height, or number do not conform to the information on the approved sign permit, or the applicable standards of this ordinance, the administrator shall notify the applicant in accordance with Section 30-21. (F) Any sign permit issued shall be null and void if any sign for which the permit was issued is not installed in accordance with the permit within six (6) months of the date the permit was approved. (G) Maintenance, repair, or restoration of nonconforming signs shall be in accordance with Section 30-93-11. If the value of such work exceeds fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, it shall only be authorized after the approval of a sign permit application. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § ld., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-93-6. Measurement of Sign Area and Distances. (A) Sign area shall be calculated as follows: The area of a suspended, attached, or projecting sign, where the letters, numerals, or symbols are on a sign surface which is hung or affixed to a structure, shall be the total area of the hung or affixed surfaces. 5 ~J_ ~ - 2. The area of an attached sign where the sign consists of words, symbols, or numerals painted on or affixed to a wall, fence, or other building element shall be the entire area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of each word, group of words, symbol, numeral, groups of symbols, or groups of numerals, where the symbols or numbers are meant to be read as a unit. 3. The area of a freestanding sign shall be the total area of all surfaces (excluding poles or other support structures) visible from the public right- of-way. For double or multi-faced signs, only the area of surfaces visible at any one time, at any one point on the public right-of--way shall be measured when calculating sign area. 4. The area ofmonument-type freestanding signs shall be determined by (1)~ the size of the copy area, (2) visual breaks in the structural components of the sign, and/or (3) variation in the monuments color scheme. (B) The minimum separation between freestanding signs shall be the shortest distance between two (2) signs, measured in a straight line. (C) In situations where these criteria do not provide guidance in determining sign area or minimum separation the administrator shall make the determination. Sec. 30-93-7. Calculation of Allowable Sign Area on Corner Lots. (A) On corner lots, the front shall be either (a) the side fronting the street providing major access, or (b) the side which the main entrance of the structure faces. In situations where neither of these methods clearly distinguishes the front, the administrator shall make a determination. (B) For commercial or industrial uses, the front shall not be a primarily residential street. (C) On corner lots where a building or buildings face more than one street, sign area shall be allowed for front lineal footage as indicated in the district regulations, and for one-half the side street frontage, provided: The side street does not front on a primarily residential area; 2. Sign area as determined by each frontage is placed only on the frontage from which it is determined. Sec. 30-93-8. Temporary Signs. (A) Any person wishing to display a temporary sign must apply for a sign permit pursuant to Section 30-93-5. Except as provided in subsections (B) and (C) below, 6 S- a pertaining to real estate and construction signs, temporary signs shall comply with the following standards: 1. Each business or use on a lot shall be allowed to display a one (1) temporary sign ~ ~,n<,;.,.,,,,,., ^~ ~ •~r /^' *~ ~ r„1 at any time during a calendar year. Each business or use wishing to display a temporary sign must apply for a temporary sign permit. Temporary sign permits shall expire at the end of each calendar year.'`r ,.,,n;,,°nn -,,.,.• a;n~'°~= ~i ~.v~ uuru v~Y -___r -_~_J __D__~D_ ___ ______ ____._ _- _ -. ~ ~ r + ~4ti. ~.r ~ rr,~., r,on~ n ;4 ...ti,;nti, nl,n~~ ~.° _ °11111L YY1 1~ .~ 1 1 J 1 + L.r • a ~y~ 61111 CC~l ~ C[~l7~Ie- Vllt L1C. J ~ i ,,,r„ ., J, a• i a „~ ^ ° ~;,.,.,° n~,.,~i „^~ ° °°,a n .,~., /gym n^,,.,,.° ~ °~ In .,.,,+ ~...., ~.,.,, .,.,w~.., _.,.... commercial zoning districts, the total square footage of any temporary sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. In all other zoning districts, the total square footage of any temporary sign shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet. (B) Real estate signs greater than sixteen (16) square feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts or greater than five (5) square feet in agricultural or residential zoning districts may be installed on a lot provided that each such sign does not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area, and has a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right-of--way. All real estate signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after the property has been sold or leased. (C) On premises construction signs may be installed on active construction sites. No construction sign shall exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area. Any such sign must have a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right-of- way. All construction signs must be removed from a construction site prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for the building or project. Sec. 30-93-9. Illuminated Signs. (A) Signs may be illuminated either through the use of backlighting or direct lighting provided the following standards are met: Information on any illumination proposed as part of a sign must be provided by the applicant on the sign permit application. 7 Sa 2. No light from any illuminated sign shall cause direct glare into or upon any building other than the building to which the sign is related. 3. No light from any illuminated sign shall cause direct glare on to any adjoining piece of property, or any adjoining right-of--way. (B) Any sign containing electrical components shall conform to current UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC standards and display a label from one of these recognized testing labs; or as an alternative, shall be designed and constructed to standards that would allow one of the above referenced labels to be affixed and thereafter inspected by Roanoke County to insure compliance with these standards. Sec. 30-93-10. Projecting and Suspended Signs. (A) No projecting or suspended sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from any wall or other structure to which it is affixed, nor shall any such sign have a setback of less than fifteen (15) feet from the nearest public right-of--way. (B) The bottom edge of any projecting or suspended sign must be at least seven (7) feet above the ground if located above any publicly accessible walkway or driveway. (C) No projecting or suspended sign shall project or suspend over an adjoining lot, without the expressed written consent of the adjoining property owner. Sec. 30-93-11. Nonconforming Signs. (A) Any sign which was lawfully in existence at the time of the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions herein, and any sign which is accessory to a nonconforming use, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may remain except as qualified in subsection (C), below. No nonconforming sign shall be enlarged, extended, structurally reconstructed, or altered in any manner; except a sign head may be changed so long as the new head is equal to, or reduced in height, sign area, and/or projection, and so long as the sign is not changed from an on-premises sign to an off-premises sign. (B) The addition of lighting or illumination to a nonconforming sign, shall constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure, and shall not be permitted under these regulations. (C) Nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair, except for the following: A nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of its replacement •,~ cost shall not be altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with these sign ~'~ ~- regulations. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50) percent or less of its replacement a cost, the sign may be restored within ninety (90) days of the damage or destruction, but shall not be enlarged in any manner. 2. A nonconforming on-premises sign shall be removed if the structure or use to which it is accessory is destroyed or demolished to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of the principal structure's .,.~ replacement cost. Whenever a change of zoning occurs by petition of the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's consent, or the owner's agent upon a lot which contains a nonconforming on-premises sign, such sign shall not be permitted without being modified in such a manner as to be in full compliance with these sign regulations. Sec. 30-93-12. Damaged or Neglected Signs. (A) The Building Commissioner of Roanoke County shall have the authority to order the removal, without compensation, of any sign or sign structure that due to neglect or damage poses a clear danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Sec. 30-93-13. District Regulations. (A) AG-3 and AG-1 Zoning Districts. 1. Lots within an AG-3 and AG-1 districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-quarter (0.25) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the AG-3 and AG-1 districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business shall be allowed a maximum of fifty (50) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. Home Occupation Signs. A maximum of two (2) square feet shall be allowed per home occupation, or group of home occupations within one (1) home. 9 - ~. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than ~e h,,,,a,.°a l~nm ~ °~ „~~„* ~.,,,,+~R° the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4. A ~ ~ a' ~ a ~ 1. c.;rrrt ontl+.+..lr F ~ ,-~., rnr~irccs.rr~n cry-cccaZirccac-nuv'ridzir~r6ri-~~co~ ~--~ ---..~ !/1 (1\ ~ + ~ 47, ~ 1:.,° ..F...•.<. ,~„l.l:,. ,- „l.+ ~f ..,.~<> nr f~~°°r+ !1 cl f °4 =f~e~t-prepert-~ lm°, «~'~~°'~°<~°r ~ °°*°r Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet ,.r„ rr°°~+.,,,a;.,,. ~;,.r ~~,,,» °.,,.°°a ~;~°°., !~ c~ ro°~ ;,, ~,°igb3t. Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet. 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (B)AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-MH Zoning District Regulations. 1. Lots within AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-MH districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-quarter (0.25) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R- MH districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a residential district shall be allowed a maximum of thirty (30) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. 10 -- `~-- Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8 ++i, +,.^..+^~,'° ~ ~i,^" ~,° r"u'~'~t ~ Y• ~,...~.,,,..... 3. No freestanding business sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than ,~,.^ i..,„a,.°a i~nm ~ °+ ^~i^+ f ^„+°n° the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for all freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. ^~~ ~.. .~ f~e~~~e~t~-lm , ~••'~~^''°~~°r ~ r°°*°~ Minimum sign setback from front property line:. fifteen (15) feet 5. ,.r^ r~° +° a:„,. ~ ~~,.,» ° °a +°„ r~ ni ~ °+ ;„ ~,°;,,~.+ Maximum si n .b..~. g height: ten (10) feet. 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than two (2) signs. (C) AV Village Center and NC Neighborhood Commercial District Regulations. 1. Lots within AV and NC districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in AV and NC districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in AV and NC districts shall be allowed a maximum of four hundred (400) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 11 S- 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than ~ a a ~~ nm ~ °+ ^~~^+ ~ ^„+.,,,° the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. b b ' ~" ~ r ~a ~~ ~- ~ ~ ^~~p:~~y-lam , ~~~~~^~°~~°r ~~ nr°°*°r. Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet ,.r ~ + a• ~, n ° °a ~~+°°n rice ~ °+;,, ~,°:,,i.+ Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (D) C-1 Office District Regulations. 1. Lots within a C-1 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-half (0.5) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the C-1 Office District subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a C-1 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than ^~°'~~•„ar°a ri nm ~ °+ ^r~^+ ~.^.,+.,,.° the minimum required lot frontage. for the zoning district: of the property. The required minimum 12 separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. ~ „ , rro ~~, 4 ,,,a; ,.~o,~ ~.., ~+ ~,,, ~~, ~. ~ ~ ,~, . , ~ GL4Vl. Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum-sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet ~. rr„ ~.oo~~,,.,a;~„' ~~,.,it o oa ~;~~oor ~i c~ ~ov~., t,o:,,t,~ g5. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (E) C-2 General Commercial District Regulations. 1. Lots within a C-2 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.50) square feet of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the C-2 General Commercial District subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a C-2 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance 13 __ ~~- J with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. Notwithstanding the above, the administrator may waive, in writing, the two hundred fifty-foot separation requirement between freestanding signs provided the administrator finds the following standards are met: a. No more than one (1) freestanding sign shall be allowed for each two fifty (250) feet of lot frontage, or portion thereof, under single ownership or control. b. The new freestanding sign is a monument sign with a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet and a maximum width often (10) feet. The placement of the sign in the desired location does not promote visual sign clutter on the property or surrounding area. d. In exchange for the placement of the new freestanding sign in the desired location, the applicant or property owner proposes, and agrees in writing to undertake, significant improvements to existing signage on the property. These improvements shall be designed to reduce existing sign clutter, enhance sign design, and promote the overall visual appearance of the property. All other sign ordinance requirements regarding the placement and size of the sign are met. vvu < uay u ~u i ° " `-rv~ ivv~ u u vaaa , , Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum. sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line:. fifteen (15) feet 14 `~) _ Maximum sign height: twenty-five (25) feet 1,V VVJICIlll.111iR g5. No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. (F) I-1 and I-2 Industrial Zoning District Regulations. 1. Lots within I-1 and I-2 districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the I-1 and I-2 districts subject to d the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each business in an industrial zoning district shall be allowed a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district'of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 11,' 11 V V J 4u11LL111E, J1 CZ ~6~'61`~ Y16~"_`J 'mo .>L.:~.l,o o.,to . Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: 15 e-- ~ _ i} ~~ ~ r..._.-.. Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: twenty-five (25) feet 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. Sec. 30-93-14. Special Signage Districts and Regulations. (A) Off-Premises Signs. As of date of ordinancepassa~e) a cap. shall be placed on the number ofoff-premises signs in Roanoke County. Existing'off-premises signs maybe replaced if the new location is approved based on the standards set forth in this section. 1. Applications to replace an existing off-premises sign shall be accompanied by a demolition permit for an existing non-conforming off-premises sign, or combination ofnon-conforming off-premises igns, of at least equal sign area. ' If no non-conforming off-premises signs remain in Roanoke County, then a conforming off-premises sign maybe replaced. 2. No permit for a replaced off-premises sign shall be issued until the existing off-premises sign(s), on the above mentioned demolition permit, is removed. 3. Conforming off-premises signs maybe maintained and reconstructed in their existing location, but shall not be replaced unless all location and design standards of this section are met. If a conforming off-premises sign is removed for reasons including, but not limited to, redevelopment of land, or expiration of a lease,. then anon-conforming..., off-premises sign must be removed in order to replace the conforming off-premises sign, unless no non-conforming off,. premises signs remain in Roanoke County. Legally established off-:premises signs, located within the C-2, I-l and I-2 zoning districts, which meet the location and`design standards in Section 30-93-14 (A) 5. a-f. shall be considered conforming off-premises signs. All other off-premises signs shall be considered non.-conforming. 4. Tri-vision changeable messages shall be allowed on existing and replaced off-premises signs, located within the C-2, I-1 and I 2 zoning districts, which meet the location. and design standards in Section 30-93-14 (A) 5. a-f. The minimum dwell time that an image must remain visible shall' be ten (10) seconds. The maximum twirl time between image changes shall be three (3) seconds. 16 ~._., 5. Replaced off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2, I-1, and I-2 Districts provided the following location and design standards are met: -~a. No off-premises sign shall be located within a five hundred-foot radius of an existing off-premises sign, or an off-premises sign for which a valid permit has been obtained, but has not yet been erected. fib. No off-premises sign shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any residential zoning district, public square, park, school, library, or religious assembly property. ~c. No off-premises sign shall be allowed to be installed on any roof structure, nor shall any such sign exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height above the abutting road. 4d. Side by side, double and multi-decker off-premises signs shall not be permitted. fie. Any off-premises sign must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of--way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Any off-premises sign shall have a minimum side and/or rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. gf. The maximum size of any off-premises sign on a lot shall be three hundred seventy-eight (378) square feet plus ten (10) percent for embellishments. (B) Shopping Centers. Within shopping center square footage that existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, new or existing businesses may modify or replace their existing attached signs provided the area of the modified or new signage is equal to or less than the original displayed signage. Modifications to freestanding signs shall be in accord with the district regulations. In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30-93-13(E)2., within enclosed shopping centers exceeding two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) gross floor area, businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet of signage, provided the business has a minimum gross floor area of thirty-two thousand (32,000) square feet, and the sign displayed shall be located a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from the closest public right-of--way. (C) Planned Developments. A signage plan shall be submitted as part of any proposal for a Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned Commercial Development 17 J - 1._ (PCD), or Planned Technology Development (PTD) as authorized elsewhere in this ordinance. The signage plan shall be part of the required preliminary development plan. All signage plans shall be of sufficient detail to allow the commission and board to judge the compatibility of the proposed signage with the character of the proposed PRD, PCD or PTD. At a minimum, all signage plans shall provide information on the general size, location, style, color, and materials of all signs proposed. In evaluating the PRD, PCD or PTD proposal, the commission and board shall consider the appropriateness of the proposed signage plan in relation to the character of the proposed development, and the surrounding area. (D) Airport Overlay District. The allowable height of signs within any established Airport Overlay District shall be governed by the height restriction for that district, or the height restriction imposed by the applicable district regulation, whichever is more restrictive. (E) Lots without Public Street Frontage. Lots without public street frontage that existed upon the effective date of this ordinance shall be allowed signage based upon the applicable district regulations as provided for in Section 30-93-13 of this ordinance. Permitted signage shall be calculated based upon the frontage width of the lot that parallels the nearest public street. (F) Clearbrook village overlay district. signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district should be planned, designed and installed to complement a buildings architectural style. All signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with C-1 office district regulations with the following exceptions: 1. Lots within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. Signage placed on a building wall shall occupy less than five (5) percent of the facade of that wall. 3. All freestanding signs shall be of a monument design and shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signs, including their structure, shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height, or ten (10) feet in width. b. Signs shall be channel lit, ground lit, or top lit with a shielded light source so as not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. 4. No establishment shall be allowed more than three (3) signs. 18 5-z A maximum of two (2) directional signs shall be allowed per lot, and no directional sign shall exceed two (2) square feet in size. 6. The following signs shall be prohibited in the Clearbrook village overlay district: a. Off-premises signs. b. Temporary signs. c. Portable signs. d. Roof signs. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 25, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 72595-9, § 1, 7-25-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, Sec. 30-93-15. Variances. (A) Requests for variances to these sign regulations shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 30-24 of the Zoning Ordinance. The bBoard of Zoning aAppeals, in considering any variance request, shall follow the guidelines of this section, and section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. The power to grant variances does not extend to an economic hardship related to the cost, size or location of a new sign, or to the convenience of an applicant, nor should it be extended to the convenience of regional or national businesses which propose to use a standard sign when it does not conform to the provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1 a., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-28, Definitions Freestanding sign: A sign which is supported by structures or supports ~„ ^'- •~~^^ +''° grid, and is permanently affixed to the ground, and is independent of any support from any building. Portable sign: A self-supported sign that is designed to be moved easily, and is not permanently affixed to the ground, including but not limited to portable changeable message cabinets and sandwich signs. Roof sign: A sign attached to a building, wall, or the roof of a building in which the sign height exceeds the highest point of the building. Temporary sign: Any sign ,other than a portable sign, which is temporarily affixed to the ground, a building or other structure, including, 19 but not limited to banners and flags, and/or an on-premise sign applying to a seasonal or brief activity such as, but not limited to, summer camps, horse shows, yard sales, Christmas tree sales, business promotions, auctions and carnivals. For the purposes of these regulations, on-premises real estate signs and signs displayed on active construction projects shall be considered temporary when displayed in accordance with Section 30-93- 8. 20 ~ry~ ti.J - ~._ Alternative Amendments to Sec. 30-93-11. Nonconforming Signs Apri130, 2003 (A) Any sign which was lawfully in existence at the time of the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions herein, and any sign which is accessory to a nonconforming use, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may remain except as qualified in subsection (C), below. No nonconforming sign shall be enlarged, extended, structurally reconstructed, or altered in any manner; except a sign head may be changed so long as the new head is equal to, or reduced in height, sign area, and/or projection, and so long as the sign is not changed from an on-premises sign to an off-premises sign. For purposes of this section, structurally reconstructed. shall mean activity' that requires a building permit, and/or replacement of the sign structure. (B) The addition of lighting or illumination to a nonconforming sign, shall constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure, and shall not be permitted under these regulations. (C) Nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair, except for the following: A nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of its replacement value shall not be altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with these sign regulations. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50) percent or less of its replacement value, the sign may be restored within ninety (90) days of the damage or destruction, but shall not be enlarged, extended, or structurally reconstructed in any manner. 2. A nonconforming on-premises sign shall be removed if the structure or use to which it is accessory is destroyed or demolished to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of the principal structure's value. Whenever a change of zoning occurs by petition of the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's consent, or the owner's agent upon a lot which contains a nonconforming on-premises sign, such sign shall not be permitted without being modified in such a manner as to be in full compliance with these sign regulations. Sec. 30-28, Definitions Replacement eel value: The cost of restoring a damaged burg-e~ structure to its original condition. Replacement Eest value shall include reasonable estimates of the cost of materials and labor, and shall be compared with the +''° ^^,,,,,~, ^°~°^~^r current cost of materials and labor of the entire structure to determine the percentage of the cost of improvements. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE 062403-9 DECLARING THREE PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND DONATING SAME TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY; NAMELY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5441 STEARNES AVENUE (TAX MAP NOS. 87.14-1 -4, 5, AND 6) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale or donation, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That a public notice regarding the donation of this surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on June 10 and June 17, 2003; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing were held on June 24, 2003, concerning the disposition of the following parcels of real estate identified as follows: 5441 Stearnes Avenue (3 lots) Lot 19, Crescent Heights -Tax Map No. 87.14-1-4 .11 acre, Starkey -Tax Map No. 87.14-1-5 Lot 17, Crescent Heights -Tax Map No. 87.14-1-6 4. That said properties are hereby donated to Habitat for Humanity upon the following conditions: (1) The structure built on the lot will be a two-story, three bedroom home. (2) The building will include an unfinished basement. (3) The driveway will be on site. (4) The lot will be landscaped in accordance with the surrounding homes. (5) The building will have a septic tank and if this is not possible, it will be connected to the County sewer system. (6) The building will have air conditioning. (7) The building will be developed in substantial conformitywith the plans in the Board's agenda and the conceptual plan (Attachment A, 1 Enclosure 3). 5. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which will be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance will be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance with seven conditions, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance William E. Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation 2 Attachment A ~, S HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TWO STORY THREE BEDROOM HOUSE PLAN (Enclosure 3 ) S-~ Living space of 1200 square feet First Floor Living Room Dining Room Kitchen with stove, refrigerator and double sink. Pantry Half Bathroom Laundry Room with washer and dryer Heat Pump with A/C Water Heater 20 foot wide by 8 foot deep front porch 10 foot wide by 8 foot deep rear porch Second Floor Three Bedrooms Full Bathroom Extra sink off master bath Loft Outside Detached 8 foot by 8 foot storage shed Concrete sidewalk Gravel driveway Note 1 - -- - - Attachment A i• t ~ 1_ r ~< ~`.' `C -~~ ,, , ~..~ >~ ~ i..\., ~'`~% -~ 7 ~I~~:~ I,: f ,r~ k ~~fjjf' ~ it ~` if- i• i _~ a a > r' 4, •r ~\ C~r'~ ~~ f ' ? i. 4. d' . :r ,, r ,~ ~.L~~_ r, C~ J ~ ~ `, S ~ .. '4~'f ~~ - 1J . ~ ~ ~7,, , r, :~ tti ~~. ~ C .,; ° ~ ~ -~ z m ~ ca a Q o s a~ ti ~ - ~~ C W E _~ 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ '~: ~ ~ ~ h w is a ~ z ~ . 8 ' °' N ~ y ~y~ i..= ,~ $=a T -J -T-'i r / ~ p ~ . rs ` ` ,, . ~ Ml C ~ ~; ~ I I ~~4,~. ~ ~ y; t , (n L r t~ ~ .i i 1, , t , ~ ~ ~t, ~ .'` . ~ •~ ~' i / ,' r ~ ~ N Z CV ~ __ -- -- - - - ~ o _;. :.- :- ~ •o s ~ - - _ _ M ~:° . _ _ _ - _ - ~ a~ c~i ~ - -- - S' r~ ~ ~}, ~Gi' ~ a a ---"' ENCLO SURE ~3) t ~ '"~ . .h ~_.. • ~"' w ~ ~~ ¢~ ~ z ~ Z z~ ~~p w~ ~~ woo a~ i ww o~ a~w ¢g~ _ $ ~~ ~a UrQ-a ono xo ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~.t _a_ ~,_. \\ ~ i Attachment A .- i ; Z O W J W H w ~ ~ ~ ...r ~ } ' Q ~ ~ W Z i Z 'r U ~ Z -~ V` z w n ? ZQ ~ w~ (~~~ ~w W HJ dJ ~ i ~ cn i av ~W U~ ~ ~JS _ Q n ~O C~ a ~~ a¢ UW~ ~~O =O O U A m y c N ~~ d ~ U ~ ° ~ Z ~.' O ~ _ ~ ` _ ~ N ^ _ -~ ~ . ' ~ r-~ O f-- /y - - ; - -- j ~ ~~\ _„ ~~0!~ ~ w ~ I ! ~ _~ W o tD z ~ a: Q o s ~> ~ :J N ® o ~^ /\~ /A ~` yO,O C tC9 O C C w ~_ ~`d ~~ g~~ ~~~ L ~..~ Oi ~ ~=a 5;3 0 ~ .. ~- -~ ~~ W 0 T C'V ~ e- E _ - -_ o ~ M ~ ~° m ~ O M D ,~tlr~ 3 Ct~AV~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. cj - ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF` 'SHE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: June 24, 2003 Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the donation of a surplus Roanoke County well lot to Habitat for Humanity Elmer C. Hodge ~K-- ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S SUMMARY: I'd like to provide you with a brief history of this project and the conditions the Board gave to staff in working through the selection of the site and house design plans for the Habitat Home to be located on Stearnes Avenue. In the past, Mr. Minnix has helped with Habitat projects on property worked on by Billy Branch; he has suggested to me that the County should do something to help Habitat. More recently, Mr. McNamara asked staff to look at the possibility of donating an unused well lot to Habitat, for the purpose of building a Habitat House in Roanoke County. Before the first reading of this item on June 10, County staff met with the Board to determine the direction of the project. From the beginning, the Board insisted that the following conditions be met, so that we might ensure the quality and success of this project: 1) communicate the project goals to neighborhood residents and invite them to participate in the project 2) make the Habitat House compatible with the surrounding neighborhood 3) encourage County staff to partner with Habitat in all phases of the project, from design selection to landscaping and construction During the site selection phase, staff looked at all of our surplus well lots and other property and selected the Stearnes Avenue site based on the continuity and size of the three lot parcels and the lack of a need for the property as a water source. Before taking a well out of service, we review its capacity as a backup water source as compared to other wells. Mr. Robertson will be available at the Board meeting to comment on this process. Following the first reading, Mr. Fred Corbett, a long time resident of the community, expressed some concerns with the project. He will be present at the Board meeting and would like to present to you a petition and his remarks. On June 12, Gary Robertson, Geraldine Barber, and I met with Mr. Corbett at my request. His concerns were as follows: 1) County staff had not communicated with neighborhood residents prior to the first reading. 2) He worried that the house and lot would be smaller than what was typical for the neighborhood. 3) He believed that the well lot was still needed as a water source. 4) He believed that the Habitat House would have a negative impact on property values. I agree with Mr. Corbett that the County failed to communicate with the residents of Stearnes Avenue prior to the first reading. We would like to correct this and have arranged for a community meeting to be held on Monday night to discuss our plans with the residents prior to the second reading on Tuesday. In regards to the size of the house to be built: Habitat for Humanity has developed house designs to compliment a variety of neighborhoods. Habitat does not build a house smaller than 1000 sq. feet. Habitat has provided us with plans for two of its larger house designs. We are working to utilize one of these designs in the Stearnes Avenue project. These houses are 1148 sq. feet and 1200 sq. feet, respectively. We are pursuing the inclusion of a basement to the structure, which would add additional square footage. Please see Attachment A to review the house plans available to us. Mr. Corbett is concerned that the combined size of the lot parcels will not be comparable to other properties in the neighborhood. I would refer you now to Attachment B. At .38 acres, the area of the well lot surpasses that of properties across the street and next-door. Mr. Corbett has stated that the Habitat House would have a negative impact on property values in the neighborhood. Staff has reviewed property values on Stearnes Avenue and Crescent Boulevard and compared those numbers to the estimated value of the Habitat House and combined well lot. Attachment C will provide you with a neighborhood map and a table of total assessment values for properties on Stearnes Avenue and those on Crescent Boulevard which back-up to the West side of Stearnes Avenue. Billy Driver has estimated that once the property is combined and the house is built, the land value will range from $22,000-25,000. Assuming a minimum area of 1000 sq. feet and a very conservative cost estimate of $65.00 per square foot, the estimated total value of the Habitat House has been calculated at $65,000. The inclusion of the basement and use of the plans attached would add additional square footage and value. At a bare minimum, then, the total property value (Habitat House + acreage) is estimated to be $87,000-$90,000. We have found that property of this value will be entirely compatible with the neighborhood. Stearnes Avenue properties have an average total assessment value of $97,260. However, properties on the street range in value. As an example, I point to two properties owned by Mr. Corbett. One is assessed at $141,500.00; the other, $69,400. County staff recommends approval of the donation of the Stearnes Avenue well lot. Staff S- 3 has put much time and effort into making the project the right fit for the neighborhood, and we look forward to moving into the next phase of the project. We would like nothing more than to partner with the Stearnes Avenue and Crescent Heights community to make this project a stunning success, and we will continue to welcome input from neighborhood residents as we move forward. Attachment A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY SINGLE STORY THREE BEDROOM HOUSE PLAN (Enclosure 2) Living space of 1148 square feet Living Room Foyer Three Bedrooms with walk-in closets Kitchen/Dining room with stove, refrigerator and double sink. One and one half bathrooms Laundry Room with washer and dryer Utility Storage Room Gas Furnace Gas Water Heater Whole House Fan 22 foot wide by 6 foot deep front porch Rear stoop Outside Detached 8 foot by 8 foot storage shed Concrete sidewalk Gravel driveway i i elrvl iiln a~,onva~ _ Li~~rwn~~ .~ idlltidrt =_~~n~ r~ woo aq 3~ ,o .° a~ . ~ ~ :i Attachment A ~-- ''I i I ~ ~~' _, II ~ II! ;; II I ; ' I IIII I I II ;, III !1111 III IL '_I IIII I ~ 11. 'i i I II 1 ~~ ' ~ I I II~A I 7'' I 5n II ~_ rll~l~ ~ I. I'. I ', ~ , I i r~ ' I ~ ~ I II III.~~I ~ .I,i ~ t~ r ~ III I .' ,I I III IIIIII I I II II,IIi .~ ~,. I I I I', III I l i ~~II I I I~.,~~11 ~ I ~ I ~~' ',I Q ~ ~~~3a- _ 1~ ~. ll 1 r LI 1 ~ IIII I I-IIIIII ,~ I I - ',I I I IIII Z ~~3 ~s -~~ _ I ~ , II ~I~® I li I~ I I . IIII 411 0 ~~ xs~ ~ILIII '1~ t j'~ Z I r' r ;I I t I II IIII IIII ~t ~3sS 7 III I III," t'.I I Ij~ ~ I I I '. I I I I I. I I II VIII ~ ' IIIIII Q I ~y~ ~~ III f I 1• 0 I Irk III 1 II I I I'I II II ( I I 11..11111 IIII I r ~{~~ II,III1111 -I ( tI ~ I II III IIII I ~I I I I I I,. > II ~ dr tj. I I 1 1 1 III Ii 11 I I I I _I I ~ I ~ III III III ~ ~~~ Q I ~ !I III I~,,I LII dl Irlll II I II III -~ I j III r I ~ III IIII I II ~I v -IIII , [~ 1 ~ , ( rI { I ( IIII II .I I '. VIII Ir I~'I II 1-~ I I') I II i (il .,IIII ~ -~---~I J VIII '~I. I I I~ I ~I II I III IIIIII O III jII ,' } ~ I I II' i. I I I ~1 III II II,I I I I il~li'i _ i IIIIII 1,11 ~!'~I~ I ^ 1 I ~I I I III I~I ~~~ I I 1 1 I I I I I I,. 'I ill I y I 4: J+0 I I ~,I.I T I'~III I 111 I, I I I Iu IIII. I 2 Ii L'. ~ I I~ II IIII II ~I I~ IIiI I I 'I I I I I ,III II,. ~ I I I ~~ I IIII ' II 'I ~ I I I II I I rI I I II ~ I II1~ I I III I I 'IIII II '' ~ I I I I II I I I 'IIII II III III I I I IIII I I I( 1 I' I I ~ IIII I .', I( '~ 1. ~ I I ~~ III I I IIII I I I I III II I til I I I (IIII III I .VIII I I I \ II-I IIII I I !. ! I I~~.'' ~I 11 I I I ~ !,. I I II I ~, ! .~ II III; III , : I I VIII illy 1111111 I I I I ' II I '~ I~ IIII I I I II °I1i I ` I I'}III 1I'I~ I' II '' I IIIIII I IIII II ~~ a ----~ L. ~ L 1 ~ ~' .{ I ~ cI ~t ~ I I I ~ ''~ I ~~ I ;--- Imo; I I ~~I I ,{° I _ ~ I; III IIz I I ;: r Ir~ z I I ~ ;I ~ I ~ r ~~ I ` X11 I ~" ~ I I I I/ ICI ~ T~ ~ ~ ~~ I' ~ I I '~ I - ~ e.. 7t~ '~ . 3r - I I I i ~/ ~_ III II~ j - ~ t'. aj ~'• mi ~ • I I Q b -'~I I~ I i pJ z I ~ I~ 1 ~~ O~` ~ `_ I ~ o :~ 1 ,II IIII I qI \ ~~ -i I In I~ II II I IIIIII ~~ ! ~- 1 n1 ~ ~ I ~~ ~ -_ il~ I I I j I ~ ~' ` - { I ,,, ~ III It III IIIIII - . ; .. :;:o, ~ . - - _ I - z ~ ~ -~ ---__... ~ ~"OX l ~ ' Ti~~ 1. 4-~ " ~~ ENCLO~UI~E (2) Attachment A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TWO STORY THREE BEDROOM HOUSE PLAN (Enclosure 3) Living space of 1200 square feet First Floor Living Room Dining Room Kitchen with stove, refrigerator and double sink. Pantry Half Bathroom Laundry Room with washer and dryer Heat Pump with A/C Water Heater 20 foot wide by 8 foot deep front porch 10 foot wide by 8 foot deep rear porch Second Floor Three Bedrooms Full Bathroom Extra sink off master bath Loft Outside Detached 8 foot by 8 foot storage shed Concrete sidewalk Gravel driveway Note 1 s-~ Attachment A ~ r_ ~ ,~; ,1 ' i C ~'~' ,~. , tiy~ ~~ ,. ~,% .~ .` ~~~ ~~ ~~ fit ; ~ i i ~ .. ~ .°' i ' --~, ~~' /-~a'~r~ y`, _~ # ~ -~ f' S""i,.,~y 1~ 4 i~"C'i~_ ~.It~r..'rY.C S- ~ti. •~ J 1~`~ ~-_.___. z ° ~-s ~ ~ - -- ---- . ~C E -' Z~ { --~ r i~, ~,... ~ e 0 ~ ~ c ^ I~ w m ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~' ~- ti C ~ h ~ ~ t ~~, ~:~ C Z ` ~~m $ ~ d - ~ ~ by i N = Cy7 _~ 3 ~ /: ~. ~ - ' ~ G~ r 'C 9 ~ ~~• $ .a 1 ia ~ ~ 't7 CIF ~ ~`-r`..~ ~ ~..~,.r T..~; E'~~,~--,i f'-~ a ~~ , . r ~--r, - , ~g -,~.-i~ ~-c.c.y, fir' ~ l ~ v .r'~ ~ .y ~~ s ~a•' y;. ~°~ jf 5,.,~y?..,~~ ~ , !~~!~ ~ ti'4'~ ~, .`Fay' ' ~ti. s? i ~ • ~ .? -' ~ , ~ ~,- ~ { , ~ F.,. 'fit ~,° ~ `Y~ ~' '' ~ o ~ -~ r `~ ~(f ~ m - - - ,. 2 _._. __. - - _ ~ . - - _ - _ _ _ - ~ ~p~. L -_ ~ ~ i - _ _ " - - - ~ - - -_ _ -- M ~m ~ ~r~ J ~~~A •~-- --'~' ENCLOSi1I~E (3) `~ /~, /. i ~ / ~ ~_ F w } ~~ a~ ~ z z >N ~~ ~~~ w~p a~ ai pw OV~ ~~w ¢~v ~ ~~ a¢ UFQ-~ vOi~p =O O ~ mai ~`~ ~~~ ~~~ ~3 \ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _~ ~, ~, -~ ~ --s I:L Attachment A n Z .._ . ~~ ~ ---- z 0 a w J W H Z z 0 W J W H w / g / to ~ ~ Q J ~ Z << C7 ~ Z za n W~ Sao ~W w~= a=' ~° ~ o cn O~ U~ ~ ~<U Q _ map C7p ~ 3p a~ >~O ~og i ~ ~ ~~ 'v (n ~n~a c i~c~~i m3 Z O ~ Q _ °' _ ~ _~ ~ - - ~_ ~ ~ . Z ~ N ~ ~ ~ -r ~ ~ • ~ O W ~ - !l.r~ ~ 1-+- t Y uJ n _ ~ ~ _s-.. G z a ~ .~ iiiiiii G _~ ~~ w~ ~~ e ~ ++ = •e ~ _ ~ g ~ tdt/11 N = y ~ t ~ ~n G~ ... ~ GD'C • USQ 0 ~ .~ `}'' u ~ ~ U W ~, 0 N j O .r E ~ -. o O L _ __ M m `~° M ~ ~~ 3 ~~~ Attac-hmPnt A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TWO STORY THREE BEDROOM HOUSE PLAN (Enclosure 4) Living space of 1200 square feet First Floor Living Room Dining Room Kitchen with stove, refrigerator and double sink. Pantry Half Bathroom Heat Pump with A/C Water Heater 29.5 foot wide by 6 foot deep front porch Second Floor Three Bedrooms with walk-in closets Full Bathroom Laundry Room with washer and dryer Outside Detached 8 foot by 8 foot storage shed Concrete sidewalk Gravel driveway S3 X ~ = fV ~~ Q' , n i ,~ i ' { • ~~ i . :.:: ~_ ~C-~ - _ ~ __. ,; I i .. ,. f~ ;, -- ~~. ' J, . :-- . ~ -- -- I~ _ ~~, i t i ---i ._.._.. .. I ..._! .; ~ ~ . t ~ -~ --- i j II I ~ -f~--- i L ~, • A: tile. '~ ~• ~y~;< Attachment A ~- 3 3 i z O } W --~ 0l 1 4 Ii W LL! W - " f ~ ~ w ~ > p p~ ~ ~ Q p~ ~ ~ _ t- - ~~~~111=== - L1 v F- J _ ~ U.J F1JJ -~~ ~ ~J$_ _~- ~J _. ~ tSl 4 Jl . cos a`s ~ 2x ~s~ ~ _ ~Q~-_~ q ~~ _~ - ~ - ENCLO~U~.E (~) 3 z O F- d -~ ~ Li ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1brxLL QS _ __ ~t1 J~~ Z~UI ~ x SI1 ~ ~ ~ J 1UJ ~ ~ S~vR~ ~ ~~ fig; fJ ~'V ~ O a~ • - - - ___ - x /" ~~ ~F __~ ~~_.7 V I~ V 11 v r V V I\ Y J 1\ V I 1 Y/\ J I J wNVwnH ao~ 1rLav~+ YQ! MOIYi6 lOl 'B~M.7 110d1(BY t •AilOll L -- ~ Q , ~~ - iTiT ,,, \ ~ Qt ~ ~-- ~: o _ I / I ~,~ a ~I~ I f` Q 7 I ~ : ~ I~ ~ ~ ! ~` t f ~ { 11 1§~~~~ s I f ~ ~i , 4• ~~ ! s I is y; t~ 1~3 f+~ t 1 _ _ as _ 4. ~.~ ~Y O Q I "~I ~`l ~ ~ ~ 2 w s ~~ ~~a~i 24 d p;s ~C~~~~ E l L~-~}(~~ ( .a' .ro ' I r. 1 . o-.o I +r..s~ ~ k i;. „~~ _. _ ~ 3:~ tJ - z• O~ '/~ ~ W1 mx s ~,1~~~~ I i ,! I i `~ ) 1 ; 1. it i tl ' ii ~ E , I~ ~ i ;: j I 't~ f I ~ , ~,~ 11 I , L~- ~ 1 p, I I i fig I~t ;I,..~ ~I ` i I I !I I I ,, I,; r I - ~ I~' L E I1 II, I I I ! ~ Li II •!il I ~ , ~ ~, 1 I I ~ I I ~ I'~ ~, ~j~'~ ~; ~ I I ; I ~! ~ ~ I ~ I ~JE - '' o I ~I ~~; I• ~ i. I i / c Il,~i Ili ' ~~~; X1--,1 ( ~ Z4 I' 1 Z_4 1 at Attachment A ~~--~ i T j, E 1' ~, A ~T ~ t F h 0, / a ~ ~- ol ~ d ~ i F,- Zk 4 Sty ~ }} `~ / ~,•2 SfT aY Z~Mf [ ~ Y f3SY° ; ~ S w ~E1 i3yM. ~t't Lht ;7g S, ~;y~ EE ~ ~` 1! q~~~: ~f ~`f t ~- 79 4 ! n f ~ :3 3 1~ ~ m L ~+ 1~ s,~y ~w 6 ee ~tt 7 D,,:f 1~2 .. +R ~Jl: R'~R7 iJ •4 ! ~~ ~ . ~ I-'-- j) • ~. ~ ;; I i i i . I 'll:~) I i~Ii ~! I i~ r I i ,o~ , ~~ ~~ , . , , -- 4 ~ r. ~ ~ ~ \ \~~- ' ~~ =I _ ~ li ~ I ~ I . V ~ ~ F ~ - K ~ I '. I ~ I ~ N ~~ 3g4 '2' ~ 3 ! ~ S4r ', y" y~~y, Attachment C _ Total 2003 Assessment Values (includes land and building value) for all Property on Stearnes Avenue Stearnes Avenue House # Total Assessment Value 5481 $62,200.00 5503 $69,400.00 5465 $73,300.00 5517 $82,600.00 5500 $84,900.00 5489 $85,400.00 5438 $88,500.00 <------------ <------------------ estimated minimum value 5420 $91,600.00 of Habitat House & Lot, $87,000-$90,000 5450 $91,800.00 5432 $92,400.00 Note: 5473 $93,600.00 House valued at $65,000. 5433 $95,000.00 This figure does not include a basement 5510 $97,300.00 and is based on 1000 sq. ft. house C~3 5414 $98,800.00 $65.00 per sq. foot. 5522 $99,700.00 5468 $100,900.00 Lot w/ house on it and parcels combined 5444 $101,100.00 estimated at $22,000-$25,000. 5533 $103,200.00 5456 $105,700.00 5451 $105,900.00 5462 $106,700.00 5426 $109,600.00 5490 $116,100.00 5539 $134,300.00 5511 $141,500.00 Mean Value $97,260.00 Median Value $97,300.00 Std. Deviation $17,573.04 Crescent Blvd. (properties backing up to Stearnes Ave) House # Total Assessment Value 5520 $64,200.00 5424 $67,500.00 5432 $71,600.00 5444 $76,100.00 5588 $78,500.00 5562 $84, 800.00 5516 $95,200.00 5512 $98,700.00 i 5570 $105,900.00 5408 $115,200.00 _ 5532 ' $115,300.00 5544 $116,600.00 Mean Value $90,800.00 Median Value $90,000.00 Std. Deviation $19,525.04 .Roanoke County Real Estate Data County of Roanoke,Virginia , 087.1.4-01-07.00-0000 Parcel Id: Card Number: 001 of 001 Property Address: 5451 STEARNES AV Unit# Jurisdiction: COUNTY Magisterial District: CAVE SPRIl~ Building Name: Census Block: 511610308023006 Owner Name: COLLINS GARY W Billing Address: 722 JAMES TOWN RD Deeded Acre (AC) or Lot (LT): 1.29 AC Calculated Acreage ROCKY MOUNT VA 24151 In Land Use: N Legal Description: PT LT 17 CRESCENT HTS Neighborhood: 60040 Use Model: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Assessor: 07 Year Built (Est): 1950 Style: 1.5 STORIES County Utilities: WATER Billing Type Class: Not all Utilities included. See Help. 2003 Land Value: 2003 Building Value: 2003 Total Market Value: Transfers Year/Month Sales Price 198904 $70,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,300 Click here for $80,600 2003 Values $105,900 Instrument References Type Number PLAT 119700745 013040302 Foundation: CONT FOOTING Sub Floor: PLYWOOD Floor Cover #1: CARPET Floor Cover #2: Interior Wall #1: DRYWALL Interior Wall #2: Exterior Wall #1: CONCRETE BLOCK Exterior Wall #2: ALUMNINYL Commercial Structure Frame: Fire Place Description: 2 ST SG/1DB Roof Structure: GABLE Roof Cover: ASP/COMP SHNG Heat Fuel: GAS Heat Type: AIR-DUCTED Air Condition Type: CENTRAL # Apartment Units: Flood Certificate: Zoning: R 1 Zoning Conditions: Bed Rooms: Lower 0, Base 2, Upper 2, Total 4 Full Baths: Lower 0, Base 1, Upper 1, Total 2 Half Baths: Lower 0, Base 1, Upper 0, Total 1 Sub Area Description Sq. Ft. BASE 953 PATIO 192 PORCH-OPEN UNFINISHED 172 UPPER STORY-FINISHED 641 BASEMENT-UNFINISHED 188 BASEMENT-SEMI FINISHED 750 WOOD DECK 243 NOTICE: Every effort is made to produce and publish the most current and accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the d Page 1 of 2 Attachment C _ httr~•//~xi~xnx~ rn rr\anr,kP ~~a nc/Pnc*inPPr/rP/a117 acn~Par~P1Tr1-f1R'7 ld_fll-fl7 (1(1_(1(1(1(1Rr(`arr1N~ h/7n/7nfl~ -Roanoke County Real Estate Data Page 1 of 2 Attachment C County of Roanoke,Virginia Parcel Id: 087.14-0 l -03.00-0000 Card Number: 001 of 001 Property Address: 5433 STEARNES AV Unit# Jurisdiction: COUNTY Magisterial District: CAVE SP: Building Name• Census Block: 5116103080230( Owner Name: WISEMAN DONALD E & NANCY PEERY Billing Address: 5433 STEARNES AVE SW Deeded Acre (AC) or Lot (LT): 0.27 AC Calculated Acs ROANOKE VA 24014 In Land Use: N Legal Description: PT LT 19 CRESCENT HTS Neighborhood: 60040 Use Model: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Assessor• 07 Year Built (Est): 1965 Style: RANCH W/BAS County Utilities: WATER Billing Type Class: Not all Utilities included. See Help. 2003 Land Value: 2003 Building Value: 2003 Total Market Value: Transfers Year/Month Sales Price $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,100 Click here for $77,900 2003 Values $95,000 Instrument References Type Number PLAT 075500264 DEED 007550262 Foundation: CONT FOOTING Sub Floor: PLYWOOD Floor Cover #1: CARPET Floor Cover #2: Interior Wall #1: DRYWALL Interior Wall #2: Exterior Wall #1: FACE BRICK Exterior Wall #2: Commercial Structure Frame: Fire Place Description: NONE Roof Structure: GABLE Roof Cover: ASP/COMP SHNG Heat Fuel: GAS Heat Type: AIR-DUCTED Air Condition Type: CENTRAL # Apartment Units: Flood Certificate: Zoning: R 1 Zoning Conditions: Bed Rooms: Lower 0, Base 3, Upper 0, Total 3 Full Baths: Lower 0, Base 2, Upper 0, Total 2 Half Baths: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 0, Total 0 Sub Area Description Sq. Ft. BASE 1050 WOOD DECK 150 BASEMENT-UNFINISHED 1050 BASEMENT-SEMI FINISHED 263 NOTICE: Every effort is made to produce and publish the most current and accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the d 53 httn•//~x,~x,~z, rn rnannkP va nc/anRinPPr/rP/a117 acn~Par~P1Tr1-/1R'7 1 d_(11 _fl~ (1(1_(1(1(1(1,Q~(`arr1T~T~ Fi/7f1/7(1(lZ Roanoke County Real Estate Data Page 1 of 2 County of Roanoke,Virginia Attachment C S~ ai. ~.~ ~ ^ Parcel Id:, 087.14-01-13.00-0000 Card Number: 001 of 001 Property Address: 5511 STEARNES AV Unit# Jurisdiction: COUNTY Magisterial District: CAVE SPRI Building Name• Census Block: 511610308023006 Owner Name: CORBETT FRED W JR & PEGGY H Billing Address: 5511 STEARNES RD SW Deeded Acre (AC) or Lot (LT): 0.5 AC Calculated Acreage ROANOKE VA 24014 In Land Use: N Legal Description: STARKEY Neighborhood: 60040 Use Model: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Assessor: 07 Year Built (Est): 1986 Style: 2.0 STORIES County Utilities: WATER Billing Type Class: Not all Utilities included. See Help. 2003 Land Value: 2003 Building Value: 2003 Total Market Value: $19,000 Click here for $122,soo 2003 Values $141,500 Flood Certificate: Transfers Instrument References Year/Month Sales Price Type Number PLAT 083400161 $0 DEED 010200779 $0 $0 $0 $0 Foundation: CONT FOOTING Sub Floor: PLYWOOD Floor Cover #1: CARPET Floor Cover #2: HARDWOOD Interior Wall #1: DRYWALL Interior Wall #2: Exterior Wall #1: CEDAR / REDW SIDIN Exterior Wall #2: Commercial Structure Frame: Fire Place Description: PREFAB Roof Structure: GABLE Roof Cover: ASP/COMP SHNG Heat Fuel: ELECTRIC Heat Type: HEAT PUMP Air Condition Type: CENTRAL # Apartment Units: Zoning: R 1 Zoning Conditions: Bed Rooms: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 3, Total 3 Full Baths: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 1, Total 1 Half Baths: Lower 0, Base 1, Upper 0, Total 1 Sub Area Description Sq. Ft. BASE 1112 WOOD DECK 469 PORCH-OPEN FINISHED 279 GARAGE-FINISHED 511 UPPER STORY-FINISHED 870 BASEMENT-UNFINISHED 1107 NOTICE: Every effoR is made to produce and publish the most current and accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the d httn•//~x~~x~«~ rn r~annkP ~~a ilc/PnoinPPr/rP/311~.3cn~ParrP1T~1-f1R7.14-fll -1 ~ (1(1-(1(1(1(1RJ('ar~11Vt,,, h/7(l,/~fl(1'~ r., .. .._... .. ~__ _ .a..__., ._ ~r. __ - ., _ .. .. _ .- - - - . Roanoke County Real Estate Data Page 1 of 2 County of Roanoke,Virginia Attachment C S ~~ ^ ®a ~ .. Parcel Id: 087.14-01-1.2.00-0000 Card Number: 001 of 001 Property Address: 5503 STEARNES AV Unit# Jurisdiction: COUNTY Magisterial District: CAVE SPRI Building Name• Census Block: 511610308023006 Owner Name: CORBETT FRED W JR & PEGGY N Billing Address: 5511 STEARNES RD SW Deeded Acre (AC) or Lot (LT): 0.5 AC Calculated Acreage ROANOKE VA 24014 In Land Use: N Legal Description: CRESCENT HTS Neighborhood• 60040 Use Model: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Assessor: 07 Year Built (Est): 1930 Style: 1.5 STORIES County Utilities: WATER Billing Type Class: Not all Utilities included. See Help. 2003 Land Value: 2003 Building Value: 2003 Total Market Value $19,000 Click here for $50,400 2003 Values $69,400 Flood Certificate: Transfers Instrument References Year/Month Sales Price Type Number PLAT 103300419 $0 DEED 010330417 $0 $0 $0 $0 Foundation: CONT FOOTING Sub Floor: PLYWOOD Floor Cover #1: CARPET Floor Cover #2: Interior Wall #1: PLASTER Interior Wall #2: Exterior Wall #1: ASBESTOS SHNG Exterior Wall #2: SIDING AVERAGE Commercial Structure Frame: Fire Place Description: NONE Roof Structure: GABLE Roof Cover: CORR/SHT MET Heat Fuel: OIL/WOOD/COAL Heat Type: AIR-DUCTED Air Condition Type: NONE # Apartment Units: Zoning: R 1 Zoning Conditions: Bed Rooms: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 3, Total 3 Full Baths: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 1, Total 1 Half Baths: Lower 0, Base 0, Upper 0, Total 0 Sub Area Description Sq. Ft. BASE 672 WOOD DECK 100 PORCH-OPEN FINISHED 192 UPPER STORY-FINISHED 336 BASEMENT-UNFINISHED 672 NOTICE: Every effort is made to produce and publish the most current and accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the d httn•//«~«~~x~ rn rnannkP ya ilc/PnRinPPr/rP/all?,acn~PamPlIrl-(1R';1 14-(11-1?,fl(1-fl(1(1(1R~('ar~l~]i,,, F,/?f1,/~(1(1'~ .r .. ~. ., _. .,_.a...._ _, r. _ .. .. .. ., .. ~_~ .. _.,~_ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. -S' 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: June 24, 2003 Second Reading of Ordinance Authorizing the Donation of a Surplus Roanoke County Well Lot to Habitat for Humanity Gary Robertson Utility Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~.•~ BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff had been asked to investigate the possibility of donating a surplus well lotto Habitat for Humanity. At the May 27, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting, staff identified two potential surplus well lots that are suitable as buildable lots. It was recommended that the Stearnes Avenue well lot be presented to the Board of Supervisors for donation to Habitat for Humanity. There has also been interest from County staff to assist in the construction of this home as a volunteer County project. Anne Marie Green has agreed to coordinate the project if approved and Geraldine Barber and I have agreed to assist. The first reading was held on June 10, 2003. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Stearnes Avenue well lot is actually three small parcels (ID # 87.14-01-04, 05, 06) that when combined will form a single parcel slightly less than 0.4 acres. This well lot is property that was acquired by Roanoke County when it assumed ownership of the Crescent Heights water system several years ago. 5- ~ The wells and concrete reservoir located on this property are no longer in use and are not considered suitable as a standby water supply for Roanoke County. Maintenance of the property is a burden to the Utility Department and it's our desire to dispose of the property. The land value is presently assessed at $17,200. Should the Board of Supervisors decide to approve the donation to Habitat for Humanity, a second reading and public hearing will be held on June 24, 2003. Prior to that meeting, staff will contact adjacent property owners to inform them of the plans for the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Stearnes Avenue well lot be donated to Habitat for Humanity. It is also recommended that County staff be encouraged to pursue this as a volunteer County project. S3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE DECLARING THREE PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND DONATING SAME TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY; NAMELY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5441 STEARNES AVENUE (TAX MAP NOS. 87.14- 1-4, 5, AND 6) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property, having been made available for other public uses before permitting disposition by sale or donation, is hereby declared to be surplus. 2. That a public notice regarding the donation of this surplus real estate was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on June 10 and June 17, 2003; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing were held on June 24, 2003, concerning the disposition of the following parcels of real estate identified as follows: 5441 Stearnes Avenue (3 lots) Lot 19, Crescent Heights -Tax Map No. 87.14-1-4 .11 acre, Starkey -Tax Map No. 87.14-1-5 Lot 17, Crescent Heights -Tax Map No. 87.14-1-6 4. That said properties are hereby donated to Habitat for Humanity. 5. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which will be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance will be effective on and from the date of its adoption. i ~- ~~ Address: 5441 STEARNES AV (3 LOTS) Parcel ID#: 087.14-01-05.00-0000 Owner: ROANOKE CO BOARD OF SUPERVISOR Elementary School: PENN FOREST Zoning: R1 Legal: STARKEY WELL LOT Deed Acreage: .110 Land Value: $2900 Bld. Value: $1200 Assessment: $4100 Parcel ID#: 087.14-01-04.00-0000 Legal: PT LT 19 WELL LOT CRESCENT HTS Deed Acreage: .200 Land Value: $10500 Bld. Value: $0 Assessment: $10500 Parcel ID#: 087.14-01-06.00-0000 Legal: PT LT 17 WELL LOT CRESCENT HTS Deed Acreage: .000 Land Value: $3800 Bld. Value: $900 Assessment: $4700 Total Assessment: $ 19300 ~.~ ~H ~ ~._: ... ,z ~° s ~ ~ ~~ ~~`~'"~`Y t.r! GhestatiekW ~+ .sr ... ,y~4 ~t?Ut Cllr+~ ~'`~~ Y~CIYtit'1c1~ I'tiI r=~ ..,.. ... c.~'A Sauthtm tiers ~i GSC~t~1 1i'JL~ ~~ ~~ ~y ~'Ul/p ~ , ~~ . T a'~r~eseeaf E#s~cs ~ t r~ tr $ ._y c 0 ~:~ o.lNaods Crossir~ u' i; ~~~ ~ ~ Butk t,~t>t,r~figfittt (~c! ® 2D43 Y~ao! Inc ; ,~ _ w @l 2~ff2 Nav~ation Taaq~ss _~_ ~ ~•7, S- 3 ,~ ~t AGENDA ITEM NO. <S~'~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE SUBJECT: v~~`~,~i~~~ ~~'~~ CITIZEN COMMENTS :~ ~ ~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS PHONE: ~ ~~~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: aC s~i~ 7 / v'~r AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~-f,~f~~y,4t~ ~~-rv ~P would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~~ l~a)~~ i~C'r ADDRESS: J~,'~/,~y Sf PHONE: GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ! ~~~ ~;,1~~ ~~, it 1 ~~ ~1~ ~a/rr} AGENDA ITEM NO. a PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CIT ZEN COMMENTS ~' 5 ~ ~~s ~'~~ SUBJECT: f~ ~ ~~ ~m~~-~ ~ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minut s to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman ill enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Ch irman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercis~ courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any writte~ statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organs ed group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the in ividual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: ~~~ ~~~ l v ~ ~ r --~ PHONE: ~~ `~' ~ j Zc~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~~ ~~ n'~ I ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT:_ 11 C:A~S ORDIN c .~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~> ^ CE CITIZEN COMMENTS ~~°/~ iT~1~ ~~ ~u would like the Chairman of the Bo~°rd of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME : ~I-I-I ~~~ ADDRESS: PHONE: ~~`~`~I ZQ ~~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~~=~ ~ ~ ~-1 'YC AGENDA ITEM NO. s ,3 _ PUBLIC HEARING ~C ORDINANCE ~J CITIZEN COMMENTS 7T SUBJECT: c-~t_ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: 5Z 5~~ /"~~C/)ll~/C~~ ~~' S~a/ PHONE: ~~~%~~' ~ c~~ ~/ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: rte'/ ~ ~~ PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: .STS-~',~/I/~; li~Ic~`~-~, ~o`~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: C C r~ ~~,}~ AGENDA ITEM NO. GROUP/ORGANIZATION: AGENDA ITEM NO. ~~ PUBLIC HEARING ~` ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: i. F.~ ~.~..~, t-1~,~....~ :~... ~~ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker wilt be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ,-- ADDRESS : X3'.3--~ ~~`~-~~.~.~vs-~ PHONE: %~~" ~' ~~~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~~7 ~~E t~,_ ~T AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS ~B1TIT ~~£ ~°~~ ~'~ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification maybe entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ~~~ ~~~~~ NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: ~~-~~'~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~~ ~~~ ~d ~ C~~~~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS ~~ ~. ~" SUBJECT: ~ ~ ~ ~'-r~~ ~-~ /~~ ~~ ~~?~~_~ ~ ~'~ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD _, _., NAME: e Y~~"t~L-_~ ~ ~~ ~..,~!N~__~:' ~~ ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~~ .5 C ~~-~ ~ fit; ~..% L PHONE: GROUP/ORGANIZATION: !~ ~/~~' \~~~--~ ~"~L~-'~-- ~. AGENDA ITEM NO.~ ',_~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: _ ~~~ C ~~'~~ ~~~~., .~ ~ L--~~._ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~y~ i CCU- C ~~ ~ ~ ~ C~ t'~-r'~ ADDRESS: ~~~-~ `3~c.~,r ~}~~ ~~f~_ PHONE: ~l'~ ~ .-'l ~~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~ C~--L'`~r~+' -~-~; q; ~ l AGENDA ITEM NO. -~ ` ~? PUBLIC HEARING i.-'"`~ ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: S , _~..~u~~ ~ , '~:,'~~_. ~u. ~~- ~~;:~ ~~ , would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ,, , NAME: ,~-r~,, ~~~ ~ ;~ ~, s/,7i ~ -~~ ~ v~~ ~1 ~L../r, ~,<..1~~~- ADDRESS: ~ ; ~) ~~ t , ,~ --~ _, ~ . ~ , :~., PHONE: GROUP/ORGANIZATION:~f1n {~~ ~ r ~--v ~ °~. ~~ur~~~ 1~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~`~ PUBLIC HEARING -° ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME : ~~ P~ ~- .~ ~ 7`~~r / ~~~ ;~ ~. ADDRESS:~`.~"~ 1 C~ ~,r-~.~~ e ~ ~ ~~ ~,~~ I ~') - GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~ ~ r~~~ C~~~~ ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING ~%~ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS ~~ , _r- . ti -~ ~ z.r. ~- ,. ~~ SUBJECT: ,~~ ~'~ ~~: ~ ~. ~~~ ~~~~~~ -- ~~ ~ ~-~~~ ~,~~~. ~'~ ( ~ ~: would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~~ ~ ?./ -~-~,,t~ ~~ , i ~ <. ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ _~t ,_. ., ~ r~ ~~---__ ADDRESS: ~ ' ' PHONE: ~' ~ ~-, ~_ , , ~ .=: - GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~~ ; I ~P , ~~.; ~,_ ~'tj ~ ~';Y_.~ ; -~---~~. AGENDA ITEM NO. ~,5~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE SUBJECT: ;o CITIZEN COMMENTS would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD y .% ~ NAME: C ~ ~/ ~ ,~ ~ ADDRESS: ~ ~ j.I` ~ r~ L s ~- c-: »/ J J PHONE: ~ ~ ~ - .-~ ~ ~ ~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: /~ y ~, >-y(~ T ~">Q ~ 1~ ~j ~,c.~ L' lY AGENDA ITEM NO. ~_ PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE -CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE P T LEGIBLY AND TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~ _ f ~ /~ r ~//r°~ ~ ADDRESS: (~ r' ~ 7-~ f ~!.~ G ¢~ PHONE: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.--~~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION:~~f ~ ~~~",~~'~ `f~ ~j~~-- ¢~ ~ ~ C'~~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. __5 `f PUBLIC HEARING / ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~=~iZ~~.~~3 ~~~`~~. ~3 ~l~i would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~C~~-~ ~J~~L~ ADDRESS: ~`-~C~tS ~ ~~r2 ~ ~ 5 ~~~~ PHONE: ~ ~~ ~ d7~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: 5' AGENDA ITEM NO. ~_ PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE -CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ,- , NAM E: ~ ~~ ~~- G'l- ~ 4 . ADDRESS: ~C~ L~~ PHONE: GROUP/ORGANIZATION: o (7 AGENDA ITEM NO. S --~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGORDINANCE -CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: <_ PHONE: ~~~ -,~'~~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: 'if AGENDA ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~~GL~j~~~~ >~=~ifi-~`~~~~~~ would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~ ~~~ ~ C' ~~ ~ ~ ~` n ~ -- ADDRESS: ~~ f i ~ ~..~ i n`~~rS ~'~ ~ ~~. PHONE: ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ GROUP/ORGANIZATION: n'l ~~/ ~ j i ~ ~ --i-s~ ~~'E'cf CE~f` ~J~~~ S. AGENDA ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING !' ORDINANCE -CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: I ~~~~r ~- ADDRESS : ~~/ ~-- l.t ~ , ~ (~~ ~,-~ S e ~ ~ QZ- ~ C~2~ PHONE: ~~~ -- ~-F.1 GROUP/ORGANIZATION: .v~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 5-3 `f PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: ~5~y9~ ~5~~~,~~~ ~--~,~' ~t~ PHONE: GROUP/ORGANIZATION: G(, ,,~.~ ~ ,,~ , ~ rh ,'„~ . PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: S AGENDA ITEM NO. `~ ~. ~'~ ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ~' NAME: /~y~l `~ ~ '~ ~?. ~ ~'~= L ADDRESS: ~ PHONE ~. ~,~ / `~ ~-~ ~" GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~- .~t- -_t- /~ o~ { ~~- AGENDA ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE SUBJECT: I ~ ;`~~~'~l ~~z~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: J~~ ~,~( ~, GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~- 3 CITIZEN COMMENTS ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~\ (`'> My name is Fred Corbett and I am representing my neighbors from the Crescent Heights area of Roanoke County. Crescent Heights is an older community with some homes built as long ago as 1910. However, it is a mix of old and new homes with assessment values ranging from $62,000 to over $250,000. As a community, we are concerned about your giving away a part of our community and history. We want to make it perfectly clear that we support Habitat for Humanity. We are not opposed to the building or offering financial support of Habitat homes. In fact, many of us have helped build several homes and we have contributed money both personally and through our churches. We are not concerned about "class status" of any homeowner in our community. It doesn't matter to us whether they are white, black, yellow, or green with orange polka dots. We do not care if our neighbors are trash collectors or bank presidents. But, we think it is important that we insure that any property built in our community conforms to the existing average home. There are 26 houses on Stearnes Ave. Six of these homes were built before 1951 and have an average assessment of $65,566. Of the other 20 homes built after 1951 (12 have been built since 1983), the average assessment is $97,230. The older homes were built in 1910, 1930,1940, 1945, and 1950. My old house (which I now rent) was built in 1930 (according to County records). I purchased this house for $18,500 in 1976. The year I completed my new house (1989) and moved in, the assessment for my old house went way up the next year. When I appealed the assessment, I was told "that your old house is now more valuable because a more expensive ~~ home has been built in the community and raises the value of all property . My old house is now assessed at $69,400. My new home (which is beside my old home) is assessed at $141,500. I was told this also works the other way. When a property is not maintained or a less expensive house is built, it lowers the value of all property. We would not have a problem if the proposed Habitat Home would have an average value of the existing homes built since 1951 or $97,230. We, too, could share in the construction of this home and welcome a new neighbor to our community. Another area of concern is the size of the lot. It is only 98' x 161'. We question whether it is big enough to support a house, a septic tank and drain fields, and a driveway. Some homes on the other side of the street have similar size lots, but have sewer hookups, not septic systems. The streets in our neighborhood are very narrow and there is no room for on street parking. All houses in our neighborhood have on site parking. Where would the residents of the proposed home park? The property is also in the curve at the top of the hill and could create a very hazardous situation even if a vehicle had enough room to park onsite, but had to back out into a blind curve on a grade. Another issue is the County giving away property that belongs to the taxpayers. The well lot was given to Roanoke County by the citizens of Crescent Heights before Spring Hollow reservoir was constructed. The County approached us about buying our water system to provide water for the County. We agreed to give the County the pumps, pump houses, tanks, and land in exchange for the upgrading of our distribution system and installing fire hydrants. • A few years ago the County removed the tanks and sold the lot across the street from the well lot. This property directly across from the well lot was recently sold for $118,000. Remember fast year's drought and Spring Hollow was about 63% capacity? Shouldn't the County consider holding on to this lot so it could be used as an additional water source in a drought? The Crescent Height's Water Works supplied 97 homes with water since the 1930's and never went dry. I can remember times of drought when fire trucks backed up to our tanks and filled up with water and took the water to people without. As a community, we were glad to help our neighbors who were without. I was the President and operator of the water company ftom 1977 to 1990. I was told by a geologist and a well driller that Crescent Heights sits on top of a huge underground lake. The Virginia Department of Health has on file records supplied by the County that the two pumps had a combination of 80 gallons per minute capacity. This output is limited due to the small size of the pumps (5 hp and 3 hp) and the wells were a relatively short depth (256 ft and 237 ft). County Staff has stated that these pumps were producing less than Health Department records. But, the fact is Roanoke County has never tested the wells aed Wee #1owere wut on th s o peehaps it could also duce. If a well and pump as large as Stark y p produce 500+ gallons per minute. If this land is given away and a home is constructed, we will never be able to go back and put a well there. Why is a well lot in Windsor Hills that pumps 42 gallons per minute being kept as a "reserve well" and the Stearnes Ave lot which has produced 80 gallons per minute being given away? Spring Hollow is a great reservoir, but with the County giving away and disposing of many well lots, do we really want alt our eggs in one basket? Just because you do not know the potential capabilities of this well lot is no reason to give it away. The County on the Wednesday following the first reading of this ordinance (June 10) destroyed the pump houses and wells on the lot. This has been done before the citizens have even been able to voice their concerns. In it's haste to destroy the pump houses and wells, Roanoke County's utility department left the wells uncapped from Wednesday, June 11 until Wednesday, June 18. During this week of heavy rain, how much runoff and debris was allowed to contaminate the groundwater? Roanoke County's staff wants the support of the community, but the County has been doing all this behind our backs. The Board of Supervisors has already approved the first reading of this ordinance and no one in the community had been notified. Roanoke County Staff told a local radio station that the County planned to have a community meeting to inform the citizens of this well lot give away. If this meeting was planned, why was it held less than 24 hours ago and only after the County found out that the citizens might object? How could the community possible get together on such short notice? Roanoke County Staff has indicated that they want (the County) to be recognized for building this home. To date, no Habitat Homes have ever been built in Roanoke County. Is the recent Roanoke Times article about Roanoke City's Manager's request for the County to offer more help for the less fortunate the reason for this high speed push to give this lot away before studying the long term consequences? Habitat has built 117 homes, all in Roanoke City. We wonder if Roanoke County is pushing forward to "give a hand up" or is this to "gain recognition"? We know this is not the only lot or land Roanoke County owns that could be given to Habitat. We have identified several potentially suitable parcels on Roanoke County's website that could be used to build several Habitat homes (many together). Have these properties not been considered? What is the definition of the correct neighborhood for a Habitat home? .; Habitat stated in the meeting last night that a family is selected first, then a home is constructed to meet the needs of the family. Habitat went on to say that they have not constructed a 2 story home or a home with a basement. Mr. Hodge had already told our community group that the home will be 2 stories, 3 bedrooms, with a full basement. How can we be assured of this based on information from Habitat? Suppose the family selected only needed a 2 bedroom home and Habitat decides to build the 981 sq. ft. home on a slab? Mr. Hodge has included the basement in90 000 based on $65 OOppepsq ft If we include shmilar value of the home up to $87,000 to $ , additional space on our existing homes, the average home will have over 2500 square feet. Couldn't the County give this lot back to the citizens of Crescent Heights? We could make a nice small playground and the neighbors could maintain the property. If the County ever needed a source of good water, they could still put a well there. Some of the neighbors I have talked to have even indicated that the community could all pitch in and purchase the lot as a Civic Project and the County could donate the money to Habitat. When we asked County Staff about selling the property, the reply was that that was not an option. Why, when the County is concerned about less state funds and meeting the County's budget, is the County not open to the idea of selling the lot back to the community? Shouldn't the County be more responsible in giving away Roanoke County taxpayer's valuable assets? Again, we are not opposed to a home that would fit in with the neighborhood, but there are many issues of concern and too many unknowns. We have the same concerns any homeowner and taxpayer should have when a piece of our mutual property is disposed of. We hope that we have provided you some information to rethink the situation and hopefully not approve the second reading of this ordinance. At the very least, we would like the Supervisors to at least postpone this second reading and respond to the citizen's concerns and unanswered questions. If the Supervisors decide to approve the second reading, we would like the ordinance to specify that the home would be a 3 bedroom, 2 story, with a full basement and have an assessed value of at least $95,000 to be compatible with the average home in our community. We love our neighborhood and Roanoke County and one good thing that has come out of this is that we have come together as a community and we are now stronger and have a unified voice. Information on Roanoke County's Stearnes Ave Well Lot We should conserve the Crescent Heights well lot for future water needs. The Crescent Heights wells supplied 97 homes with water since the 1930's and never went dry. The wells, pumps, pump houses, tanks, and land were given to Roanoke County in the late 1980's by the citizens of Crescent Heights in exchange for upgraded distribution lines and fire hydrants. The County approached the community about buying the wells before Spring Hollow reservoir was built. If Roanoke County is allowed to give this well lot away to Habitat for Humanity, we are concerned not only about the loss of a potential water source, but also the lowering of our property values. The homes on the same streen Roanoke (City ase assessed n ther$60,OO~ut $100,000 in assessed value. Habitat Homes range. (no habitat homes have been built in Roanoke County) We question the merits and precedence of giving away valuable taxpayer property when the County claims to be having a budget crunch. The County has indicated that this is just the first of many well lots that they are planning to give to Habitat to Humanity. Per information supplied by Roanoke County to the Virginia State Health Department, Lexington Regional Office: Crescent Heights well # 1 pumps 55 gallons per minute (gpm) Crescent Heights well # 2 pumps 25 gallons per minute (gpm) Crescent Heights well # 1 is a 5 hp pump and 256 feet depth Crescent Heights well # 2 is a 3 hp pump and 237 feet depth The total output of both wells is 80 gallons per minute. 80 gpm X 60 minutes/hour = 4800 gallons per hour (gph) 4800 gph X 24 hours/day = 115,200 gallons per day (over 42 million gallons per year) The American Water Works Association states that the average person uses 72 gallons of water per day. At this rate the Crescent Heights wells could supply... Over 1600 County citizens a day with their water needs! The capacities of these wells are limited because of small pumps and relatively short depth. If a larger well and a more powerful pump were put in use, these figures could go much higher. Shouldn't we have a back up to Spring Hollow Reservoir? Why give away so many well lots in the County? Have we forgotten last year's drought already? In the future, land for well lots will be very expensive, if it is even available. ~~ tin, ~) .~ ~ ~s ~'` Sri ~~ ~y 1 ~~ `'(` ~~ ~~~~i Y ~- ~ ~~~^ ~~:~ T ~~ t ~. }: ~ # - ~` t yz r ` Y[., ~~ ~~ A 1 v~~ <r E [ f ,~~ r IY r `~y , 'i_i r-~ ~ r.. t ~~ V ~ ~ LT ~. ~ } yip 1~`( M- ~ ~. 1 '• ~ r'~ ~ ~ L l ~, i ~~ F ~ r „1a :j4 .:` yy r ~r ~i .v~1 .tf$' Y. j~' F "\~ ~ ~~ ~ .~~ (((~ S 1; tr Y,, ~~ ; ~j H~ a.'. ~~ r~' ~ Q r ~"~ '~.~. v~7 ~' ~, ,4 ? 1 ~ <~ ~ x ; _ ~ ~ °'~ a vTx` + 'j w,~ "~-' ._: S"~ .x N N ~ ~ cn ccs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~_ d' - ~ ~ N ~ ~ \, '~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ a ~ ~ n 1\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a U ~ to ~ ~ N O E =O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,` Q N ~ N ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ y" ~ t~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' , ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ` ~ ~ N ~., n - ~ C a~i c3a a~i .~ = ~ ~ U v . c Z J ~ ~ O N N O N Q~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ C ~ U C , ,J ~ ~ `~ O ~ ~ , ~ ~ V C ~ ~ ~ (~ r /^ ~ O N O ~ y , O N C N ~ ~ U Y L O N ~ N a ~ ~ ., o ~ ~U v i r n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ U __ F~ ~, ~ ` ~ ~ C ~ O to C y,,, N ~ V 0 ~ N ~ C ~~ 3 ~ ~ /~ V /~ // LL ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~/~ N ~ ~ i^ ~ ~ ~/~ V J _ # 1\ Y 9 .~/ ~ O ~ Rf N 3 ~ c`6 ~ ~ V' ~ ~ . I 1 V ~" ~ \y O ~ 'a U) ~ 0 ~ ~ .Q ~_ .a% 0 ~~,. C ~ ~ Q ~ o ~ ~ o -~ ~ ~ ' O y.. U O `~ ~ L ~ N ~ N ~ ~ _ ~ ~ U1 ~ C ~ .., + r U ~ ~ _ r C t0 ~ ~~ c 'v ch ~' O v ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ C O ~ O _ ~ C ~ N ~ Q ~ ~ V cS .. ~ . ~ O (C ~ ~ .~ N _ ~ _ ~ ~ v.- ~ L ~/ C O ~ ~ ~ .Q (~ Q O ~~ ~ ~ v ~ / 0 0 ~ Rf ~ lls' > (a ~ ~ N ~ m ~ ~ m ~, in O ~ ~ 3 +~ ~ _ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ > ~ 0 a, ~Q ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ck, ~ ~ ~, ` r .g ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~~ r ~ !- ^.., ~~ `- r 1~ ~' a ~` ~ N ~ ~ ~o N N N ~ ~ ? l ~ _ O V . ° `~ ~ y +, m ~ O '- ~ ~ .. ~, ~ 'yam v _. ~. i m ~ ° U o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ _~ :~, r~ ~ a ~ `S ~ '~ ~ ~' y- ~ ~ ~ _ C a~ c~ a~ ~ ~ ~ - ~" .. ~ ~ O a~ a~ o S o ~ `, : n V O C '~ ~ r C. ~ ~ Q O ++ C N U ~ ~ /~~ ~ J ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ b f a ~ ~ ~ +-' O O ~ N ~ `' I -- ~ _ . U O +' W ~ W O ,P. I ~ ~ +~ U ~ V O LL -C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~i N w ~ ,C 3 ~ • ~ ~ 3 to ~ ~ ~ "/ ~ ~~ ~ •~ l~ ~ fly 8~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ •' ~ o o " ~ ~ ` ` `~ -~ .~ Q ~ x ~ - t4 ~ ~ ,o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ y O -a N ~ ~ v o = o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ N ° r ~ o V ~ Rf ~ ~ O -~ ~ = ~.+ ++ Q O ~ ' N N M O ~ B ~ ~ i f .~ V ... a ~ ~ L N ~ O ,r ~~ ~., ~ ~ c~ ` ~ ~ '~ ~! C vi ~ c ~ ~ ~ .;~ c6 ~ ~ v ~ cn ~ `'t~ _ _.~ .; ~ >> _ _ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C. ~ ~ ~ O w ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ,~ .i ~ t Q V , 4 'c`n o c6 ~ ~ _ ~> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .a 'a N ~,' _ ~. 3 tlf N . ~ O ~ ~. ~, q ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~. + ~ C ~ O m N ~ O ~ Rf O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ +J ~ ~ -~:, ~ a ~ U Q ~ > ~ c ~ Z . o x cca ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~' ~ o ~ 3 -~ y ~ ~ a ~ ~ w-- ~ - ~ ~ ..,. ° -o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~ ~ f ~ ^~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ v c'j` ~ - ~ ~ N ~ ~ 1 r ~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ o E ~ N _ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ c u i > - O O ~ Q. N ~ ~ O N C y ~ ~ ;~, ~ ~ v C ~ N 3 N N _ O 2 ~ U O a~ O a~ ~ 0 L C 0 U1 ~ 4 - iA ~ ~ ~ ~ O N U N U O ~ ~ ~ 1 ~Y +- C U) _ ~ - c ca V ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c c ~ o o ~ y` ~J ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ .., N N C .Q c~ N ~k- ~ 2 - ~ ~ V a~ o ~ ~ a ~ :~ ~o c a c ° ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ , _ ~ s ~ ~ o N ~ ~ ~ a U ~ ~ ~ k = _ ~ ~..- ° a ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ 3 N ~ ~ ~' s~ ti t ' o a~ ~ 3 ~ i ~ o ~ . ~ ca o ~3 ~ a~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ M ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ o ° .~ : ~ ~ h .O O O H -p ~ O p v a~ y ~ > o ~ - ~' ~ «s ~ ~ o ~ c o U ~ c N ca .t.. O -o N w N •'~ ~ O ~ O O to O ,~ ~ N C ~ ~ U ~ ~ C t/1 ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ... N •~ N p ~ ~ Y .~- N '~ ~"' ~ '~ a - O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ '~ a •~, '~+ N c O ~ ~ o O ~ ~ o - O ~ O U -~ ~ ~ '_' /p V/ a ~ 4~ O L (a _ (a o ~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° Q v ~ m ~ o Q ~ ~ ' -i' ~.J S U Q ~ > .a C 3 Z .- Y ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~G ~ '' 1 y ~ ~ 7 tom' ~ cn 30 ~ ~ ~ t1 j ~ r ~ y.. n ~ C~ ,~ '- ~' ~ O s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?- ~' ~ `3 a1 M }, ~ ~ o o ca ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ 1 , , F ( ~ s .. o o ~ ~ ~ .tis ~ 6- ~ ~~ > N ~ o _ ~ o ~ : ~ ~~ ~- ~- r r s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a' U ~ (A ~ ~ ~ ~ N c (~ ~ ~ --- ~ ~ Q _ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'j ]' O ~ ~' ~ ~ v~ :~, m o J ~ "~. i Q a ° vU, Q ° ~ µ i _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ O a~ a~ o = o ~ ''z ~ l' ~ L - c c~ U ~- •L ~ ~ ~ ~- 0 O N 0 C N ~ U ~ ° to N N ':~ .~ _ ~ ~ ~ 3 _ d ~ - gC ~ ~ ~ o ~ = N L °' ~ o ~ ~ vs v J ~° ~ ~ ~ J ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ ca cv ~ ~ ~ ~ o 3 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nl ~ ~ -' 'b ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ 0 N ~ o cv L ~ ~ y 1 rb _ )~n 1 ~ ~ M O Q o p L ~- .~ ~ `~- Q ~ ~ N ~ ,~ ~ ~ to c ~ y a = > O ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ .~ -~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ .C ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~_ , t0 ~ ~ 'N a C -p M '''' O v v L' O ~ ~ N i o- ~ -Y ca ~ c ~ ~ .~ 'C ~ a~ - N Z c ~ - ~ -~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ 4~ a~ L ~ U ,, A, W ~, o cu ~ o ~ `~ c o ~J cu c -~ °' ~ ~ °- > ca . m ~c o ~ rJ L ~ o m ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ J ~ ai o c c ~ o ~ ~ c ~ ~ "1 ~l ~ U Q r- > ~ c 3 .- i N cols .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ p Q- ~ ~ - O O o ~p ~ ~ I _ ~ ~,? '~~) ' ~ ~ ~ I I ~I ~ ~ I ~ ~ a ~, ~ o ~ n ~, ~ ~ ~ d Q u o ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ I ~ .~ ~ o U ~ o to a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m t .Q ~ 3 -C .- ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ I ~ ~ C ~ o ~ = o o 1 m m > - O _ a i L , O ~ ~ N i Q > ~ ... ~ ~ ~ o N ~- , I .~ C (Q C .~ ~ ""' 4- O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c,u 1 O ~ I U ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ p C~ ~ ° o ~ N 'o -.i " a~ ~ ~ o ~`~. ~ d O c o o ~,; o c ~ a~ '~ o 4 n ~ ~ M ~ i c ~ ~.• 3 I f c 3 p o cn ~ ~ ` a i ~ ~ c c~ -~ vi ~' Z3 0 Q I ~ ~ 3 ~ a> ~ ~ I ~ Q ~ I`~ ~ ~ ~ N p ~ ~ ~ ~ .Q ~ ~ ~ -~ o - o a, l~ .... ~ z ~ - ~ ~ Zy v' o ° c ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ N L ~ ~ ~ (~ 4' O ~ ~ ~ ~+ ;~ t4 O ~ ~ N ~ N C C '~ e+a ~ cu o ~ ~ ~ o cts ~ ,.. "'' .~ N .~ . N E ~ ~ ' I ~ fi :~ ~ ~ N ^ ~ ~ c . ~ m ~ ~ ~ '~ O ~rj ..-~ O U ~ ~ -p er ~ `u N '~ ~ C I ~ I C ~ N N U ~ ~ •L O I ~ ''~ ~ I O L ~ ~ U I I ' I ~ ~I I - O Z7 m cu ~ t `~ ~ > ~ •~ Y ° ~ m ~ o n o c o .c ~ ~ a o OC o o ~> a ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~S U Q •- > .fl c 3 Z ", AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE 062403-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 3.6-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 7944 PLANTATION ROAD AND 8008 PLANTATION ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 27.06-4-17 AND 18) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 AND I-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF HOLLLINS HOSPITALITY, LLC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 3.6 acres, as described herein, and located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road (Tax Map Numbers 27.06-4-17 and 18} in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, and I-1, Conditional Industrial District to the zoning classification of C-2, General Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Hollins Hospitality, LLC. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: 1 (1) The property which is the subject of the rezoning will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan, dated April 25, 2003, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use from adjoining properties. (2) For 40 feet along the south/southwest property line, adjacent to the Bach and Newbern property, there shall be tree plantings to screen the view from Carvin Street. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Map No. 27.06-4-17 - 0.83 acres Beginning at Corner #1, said point located on the westerly right-of--way of Plantation Road, said point also being the northeasterly corner of property of P D Lodging Associates, LLC, (DB 1535, page 1697); thence leaving Plantation Road and with P D Lodging, S. 60 deg. 43' 35" W. 167.14 feet to Corner #2, said poin# being the northeasterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1; thence leaving P D Lodging and with Waldron Court, Lot 16, Section 1, S. 59 deg. 40' 00" W. 48.32 feet to Corner #A, said point being the southeasterly corner of property of Florence Marie Peters; thence leaving Waldron Court and with Peters, N. 30 deg. 45' 00" W. 201.48 feet to Corner #6, said point being the southwesterly corner of property of Georgia B. McDaniel; thence leaving Peters and with McDaniel, N. 82 deg. 48' 08" E. 259.27 feet to Corner #7, said point located on the westerly right-of-way of Plantation Road; thence leaving McDaniel and with Plantation Road, S. 18 deg. 29' 47" E. 104.94 feet to Corner #1, the place of beginning. Tax Map No. 27.06-4-18 - 2.705 acres Beginning at Corner #3, said point being the northwesterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1, said point also located at the terminus of Carvin Street, and said point also located on the southerly boundary of property of Bach and Newbern (DB 1431, page 648); thence leaving Waldron Court and Carvin Street and with Bach and Newbern for the following 2 courses: N. 30 deg. 45' 00" W. 453.23 feet to Corner #4; thence S. 58 deg. 50' 00" E. 258.85 feet to Corner #5, said point being the northwesterly corner of Georgia B. McDaniel property; thence leaving Bach and Newbern and with McDaniel for the following 2 course, S. 30 deg. 45' 00" E. passing Corner #6 at 255.57 feet, in all 457.05 feet to Corner #4, said point located at the southwesterly corner of property of Hollins Hospitality, LLC, said point also located on the northerly boundary of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1; thence leaving Hollins Hospitality, LLC and with Waldron Court, Section 1, S. 59 deg. 40' 00" W. 307.16 feet to Corner #3, the place of beginning. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: C~ ~~ Brenda J. H Iton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner William E. Driver, Real Estate Valuation 3 Applicants Narne: Hollins Hospitality , ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: R 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Proposed Zoninq: C2 Tax Map No. 27.06-4-17, >8 ~ ~ -- PETITIONER: Hollins Hospitality, LLC CASE NUMBER: 13-6/2003 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 24, 2003 S-~ A. REQUEST The petition of Hollins Hospitality, LLC, to Rezone 3.6 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential and I-1 Conditional Industrial District to C-2 General Office District in order to construct and operate aHotel/Motel/Motor Lodge located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke on the request. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Murphy presented the staff report. Mr. Michael Pace, attorney, spoke representing the applicant. Mr. Witt made a request for a proffer concerning some tree plantings 40 feet along the south -southwest side of the site adjacent to the Bach & Newbern, C-2 zoned property. The applicant agreed to plant the trees. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. The Property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan, dated April 25, 2003 and prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use from adjoining properties. 2. For 40 feet along the south-southwest property line (adjacent to the Bach and Newbern Property), there shall be tree plantings to screen the view from Carvins Street. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Steve Azar made a motion to give a favorable recommendation to the rezoning with conditions. The motion passed 3-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission ...?" `` STAFf REPORT Petitioner: Hollins Hospitality, LLC Request: Request to rezone two (2) parcels from R-I, and R-1 with a portion of I.1conditional, to C-2 conditional for a Marriott Fairfield Inn Location: 7944 and 8008 Plantation Road Magisterial District: Hollins ProfferedlSuggested 1. The Property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan, Conditions: dated April 25, 2003 and prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use from adjoining properties. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The petition is to rezone two (2) parcels to C-2 conditional for a Marriott Fairfield Inn Motor Lodge. The first parcel is .803 acres zo e~ R-1 and the second parcel is 2.70 acres zoned R-1 with .41 acres of this parcel zoned I-1 conditional.~~rf 1988 the industrial portion was rezoned for alumber-drying, cabinet shop and upholstery business in an accessory building on the property. The site is designated as Core and the rezoning request is consistent with the 2000 revision to the Roanoke County Community Plan. Staff recommends approval of the request. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site plan review will be required. A commercial entrance and compliance with VDOT standards will be required. Hotels, motels and motor inns are permitted in the C-2, General Commercial District. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background -The applicant, Hollins Hospitality, LLC currently owns the .803 acre parcel that fronts on Plantation Road. Hollins Hospitality, LLC is the contract purchaser of the 2.70 acre parcel located to the west of the frontage parcel. The applicant has selected the site due to the close proximity to Interstate 81 and Route 11. Both parcels contain houses and accessory buildings. The conditions on the .41 acre portion of the rear parcel relate to prohibiting outside employees, prohibiting building expansions, prohibiting signage and outdoor storage for the family lumber-drying, cabinet shop and upholstery business. To o~ graphyNegetation -The lowest part of the property is adjacent to Plantation Road and the site elevation increases to the west. A major portion of the subject parcels are grassy with more mature trees on the rear parcel generally oriented parallel to Interstate 81. Surrounding Neighborhood -Plantation Road is an Urban Principal Arterial by VDOT standards. The corridor in the general area of the subject property currently has hotels, fast food restaurants, convenience stores and some industrial uses. The proposed entrance for the Marriott Fairfield Inn is several hundred feet south of the off-ramp for interstate 81. C._ ~~ 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Access/Traffic Circulation -Access is proposed from Plantation Road. Plantation Road is identified as an Urban Principal Arterial with an estimated traffic count of 12, 500 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. VDOT has indicated that no access will be permitted from Carvin Street. VDOT has indicated that preliminary plans for the widening of I-81 show Plantation Road to be relocated further south of the current location. There is the potential for this entrance not to be located on the realigned Plantation Road in the future. The Roanoke County Economic Development Department is encouraging shared access, if possible, with the commercial parcel located to the rear or west of the 2.70 acre parcel. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -Public water and sewer are available to the site. Fire and rescue services will continue as presently served. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN As a result of increased traffic and projected traffic increases along I-$1 the Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed improving the interstate to increase capacity and to address safety concerns. The proposed improvements include the redesign of Exit 146 at Plantation Road. In October 2000 Roanoke County revised the Community Plan to include the Plantation Road and I-81 interchange. The revised Community Plan designation for the subject parcels is Core. The properties are also identified as Economic Opportunity Areas. The proposed hotel/motel use is strongly supported by the Community Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Staff recognized that the I-81 corridor and interchanges would have significant changes with the proposed expansion of the interstate. The Community Plan for the Plantation Road area, including the subject parcels, was amended in October 2000 to allow for high intensity commercial development. The future land use map designated this area as Core. The Core designation supports the rezoning for the proposed use. Staff recommends approving the rezoning request with the proffered condition. CASE NUMBER: # 13-612003 PREPARED BY: J. Murphy HEARING DATES: PC: 6/03/2003 BOS: 612412003 2 -~~ AMENDED APPLICATION FOR REZONING County of Roanoke For Staff Use Onl Community Development Date recei ed: R ~ ived by: Planning & Zoning `~ 2. 5.."i3"~'~ 5204 Bernard Drive application fee: PC/1~ i ~atC3 P O BOX 29800 ~ 7. Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Placards issued: BOS date: ~ ~. `t ~ ~ (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ase um er: Case Number ~- ~ 3 - {° 1 ~~. ~ U,~ ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) X Rezoning ^ Special Use ^ Variance Applicants name/address w/zip: Hollins Hospitality, LLC, c/o G. Michael Pace, Jr., Esq. Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore P.O. Box 40013, Roanoke, VA 24022 ^ Waiver ^ Administrative Appeal Phone: 983-9325 Cell No.: 353-0233 ` Fax No.: 983-9400 mike pace(a~gentrylocke.com Owner's name/address w/zip: Phone No.: A- 562-1675 Parcel A: Florence M. Peters Parcel B: Hollins Hospitality, LLC Phone No.: B- 344-SS31 6402 Garrett Lane P.O. Box 201 Roanoke, VA 24019 Roanoke, VA 24002 Fax No.: B- 344-5531 Property Location Magisterial District: Hollins A- 7944 Plantation Rd., Roanoke, VA 24019 B- 8008 Plantation Rd., Roanoke, VA 24019 Community Planning area: Core Commercial Tax Map No.: A- 027.06-04-18; B- 027.06-04-17 Existing Zoning: A- Primary R-I (.40 ac. I1 (Conditional)); B- R-1 Size of parcel(s): Acres: A- 2.705; B- 0.803 I Existing Land Use: REZONING SPECIAL USE PERMITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS (R/S/W) Proposed Zoning: C-2 for both parcels Proposed Land Use: Hotel/MoteUMotor Lodge Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes X No ^ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes X No ^ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes X No ^ VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (T!/W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ~SNy V/AA R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA }{ Consultation X 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan X Application fee }~ Application X Metes and bounds description X Proffers, if applicable }{ Justification X Water and sewer application X Adjoining property owners 2 S-~~ I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. A _ ~ ,~~ ~ / i'~"J ~ Owner's Signature B - HOLLINS By: Owner's Signature JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL U5E PERMIT bR WAIVER REQUEST I Applicant Hollins Hos itality LLC y The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 1 Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 1 Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 1 3 ~---~( JUSTIFICATION-FOR VARIANCE REQUEST- Applicant Hollins Hospitality LLC The of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. N/A 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. N/A 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. N/A 4. The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. N/A 4 5-y .NSTIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Applicant Hollins Hospitalih~ LLC Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. Reasons for appeal: I N/A 2. Evidence supporting claim. N/A 5 S-`D CO1~CEPT PLAN CHECKLIST - A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following. are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS X a. Applicant name and name of development X b. Date, scale and north arrow X c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions X d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties X e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. X f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties X g. All property lines and easements X h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights X i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within. or adjacent to the development X j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS X k. X 1. X m X n. X o. X p. N/A q. Ic Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule required in the checklist above complete. May 12 2003 Date 6 ~~-- t_t AMENDED SCHEDULE 1 TO THE AMENDED APPLICATION OF HOLLINS HOSPITALITY, LLC, FOR REZONINGTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Application is hereby made for rezoning of two (2) parcels of land located at the terminus of Carvin Street (Virginia Secondary Route 735) and at the intersection of Plantation Road and Friendship Lane in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, Virginia, pursuant to Section 30-54-2(A) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. A. APPLICANT Name: Hollins Hospitality, LLC Address: P.O. Box 201 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 Telephone No.: 344-5531 Contact: G. Michael Pace, Jr., Esquire Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore 800 SunTrust Plaza P.O. Box 40013 Roanoke Virginia 24022-0013 Telephone No.: 983-9312 Facsimile No.: 983-9469 E-mail address: mike~ace@gentrylocke.com B. OWNERS Parcel A (2.705 Ac.): (Tax Map No.: 27.06-04-18) Name: Florence Marie Peters Address: 6402 Garrett Lane Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Interest in Property: Hollins Hospitality, LLC is the contract purchaser of Parcel A, consisting of 2.705 acres, from Florence Marie Peters. Parcel B (0.803 Ac.): (Tax Map No.: 27.06-04-17} Name: Hollins Hospitality, LLC Address: P.O. Box 201 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 14875/2/1004091.2 ~~~~ C. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Parcel A: 7944 Plantation Road, Roanoke County, Virginia Parcel B: 8008 Plantation Road, Roanoke County, Virginia D. ADJOINING OWNERS: (See attached list of adjoining land owners) E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (See Exhibit A attached) F. VOLUNTARY PROFFER: Hollins Hospitality, LLC hereby voluntarily proffers with this application the following condition: The Property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan, dated April 25, 2003 and prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use from adjoining properties. G. PROPOSED USE: Hollins Hospitality, LLC ("Hollins") is a Virginia limited liability company owned by J. Granger MacFarlane and Jay Patel and is in the business of developing, owning and operating motels and motor lodges in Virginia and elsewhere. Hollins currently owns a 0.803 acre parcel referred to above as Parcel B located at 8008 Plantation Road (Tax Map No. 27.06-04-17). Hollins is the contract purchaser of an adjoining 2.705 acres parcel owned by Florence M. Peters (Tax Map No. 27.06-04-18) referred to above as Parcel A. Parcel A and Parcel B are collectively referred to herein as the "Property." Parcel A currently is primarily zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. A portion of Parcel A is zoned I-1 (Conditional) (see "Concept Plan" for details). Parcel B is currently zoned R-l. Hollins has filed this application to rezone Parcel A and Parcel B to C-2, General Commercial District (Conditional), as shown on the Concept Plan dated April 25, 2003, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. attached hereto (the "Concept Plan"). The purpose of this application is to permit combination of Parcel A and Parcel B for the development as a 74-83 bed Marriott Fairfield Inn Motor Lodge. The granting of the requested rezoning is a condition precedent to the closing of the purchase of Parcel A. The Property has been selected for development by the applicant because of its proximity to Interstate 81 and Route 11. Hollins intends to develop the Property in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan, subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County. The development of the Property for the 14875/2/ 1004091.2 ~ i~ \•,5 _^_ proposed use will make the Property compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area and the general commercial development pattern along Plantation Road. Nearby properties are currently being put to a variety of mixed commercial uses, including a Hampton Inn, a Country Inn & Suites, a Days Inn, afamily-style restaurant, a Shell gasoline station and convenience store, an Exxon gasoline and convenience store, a McDonald's restaurant, commercial offices and industrial facilities, as well as a few single and multi-family residential dwellings. This area is clearly in transition, and given the general pattern of development along this part of Plantation Road, there is no reasonable expectation that the area will continue to be used for residential purposes. Importantly, plans are under way to realign the I-81 connector with Friendship Lane, further confirming the commercial nature of the area. Hollins intends to raze the existing residential dwelling and garage on Parcel A and construct the Marriott Fairfield Inn, with sufficient parking available as shown on the Concept Plan. Access to Parcel A will be along the existing asphalt drive along the eastern boundary of Parcel B, with road improvements as necessary to satisfy Roanoke County, VDOT and Marriott requirements. The Roanoke County Community Plan (the "Community Plan") designates this area for land use as Core Commercial. The Core designation delineates commercial and retail areas where suburban centers of high intensity urban development are present or expected. The proposed use is consistent with the permissible land use types, principles and policies contained in the Community Plan for Core commercial development. Significantly, in October 2000, the County revised the Community Plan to include Plantation Road and the new I-81 interchange improvements to allow for high density commercial development along this corridor. Hollins believes that a Marriott Fairfield Inn on the Property will provide a substantial benefit to the County and the public. Such use is consistent with and is a less intensive commercial use than others permitted in the C-2 zoning classification. In addition, plans for the development of the Property include substantial landscaping and buffering that meets or exceeds the County's requirements in order to minimize or eliminate any adverse impact the proposed use may have on the adjoining properties. The project will promote tourism, provide a high quality lodging facility to compliment those already in the area, and provide the County with additional revenues. The proposed use also meets all setback and other requirements of Sections 30-54-3 of the Zoning Code, so no variances are required. The Property is currently served by public water and sewer. There will be no adverse impact on public services and facilities or utilities, including roads, schools, parks and other recreational facilities, or fire and rescue services. Plantation Road is a heavily traveled roadway linking Williamson Road (Route 11) and I-81, and the proposed use will not increase the demand on this road, or other County services or facilities. 14875/2/1004091.2 C l_ Because (a) the area in which the Property is located is already heavily developed with a `~~ variety of commercial uses similar to the proposed use, with no reasonable expectation that the area remain residential in nature, the proposed use will not cause an adverse change in the surrounding area, (b) the proposed use is consistent with the Community Plan and the general purposes of Section 30-54-1, et. seq. of the Zoning Code, and (c) the development as shown on the Concept Plan would be an appropriate and attractive improvement to the Property, the existing R-1 zoning designation for the Property is unreasonable. These factors clearly support the reasonableness of a C-2 zoning designation for the use of the Property as proposed. In view of the foregoing, we ask that (a) the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed rezoning, and (b) the Board of Supervisors approve the application in order to permit the development of the Property as a Marriott Fairfield Inn location. Thank you for your consideration. 14875/2/1004091.2 A Comm: 2001-312X ~~ The following is a deed description for 2.705 acre Parcel "A", Tax No. 27.06-04-18. BEGINNING at Corner #3, said point being the northwesterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1, said point also located at the terminus of Carvin Street, and said point also located on the southerly boundary of property of Bach and Newbern, Deed Book 1431, Page 648; thence leaving Waldron Court and Carvin Street and with Bach and Newbern for the following 2 courses, N 30° 45' 00" W, 453.23 feet to Corner #4; thence S 58° 50' 00" E, 258.85 feet to Corner #5, said point being the northwesterly corner of Georgia B. McDaniel property; thence leaving Bach and Newbern and with McDaniel for the following course, S 30° 45' 00" E passing Corner #6 at 255.57 feet, in all 457.05 feet to Corner #4, said point located at the southwesterly - corner of property of Hollins Hospitality, LLC, said point also located on the northerly boundary of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section l; thence leaving Hollins Hospitality, LLC and with Waldron Court, Section 1, S 59° 40' 00" W, 307.16 feet to Corner #3, the place of BEGINNING and containing 2.705 acres. Comm: 2001-312X The following is a deed description for Parcel "B", 0.803 acre parcel, Tax No. 27.06-04- 17. BEGINNING at Corner#1, said point located on the westerly right-of--way of Plantation Road, said point also being the northeasterly corner of property of P D Lodging Associates, L.L.C., Deed Book 1535, Page 1697; thence leaving Plantation Road and with P D Lodging, S 60° 43' 35" W, 167.14 feet to Corner #2, said point being the northeasterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1; thence leaving P D Lodging and with Waldron Court, Lot 16, Section 1, S 59° 40' 00" W, 48.32 feet to Corner #A, said point being the southeasterly corner of property of Florence Marie Peters; thence leaving Waldron Court and with Peters, N 30° 45' 00" W, 201.48 feet to Corner #6, said point being the southwesterly corner of property of Georgia B. McDaniel; thence leaving Peters and with McDaniel, N 82° 48' 08" E, 259.27 feet to Corner #7, said point located on the westerly right-of--way of Plantation Road; thence leaving McDaniel and with Plantation Road, S 18° 29' 47" E, 104.94 feet to Corner #l, the place of BEGINNING and containing 0.803 acres. O riNioain avoNroa .._ -_- -- Sa.~~Nr'ld-SaOAlnaf]S-Sa33NIDN8 _ .~ ~~~d'S3.LdI~OSSV N~QSWtI'1 ~~`=~~ I o~ Ntl'1d 1d30N00 1 1 1 1 ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ 5 1 `~a1 1 s "~\^ i~ 4. ~~ ~~ --. ~ '\ ~ ~ I ~\ N ,., ~ ~ , ~` ; : '' ` , I ,'1 ~ tt ,~~` f 1 ' '1 ~~ ~ m ,, .. ~~ ~ I . y ~ I i 1 rl fi ~' w ` ' ,y 'r 'r ~ ~ w6~ ~ 1 '~ ' +T1j I tt@ ~ ` _ `65 y~ s ~ i g 1 1 i d ~ o~ 1 1 ~ ~` 1 19 i 1 ~ . .* . ~ - C~ m ~ ~ a S W a ~' F'+ o 0 c 0 W O -, ~G ~ O ~ZZ U_ Z 2 0 ~``~ D ti°` O~ x ~ N wNq N NN~• ~o S W~-`U2 ~O ~iVCiQ ?; ~ 0.W r~~~yy~lC~<w W (~2~ ~v~"i j W ?e ~ r_,~z F ~ O ~~ p~ WU - o e ^11~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o N ~~W~yy.F N ~° ~=a p U ~v U ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~,` ~_-~ I-~~~ ~ \\ ~ '~ ~ s ~ i 4~$~ \ II YYY7777~ ,, .~~ i I t --- ~ a4 i'~ ~` ` \® ~", m0 3i~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ®~ ~ e ~ n fb i ~~ } ~ i r ' r ~ ~ ~~~ i ~~ i' ~ ey 8~ ggr i a ~ ~Y'~S ..l M_ .. ,_ _~ a \1117 ~ ~i~~~ ~ ~ 't '`~_ ~ ~. ; h~ ~'~ ___~ ~~ J~'- '-11111 ~ u ~~$~~~` 4~ ~ flP~~~~ = ~ ~~~~~ ~ I \ i \ I ~ d ;t ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a ~ t ~' ~ :~ ~7 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ >Y ~~~ ~ A ~y~ ~~~ f 3 :~ j~'~ ~~, a ~~ ~ ~) ~ ~: l ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicants Name: Hollins Hospitality Zoning: R 1 Proposed Zoning: C2 Tax Map No. 27.06-4-17,18 \~ % 4 ', STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: IN RE: REZONING APPLICATION OF HOLLINS HOSPITALITY, LLC REVISED PROFFER OF CONDITIONS: TO THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Being in accordance with Sec. 15.2-2296 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Petitioner, Hollins Hospitality, LLC, hereby voluntarily proffers to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, the following conditions to the above-referenced rezoning, the second of which was requested by the Planning Commission of the County of Roanoke: 1. The Property which is the subject of the rezoning will be developed in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan, dated April 25, 2003, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use from adjoining properties. 2. For 40 feet along the south/southwest property line, adjacent to the Bach and Newbern property, there shall be tree plantings to screen the view from Carvin Street. Signed and agreed to by: Date: June 16, 2003 HOLLINS H By: LANDOWNER ,LLC Date: June 16, 2003 ~;,~~.~~ ~ ~'1~ ~ ~~,4~, Florence M. Peters ~__ L. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 3.6-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 7944 PLANTATION ROAD AND 8008 PLANTATION ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 27.06-4-17 AND 18) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 AND I-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF HOLLLINS HOSPITALITY, LLC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required bylaw. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 3.6 acres, as described herein, and located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road (Tax Map Numbers 27.06-4-17 and 18) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District, and I-1, Conditional Industrial District to the zoning classification of C-2, General Office District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Hollins Hospitality, LLC. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The property which is the subject of the rezoning will be developed in 1 ~~~~ substantial conformity with the Concept Plan, dated April 25, 2003, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use from adjoining properties. (2) For 40 feet along the south/southwest property line, adjacent to the Bach and Newbern property, there shall be tree plantings to screen the view from Carvin Street. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Tax Map No. 27.06-4-17 - 0.83 acres Beginning at Corner #1, said point located on the westerly right-of-way of Plantation Road, said point also being the northeasterly corner of property of P D Lodging Associates, LLC, (DB 1535, page 1697); thence leaving Plantation Road and with P D Lodging, S. 60 deg. 43' 35" W. 167.14 feet to Corner #2, said point being the northeasterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1; thence leaving P D Lodging and with Waldron Court, Lot 16, Section 1, S. 59 deg. 40' 00" W. 48.32 feet to Corner #A, said point being the southeasterly corner of property of Florence Marie Peters; thence leaving Waldron Court and with Peters, N. 30 deg. 45' 00" W. 201.48 feet to Corner #6, said point being the southwesterly corner of property of Georgia B. McDaniel; thence leaving Peters and with McDaniel, N. 82 deg. 48' 08" E. 259.27 feet to Corner #7, said point located on the westerly right-of-way of Plantation Road; thence leaving McDaniel and with Plantation Road, S. 18 deg. 29' 47" E. 104.94 feet to Corner #1, the place of beginning. Tax Map No. 27.06-4-18 - 2.705 acres Beginning at Corner #3, said point being the northwesterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1, said point also located at the terminus of Carvin Street, and said point also located on the southerly boundary of property of Bach and Newbern (DB 1431, page 648); thence leaving Waldron Court and Carvin Street and with Bach and Newbern for the following 2 courses: N. 30 deg. 45' 00" W. 453.23 feet to Corner #4; thence S. 58 deg. 50' 00" E. 258.85 feet to Corner #5, said point being the northwesterly corner of Georgia B. McDaniel property; thence leaving Bach and Newbern and with McDaniel for the following course, S. 30 deg. 45' 00" E. passing Corner #6 at 255.57 feet, in all 457.05 feet to Corner #4, said point located at the southwesterly corner of property of Hollins Hospitality, LLC, said point also located on the northerly boundary of 1.29 acre 2 S--~I portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1 ~ thence leaving Hollins Hospitality, LLC and with Waldron Court, Section 1, S. 59 d~g. 40' 00" W. 307.16 feet to Corner #3, the place of beginning. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full f~rce and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. j The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the chan~e in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. 3 (~ ~--- ~j-`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE 062403-11 AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6, "ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN" BY THE ADOPTION OF ROUTE 11/460 WEST CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN -DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THIS AREA WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-6 the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia;" and WHEREAS, as a result of increased traffic along the Route 11/460 West corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation has prepared proposed roadway improvements to provide increased carrying capacity and to address safety concerns; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the Community Plan for Roanoke County entitled Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed amendments was held after advertisement and notice as required by 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing was held on June 24, 2003. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 011299-6 adopting the "Roanoke County Community Plan" dated September 30, 1998, is hereby amended to include the following: (A) The adoption of the Route 11 /460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines which are attached hereto as Attachment A. 1 2. That the effective date of this Ordinance is June 24, 2003. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~ Brenda J. Hol on, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner 2 ~~ Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines GOAL: Develop a set of Design Guidelines as a component of the Corridor Master Plan that will serve as a planning tool to help achieve aesthetic and functional compatibility between new and existing development along the Route 11 /460 West Corridor as improvements are made to this corridor per roadway plans prepared and implemented by the Virginia Department of Transportation. OBJECTIVES: ^ Proactively plan for quality development along the corridor to include a mixture of residential, office, retail, institutional and industrial uses. ^ Encourage aesthetic and design excellence in all public and private improvements and developments through adherence to the design guidelines included in this Master Plan. Encourage revitalization and redevelopment of properties along the corridor to create an attractive, commercially viable and functionally efficient atmosphere for the development of business centers and community focal points. ^ Encourage designs that produce a desirable relationship between individual parcels, the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, and adjacent areas. The provision of pedestrian open spaces, such as covered walkways, plazas, courtyards and open passageways between buildings and adjoining developments, are highly desirable. ^ Encourage consolidation of contiguous parcels to provide for development projects that collectively function in swell-designed and efficient manner while discouraging traditional commercial/industrial strip development patterns that require multiple access points and large expanses of parking areas and often result in clusters of architecturally-unrelated buildings. Strive to incorporate visually interesting building facades into designs that effectively engage pedestrian and business interest. ^ Discourage development that creates high traffic volumes directly to and from Route 11/460 West and that contributes to the creation of astrip-commercial character along the corridor. For development that requires drive through facilities and promotes short visits, encourage the utilization of shared access points from Route 11/460 West and interior access drives that direct the main flow of traffic to controlled intersections. Promote the use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and techniques that help to preserve and/or improve the water quality of water bodies and drainage corridors, including the use of sub-regional stormwater drainage facilities. The integration of Low Impact Development principals is strongly encouraged. Site planning and design should consider the use of landscape areas as a method of promoting storm runoff flow paths and the construction or bio-retention systems (rain gardens) as an alternative to conventional stormwater management facilities. Create incentives to land developers or owners such as potential reduced costs of site grading, infrastructure construction and long term facility maintenance. ^ Encourage the utilization and implementation of these guidelines by offering financial, zoning, stormwater, and design incentives and programs that are mutually beneficial to the business and the development of the corridor. ~~ ^ Compliance is voluntary, but mandatory to receive financial incentives from the County. Analysis of Existing Conditions A. The initial step in site plan formulation should be an inventory and analysis of significant natural and historically significant features that exist on the parcel. Inventory and analysis elements should include, but are not limited to, drainage corridors, areas of steep slopes and/or unstable soils, and significant vegetation. Data generated as part of the analysis should be submitted as part of a preliminary plan submission to Roanoke County for review. B. New development should minimize impacts to significant natural features and should strive to preserve existing individual trees over six inch (6") diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree masses that function as natural visual buffers and provide a natural ` setting for the construction of new buildings. All trees 24" DBH and greater should be protected, preserved and incorporated in the final site design, except where such practice severely limits the site's development options as determined by the Director of Community Development. C. Incorporate into design development the preservation of natural drainage corridors, views, natural ground forms and unique site features. D. All proposed development or alteration should reflect sensitivity to the historical character of the corridor in terms of land use and architectural integrity. New commercial development and existing structure redevelopment should integrate architectural elements that emphasize aesthetically pleasing facade and side wall components visible from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. II. Building Orientation and Location A. New buildings and associated structures should be located in a manner that encourages aesthetically pleasing views from the Route 11 1460 West corridor. B. Buildings should be sited with respect to the natural topography and any unique cultural, historic features of the site. C. The arrangement of multiple buildings on a single development parcel should be undertaken so as to define workable spaces that promote the safe and efficient interaction of site users. D. Multiple buildings should be arranged to reflect a unified theme for the proposed development and clustered to reinforce a neighborhood style or feeling as appropriate for the corridor. • 2 ~._.7 • • • Site Access A. Access points along the corridor should be minimized and consolidated to the greatest extent possible in order to reduce traffic congestion and facilitate ingress and egress from sites along the corridor. B. Access to each development parcel should be designed so as not to impede traffic along the corridor. Where feasible, development parcels should share access points along the corridor via shared entrance and access drives, interparcel travelways and/or on-site service drives that connect adjacent parcels. C. Individual parcels of land that exist at the time the [Route 11/4fi0 West Corridor Overlay District] is created should not be denied access to a public highway in the event no reasonable joint or cooperative access is possible at the time of development. D. Areas along the rear property lines of parcels should be enhanced to .encourage access points, joint access drives and service alleys through the planning of buffer strips and easements with all new and redeveloping businesses. i----- -,, --- ~- ----~ ~ ~ ~ E E. As a condition of project approval for new and redeveloping businesses, property owners should provide a joint easement agreement that allows cross access to and from other properties within the corridor and a unified parking and circulation plan should be formulated wherever feasible. IV Site Layout, Parking and Pedestrian Circulation A. Site layout should stress the development of an organized pattern of roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways that work together to provide a safe and efficient internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern. Internal roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways must be located outside of public right-of-ways and maintained by property owners. B. Provisions for connections to pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems throughout the corridor should be incorporated into site plans. 3 ~~ C. Parking lot design should incorporate opportunities for interconnection to adjacent parcels within the corridor wherever feasible. D. Views to parking areas from the roadway corridor should be minimized by locating parking areas to the side and rear of proposed buildings. Landscaped areas should be incorporated adjacent to parking areas as stipulated by Section VI Landscaping. E. Smaller parking areas located throughout an individual development parcel should be deemed preferable to large expanses of parking as these smaller parking areas function to reduce visual and environmental impacts. While the location of all parking areas should be in compliance with the existing zoning ordinance requirements, parking areas are generally discouraged in the front yards of parcels. Multiple smaller parking areas with associated landscaping, sidewalks and signage comprising 30% to 50% each of total required parking is encouraged over single parking areas adequate for the entire parking demand. F. The provision of on-site pedestrian circulation systems should be coordinated with those systems of adjacent properties and with pedestrian circulation patterns throughout the corridor. Develop clearly defined and direct walkways to buildings that will discourage unintentional pedestrian routes that may jeopardize possible landscape opportunities. V. Building Style and Architectural Treatment A. Architectural treatment of buildings, including style, materials and color, should be compatible with the developing character of the neighborhood. Building compatibility should be achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors and/or other architectural features as appropriate. Creation of a strong sense of architectural continuity along the corridor is highly encouraged. B. Where large buildings are proposed, architectural facades and landscaping should be used to reduce their visual and aesthetic impact. The use of vast blank building walls in areas visible from the street or adjacent properties should be avoided or mitigated through the use of fenestration, building articulation, architectural detailing and/or landscape plantings. Building frontages should utilize offsets, projections and/or other distinctive architectural components to add interest to building facades and reduce the impact of expansive structures. C. Building materials should be selected on the basis of their harmony with the developing character of the neighborhood. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, or metal will not be allowed within 300 feet of the public right-of-way. Preferred materials should include stone, brick, architectural precast concrete, aluminum and glass. Concrete masonry should be limited to ground face, split face or burnished units. D. Building entrances should be designed to be clearly visible and easily recognizable from parking areas and walkways. Special attention should be given to street level design that attracts pedestrians and reinforces street activity. E. Building services associated with solid waste storage or mechanical units should be screened from view to minimize visual impacts from the corridor, parking areas and neighboring properties. 4 .~,~ F. Accessory buildings associated with individual lots uses such as utility buildings, solid waste storage enclosures and storage buildings should be constructed of materials that are architecturally compatible with the main facility. VI. Landscaping A. General standards and specifications 1. Landscaping design standards and species requirements should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards with the exception of the following: B. Street frontages 1. Street frontages along the corridor should be devoted to building architecture, landscaping or public green spaces unless site constraints dictate otherwise and with approval of the [Director of Community Development]. Landscaping along the frontage of properties adjoining any road right-of-way should be outside of the road right-of-way and in compliance with all VDOT regulations for roadside landscaping, and should include the following: a) A planting area with a minimum width of 15 feet should be established outside any road right-of-way and utility easement and maintained as open green space. b) Within this planting area, a combination of trees and shrubs should be planted as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade/stree# tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 3) A minimum of two deciduous shrubs should be planted for each five (5) feet of contiguous property line. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One-third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and/or earth berms may be combined with the required street frontage landscaping. d) No uses should be permitted within the street frontage planting area except as follows: permitted entrances, necessary stormwater management facilities, utility crossings and easements, pedestrian and bike trails, and signage as allowed within the Corridor Overlay District. C. Parking areas should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards. D. Building exteriors 1. Areas along the exterior walls of buildings should be landscaped to soften the appearance of the buildings and enhance site aesthetics. Flexibility in the placement of landscape materials around building exteriors should be granted in order to promote a naturalized appearance and in recognition of the occurrence of service 5 S- areas and utility systems adjacent to buildings. Landscaping around building exteriors should be as follows: a) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of side and rear exterior building walls. b) Foundation plantings should be provided along the front facade of buildings as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 3) A minimum of one deciduous shrub should be planted for each four (4) feet of front building fagade. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One-third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and/or earth berms may be combined with the required building exterior landscaping. d) Landscaped plazas may be used to meet building exterior landscaping requirements but landscaping in these areas should not exceed 50% of the minimum landscaping required for the side and rear exterior building walls and for front building facades. E. Stormwater management areas 1. Above-ground stormwater management areas and facilities should be landscaped with plants adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water consistent with recommended engineering practices for the design of such areas and facilities. Landscaping of such areas and facilities should follow design principles compatible with other required site landscaping and should result in a landscape design that is an aesthetic asset to the overall development. 2. Development of stormwater retention facilities shall follow current county standards and be compliant with guidelines as outlined in the current County of Roanoke Stormwater Ordinance 8-11A and drainage standards. 3. Development plans that include innovative technologies for stormwater management (open space in parking areas, underground/under parking collection and infiltration, designed bio filter areas, roof collection, and stormwater recycling systems, alternative porous parking areas, velocity dissipation, and stream bank protection, green roofing systems, stormceptors, and other low impact development guidelines) in design should be encouraged when stormwater designs are required. F. Buffer areas a) Buffer areas should be required between properties of different zoning intensities and should be located on the development parcel under consideration. The minimum buffers required between properties of different zoning intensities should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping. 1. As required, buffer areas should be provided along the outer boundaries of development parcels except in locations where access driveways, utility easements and/or site openings are required to be located in those areas. 6 ~"., )_~. 2. Buffer areas should be planted with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. A mixture of large and small, deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and groundcover plants and earth berms should be utilized to create a buffer area that effectively screens properties of different zoning intensities. Landscape plans for buffer areas are encouraged to incorporate earth berms with an average height of 3-4 feet, where physiographically feasible, and other creative landscape features into buffer area design in order to simulate a naturalized landscaped edge between adjoining properties. Where earth berms are used, berm side slopes should be no greater than 2:1; berms side slopes 3:1 or less are preferred. VII. Site Lighting A. Exterior site lighting should not extend beyond 75% of the height of the principal structure with the exception of buildings with a height of twenty (20') feet or less. "" Buildings with a height of 20' or less should have a maximum height of fifteen (15') feet for exterior lights. Path and landscape lights are encouraged where appropriate. VIII. Signage A. The shared use of signs is encouraged for adjacent businesses. B. Signage spatial allocation should meet the requirements of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Signage spatial allocation for shared signs should be the sum of each allowable signage area per business. 1. Signs should be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded laps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or onto any adjacent road or property. C. Signs should be complemented, accented and enhanced by with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. The sign landscaped area should be at a minimum one and one-half times the total area of the sign. D. The following types of signs should be prohibited within the overlay district: 1. Off premises signs 2. Portable signs 3. Temporary signs 4. Roof signs • 7 j IX. Utilities A. All new site utilities should be located underground unless otherwise approved. B. Where feasible, existing overhead utility lines along Route 11 /460 West should be relocated underground or to the rear yards of buildings along the corridor. • 8 S, s PETITIONER: Route 460 West Design Guidelines CASE NUMBER: 6!2003 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 24, 2003 A. REQUEST The petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan as it pertains to policies for Route 460 West Design Guidelines in the Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Chris Lowe presented the petition. He stated that he had made the grammatical correction that Mr. Witt had requested. D. CONDITIONS E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Martha Hooker made a motion favorable recommendation to amend the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan as it pertains to policies for Route 460 West Design Guidelines in the Catawba Magisterial District. Motion carried 3-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 4 c~~ ~ MEMO To: Planning Commission From: Chris Lowe, Planner Date: May 28, 2003 RE: 11/460 Design Guidelines The Route 11/460 Design Guidelines are now completed. With the help of Engineering Concepts and staff, a set of guidelines have been established to encourage smart, attractive, and reasonable development in this corridor. We have established financial incentives by the means of aMini-Matching Grant Program up to $5,000 for business owners and developers who are willing to utilize these guidelines. We have also hired a summer intern whose goal is to spread the information and it's incentives to the business owners within this corridor. As you know, we did a similar project in the Williamson Road corridor and at times it seemed that the project was going slow, but it is a timely process and eventually the results were seen. We as a staff are confident that the same will be said for the Rt. 11/460 Corridor. s -~ Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines GOAL: Develop a set of Design Guidelines as a component of the Corridor Master Plan that will serve as a planning tool to help achieve aesthetic and functional compatibility between new and existing development along the Route 11/460 West Corridor as improvements are made to this corridor per roadway plans prepared and implemented by the Virginia Department of Transportation. OBJECTIVES: ^ Proactively plan for quality development along the corridor to include a mixture of residential, office, retail, institutional and industrial uses. ^ Encourage aesthetic and design excellence in all public and private improvements and developments through adherence to the design guidelines included in this Master Plan. " Encourage revitalization and redevelopment of properties along the corridor to create an attractive, commercially viable and functionally efficient atmosphere for the development of business centers and community focal points. ^ Encourage designs that produce a desirable relationship between individual parcels, the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, and adjacent areas. The provision of pedestrian open spaces, such as covered walkways, plazas, courtyards and open passageways between buildings and adjoining developments, are highly desirable. ^ Encourage consolidation of contiguous parcels to provide for development projects that collectively function in swell-designed and efficient manner while discouraging traditional commercial/industrial strip development patterns that require multiple access points and large expanses of parking areas and often result in clusters ofarchitecturally-unrelated buildings. Strive to incorporate visually interesting building facades into designs that effectively engage pedestrian and business interest. ^ Discourage development that creates high traffic volumes directly to and from Route 11/460 West and that contributes to the creation of astrip-commercial character along the corridor. For development that requires drive through facilities and promotes short visits, encourage the utilization of shared access points from Route 11/460 West and interior access drives that direct the main flow of traffic to controlled intersections. ^ Promote the use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and techniques that help to preserve and/or improve the water quality of water bodies and drainage corridors, including the use of sub-regional stormwater drainage facilities. The integration of Low Impact Development principals is strongly encouraged. Site planning and design should consider the use of landscape areas as a method of promoting storm runoff flow paths and the construction or bio-retention systems (rain gardens) as an alternative to conventional stormwater management facilities. Create incentives to land developers or owners such as potential reduced costs of site grading, infrastructure construction and long term facility maintenance. ^ Encourage the utilization and implementation of these guidelines by offering financial, zoning, stormwater, and design incentives and programs that are mutually beneficial to the business and the development of the corridor. ~~~ ^ Compliance is voluntary, but mandatory to receive financial incentives from the County. Analysis of Existing Conditions A. The initial step in site plan formulation should be an inventory and analysis of significant natural and historically significant features that exist on the parcel. Inventory and analysis elements should include, but are not limited to, drainage corridors, areas of steep slopes and/or unstable soils, and significant vegetation. Data generated as part of the analysis should be submitted as part of a preliminary plan submission to Roanoke County for review. B. New development should minimize impacts to significant natural features and should strive to preserve existing individual trees over six inch (6") diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree masses that function as natural visual buffers and provide a natural ` setting for the construction of new buildings. All trees 24" DBH and greater should be protected, preserved and incorporated in the final site design, except where such practice severely limits the site's development options as determined by the Director of Community Development. C. Incorporate into design development the preservation of natural drainage corridors, views, natural ground forms and unique site features. D. All proposed development or alteration should reflect sensitivity to the historical character of the corridor in terms of land use and architectural integrity. New commercial development and existing structure redevelopment should integrate architectural elements that emphasize aesthetically pleasing facade and side wall components visible from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. Building Orientation and Location A. New buildings and associated structures should be located in a manner that encourages aesthetically pleasing views from the Route 11 \ 460 West corridor. B. Buildings should be sited with respect to the natural topography and any unique cultural, historic features of the site. C. The arrangement of multiple buildings on a single development parcel should be undertaken so as to define workable spaces that promote the safe and efficient interaction of site users. D. Multiple buildings should be arranged to reflect a unified theme for the proposed development and clustered to reinforce a neighborhood style or feeling as appropriate for the corridor. 2 S- J Site Access A. Access points along the corridor should be minimized and consolidated to the greatest extent possible in order to reduce traffic congestion and facilitate ingress and egress from sites along the corridor. B C Access to each development parcel should be designed so as not to impede traffic along the corridor. Where feasible, development parcels should share access points along the corridor via shared entrance and access drives, interparcel travelways and/or on-site service drives that connect adjacent parcels. Individual parcels of land that exist at the time the [Route 11/460 West Corridor Overlay District] is created should not be denied access to a public highway in the event no reasonable joint or cooperative access is possible at the time of development. D Areas along the rear property lines of parcels should be enhanced to .encourage access points, joint access drives and service alleys through the planning of buffer strips and easements with all new and redeveloping businesses. -- ~- -~------T-------I -~ j j i I B C-_ I L.-_~ I -~1 ~ I I I I I j ,I I I Y '~~'•~? ~ ~ _~ ff " mot. L mil ~. ~:!~ _ ---- - ~ ~ ~ I -F F , > - - ~- ---~ T--- --r I I, I I -- I ~ t ~ I I i '1f Ei~GM~~~~ ~ ~ f~ ,; ~ E. As a condition of project approval for new and redeveloping businesses, property owners should provide a joint easement agreement that allows cross access to and from other properties within the corridor and a unified parking and circulation plan should be formulated wherever feasible. IV Site Layout, Parking and Pedestrian Circulation A. Site layout should stress the development of an organized pattern of roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways that work together to provide a safe and efficient internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern. Internal roads, accessways, parking areas, service lanes and pedestrian walkways must be located outside of public right-of-ways and maintained by property owners. B. Provisions for connections to pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems throughout the corridor should be incorporated into site plans. 3 5~~~ C. Parking lot design should incorporate opportunities for interconnection to adjacent parcels within the corridor wherever feasible. D. Views to parking areas from the roadway corridor should be minimized by locating parking areas to the side and rear of proposed buildings. Landscaped areas should be incorporated adjacent to parking areas as stipulated by Section VI Landscaping. E. Smaller parking areas located throughout an individual development parcel should be deemed preferable to large expanses of parking as these smaller parking areas function to reduce visual and environmental impacts. While the location of all parking areas should be in compliance with the existing zoning ordinance requirements, parking areas are generally discouraged in the front yards of parcels. Multiple smaller parking areas with associated landscaping, sidewalks and signage comprising 30% to 50% each of total required parking is encouraged over single parking areas adequate for the entire parking demand. F. The provision of on-site pedestrian circulation systems should be coordinated with those systems of adjacent properties and with pedestrian circulation patterns throughout the corridor. Develop clearly defined and direct walkways to buildings that will discourage unintentional pedestrian routes that may jeopardize possible landscape opportunities. V. Building Style and Architectural Treatment A. Architectural treatment of buildings, including style, materials and color, should be compatible with the developing character of the neighborhood. Building compatibility should be achieved through the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors and/or other architectural features as appropriate. Creation of a strong sense of architectural continuity along the corridor is highly encouraged. B. Where large buildings are proposed, architectural facades and landscaping should be used to reduce their visual and aesthetic impact. The use of vast blank building walls in areas visible from the street or adjacent properties should be avoided or mitigated through the use of fenestration, building articulation, architectural detailing and/or landscape plantings. Building frontages should utilize offsets, projections and/or other distinctive architectural components to add interest to building facades and reduce the impact of expansive structures. C. Building materials should be selected on the basis of their harmony with the developing character of the neighborhood. Exterior materials such as exposed standard concrete block, or metal will not be allowed within 300 feet of the public right-of-way. Preferred materials should include stone, brick, architectural precast concrete, aluminum and glass. Concrete masonry should be limited to ground face, split face or burnished units. D. Building entrances should be designed to be clearly visible and easily recognizable from parking areas and walkways. Special attention should be given to street level design that attracts pedestrians and reinforces street activity. E. Building services associated with solid waste storage or mechanical units should be screened from view to minimize visual impacts from the corridor, parking areas and neighboring properties. 4 S- F. Accessory buildings associated with individual lots uses such as utility buildings, solid waste storage enclosures and storage buildings should be constructed of materials that are architecturally compatible with the main facility. VI. Landscaping A. General standards and specifications 1. Landscaping design standards and species requirements should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards with the exception of the following: B. Street frontages Street frontages along the corridor should be devoted to building architecture, landscaping or public green spaces unless site constraints dictate otherwise and with approval of the [Director of Community Development]. Landscaping along the frontage of properties adjoining any road right-of-way should be outside of the road right-of-way and in compliance with all VDOT regulations for roadside landscaping, and should include the following: a) A planting area with a minimum width of 15 feet should be established outside any road right-of-way and utility easement and maintained as open green space. b) Within this planting area, a combination of trees and shrubs should be planted as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each forty (40) feet of contiguous property line. 3) A minimum of two deciduous shrubs should be planted for each five (5) feet of contiguous property line. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One-third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and/or earth berms may be combined with the required street frontage landscaping. d) No uses should be permitted within the street frontage planting area except as follows: permitted entrances, necessary stormwater management facilities, utility crossings and easements, pedestrian and bike trails, and signage as allowed within the Corridor Overlay District. C. Parking areas should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards. D. Building exteriors 1. Areas along the exterior walls of buildings should be landscaped to soften the appearance of the buildings and enhance site aesthetics. Flexibility in the placement of landscape materials around building exteriors should be granted in order to promote a naturalized appearance and in recognition of the occurrence of service 5 S- areas and utility systems adjacent to buildings. Landscaping around building exteriors should be as follows: a) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of side and rear exterior building walls. b) Foundation plantings should be provided along the front facade of buildings as follows: 1) A minimum of one deciduous shade/street tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 2) A minimum of one flowering ornamental tree should be planted for each thirty (30) feet of front building facade. 3) A minimum of one deciduous shrub should be planted for each four (4) feet of front building facade. At maturity, these shrubs should attain a minimum height of three (3) feet. One-third of all required shrub plantings should be of evergreen materials. c) In addition, evergreen trees and shrubs, groundcover plants and/or earth berms may be combined with the required building exterior landscaping. d) Landscaped plazas may be used to meet building exterior landscaping requirements but landscaping in these areas should not exceed 50% of the minimum landscaping required for the side and rear exterior building walls and for front building facades. E. Stormwater management areas 1. Above-ground stormwater management areas and facilities should be landscaped with plants adaptable to being temporarily inundated with water consistent with recommended engineering practices for the design of such areas and facilities. Landscaping of such areas and facilities should follow design principles compatible with other required site landscaping and should result in a landscape design that is an aesthetic asset to the overall development. 2. Development of stormwater retention facilities shall follow current county standards and be compliant with guidelines as outlined in the current County of Roanoke Stormwater Ordinance 8-11A and drainage standards. 3. Development plans that include innovative technologies for stormwater management (open space in parking areas, underground/under parking collection and infiltration, designed bio filter areas, roof collection, and stormwater recycling systems, alternative porous parking areas, velocity dissipation, and stream bank protection, green roofing systems, stormceptors, and other low impact development guidelines) in design should be encouraged when stormwater designs are required. F. Buffer areas a) Buffer areas should be required between properties of different zoning intensities and should be located on the development parcel under consideration. The minimum buffers required between properties of different zoning intensities should conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-92 Screening, Landscaping. 1. As required, buffer areas should be provided along the outer boundaries of development parcels except in locations where access driveways, utility easements and/or site openings are required to be located in those areas. 6 2. Buffer areas should be planted with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. A mixture of large and small, deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and groundcover plants and earth berms should be utilized to create a buffer area that effectively screens properties of different zoning intensities. Landscape plans for buffer areas are encouraged to incorporate earth berms with an average height of 3-4 feet, where physiographically feasible, and other creative landscape features into buffer area design in order to simulate a naturalized landscaped edge between adjoining properties. Where earth berms are used, berm side slopes should be no greater than 2:1; berms side slopes 3:1 or less are preferred. VII. Site Lighting A. Exterior site lighting should not extend beyond 75% of the height of the principal structure with the exception of buildings with a height of twenty (20') feet or less. Buildings with a height of 20' or less should have a maximum height of fifteen (15') feet for exterior lights. Path and landscape lights are encouraged where appropriate. VIII. Si na e A. The shared use of signs is encouraged for adjacent businesses. B. Signage spatial allocation should meet the requirements of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Signage spatial allocation for shared signs should be the sum of each allowable signage area per business. 1. Signs should be channel lit, ground lit or top lit with shielded laps placed so as to not cast light onto the path of traffic or onto any adjacent road or property. C. Signs should be complemented, accented and enhanced by with a combination of landscape materials that conform to the standards stipulated in this ordinance. The sign landscaped area should be at a minimum one and one-half times the total area of the sign. D. The following types of signs should be prohibited within the overlay district: 1. Off premises signs 2. Portable signs 3. Temporary signs 4. Roof signs 7 IX. Utilities A. All new site utilities should be located underground unless otherwise approved. B. Where feasible, existing overhead utility lines along Route 11/460 West should be relocated underground or to the rear yards of buildings along the corridor. 8 s-s AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6, "ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN" BY THE ADOPTION OF ROUTE 11/460 WEST CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN - DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR THIS AREA WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-6 the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia;" and WHEREAS, as a result of increased traffic along the Route 11/460 West corridor, the Virginia Department of Transportation has prepared proposed roadway improvements to provide increased carrying capacity and to address safety concerns; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the Community Plan for Roanoke County entitled Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed amendments was held after advertisement and notice as required by 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, on June 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing was held on June 24, 2003. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Ordinance 011299-6 adopting the "Roanoke County Community Plan" dated September 30, 1998, is hereby amended to include the following: (A) The adoption of the Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan -Design Guidelines which are attached hereto as Attachment A. 1 ~~ 2. That the effective date of this Ordinance is June 24, 2003. 0~ AOANp~.~ a ~ z ' ~ a= ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~.~ 7838 Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman HoNins Magisterial District June 25, 2003 Ms. Eizabeth C. Angel 3650 Rolling Hill Avenue Roanoke, VA 24017 Dear Ms. Angel: Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnlx Cave Spring Magisterial District Enclosed is a resolution of appreciation upon your retirement which was unanimously approved at the June 24, 2003 Board Meeting. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and its citizens thank you for your many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to the County. I am also pleased to send you a quilt which was exclusively designed for Roanoke County. We hope this quilt brings you enjoyment and remembrances of your time at the County. It will be mailed in a separate package and if you do not receive it within a week, please contact the Board office at 772-2005. 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. Please accept this resolution and quilt with our best wishes for a productive retirement and continued success in the future. Sincerely,, ( , Joseph McNamara, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure Cc: Gerald Holt, Sheriff Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: (540) 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 E-MAIL: bos ~co.roanoke.va.us ~ QOANp~~ 4~'. •. ~ Z ~ _ o z J ~ 1838 ~~~~~.~ 11 ~~~~ ~~ ~~.1~~ Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Hollins Magisterial District June 25, 2003 Reverend Bruce Tuttle Cave Spring United Methodist Church 4504 Hazel Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Rev. Tuttle: On behalf of the Board of Supe Junes24 invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, to ask far divine guidance at these meetings, Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District would like to thank you for offering the 2003. We believe it is most impo-~ant and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. ood to ou again for sharing your time and your words with us. It was g Thank y have you with us. With kindest regards, .tt~l~,...a,..----._ oseph McNamara, Chairman ervisors Roanoke County Board of Sup E-MAIL: VOICE MAIL: bos®co.roanoke.va.us FAX: (540)772-2170 ~CCt(`.F• .~., n~ '779_9193 I~> r O~ ROANp~~ ti ,,.~ z ~ °v' .a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 25, 2003 Mr. Paul Bailey 4474 Kirkwood Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Bailey: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to re-appoint you as a member of the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Commission for another three-year term representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Your newterm will begin on June 30, 2003, and expires on June 30, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. 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, C~nixrtt~ ~f ~n~t~nC~e /~76~~ Brenda J. H Iton, CMC Deputy Clerk Enclosure cc: Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism .,-, of aoa7uo,~~ >~ •~, ~~ Z ~, z J a 7838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 25, 2003 Ms. Deborah George 6717 Oleander Circle Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Ms. George: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to re-appoint you as a member of the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Commission for another three-year term representing the Hollins Magisterial District. Your new term will begin on June 30, 2003, and expires on June 30, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. 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, Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk C~o~xxtt~ of ~v~xr~v~.e Enclosure cc: Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism -)- `' ~ ROAN ~. F ti ~A z ~ ~ az 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 25, 2003 Mr. J. Lee Osborne Carter, Osborne and Miller 1401 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Mr. Osborne: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to re-appoint you as a citizen representative to the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission for another three-year term. Your new term will begin on June 30, 2003, and expires on June 30, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. 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, Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk C~a~~~ u~ ~.v~xxtoC~.e Enclosure cc: Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, RVARC J ~ OF ~iOANpf.~ F'' ~ ~ 9 z .' ~ z v a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 25, 2003 Mr. David L. Kjolhede, Executive Director Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau 114 Market Street Roanoke, VA 2401 1-1 402 Dear Mr. Kjolhede: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us This will inform you that at their meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, to serve athree-year term on the Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau Board of Directors. His term will begin June 30, 2003 and will expire on June 30, 2006. Mr. Hodge previously served on this Board and was completing the unexpired portion of the three-year term of David Porter, former Economic Development Director. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, C~.a~x~~ of ~o~trta~.E Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk O~ ~tOANp~.~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ 2 ~' a~ rasa DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders®co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540)772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 26, 2003 Mr. Wayne G. Strickland, Secretary Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24010 Dear Mr. Strickland: ~%~ BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton®co.roanoke.va.us Attached is a copy of Resolution 062403-6.c in support of participation in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and support of the distribution mechanism of Regional Competitiveness funds. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2003. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, C~~~xxr#~ .of ~a~trtaC~e Q NAnc~- Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosure ~~ ~ O~ FtOANph~ ti , 2 ~ z J a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 June 26, 2003 Mr. Wayne G. Strickland Executive Director Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24010 Dear Mr. Strickland: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us Attached is a copy of Resolution 062403-6.d supporting rail alternatives to complement planned improvements to Interstate 81. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2003. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (~S~~txr~~ .af ~.~~tx~uC~e ~' Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development ___ ~ Diane"~hilders RE: Removal of legal ad Page 1 f From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 6/11 /03 10:47AM Subject: RE: Removal of legal ad Diane, I have cancelled the second run of this ad, changing the cost to: $66.70... Martha Ann Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Ph.: 540-981-3440 Fax: 540-981-3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com "Have A Nice Day" > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:19 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Cc: Janet Scheid; Paul Mahoney; Susan Carter > Subject: Removal of legal ad > «File: 06-24-Sign Ordinance Ad.doc» > Martha, > We have a legal ad (see attached) scheduled to run on June 17 regarding > proposed revisions to the sign ordinance. This matter has been referred > back to > the Planning Commission, and we need to pull this ad for the 17th. > Thanks. > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 ~ 4iane,Childers - 06-27-Community Development Ads.doc Page 4 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY I, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Section 30-93, Signs. ~I A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. I Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Community Development Planning & Zoning P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 Attn: Susan Carter SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ~, Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 ', Roanoke, VA 24018 4 Mart F. Plank 'CP540-981-3415 . i. 2146753 -- Mon, Jun 9, 2003 10:57 AM LEGAL NOTICE AOANO[E COUNT- BOARD OF SUPERrISORS The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room oT the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition Randy Grasso to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a Private Kennel on 2.21 acres, located at 1459 Mountain Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy oT this application is available Tor inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2146753) ~] June 9, 2003 011:12 AM X2/2 ~~ (~-l0~03 1-~' Mar+.aF. Plank '/Q540.981.3415 DATE: Monday, June 9, 2003 ~tl June 9, 2003 011:22 AM 6112 MEMC TO: Diane Childers ................................................................. Diane, FAX: (540) 772-2193 ~ I have scheduled this legal ad to run :Tuesday, June 10 & Tuesday, June 17 in :the Roanoke Times. The cost of the ad is $161.00. Here is a copy of the ad as it will FROM: Martha F. Plank ~ :appear in the paper the next two Tuesdays. Thanks! Dee Dee House (I'm filling in for Martha :Plank today) PAGES: 2 ~ :777-6477 ~ Diane Childers - RE: Public Notice From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Sue Bane' <SBANE@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 6/9/03 11:36AM Subject: RE: Public Notice -_ ----- Page 1 SUe, I have scheduled your legal ad to run Tuesday, June 10 & Tuesday, June 17 in the Roanoke Times. The cost of the ad is $197.80. Below is a copy of the ad as it will appear the next two Tuesdays in the paper. Thanks! Dee Dee House (I'm filling in for Martha Plank today) 777-6477 PUBLIC NOTICES Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on June 24, 2003, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the session beginning at 7:00 p.m., will hold a public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE DECLARING THREE PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND DONATING SAME TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY; NAMELY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5541 STEARNES AVENUE (TAX MAP NOS. 87.14-1-4, 5, AND 6) All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file and is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, whose office is located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Mahoney~County Attorney~Roanoke County, Virginia (2143872) Martha F. Plank ~ 540-981-3415 ~i] June 9, 2003 ©11:36 AM 6112 DATE: Monday, June 9, 2003 TO: Diane Childers ................................................................. Diane, FAX: (540) 772-2193 ~ Here is another legal ad I have scheduled to run on Tuesday, June 10 & Tuesday, :June 17. The cost of the ad is $147.20. Here's a copy of the ad as it will appear in FROM: Martha F. Plank ~ ~ the paper the next 2 Tuesdays. THANKS! :Dee Dee House :777-6477 PAGES: 2 ~~ ~-~o-~ Martha F. Plank X540-981-3415 ~$] June 9, 2003 ©11:43 AM ^1/2 DATE: Monday, June 9, 2003 TO: Diane Childers ................................................................. Diane, FAX: (540) 772-2193 ~ This is the last legal ad I have scheduled to run on Tuesday, June 10 & Tuesday, :June 17 in the Roanoke Times. The cost of this ad is $133.40. Here's a copy of FROM: Martha F. Plank ~ how it will appear in the paper the next 2 :Tuesdays. Thanks! Dee Dee House (I'm filling in for Martha :Plank today) PAGES: 2 ~ :777-6477 Martha F. Plank ~I' 540-981-3415 G~i June 9, 2003 ©11:43 AM X2/2 • 2146868 -- Mon, Jun 9, 2003 1 1:29 AM LE6Al NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTI' BOARD OF SUPEA~ISORS The Roanoke County Board OT Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, YA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Com- mission to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Sec- tion 30-93, Signs. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2146868) Martha F. Plank '540-981-3415 ~) June 9, 2003 011:22 AM 62/2 ~ 146842 -- Mon, Jun 9, 2003 1 1:08 AM LEGAL NOTICE AOAN01(E COUNT- BOARD Of SUPEAYISOAS The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p,m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Hollins Hospitality, LLC, to Rezone 3.6 acres from R-1 low Density Residential and I-1 Conditional Industrial District to C-2 Gen - eral Office District in order to construct and operate aHotel - Motel/Motor Lodge located at T944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application Is available for Inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bemard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2146842) Martha F. Plank '540-981-3415 ~] June 9, 2003 ©11:36 AM 6212 ' X146850 -- Mon, Jun 9, 2003 11:22 AM LE6Al NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOIRD Of SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bemard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Com- mission to amend the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan as it pertains to policies for Route 460 West Design Guidelines in the Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2146850) Diane Childers -June 24 -Community Development Ads Page 1 ~', From: Diane Childers To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 6/4/03 11:38AM Subject: June 24 -Community Development Ads Martha, Attached are four legal ads to be published on June 10 and June 17. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 CC: Susan Carter Diane~Childers - 06-27-Community Development Ads.doc Page 1 ~' i LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition Randy Grisso to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a Private Kennel on 2.21 acres, located at 1459 Mountain Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003_ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Direct the bill for publication to: '; Randy Grisso it 1459 Mountain Heights Drive Salem, VA 24153 (540) 387-3969 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 1 Diane Childers - 06-27-Community Development Ads.doc Page 2 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Hollins I, Hospitality, LLC, to Rezone 3.6 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential and I-1 Conditional Industrial District to C-2 General Office District in order to construct and operate a Hotel/Motel/Motor Lodge located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Direct the bill for publication to: Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore Attn: G. Michael Pace, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 40013 Roanoke, VA 24022 (540) 983-9325 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 2 Qiane Childers - 06-27-Community Development Ads.doc Page, 3 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission to amend the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan as it pertains to policies for Route 460 West Design Guidelines in the Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Direct the bill for publication to: Roanoke County Community Development Planning & Zoning P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 Attn: Susan Carter SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 3 Dian~Childers -Public Notice From: Sue Bane To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 6/4/03 11:42AM Subject: Public Notice Martha, Please publish the attached legal notice on June 10 and 17. Thanks, Sue Bane Legal Assistant Roanoke County Attorney's Office sbane@co.roanoke.va.us 772-2007 772-2089 (fax) Page 9 CC: Diane Childers; Paul Mahoney ~ IJian Childers -STEARNES NOTICE.doc PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on June 24, 2003, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, at the session beginning at 7:00 p.m., will hold a Page 1 '~ public hearing on the following: ORDINANCE DECLARING THREE PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE TO BE i SURPLUS AND DONATING SAME TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY; NAMELY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5541 STEARNES AVENUE (TAX ', MAP NOS. 87.14-1-4, 5, AND 6) All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear ~~~ and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file and is available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, whose office is located II at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates: June 10, 2003 June 17, 2003 Send invoice to: Ms. Diane Childers Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ', P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 From: Diane Hyatt To: Ragena Jordan Date: 6/25/03 8:10AM Subject: Elmer and Paul's Raises The Board approved 2% raises last night for Paul and Elmer: Elmer from $126,990.04 to $129,529.84 Paul from $108,128.65 to $110,291.22 Go ahead and process status sheets for them. Brenda, please send Ragena a copy of the final resolution with the votes for her files. CC: Brenda Holton Board of Supervisors • • • • Clerk's Office Memo To: Board of Supervisors From: Diane S. Childers Q~G Date: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Re: Evaluations for the County Administrator and County Attorney ~ FtOA1yQ~ ~ L z ~ ~ ~ a` J836 Attached are copies of the evaluation forms for the County Administrator and County Attorney. I am sending the forms to you at this time to allow sufficient time to prepare for the evaluations. A closed meeting will be scheduled on the June 24 agenda to discuss these evaluations. Following the evaluations, approval of the salaries for the 2003-2004 fiscal year will be placed on the agenda for the July 8 meeting for adoption. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney C ~ U -- ~~~ COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR/COUNTY ATTORNEY DATE: NAME: Elmer C. Hodge TITILE: County Administrator EVALUATED BY: PER10D COVERED BY EVALUATION: UNACCEPTABLE: 1 BELOW AVERAGE: 2 AVERAGE: 3 ABOVE AVERAGE: 4 BCCEPTIONAL: 5 FACTOR 1 -ADMINISTRATION 1. Execution of Policy: Does he/she understand and comply with the overall policy, laws, directives and philosophy 2. Budget: Is the budget realistic? Is it prepared in an understandable and easily read ' format? is it prepared on time? Does he/she control expenses within the levels of the budget. 3. Planning: Is he/she familiar with County policies, ordinances, objectives and practices? Does he/she translate these into specific programs? 4. Communication: Does he/she organize community programs making the most effective use of resources? Is the public kept informed of projects? Does he/she excercise positive communication skills with staff? Is there an ongoing customer service emphasis? Are the Board members informed on ail Issues on a timely basis? Are conflicts dealt with in an open and honest manner? FACTOR 111 -PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 10. Imagination: Does he/she show originality in approaching problems? Does he/she create effective solutions? Is he/she able to visualize the implications of various approaches? 11. Obiectivity: Can he/she consider differing views or opinions in a rational, impersonal manner? 12. Drive: Is he/she energetic, willing to spend whatever time is necessary to do a good job? Does he/she have good mental and physical stamina? 13. Decisiveness: Is he/she able to reach timely decisions and initiate action, but not be compulsive. 14. Attitude: Is he/she enthusias#ic? Cooperative? Willing to adapt? 5. Firmness: Does he/she have the courage of his convictions? !s he/she firm when convinced, but not stubborn? r OVERALL PERFORMANCE: Assess the overall efforts of the County Administrator/County Attorney in directing the programs of Roanoke County and managing the staff in the past year. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Signed: County Administrator/County Attorney Chairman, Board of Supervisors Date Discussed: COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR/COUNTY ATTORNEY DATE: NAME: TITLE: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney EVALUATED BY: PERIOD COVERED BY EVALUATION: UNACCEPTABLE: 1 BELOW AVERAGE: 2 AVERAGE: 3 ABOVE AVERAGE: 4 BCCEPTIONAL• 5 FACTOR I -ADMINISTRATION I. Execution of Policy: Does he/she understand and comply with the overall policy, laws, directives and philosophy Budget: is the budget realistic? Is it prepared in an understandable and easily read ' format? Is it prepared on time? Does he/she control expenses within the levels of the budget. 3. Planning: Is he/she familiar with County policies, ordinances, objectives and practices? Does he/she translate these into specific programs? ~. Communication: Does he/she organize community programs making the most effective use of resources? is the public kept informed of projects? Does he/she excercise positive communication skills with staff? Is there an ongoing customer service emphasis? Are the Board members informed on ail issues on a timely basis? Are conflicts dealt with in an open and honest manner? o. 111. I i2. I 13. FACTOR 111 -PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS imagination: Does he/she show originality to approaching problems? Does he/she create effective solutions? Is he/she able to visualize the implications of various approaches? Objectivity; Can he/she consider differing views or opinions in a rational, impersonal manner? Drive: Is he/she energetic, willing to spend whatever time is necessary to do a good Job? Does he/she have good mental and physical stamina? Decisiveness: Is he/she able to reach timely decisions and initiate action, but not be compulsive. 14. Attitude: is he/she enthusiastic? Cooperative? Willing to adapt? 15. Firmness: Does he/she have the courage of his convictions? Is he/she firm when convinced, but not stubborn? OVERALL PERFORMANCE: Assess the overall efforts of the County Administrator/County Attorney in directing the programs of Roanoke County and managing the staff in the past year, ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Signed: County Administrator/County Attorney Chairman, Board of Supervisors Date Discussed: Diane Childers -Stearnes Ave well lot Page 1 From: Brenda Holton To: Gary Robertson Date: 6/11 /03 9:14AM Subject: Stearnes Ave well lot For your information.... Mr. Fred Corbett, 989-3417, came by to ask about this action taken by the Board last night. The first he and his neighbors knew of this was in the paper yesterday advertising the second reading of the ordinance. I gave him a copy of the first reading of the ordinance and briefing since he wanted to know what type of house would be built on this property. He wanted to know if a private citizen could make a bid to buy it. I asked him to call you about this and he said that he knew you and there was a history to this well lot. He was president of the water company when the well lot was donated to the County because we were having trouble getting water. He dealt with Cliff Craig and Mr. Robers. He also said that the address for the property is wrong. It is 5441 Stearnes and not 5541 which is advertised and on the ordinance. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton@co.roanoke.va.us CC: Diane Childers; Elmer Hodge; Paul Mahoney From: Brenda Holton To: Gerald Holt Date: 6/17/03 11:05AM Subject: Re: Retirements -Elizabeth C Angel and Vickie G. McCorkle Gerald, would either of these paragraphs be OK for the above retirement resolutions. Thanks, Brenda WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff ... fulfilled her job responsibilities each day in an efficient and effective manner and was always willing to help in any situation; and OR WHEREAS, the public safety of Roanoke County citizens is assured by dedicated employees such as Deputy Sheriff ....; and Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton@co.roanoke.va.us »> Gerald Holt 06/11/03 07:01AM »> Thanks Brenda, Both the resolutions look good to me .They are thorough on each employee and I do not have anything to add to them. Shf Holt »> Brenda Holton 06/10/03 02:45PM »> Human Resources has notified us of the above retirements. Attached are resolutions of appreciation for Deputy Sheriffs Angel and McCorkle. They do not want to attend a Board meeting. We plan to add these to the Consent Resolution for the June 24th (Angel) and July 8th meetings (McCorkle). Would you review these resolutions and add something to make them more personal? Thanks. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton(a~co.roanoke.va.us CC: Diane Childers r_. _____ nian ;hildgrs -Retirements -Elizabeth C. Angel and Vickie G. McCorkle Page 1 From: Brenda Holton To: Gerald Holt Date: 6/10/03 2:45PM Subject: Retirements -Elizabeth C. Angel and Vickie G. McCorkle Human Resources has notified us of the above retirements. Attached are resolutions of appreciation for Deputy Sheriffs Angel and McCorkle. They do not want to attend a Board meeting. We plan to add these to the Consent Resolution for the June 24th (Angle) and July 8th meetings (McCorkle). Would you review these resolutions and add something to make them more personal? Thanks. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton@co.roanoke.va.us CC: Diane Childers Dian~ilders - 06-24 reso-Angle retirement.doc Page 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE ', COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF ~'i ELIZABETH C. ANGEL, SHERIFF'S OFFICE WHEREAS, Elizabeth C. Angel was employed by Roanoke County in the Sheriff's Office as a cook for the jail on April 4, 1983, and subsequently became a Deputy Sheriff for Prisoners and Confinement; and WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel retired from Roanoke County on June 1, 2003, after twenty years and two months of service; and WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel has served with professionalism and integrity, and 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 ELIZABETH C. ANGEL for more than twenty years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. 1 From: Brenda Holton To: Carla Frazier Date: 6/10/03 2:25PM Subject: Re: Vickie McCorkle/Retirement Resolution Carla, thanks so much... Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton@co.roanoke.va.us »> Carla Frazier 06/10/03 02:24PM »> Hi Brenda, The Accountant Clerk I and the Clerk Typist II position Vickie held when first employed with the County were both in the Sheriffs Office. Have a nice afternoon! Carla HR Asst COUNTY OF ROANOKE Retirement Resolution Form (To be completed at the exit interview session with the retiring employee) Name of Employee: Dates of Employment: Current Position: Retirement Date: Length of Service: Previous Positions Held: Other Information: Board Meeting dates during retirement month: 1) Plans to attend board meeting on 2) date. Would like to attend a board meeting at a later date. Date requested is: Does not plan to attend a board meeting. Please mail resolution. Human Resources Signature Date EI I z~~~ ~. ~1 a 0 `lc o~5 . ~ ~r~h~ ~ ~~,~, ~~ a~o~7 ~~ 5 Ce. c~ l i l03 From: Brenda Holton To: Liz Belcher Date: 6/20/03 3:46PM Subject: Re: Greenways Recognition Liz, thanks for the confirmation. I will check with you Tuesday about getting the plaque before the meeting so it can be presented again. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton@co.roanoke.va.us »> Liz Belcher 06/20/03 03:18PM »> Brenda, Thanks for orchestrating this. Jim Phipps, Chairman of the Greenway Commission, will be with me. »> Brenda Holton 06/19/03 04:10PM »> As I discussed with you by phone today, the Board plans to recognize the Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission at their June 24 meeting at 3 p.m. for winning the 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award. I have confirmed that Pete Larkin will be here representing Congressman Goodlatte and that you will be attending. Would you please bring whatever award/plaque that you received in Richmond today to the Clerk's Office Tuesday morning so we can present/show it at the Board meeting that afternoon. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholtonCa~co.roanoke.va.us ' goe ooc~'Larr~ 6TH DISTRICT, VIRGINIA 2240 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4606 (2021225-5431 FAX (2D2) 225-9681 www.house.gov(goodlatte talk2bob? mail.house.gov DEPUTY MAJORITY WHIP REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, HOUSE REPUBLICAN HIGH TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIR, CONGRESSIONALINTERNETCAUCUS Ms. Elizabeth Belcher Greenways Coordinator Roanoke Valley Greenways P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Liz: June 19, 2003 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY VICE-CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND BORDER SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, SCIENCE, AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT My heartiest congratulations on being named the winner of the 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award by the Virginia Petroleum Council. It was indeed an honor to nominate Roanoke Valley Greenways for this recognition. Roanoke Valley Greenways is highly deserving of the 2003 Organization Award. It has been a pleasure to watch as the greenways movement has taken hold in the Roanoke Valley. It has been even more rewarding to see the trails transformed from concepts into reality. There are so many opportunities for folks to enjoy the greenways -- and thereby enjoy the many natural wonders that make the Roanoke region such a wonderful place in which to live and to visit. In turn, your efforts and those of your supporters are helping protect our surroundings for generations to come. Greenways have proven time and again to be an important part of the standard of living no matter where they have been built. Roanoke Valley Greenways has clearly helped carry on this tradition in the name of recreation and conservation of our natural resources. I commend you on the countless hours of work that have gone into the greenways system in the Roanoke Valley and I look forward to continuing to be a part of all your future endeavors. With kind regards. Very urs, Bob Goo Member of Congress RWG:pI ^ 2 SOUTH MAIN STREET ^ 916 MAIN STREET 10 FRANKLIN ROAD, S.E. ^ 7 COURT SQUARE SUITE A, FIRST FLOOR SUITE 300 SUITE 540 STAUN70N, VA 24401-3307 HARRISONBURG, VA 22801-3707 LYNCHBURG, VA 2 4 504-1 608 ROANOKE, VA 24011-2121 (540) 885-3861 (540)432-2391 (434)845-8306 (5401857-2672 FAX (540)885-3930 FAX (5401432-6593 FAX 1434)845-8245 FAX (540)857-2675 _,~~ ~. Congress of the United States House of Representatives PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER VIRGINIA PETROLEUM COUNCIL NEWS RELEASE 701 E. FRANKLIN ST. SUITE 105 804-225-8248 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 EMAIL: virginia ,api.or~ Contact: Mike Ward For Immediate Release 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Awards RICHMOND, VA., June 19, 2003 - - -The 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Awards were presented today to recipients at a luncheon by Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. and Mike Ward, Executive Director, Virginia Petroleum Council. The event marked the eighth year of this statewide environmental recognition program co-sponsored by the Virginia Petroleum Council and the Commonwealth. Nominations were received from throughout the State. Eight awards were presented in four categories: youth, adult, organization and communication/education. The awards honor those individuals and organizations that demonstrate outstanding and innovative contributions to protect and enhance Virginia's natural resources. The awards program supports the Virginia Naturally statewide effort to promote lifelong learning about Virginia's environment and stewardship of the Commonwealth's natural resources. Ward commented, "The Virginia Petroleum Council and our member companies are pleased to support these awards. The activities and programs represented by today's recipients should serve as an inspiration to all Virginians and remind us as to how we can all better protect our environment." Many of the nominations included beautification and conservation projects, ecological activities, environmental education projects, nature awareness, and community or school environmental programs. Award recipients and their guests attended a recognition luncheon held at the Dominion Club in the far west end of the Richmond area. A list of the winners and runners-up is attached. MORE - 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AWARDS YOUTH WINNER Lancaster Middle School - (Kilmarnock, Va.) -Lancaster Middle School is comprised of approximately 600 students divided across 5 grade levels (4-8). Recently, Lancaster Middle School students completed a project, funded in part by the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Fund, that explored the relationship of local culture to the Chesapeake Bay and the impact of the bay to the lives of the residents as well as their impact to the Bay. The purpose of the writing project was to educate students and their families about the importance of the bay and how this natural resource is literally interwoven in the fabric of their lives. Lancaster Middle School students have published their collected works, consisting of interviews, illustrations, poetry and writing in a book appropriately titled: "Tschwapeki" (Native America word meaning "Great Shellfish Bay.). Lancaster Middle School will return 50% of the proceeds from the sale of their book to the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Fund, and retain the remainder for future Bay education projects at the middle school. RUNNER-UP Hunt Mapp Middle School Challenger Team - (Portsmouth, Va.) -The seventh grade students at the Hunt Mapp Middle School dedicated their environmental efforts for the 2002-2003 school year to restoration and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay habitats. Classroom lessons and activities educated the students and assisted them in determining the importance of the Chesapeake Bay. Students determined the environmental resources were important and worthy of their efforts. The students participated in: local oyster restoration with Oyster Reefkeepers of Virginia; they combined efforts with US Fish and Wildlife biologists, Albert Spells, to improve the American Shad population in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; served as mentors to the second grade students at John Tyler Elem. School to encourage increased good stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay environment; and in March they organized a local marsh clean-up along the shores of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River. ADULT WINNER Lewis L. Lawrence, III - (Gloucester, Va.) -Mr. Lawrence has successfully developed and administered innovative regional water quality and quality of life projects within the York, Rappahannock and Small Coastal Basin watersheds covering approximately 1,387 square miles. He has been instrumental in directing the implementation of 31 specific Chesapeake Bay Agreement 2000 commitments targeting land conservation, public access, education and outreach, community engagement, nutrient and sediment, watershed, oyster and transportation. Mr. Lawrence set in motion alocal-state-federal program to protect the 90,000 acre Dragon Run Watershed. This program is designed to preserve the historic uses (hunting, fishing, trapping and farming while preserving personal property rights) with in the Dragon Run Watershed. As Director of Regional Planning for the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission, he developed and implemented long-term solutions for failing on-site water quality systems. He has been directly responsible for the repair of 60 failing onsite wastewater treatment systems. He also instituted a framework to provide hundreds of public access waterway sites in perpetuity along 1,000 miles of shoreline. RUNNER-UP Peter McDonough - (Keswick, Va.) - Mr. McDonough of Keswick Golf Club has been a leader by example in environmental stewardship, by his own management practices at his club, along with his active role in shaping practices throughout the Commonwealth. In 1999, Mr. McDonough was the driving force in the formation of the Virginia Golf Course Superintendents Association, anon-profit organization consisting of five chapters of golf course superintendents at 360 facilities in Virginia. Their primary goal was communication on managing water use, integrating pest management strategies and maintaining cultural programs that utilize sound ecological practices. During the drought of 2002 Mr. McDonough cited the necessary steps that golf courses would need to take not only for product survival, but to be responsible land stewards during the drought emergency. These actions were taken in advance of Executive Order 33, signed by Governor Mark Warner, and as a result the VGCSA is now part of the current Drought Task Force in shaping water usage for +he golf industry. In addition, under Mr. McDonough's leadership, the Keswick Club has attained Certified Audubon Cooperative sanctuary status. The Audubon International has a very detailed program that requires a property to meet stringent specifications to achieve sanctuary status. Keswick is only the ninth course in Virginia to achieve this status. ORGANIZATION WINNER Roanoke Valley Greenway - (Roanoke, Va.) -The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission was established by the signing of an Intergovernmental Agreement on Earth Day, April 19, 1997. The Greenway Commission is an advisory body with appointed citizen and staff representatives from each of the four Valley jurisdictions. The Commission's role is to facilitate coordinated planning, development, and maintenance of the greenway network. In many cases greenways are constructed using volunteered time and materials to create a corridor of protected open space managed for conservation, recreation and non-motorized transportation. Greenways as vegetated linear parks provide tree cover, wildlife habitat, and riparian buffers to protect streams. The trails within the greenway provide access between neighborhoods and destination points, opportunity to travel without an automobile, outdoor education classrooms, and close-to-home paths for walking, jogging, bicycling, and roller blading. The RVG has developed a system of trails connecting Salem, Roanoke, and Roanoke County. RUNNER-UP Blackwater/Nottoway Riverkeeper Pro am BNRP) - (Sedley, Va.) - In the fall of 2000, concerned citizens came together to found the River keeper program in Southampton County. The BNRP has since grown to more than 60 dues paying members. The group has accomplished many diverse goals since first organizing, including identifying and gaining state and federal recognition for the first confirmed Bald Eagle nesting site on the Blackwater River. They have organized "Clean Rivers Day", which involved hundreds of volunteers and the removal of more than six tons of trash from riverbanks and boat ramps. The program also implemented a water quality-sampling program and initiated a Spring 2003 study by state biologists to gather better data on migratory fish in the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers. One of the most exciting projects for 2003 is the program's development of Eco-Cruises for local students. Partnering with state agencies the BNRP has scheduled field trips for Franklin and Southampton students on the Blackwater/Nottoway Rivers, where they will sample and identify plants and wildlife while interacting with conservation professionals. Program members have met with elementary, middle, high school and college students, promoting good river stewardship, they regularly present slide shows and lectures to civic clubs and in 2002 obtained a grant from a local charity and are producing an educational video highlighting the rivers. They hold monthly meetings and have established a Conservationist of the Year Award. COMMUNICATION/EDUCATION WINNER I C DeHart Memorial Park - Woolwine Wetlands Restoration and Educational Proiect - (Stuart, Va.) -With the assistance of several conservation partners, the Park restored aone-acre mountain wetland and developed an educational demonstration site. This site has allowed school, church, civic groups and individuals to have ahands-on experience to learn about the importance of wetlands. The project site is a one-acre mountain wetland located at I.C. DeHart Memorial Park, afamily-oriented recreational area in Woolwine, Va. In additional to the wetland, DeHart Park contains baseball and soccer fields, tennis and volleyball courts, restroom facilities and a picnic shelter. The wetland drains into Little Widgeon Creek, Smith River, Roanoke River watershed. Previously, the wetland was dredged and converted into a pond. Over time, the pond was filled with sediment and regained some function as a wetland. Before the project, the wetland waters exited through an 8-inch pipe. A ditch around one site of the wetland drained much of the water. Fill material was present throughout the site. The results achieved from the Wetlands Restoration and Educational Site was a restored wetland establishing the natural hydrology, topography and vegetation to the area and a wetlands educational demonstration site. RUNNER-UP Lone Mountain Processing/St. Charles Primary/Elementary - (St. Charles, Va.) -For the past five years Lone Mountain, a coal processing plant along with St. Charles School Elementary School has helped celebrate Earth Day by sponsoring various activities to encourage environmental awareness and introduce students to the benefits the environment can provide. The students participated in an environmental poster-drawing contest with a winner in each class getting a $10 gift certificate. The overall school winner received extra prizes and through random drawings and 26 bicycles with helmets were given away. The youngsters also participated in outdoor activities such as sack races, softball throwing contests, and basketball shooting competitions with overall winners receiving a Susan B. Anthony dollar for their performance. Lone Mountain also stocked nearby Gin Creek with rainbow trout and the students were bussed there for an afternoon of fishing. Parents and St. Charles residents participated in this catch and release expedition. Also, 22 students from East Tennessee State University visited the community and toured surface facilities on the Lone Mountain property. In addition to fun and games, the Company sponsors speakers such as game wardens to talk about the kinds of wildlife that should be found in the area and what needs to be done to protect the ecosystem. From: Brenda Holton To: Diane Childers Date: 6/17/03 9:32AM Subject: Goodlatte Pete Larkin in Congressman Goodlatte's office said that Goodlatte will be in Congress on June 24. He is also not able to be at the June 19th presentation of the awards since he will be in Congress. Pete said that the July 8 date was also not available for Goodlatte. He suggested that he come and present the award and I explained about Goodlatte making the nomination and Mr. Hodge asking us to invite Goodlatte. Pete will contact Goodlatte to detemine if he wants to wait until he can come or if he wants Pete to come and represent him. Pete will let us know as soon as possible. Pete can come June 24 at 3 p.m. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 bholton@co.roanoke.va.us a GC.~ ~~%~ -5 5'~-~ S ~-C~ ~~t. f e~ ~ r_._ ____: _. _: _.-.- mane Childers - Re: Greenway Commission Page 1 From: Janet Scheid To: Diane Childers Date: 5/29/03 12:58PM Subject: Re: Greenway Commission I have the information and I'll bring it up to you. Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2094 »> Diane Childers 05/29/03 11:54AM »> Janet, I think this is something that should be included in the agenda for recognition. Do you have information regarding the award or should I follow up with Liz Belcher? Diane Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 »> Janet Scheid 05/29/03 11:38AM »> Congressman Goodlatte nominated the Roanoke Valley Greenways Program for the 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award and it won. Is this something that we should let the Board know about and maybe recognize at a Board meeting? The award will officially be given on June 19 in Richmond. Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2094 CC: Liz Belcher r VIRGINIA PETROLEUM COUNCIL DIVISION OF AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE SUITE 105 701 EAST FRANKLIN STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804)225-8248 (804) 225-7104 -FAX MICHAEL D. WARD E-MAIL ADDRESS EXECUTNE DIRECTOR virginia@api.org May 21, 2003 Mr. Pete Larkin c/o Congressman Bob Goodlatte 10 E. Franklin Road, S.E., Suite 540 ~ ~,~~~~ 3 ~ 20~}~ Roanoke, VA 24011 .~. 4 , ~ . _..: Dear Mr. Larkin: ~ a~J Con atu i.ox~s!-~~P~~ma---~~?odlatte's nomination of the Roanoke Valley G~ ays Program has been selected as the wlnri e Organization category for the year 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Awards. y nominations were sent in from aroun e the judges had a very -iressiv~ lisf_to consider and discuss. The judges included the Secretary of Natural Resources (Tayloe Murphy, Jr.), Director of Keep Virginia Beautiful (Bob Hundley), and myself. You should already have received a call from our office regarding the awards. By way of this letter, we would like to extend an invitation to representatives of the program to come to Richmond on Thursday, June 19, 2003 to receive the award at a special luncheon program. Please arrange to bring up to two guests as you and the group deem appropriate. Also, as we discussed by phone, we would be delighted if Congressman Goodlatte could attend to help present the award. Please contact me prior to the luncheon if he can. The luncheon will be held from 12 noon to 2:00 p.m. at the Dominion Club located in the Wyndham development in the far west end of the Richmond area. A map and directions are enclosed and there is a large parking area available next to the clubhouse. The luncheon will be in the dining room at the clubhouse. We are honored to recognize these efforts and this awards program is an opportunity for our industry and the Commonwealth of Virginia to commend the group on a job well done. Please call or fax the enclosed form to our office regarding the attendance plans and names o~guests (please limit to three altogether) as soon as possible so that we can make all the necessar~ar angements Again congratulations to the program on receipt of their award. Since ely, ichael D. Ward Cc: Roanoke Valley Greenways ~J Enclosure (return form, map & summary of winners) ~ RUNNE~t=UP ' Peter McDonough - (Richmond, Va.) - Mr. McDonough of Keswick Golf Club has been a leader by example in environmental stewardship, by his own management practices at his club, along with his active role in shaping practices throughout the Commonwealth. In 1999, Mr. McDonough was the driving force in the formation of the Virginia Gold Course Superintendents Association, anon-profit organization consisting of five chapters of golf course superintendents at 360 facilities in Virginia. Their primary goal was communication on managing water use, integrating pest management strategies and maintaining cultural programs that utilize sound ecological practices. During the drought of 2002 Mr. McDonough cited the necessary steps that golf courses would need to take not only for product survival, but to be responsible land stewards during the drought emergency. These actions were taken in advance of Executive Order 33, signed by Governor Mark Warner, and as a result the VGCSA is now part of the current Drought Task Force in shaping water usage for the golf industry. In addition, under Mr. McDonough's leadership, the Keswick Club has attained Certified Audubon Cooperative sanctuary status. The Audubon International has a very detailed program that requires a property to meet stringent specifications to achieve sanctuary status. Keswick is only the ninth course in Virginia to achieve this status. ORGANIZATION WINNER Roanoke Valley Greenways - (Roanoke, Va.) -The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission was established by the signing of an Intergovernmental Agreement on Earth Day, Apri119,1997. The Greenway Commission is an advisory body with appointed citizen and staff representatives from each of the four Valley jurisdictions. The Commission's role is to facilitate coordinated planning, development, and maintenance of the greenway network. In many cases greenways are constructed using volunteered time and materials to create a corridor of protected open space managed for conservation,~recreation and non-motorized transportation. Greenways as vegetated linear parks provide tree cover, wildlife habitat, and riparian buffers to protect streams. The trails within the greenway provide access between neighborhoods and destination points, opportunity to travel without an automobile, outdoor education classrooms, and close-to-home paths for walking, jogging, bicycling, and roller blading. The RVG has developed a system of trails connecting Salem, Roanoke, and Roanoke County. RUNNER-UP Blackwater/Nottoway Riverkeeper Program BNRP) - (Sedley, Va.) - In the fall of 2000, Jeff Turner joined with concerned citizens to found the River keeper program in Southampton County. The BNRP has since grown to more than 60 dues paying members. Mr. Turner and program members have accomplished many diverse goals since first organizing, including identifying and gaining state and federal recognition for the first confirmed Bald Eagle nesting site on the Blackwater River. They have organized "Clean Rivers Day", which involved hundreds of volunteers and the removal of more than six tons of trash from riverbanks and boat ramps. The program also implemented a water quality-sampling program and initiated a Spring 2003 study by state biologists to gather better data on migratory fish in the Blackwater and Nottoway Rivers. One of the most exciting projects for 2003 is the program's development of Eco-Cruises for local students. Partnering with state agencies the BNRP has scheduled field trips for Franklin and Southampton students on the Blackwater/Nottoway Rivers, where they will sample and identify plants and wildlife while interacting with conservation professionals. Program members have met with elementary, middle, high school and college students, promoting good river stewardship, they regularly present slide shows and lectures to civic clubs and in 2002 obtained a grant from a local charity and are producing an educational video highlighting the rivers. They hold monthly meetings and have established a Conservationist of the Year Award. Mr. Turner receives no salary for his work with the program; all of his time and effort is strictly volunteer. Diane Childers - Re: Greenway Commission From: Elmer Hodge To: Diane Childers; Janet Scheid Date: 5/30/03 12:14PM Subject: Re: Greenway Commission Great award. Let's put this on the next agenda that Congressman Goodlatte will be able to attend. Ok to advist the BOS but be careful not to pre-empt the Congressman in anouncing this. He did it, he should have the opportunity to announce. Thanks Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 540-772-2004 »> Diane Childers 05/29/03 11:54AM »> Janet, I think this is something that should be included in the agenda for recognition. Do you have information regarding the award or should I follow up with Liz Belcher? Diane Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 »> Janet Scheid 05/29/03 11:38AM »> Congressman Goodlatte nominated the Roanoke Valley Greenways Program for the 2003 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award and it won. Is this something that we should let the Board know about and maybe recognize at a Board meeting? The award will officially be given on June 19 in Richmond. Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2094 CC: Brenda Holton GG~:C~~~ ~ - 1'~~he ~i C ~. ~ . (^;~ n , °'~~ kk.+,~ ,4~.e~rt ~ , r") ~ ~ r.~..,,. ,. ~ ~~ ~. - ~.~ nr . ~ ~r ~ ,~ .,~,~ ~ __ Page 1 Virginia DEQ: Information Center -Environmental Stewardship Awards Page 1 of 1 .'~."~ 1,FtC,i~:A I7F.AARTt~fl=4"Ttlir I~~b'1Sttt`:~.tk\IALt,~L'A1>2'1* Enforcement ~ Farmsillppllcetlens (Employment I [ItllenBaards ~ Regionalblflets I DECHams Information Center Go a-mail: Bill Hayden Public Affairs Office P.D. Box 10009 Richmond, Virginia 23240 (804) 698-4447 Environmental Stewardship Awards Nominations have closed for the 2002 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Awards, sponsored by Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources and the Virginia Petroleum Council. Application forms are available from the Virginia Petroleum Council at (804) 225-8248, or visit the American Petroleum Institute. Nominations are encouraged that exemplify innovative and effective stewardship activities that serve to protect and enhance local and state natural resources. Qualifications for nominees are intentionally broad in scope. The awards are open to any individual, class or school, public/private partnership, environmental or community group that has undertaken a single project or for activities over a period of time. Environmental or conservation projects. Nominations may include, but are not limited to the following: beautification projects, community cleanups, ecology, energy conservation, environmental education activities, landscape preservation, pollution prevention, response to environmental accidents, recycling, etc. Awards winners and runners-up will be honored at an awards luncheon to be held in Richmond in late spring. Awards will be presented in the following categories: • Youth (under age 21) • Adult • Organization (civic, environmental, non-profit) • Communication/educational programs Deadline for nominations was April 15, 2002. Last Updated: Wednesday, December 4, 2002 9:52 AM http://www.deq.state.va.us/info/vpcaward.html 6/19/2003 The Year 2000 Nominations Now Being Accepted ...... . Virginia Environmental Stewardship Awards The Secretary of Natural Resources and the Virginia Petroleum Council (VPC) have announced that nominations are now being accepted for the Year 2000 Virginia Environmental Stewardship Awards. The environmental recognition program is sponsored by the Virginia Petroleum Council and the Commonwealth . This is the fifth year of the Awards and we are open to suggestions for expanding it. We are seeking nominations that exemplify innovative and effective stewardship initiatives and educational approaches to help enhance Virginia's attractive natural resources. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The program is open to any individual, class or school, public/private partnership, business or community demonstrating outstanding contributions for a single project or over a period of time. AWARDS: Winners and runners-up will receive handsome engraved plaques at a luncheon to be held in the Richmond area in the Spring of 2000. Awards will be presented in the following categories: 1. Youth (under the age of 21) 2. Adult 3. Organization (non-profit, community, civic, etc.) 4. Communication/Educational Projects or Programs 1999 ENVII20NMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AWARDS WINNERS AND RUNNERS Youth Category Winner: Herndon High School Students Against Global Abuse -involved in projects for a safer & cleaner envvonment through recycling & tree planting. Runner-un: W. E. Waters Middle School (SHARK) Team - participation in public education, recycling, water quality, oyster bed restocking & teaching others. Adult Category Winner: Jim Waggener -efforts in conservation of farm lands, landfill management, and developing a backyard wildlife habitat. Runner-un: Robyn Joiner- efforts in working with the John Marshall Soil & Water Conservation District in educating the youth of Fauquier County. Organization Category Winner: Prince William Partners for the Potomac -community-based efforts to raise awareness about water quality and pollution prevention. Runner-uo: Wildlife Habitat Council- efforts to restore and enhance wildlife habitat by taking advantage of unused private or commercial property. Communication/Education Winner: Chesapeake Bay Youth Conservation Corps -environmental program with at risk youth by educating and involving them in environmental projects. Runner-up: Pollution Solution Kids -environmentally conscientious program directed at youth to help increase community awareness in the envvonment. NOMINATION FORM AND INFORMATION: The form is on the back page. Each nomination should describe the reasons for the nominations and results achieved. Include at least one reference substantiating the nomination. A press clipping, letter of recognition, a photograph, or other documentation is encouraged. DEADLINE FOR NOMINATIONS: Early submission is encouraged. The deadline is April 15, 2000. If you have questions, call Mike Ward at (804) 225-8248. NOMINATION FORM 2000 VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AWARDS NAME OF NOMINEE: HOME ADDRESS: CITY: STATE & ZIP: PHONE: OCCUPATION: NAME OF EMPLOYER OR SCHOOL: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE: FAX: NOMINATED BY: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE: FAX: Please explain in specific detail your reasons for making this nomination. Attach additional sheets and documentation material. Return to: Virginia Petroleum Council, 701 E. Franklin Street, Suite 105 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 225-8248 Fax: (804) 225-7104 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PARTICII'ATION IN THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT REGIONAL ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM OF REGIONAL COMPETITVENESS FUNDS WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was created in 1997 by local governments to promote increased levels of inter jurisdictional cooperation in order to improve the region's economic competitiveness; and WHEREAS, the (County, Ciry or Town of ) is currently a participating member government of the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance; and WHEREAS, the Regional Alliance is making application to re-qualify as a regional competitiveness partnership under the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act (RCA); and WHEREAS, the Regional Competitiveness Act requires that each participating local government within the region must approve by resolution: (1) its intent to continue participating in the Regional Alliance and (2) a methodology for the distribution of incentive funds under the RCA. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the (County, Ciry or Town of ) agrees to participate in the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance with other local governments in the region; and furthermore, approves the allocation of any Regional Competitiveness funds be paid to the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance to be used to help implement the regional programs and projects as presented in the Regional Economic Strate.~y (adopted by the Alliance in July 2002). MEDIA ADVISOR Y April 8, 2003 TO: Roanoke Valley Media FR: Wayne G. Strickland, Secretary to the Alliance wstrickland(a,rvarc. org RE: Regional Alliance Funding Awards for 2003 Program Year ROANOKE -The Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance is in the process of implementing the 2002 Regional Economic Strate~y. Recently, the Alliance Board of Directors awarded Regional Competitiveness funds in support of various projects that will address several tactics in the strategy. These projects are outlined below. New Century Technology Council (NCTC) was awarded $44,000 to create a targeted campaign to connect individuals who have moved away and college alumni from the region's colleges and universities to job opportunities in the region. The intent is to entice these individuals to return to the region. The NCTC project also involves marketing this region to experienced entrepreneurs with the goal of attracting these entrepreneurs to the region. This effort will be pursued by connecting potential entrepreneurs to the region's existing entrepreneur network. The NCTC will provide $59,000 in matching funds for this project. The Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau was awarded $46,000 to develop and produce marketing material promoting the outdoor recreational assets and amenities in the region. The project will include a compilation of data, graphic design, mapping, photography, copy writing and production of brochures. The project will focus specifically on highlighting the outdoor recreational amenities and their relationship to communities and village centers throughout the region. The RVCVB will provide $40,000 in matching funds for this regional marketing effort. Dabney S. Lancaster Community College was awarded $33,342 to establish an Entrepreneur Resource Center in the Alleghany Highlands. The community college will help to create job opportunities by providing skills and opportunities for educated and trained individuals to remain in the region (this effort focuses on those individuals who have recently been laid off due to the economic downturn). The project will also assist unemployed and underemployed individuals by providing them with the training and resources needed to establish their own businesses. The college is providing $24,721 in matching funds. The Alliance Board of Directors has also appropriated $150,000 in Regional Competitiveness funds toward a regional branding project. The firm of Landor Associates has been hired to assist the Regional Alliance in this important regional, cooperative endeavor. The Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was formed in 1997 under the Virginia Regional Competitiveness Program, which is intended to heighten the level of regional cooperation and to help promote a region's economic competitiveness by providing funds to pursue strategies presented in a regional strategic plan. The Commonwealth of Virginia designated the Alliance as the regional partnership to serve the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke; the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem; and the towns of Clifton Forge and Vinton. The Alliance is governed by a 41- member board of directors composed of goverrunent, business, education and civic leaders throughout the region. # # # 'Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance Page 1 of 2 Background ,fifth Planning District R,egionaC,~lCCiance .:i.. . ~~. The Fifth Planning Regional Alliance is an organization formed in 1997 to promote the economic competitiveness of this region of Virginia. Administration Established through the passage of the Virginia Regional - ''' ' Competitiveness Act in 1996, the Regional Competitiveness Program enhances economic competitiveness for qualifying regions of the Commonwealth. The program is designed to reward existing regional A actions and to stimulate new regional activities. Incentive funds established for this purpose are available to localities that carry out new • levels of regional economic development and meet established requirements. Proi ects ~ ~ ' • ' The Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance is composed of government, business, and educational leaders from throughout the ~~ . • _ region. The Alliance serves the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, and Roanoke; the cities, Covington, Roanoke and Salem; and the towns of Vinton and Clifton Forge. Staffing and administration for the Alliance is provided by the :Roanoke Vallek-Alleghany Regional Commission.. Documents Click here for the Regional Economic Strategy released July 2002 (in PDF format) ~ 2003 Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 2001 Annual Report Regional Alliance P.O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24101 540-343-4417(phone) 540-343-4416(fax) http://www.rvarc.org/alliance/index.html 6/17/2003 From: Diane Childers To: Nancy Horn Date: 6/17/03 10:12AM Subject: Work Session on 6/24/03 Nancy, A work session has been scheduled for the June 24 Board of Supervisors meeting to discuss taxation of property by Roanoke County when the property is located in Botetourt County. Will you be able to attend the work session? I have it on the agenda as being presented by you and Paul Mahoney. Diane Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 CC: Brenda Holton; Elmer Hodge; Paul Mahoney - -- _ _. ~- ' Diane~Childers -Fwd: Re: Hill Drive (Route 1095) Page 1 ~_ _ _ ---- '~... ~.. From: Paul Mahoney To: Diane Childers Date: 6/16/03 8:22AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Hill Drive (Route 1095) Diane: see forwarded mail from ECH. This item is a proposal to correct a possible error in taxing property in Roanoke County when it is located in Botetourt Co. It impacts a variety of other issues involving the delivery of public services: voter registration, trash collection, E-911 response, school attendance, etc. Paul __ ___: _ T- --- _T _ Diane•Childers -Fwd: Re: Hill Drive (Route 1095) Page 1 'r . -. From: Elmer Hodge To: PMAHON EY@co.roanoke.va.us Date: 6/15/03 4:48PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Hill Drive (Route 1095) Paul, let's put this on the next agenda for a discussion work session. We will not be addressing the Schools issue so we have time. Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 540-772-2004 Diane•Childers - Re: Hill Drive (Route 1095) Page 1 From: Mike Altizer To: Elmer Hodge Date: 6/15/03 2:47PM Subject: Re: Hill Drive (Route 1095) Folks this is an issue that cannot be piece mealed.Elmer i would think that we as a board do need to have a work session because of the complexity of what it will take to fix it.Lets proceed slowly and with caution. Mike »> Elmer Hodge 06/12/03 09:55AM »> Folks, this has the potential to be a difficult, heated issue. I suggest that we have discussions with the Board at a work session before we get too far out. This deals with schools, trash collection, etc and will take a lot of time. Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 540-772-2004 »> Anne Marie Green 06/12/03 08:26AM »> What about the houses on Glade Creek? Most of them have the same situation. Are we going to do the same thing for the properties off Reservoir and Old Mill Roads in north County - exact same issue -taxed in Roanoke county, Roanoke county services, Botetourt County zoning. Anne Marie Green Director of General Services County of Roanoke, Virginia 1216 Kessler Mill Road Salem, Virginia 24153 (540) 387-6200 -telephone (540) 387-6112 -fax Roanoke alley. '' RegYonal COYY]TrilSS10ri The Regional Commission 313 Luck Avenue, SW / PO Box 2569 / Roanoke, Virginia 24010 TEL: 540.343.4417 /FAX: 540.343.4416 / www.rvarc.org / rvarc@rvarc.org June 5, 2003 iy I~ T~ I ®I ~ 4 i~ i i) I J 1 V I TO: City/Town Managers County Administrators FROM: Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director SUBJ: Sample Rail Resolution ~~ ~ 2 yam` °~,`^"'~" As promised at the Mayors/Chairs meeting on June 5, attached is a copy of the resolution recently adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke supporting rail alternatives to complement planned improvements to I-81. /j lp Attachment Serving Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke counties, the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem, and the towns of Clifton Forge and Vinton JUN-05-2E~t3 13 ~ ~~ CI T" i~~ERK' ~ i~~FF I C~ S4~8S1'~4~ P. ©2!D3 ,` C .~ IN THE COUi~TCIL OF THE CITY OF RU.4NOKE, VIRGINIA, ~'he 2nd day at J~ine; 2G03. No. 36352-00203. A RESQLiJTT4N supporting rail altemauves to complemen± planned improvements to I-S 1. WHEREAS, tree 1-51 corridor is increasingly the route of choice for trucks traveling between the northeast and the south and southwest 'oecause of congestion on 1-~5 and expanding shipments generated by the North American i ree Trade nct; WHEREAS, two multi-national corporations, I~alIiburton and Fluor Corporations, have submitted proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to expand the number of lanes :and other appurtenances an 1-81; ~VIfiEREAS, Norfolk-Southern. Corporation estimates that seventy percent (70%j of truck traffic on 1-81 passes through Virginia to destinations south or north; WI~EREAS, the minimal rail freight proposals included in the Star Solutions and Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight potential in the whole 1-81 corridor; WHEREAS, these same proposals provide no option for passenger rail, although upgrading the corridor's main rail line secures the passenger rail option; WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is now planning the future of tl:e 1-81 corridor, those decisions containing dramatic impacts for the future of western Virginia; WHE1tEAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia's decision on this corridor will determine whether I-8 Z and connecting interstates will become amulti-state "East Coast T:~ck By-Pass;" Fi:~RESO~UTiONS~R-RailwvySupport dcc JL'h,-~~5-~t~~~3 13 ~ 1 C I T'~ i_L ER1~: ' S OFF I ~. E X4138531 ? =5 P . 03: c~ ~~ VPHERFAS, the increased use of railzoads to move freight will improve safety by reducing dangerous vehicular congestion on 1-81, improve energy conservation by reducing the ar.~ount of diesel fuel consumed for freight transportation, and improve the health of people and other forms of 'ifa in western Virginia by dampening the rate of increase in diesel engine- generated toxic emissions along I-b 1; and WHEREAS, the creation of additional freight rail capacity paralleling I-81, in Virginia and 'Tennessee, may spur creation of new freight rail capacity nationwide, resulting in more shipping options at lower cost for the ~"ation's ousinesses. T1-IEREFaRE, BE IT RESO;L'VED that the Council of the Ciry- of Roanoke strongly petitions for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger se7vice para11e1 to l-$ 1, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a la.*ge volume of the long-distance height traffic from trucks on Y-81 to freight trains on dual track, hied-speed rails parallel to 1-81. ATTEST: City Clerk. I~:~RESOL[.'TIVN~~k.t(ailwaySuppo: t_doc TOTAL P . 0- 5.b. ~~~ CITY OF ROANOKE crrY couivc~, ~. zls Church Avenue, s.w Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 4s6 ~'~ Roanoke. Vuginia 24011-1s36 Telephone: (s40) 853-2s41 RALPH K. SMITH Faz: (540) 853-1145 Council Members: Mayor William D. Bestpitch M. Rupert Cutler Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. C. Nelson Harris Linda F. Wyatt June 2, 2003 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council: At the Council meeting on Monday, March 17, 2003, Star Solutions and Fluor addressed City Council with regard to Interstate 81. Proposals were submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation to expand the number of lanes and other appurtenances on I-81; however, minimal rail freight proposals included in the Star Solutions and Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight potential in the whole t-81 corridor. We recommend that Council adopt the attached resolution petitioning the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to I-81, to complement limited highway-widening and to move a large votume of the long-distance freight traffic from trucks on I-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to I-81. Sincerely, William D. Bestpitch Council Member M. Rupe Cutler Council Member WDB:MRC:sm Attachment N:~clcsml~A~enda.03U-81 Proposal.wpd ~j} 5~ a CODEMASTER RESEARCH CONCERNING VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY May 28, 2003 9-28-1993 IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Vehicle Replacement Policv Presenting the proposed policy were Jim Jones, Assistant Director of Recreation; Bonnie Preas, Assistant Director of Procurement; Brent Robertson, Management & Budget and Paul Grice, Assistant Department of Finance. Mr. Jones explained that the proposed policy had been reviewed by the departments who managed the largest fleets, the Gang of 40, the Internal Support and Operations Team, Management & Budget and Mr. Hodge. He described the criteria that would be considered for replacement and a "decision tree" which would determine whether the vehicle had reached the set mileage/age for replacement. He advised that the group developing the policy recommended that a new computer system to track maintenance records be purchased and the position of Fleet Manager be created. Ms. Preas responded to questions that were raised by the staff during development of the policy. A schedule of the seven year cost projections was presented that included $90,000 for a computer system and funding for the Fleet Manager position. Following discussion on the need for the new position, the proposed computer system and the inclusion of fire and rescue vehicles, staff was directed to bring back to the Board a report which would include statistics, maintenance records and information on computer software. 2-8-1994 IN RE: WORK SESSION Vehicle Replacement Policv Mr. Hodge reported that the Facilities Management Team had submitted a draft policy for replacement of County vehicles on September 28, 1993. The team was then asked to research question raised at the meeting and report their findings. The team determined that the present fuel computer system was not capable of handling programs that would assist in monitoring vehicle maintenance and replacement, and a Request for Proposal is being prepared to determine the cost of a new system. Funding for the computer system will be included in the budget process. Property Manager John Willey will assume the responsibilities of serving as the fleet manager. An independent survey will be administered to determine the needs of the Fire and Rescue Department. No action was taken on the adoption of the proposed vehicle replacement policy. 4-26-1994 IN RE: Budget Work Session Mr. Hodge presented the highlights of the budget and advised that the first reading of the ordinance would be held May 10, 1994, with the second reading and adoption scheduled for May 25, 1994. He advised that the School Board Budget would be adopted on May 10, 1994. Mr. Hodge requested that the Board members meet with him individually to discuss their budget questions. The following questions were asked by individual Board members: (6) Supervisors Eddy and Nickens asked when the final draft of the Vehicle Replacement Policy will be brought to the Board. Mr. Hodge responded that the County needs to purchase the computer fuel system first. 2-28-1995 IN RE: Budget Work Session Chairman Minnix reconvened the work session at 5:15 p.m. Mr. Hodge and Brent Robertson, Budget Manager, presented information concerning: (1) Mid-Year Expenditures; (2) General Government Revenues, (3) Vehicle Inventory and Policy; and (4) Budget Calendar. Mr. Hodge advised that the team approach will be used again this year with the citizens involved increased to seven. It was the consensus of the Board as follows: (1) proposed work session with School Board planned for March 14, 1995; (2) advertise tax rates at current status; (3) public hearing on tax rates set for March 28, 1995; (4) adopt tax rates on April 4, 1995; (5) as suggested by Supervisor Nickens, another column "Current Year Estimates" to be added to Government Revenue Summary; (6) that Don Myers will make a report on the six-month evaluation of the Brush and Bulk Collection Method; and (7) that Mr. Hodge will revise the Vehicle Replacement Policy and bring it back to the Board. 10-10-1995 IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Vehicle Replacement Policy General Services Director Bill Rand reported that in July of 1993, the Facilities Management Team delivered a recommendation for a vehicle replacement policy to the Board. At that time several suggestions were made which have been incorporated in the criteria used to select a vehicle management program. The system will allow the use of age, mileage or hours, cumulative non-accident related maintenance cost, condition and life expectancy. The position of Fleet Manager was moved to the General Services Department in April 1995 and a computer program for vehicle maintenance, repair and replacement has been purchased. Mr. Rand advised that they reviewed the various vehicle studies including the Griffith Report, J-Lark study and the state vehicle policy. He explained that the current lump sum funding policy encourages lobbying by departments and 2 teams. He proposed that the Fleet Manager manage the fleet, work with Procurement, establish the specifications, and handle the budget request. The department will request vehicles from the Fleet Manager who will use computer data to validate the request and determine if meets the criteria. The Fleet Manager can also review whether a vehicle has additional life and can be used by another department. After the Fleet Manager reviews the requests, and validates and prioritizes the list, a single budget request for vehicles will be presented to the Board for approval. The Board can budget whatever funds it feels appropriate and the Fleet Manager will use the priority list to determine which vehicles can be funded during that budget year. Mr. Rand advised that approximately $1 million is currently funded. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Hodge advised that they are still working with the Schools regarding the administration of the school bus garage, they had not yet resolved the issue of purchasing fire and rescue vehicles, and the Board of Supervisors will determine the total number of County vehicles. There was general consensus that all vehicle requests including fire and rescue would be reviewed, prioritized, and submitted to the Board by the Fleet Manager. Supervisor Eddy suggested that the fire and rescue requests be treated separately. Mr. Rand was directed to bring back a policy for adoption by the Board incorporating suggestions at the work session. 2-11-2003 IN RE: WORK SESSION on Fiscal Year 2003-2004 budget development (e) Vehicle Replacement Policy (e) Vehicle Replacement: Current guidelines for vehicle replacement were reviewed and it was noted that departments have been handling vehicle replacement in a variety of methods. The current funding needed for vehicle replacement is $920,900 based on mileage and age of vehicles. A vehicle replacement policy team has been established to formulate a new policy based on the following criteria: age of vehicle, mileage, repair costs, use of vehicle, method of replacement (new vs. used), and the type of vehicle needed (least expensive and most efficient for the task). Potential funding sources identified include proceeds from surplus auctions, departmental line items, year-end rollovers, and specific appropriations for replacement vehicle fund. 3 ACTION # A-52488-7 ITEM NUMBER ~ - S AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: May 24, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a Vehicle Utilization Policy COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: / ~ ~Z~ti~~ ~ ?5~ .4 ~ V-~ ~ ~~ ~•~~~~ ~ l W BACKGROUND : ,~2~~r~f/f/ ~tiv~/~' ~pp ~ ~ ~ At the April 26, 1988 meeting of the Board~of Supervisors, the draft of the Vehicle Utilization Policy was discussed. Suggestions which were offered by the members of the Board of Supervisors have been considered and incorporated in this report. We found that the Central Garage for the Commonwealth of Virginia has the responsibility of assigning automobliles to the various departments and also maintaining the motor pool. Any department of the state may request a vehicle which will be assigned if available. The state will require that at Least 12,800 miles be placed on this vehicle annually to justify the retention. For casual use, the motor pool vehicles are available and charged back to the department at the rate of $0.17 per mile and the employee may drive their personal vehicle for reimbursement at the rate of $0.21 per mile. Based on the state guidelines, the proposed policy has been revised to reflect the 12,800 mile limit instead. of the 10,000 mile lir•,it previously recommended (copy attached). Attachment 1 lists 25 vehicles which have been identified as surplus and have been removed from the County's fleet. The savings on operating costs, gasoline and insurance for these 25 vehicles will be approximately $43,000 annually. Attachment 2 lists 3 vehicles requested by the County Assessors office in the 1988-89 budget as replacement items which will not be ordered. Attachment 3 shows an additional 17 sedan type vehicles used within the various administrative offices, which could be considered for a flat mileage rate reimbursement. or at an appropriate allowance. -1J - Attachment 4 gives a synopsis, by vehicle type within each department, using the mileage ranges of 0 - 10,000; 10,000 - 12,800; 12,800 - 15,000; and over 15,000. Attachment 5 shows a detailed listing of the 366 remaining vehicles assigned to the County fleet. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Alternative #1: Adopt the attached vehicle utilization policy authorizing the County Administrator to implement and enforce its provisions. Alternative #2• Designate which, if any, employees should be considered for an automobile allowance (supplement to salary) and determine an appropriate monthly rate. This is suggested for vehicles included on attachment 3 which are driven 10,000 miles or .more annually. The suggested monthly rate would be $225 per month for 10,000 - 15, 000 miles per year and $300 per month for over 15,000 miles per year. This allowance would be in Lieu of the $0.21 per mile reimbursement. Drivers who operate. their vehicle less than 10,000 miles per year would receive the $0.21 per mile currently authorized. Alternative #3• Delete any or alI of the vehicles included on attachment 3 and reimburse said individuals on a mileage basis ($0.21 per mile or the prevailing State reimbursement rate) for business miles. Any vehicles freed up under this alternative, could be traded to other qualifying departments who have fleet vehicles, so that. the worst vehicles within our fleet .could be deleted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of alternatives #1 and #2 and consideration of the change in the mileage reimbursement rate when changes are authorized by the General Assembly. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, ~/S'ohn M. Chambliss, Jr Elmer C. Hodge Assistant Administrator County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved {x) Motion by: r,PP ('arratt~Rnh r No Yes Abs Denied ( ) J dGarrett x Received ( ) to include: my 356 vehicles Johnson x will remain in fleet as of July 1, 1988. -~ Referred To JMC/cw Attachment cc: File Assistant County Administrators Constitutional Officers Sheriff Kavanaugh Chie f Tommy Fuqua Keith Cook Jack Council Mary Hicks McGraw X Nickens x Robers x VEHICLE UTILIZATION POLICY Purpose It is necessary and proper for-many County employees to have County-owned or personal vehicles at their disposal to properly perform their assigned duties. The County does not desire to curtail the use of vehicles that are necessary for effective service delivery, however, it is essential that guidelines be established to ensure that the vehicles are being used with the utmost care and discretion and that they are being used in a manner consistent with the intent of the assignment. This policy will establish the criteria under which vehicles will be assigned to departments, the criteria under which vehicles will be authorized for take-home by employees, and the criteria for equitable compensation for County employees utilizing personal vehicles in the performance of their duties. Polacy 1. General Use a. County-owned vehicles may be used only for official County business. It is recognized that official County business occurs both during regular business hours and after hours for some employees. b. Personal use is prohibited under this policy. De minimis personal use (such as transportation to and from meal and break periods) is allowed under this policy. c. Only County employees who have a valid and current Virginia motor vehicle operator's license may drive a County-owned vehicle. In addition, only County employees or those individuals engaged in County business may ride in a County-owned vehicle. 2. Assignment of Vehicles to Departments a. Regular full-time assignment of vehicles to a department must be justified and proven cost effective A department's request shall be based on at least one of the following: 1. A vehicle is or does contain special equipment necessary for the proper and effective performance of County work. 2. A vehicle will be used for official County business a minimum of 12,800 miles per year or a minimum of 20 hours away from the office per week. 3. No other vehicle already assigned to the dep artmen t can be reassigned on a time-sharing basis to fill the department's requirements. -2- 3. 4. Documented evidence must prove that it is to the County's benefit from an economic or level of service standpoint for the department to have a vehicle assigned to it. (The motor pool has been eliminated at this time.) b. On January lst of each fiscal year, each department shall submit to the Department of Management and Budget a listing of all vehicles assigned to their department. The list shall include the vehicle number, description, condition, and a brief justification as to why the department needs that vehicle. Nighttime Assignment of Vehicles to Individuals Section 2, but must also include the employee's home address, round-trip distance to the employee's residence, and a more detailed justification. b. The following criteria shall be used in recommending approval for taking a County-owned vehicle home on a regular basis: a. A County-owned vehicle shall not be taken home on a regular basis unless authorized. by the County Administrator or his designee. A.list of vehicle assignments to be authorized shall be submitted by each department manager through his Director to the County Administrator annually on January lst. The list shall include detailed justification for each vehicle recommended and shall cite the specific criteria outlined below upon which the recommendation is based. This list may be combined with the list required from 1. The employee must answer emergency calls involving the potential loss of life or property where an immediate response is required. 2. The employee must routinely attend to work-related functions, away from the normal work site and outside of normal working hours. 3. Documented evidence must prove that it is to the County's benefit from an economic or level of service standpoint for the employee to have a vehicle assigned to him for take-home use. c. No employee may drive a vehicle to and from his residence outside of the County's borders without specific approval from the County Administrator. 4. Utilization of Personal Vehicles on County Business Employees using personal vehicles in the performance of their assigned duties shall be compensated for such usage at the current mileage reimbursement rate established by the Board of Supervisors (currently 21G/mile>. These employees must receive prior authorization from their department managers or director and file a monthly report of mileage to receive compensation. May 24, 1988 -~ 1 1 4. I N O N 1 W I C J 1 W U CO .r t 1 F x I ~ W 1 Z J 1 1 1 1 I W ~ t Ol O t~ O N .--1 O n rn O M tp O o~ n In ur O ~D ~ -1 N O I Q C7 N W . O O 1 N O ~ O ~ .-1 M n 01 L/) CO d' n ~ Q~ N CD t0 /G O ~ Il'f M N 1 4 W } N a7 tD f~ 01 ~f ID ~D l~ N to I~ ~ ct G1 M 01 N .--1 O~ e-~ O .--1 .--1 I . 2 J I M .--1 W rn M M O~~ O O rn n tD 00 O~ O M N O tp N cD ~ E W 1 '~ .--1 r-1 ti .-~ .~ N N .--1 N '-i .~ N .ti H n 1 1 I z I 0 1 H i o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ n z~~ 0 0 0 0 o ¢ a i °°° a o 0 0 0 a ~ o W n a n n I U I t I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1 M N O M cO .--1 O u'f CD O CO O O O N N .-I O~ QI C -1 W QI O r~ O. . 1 r-1 (V .-1 .-r '-1 N r-1 .--I .-~ .-1 .-~ r-1 N .-1 W I C'> 1 Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M O B ct N cr N M tp r~ Op lp N N 01 N ID .-~ O M tp LfJ N C7 1 rn O M N C' M O M N N In Qi f~ N ct I~ N 01 N M M~ 01 N ~t M O N M 1~ V OI IA CO M M 01 ~~ M I W 1 N .-r ~~ O M Op M n GO O t.f) n cf t~ n M~ N I['f O .~ N -1 n ' e ~ u'7i t0 01 .--I ~ W Ql n .ti N N M O1 O t0 CO 1~ N 1A .--1 .--1 .--i £ ; t . .--1 "'~ .-a M N N .-1 'r ..y 1 ~ 1 W 1 J CD 1 O E 1 O O 1 n Z 1 .-1 1['1 ~. tt"1 .--1 r~ .--1 n ti ID ti O ~ N ~~ O O N .-1 cf M 1~ O M .-1 ~ t\ 1 _ .~.1 O O .-r N O 1~ O N M ct u'f C .-a OO CO ~ Ol rn O z w l O J I rn N rn M O~ n 1~ r~ r~ C9 n n N v7 V n c ~ E o ca ca n cs v c~ ~ z~ z 4 ' 1 1-- U 1 _ tZ tY m~ ~ CO Q Ll W m m m m Cl] f O] Q an d n n n O .-. 1 U z 2 1 w I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 O i H H F I Z U 0 W 1 ¢ ~ Z d 6 . N I ~ I Q f O W Z Z D O 2 K W N p O Q I n n N O N ~ Z Q N U n 1 E£ 2 W ~ 2 0 ~ 2 2 ~ W C] W 1 p I ~ o n o W S W == F- H O O d U n W W V1 F- J n n n' K~ OJ 1 F- V1 N U .--1 O 1 1 = O n d Q O F- In = O W W O n' O N N W O O W tl W N W O 5 3 O Y Y ~ ] p ~ >- } F- 2 z~ ~ ] C.7 £ ~ O O (.7 1- C7 O C7 ~ 7 z~ c.~ a} w a r rr ~ w o r r~ z p z v O v n o r w W O Q Q J O n W ~ ~ 2 Q J= 2 2 O J J O O O O E O E O O J 2 Y ti n n n U ti n W ~ W U U U O a n ti lL p n C.7 O C~ Ii O n U ~ U U 1 n O O O N~ O N O O rn N OO O O O n OI OI O n O rn tb .--1 ~ W^ t0 of r~ O r\ ti Q ^'~ r- x I 1 r\ n n n n r~ n CO t0 CO n 1~ rn rn O ~ .-, 0 3 °' rn ••. rn c rn rn rn rn v+ T rn rn rn rn rn rn ' ~; ~;~~ o , „ Q 7 i z w Schedule I -~ (..-, Z v w c W x ~ ~ ~ ~~rno ~rn a 10 ~ ~~ oaOi~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ H W 00 0 0 0 in ~n in o ~n C~ i~ N O C'~ .~J UI N 'T i--1 lf1 M M M ~D N tll N rl •~' ~ l/~ U ~ ~ I ~ ~ v a ~, ~, N ~I - r-1 N J-1 ~ N IM ~. rl r--1 (d O O O tf) O Ifl tIl tf1 ~ (~ N OD ~ ~ ~ o O r--I M ,~, N U ~ ~ IO M a 2 r-I ~ IN ~.J r-i r-1 N I M G ri r-i C O ~ . • ~ .1-J •-~ ~ . q N C ~ Q1 ~ N O N U ~ ~ U ~ U ~ U U • c 1] to a ~ • H .C ,C .G • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~j~ - ~ G C A ~ C O N r-1 r-I .~ ~ • ~ O > O ~ o a v u i w 28 O O O O O t11 O N N cn- ~~ r-I r-1 "1- ~ tff N ~~ N \ C V O u ... •,~ O ~ O N C U .tJ C ~j ~ td ~ ~ H 0 ~ ~ Q L u i u i ~n cr r.~ N b b to N u a O t d ~ ~ u] ° ~ a ~ w •.-r ~ w ~-S W C7 Q J f J Q Q I W I ~ C7 I - W I ~ 1 Q 1 Z !- W S E C7 Z .r (, Z ~-+ N Q h J W Q J V- U O ~--~ H 2 W O C O W O 'J l17 1 i O O O O O O N .-r i I I I 1 1 O I O O i O CO O I .N-1 1 O 1 1 .r ,~ ,.,,~ ry N ,...I ~ N N ~--+ O i .-~ .r "'1 r-1 N .ti .-w .-.1 V' N ~--i '.r r-1 .-.~ N ~--I ~..~ ~ ~ .--1 N .--1 "'I ..1 .-H .-1 .-~1 O I I O 1 to O I W O - t U O I 1 N ~-. ~ ~ W n. 1 ~ W 1 ~ N 1 I ~ Z W W j h ~ J I ~ N U I Z = Z ~ . - (/1 1 Q Q 4 ~-. z W J 1 ~ ~ U 1 O N ~ ~ Z w E ~ W In ~ O ¢ ~ ~ ~ = U ~ ~ O 1 F- ? N O W ~ F-, n, O /- .. ~ N rr Z Z ~ Q _ ~- `Nr J = ~ O Z W ~ Z ~ Z O Z = W N l.~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ¢ ¢ U Q ¢ ¢ O ~ W ~ r w ~ ~ w D O z w D Z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ W Q O Z N N~ Q N r w 1/1 Vl ~ W ~ ~ = ~ O V1 W N N Z O ~ r f ° ~ -' ~ o In ¢ N Y ~ U Z J r ~ cn N Q a 2 = Z O ~ Z Z F. O N Y ¢ ~ W O U W J N W Q N O ~ U fY] ~ ~ U W U Q C.7 d Q 2 ~ ~ C7 t J .LJ - 5 W c~ J z W i ¢ I 1' I W I ~ 1 ¢ 1 ~- i- w ~ z Z ... N N N J W Q J F- .U~ F- 2 0 z o it o ~ ~ '-1 I h I .--1 I 1 I 1 1 1 f~9 I i 1 1 1 1 p n i 1 I n i i I N u i 1 1 n 1 1 II I 1 1 u O O O 1 t 1 1 q 11 0 0 1 I u N 1 1 n - tCl 1 1 II N .-~1 1 1 II ti 1 1 it 1 1 II 1 1 p 1 1 n 1 1 O p 1 1 II 1 t p 1 O 1 1 I 1 I) q W O O I I n ~y O Cn 1 1 II ¢ O - - N I 1 1 1 q II ,J O •-+ 1 1 1 1 n II ~ 1 I 11 H 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 p p W J U a 1 1 {•7 II = 1 t II I I II 3 U 1 1 it O Z O I I 11 J 1 O 1 1 ti J 3 O I 1 II 4 O O - O 1 1 I 1 11 II _..1 W J ~ I 1 II (,7' ¢ 1 1 11 ¢ 1 I n J } 1 1 11 .~ J 1 1 II ~ _ 1 ~ 1 ¢ Z W 1 J 1 ly ~ U N i O r-r In I ¢ x ¢ w J 1 1 Z o C ~ U 1 O !- J W .r ~ E N K Z W O d h- U O N O H d LL. O z W w w ~ h F- N IL J ¢ O U ¢ ¢ _ ~ = 2 1- W O O f- W C' O ¢ o w o } ~~ .-+ w C°l J E O ¢ O W p~ } . \ N N .-+ W NJ J t17 !- J C W O W (.7 O } Q - \ -~ O N .-1 W F J V° .-. Z g ¢ F- U U' Z O W O O } \ D ~ (n W W V1 U° J i ¢ ~--+ I O] E I I Z ¢ I O I W 1 N 1 I 3 j O 1 O 1 H I } j ~ 1 Z 1 ~ 1 O 1 U 1 W j 2 1 ~ 1 1 O I ~ ~ 1 ~ H H 1 N In 2 O O W i U V U I I tD O O N I Op I O ~ O C- 1 h 1 d' ~ O .--1 1 l0 1 N I M 1 ~ I I I 1 i 1 I ~ 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 I o cr o rn 1 01 1 C M ~~ I N 1 ti 1 [h I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I CO O O N I r-I I V fh l(') Q' I h .~ I N tD O O ~ 1 CO lt'1 O I cT .-1 ct h 1 O h .-1 c~ _ d E N O J N f J O ¢ O C7 O F- \ N O O h cO W U \ w o Z O o v va ¢ w o Z C°~ Z .~-i K 1- F- ~ J ~ z oc w ¢ -~ W C7 Q J Z J Q Z Q r-1 W r~ Q W d (, C • W Q F- d I W I O I 1 Z I 1 2 1 ~ 1 1 3 1 W ~ C7 I Z I Q 1 ~ I W 1 ca Q J E >- d Q U tx F- W E 2 Q Q Z F- W 2 ~ C7 Z •--~ C.7 Z ~-. !n !n Q h J W Q J f"' U O .-. I- 2 W O ~ O W O 7 O to I 1 I O O i OO O I ~ I rN-1 .-1 N '„1 .--I r1 .--1 .--1 ~..1 N 1~ tp ~ 01 .-~ ~ ~ N ^ ~ N ~ . r V ct N .~ ~ M M N 1 O I W CD 1 m 1 Q N I J ^, I I Q 1 ~ 1 Q 1 1 H I '~ "ti .-r .--1 N M - Z M I y O I W O 1 J O I U O 1 1 _ S ~--~ I W 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ti I N 1 Z Z 1 I ~ O O to 1 Z Z Z = H W Vl 1 Q Q Q W Q Y Z Z Z Q Z C7 O Z J 1 ~ O O O O ~ Z O O z 0 . -. O ~ 0 0 U I N N N W N ~ ~ _ ~ d. Z N Z N N N (/) f N N ~, W O O Vf W -. ~ !- ~ ~ F-- N ~ ] Z .'-~ ~ W O W ~ J ~ . -. O = H •-• J <n O .-. ~ ~ Z O U _ ~ W S ~ J Z j ~ C 1 ~ O ~ . -. _ ' ~ ~ W O U Q U Z ~ 2 U W I/7 Q 7 Q Z J W ¢ U W ~ O 1 I I 1 1 1 E V- ~ ~ O N O 2 W W lL W IL LL C' f' O Y N . W L.~ ~ W W i..L a O O _ w r Z ~ O ~ oG 5 ~.• rY tY tY ~ W O O U U W J ~ 1'-1 W 4J W LU U E N N N to to N W z N N Q N Q J f- U O ~--~ F- S w i i W 1 p C7 1 ~ O p J 1 ~ . t O t!) S 1 ~ 1 I 1 i 1 1 Q 1 O O 1 O O Z 1 Op 2 I t(') Q 1 N .-1 i 1 N I I 1 ~ N j ~ I W 1 1 1 f.7 i W 1 I 1 2 U i 4 I 0 0 i ~ 1 o co •• w ~ I O i 1 N 1 Q 1 O .'-1 1 H 1 ~ 1 1 d 1 W 1 1 O 1 I z ~ 1 = i 1 1 !- i O 1 2 ; I O 1 O 1 W I O . 1 O 1 C.7 ; 1 Z 1 Q i 1 ~ 1 W 1 1 1 C7 1 W I J ._I I . -. ~ ~ N 1 S Q 1 } m W J I ~ V I d w F- ~ Z Z W W ~ E 2 ~.-. U ~ Q H ~ ~ W p 1 ~ .-,1 r-I O .ti 0 0 O ' '" 1 1 1 1 1 I ~ ti ti .N-1 ""1 ~ t0 O ~ ti C W "'1 .--1 t.'7 .-~ 1 i 1 1 1 'i 1 "'1 .-a .-~ N .--1 r-1 .--1 ~ ,.y O C .r tp .r N M rt M .-i ~ N ~ N v N .-.1 .ti r-1 H Z O ~ a w C 3 O N Z Q Y Q 1 ¢ O' Z w O ~. f... O ~ ¢ p O ~ _ V1 d ~ N ~ O N ~ _ J 1~/1 ~ O Z O Q ,_, U ~ = U d .-. 1 ~ H d w ~ = W _ d d ~ h 7 ¢ d W d N d O ~ ~ O O M O N ~ Q Q Y ~ Q Y Q Y Q F- Q O O w O ~ Q O U Z O O O N Z 2 t n (w Y w F- Vf . -. O Q W Z LZ S N d ~ N d 2 N W ~ O W U 6' Z U W U ~ i Z ~ Z O ~ ~ N N Z . r (.7 U n. W C Q tr p ~ w ~-5 W C7 Q J f J Q Z M C7 Q W d C7 .. Q F- CL w O i i .2-i I 2 1 ~ 1 I 3 I I W 1 C7 I Z I ~ 1 W 1 Q J E r m a Q U W I- E 2 Q F- 1 .-+ M N N to .--1 .--1 e1 N N ^'1 1 ^'/ M N ~1 .y N In .H N O .-/ 1\ f+") ~ N N •-+ ~"I 1 "'I "'I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 .-1 .r .-1 N ~ et Z S E !, Z ...~ U. Z ~--~ to N Q N J W Q J H ~ ~ _ W O CL O W O O to .--i .-~ N r-I N M ri .-~ .-I ~-+ fh N M N 00 •--1 C/I .-~ N ~-+ .--1 O O O CO ~ to N .-~ r-1 1 i O i O 000 i O 1 N I O .-~ I .~-1 I I 1 I 1 1 O I O 1 t N W O O 1 1 ~ O 1 1 ~ I W 1 N 1 Z 1 1 W / N ~ J 1 W S U N i U ~ 1 S Q 1 ~ W J I ~ ~ > U 1 W O V7 }--~ ~ C7 F- Z H [L Z C7 N .-~ O Z p ~ J Z d N Z d ~ r CL . -. d d Q CL O W O O = O f O W O N F- 1 U Z N 2 1 m 1 Z ~ Z 1- 1 Z CC 1 Z W Z Z Q Y Y Q ¢ Q F- > Y G U Y Q U¢ Q ~--~ Z U > O O p U Z U O D Z Q U D W U Z O t/7 O p Z 1- _ f> 4 W N Q _ O _ _ _ /Y Z N N d d V7 f- {- N Z Q 2 !Z N f d> V1 C>1 p S N W N> W E C7 Z J C7 Z U p ~ Z ¢ Vf Q' O Q ~ o- -. 5 ~ p J ~ J Z Z Z H N H Z O Vf Y Q .-. . -1 J Z ~ C S U m W O W O O OD C7 d U Q C7 O_ V1 J 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 28, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on the Draft Vehicle Replacement Policy. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR S COMMENTS: ~` '`" BACKGROUND: The Facilities Management Team has been developing a draft policy to recommend to the Board of Supervisors a means of systematic replacement of County vehicles. The policy has been drafted from the input of departments which utilize, repair, and procure vehicles. Twenty-three organizations in the public and private sectors have been surveyed and their policies reviewed for use and development of our proposal. After the initial policy was completed, the team reviewed it with several different levels within the County. The Departments of Fire and Rescue, Police, Utility, Parks and Recreation, and Sheriff's Office were consulted as was the Garage, to be sure the needs of those who manage the largest fleets were met. The proposal was reviewed by the Internal Support and Operations Team which had the duty of developing a plan for funding. A special committee from ISOP and Facilities Management met with all Department Directors and the Gang of 40 to review the policy. The last level of review was with Mr. Hodge and the Department of Management and Budget. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: All Roanoke County Departments are included under this program. The County School Board is not covered under this program. School buses have state mandates for replacement which they have to follow. The Schools could adopt this or a similar policy if they choose. The policy considers several factors before replacing a vehicle or piece of equipment. The proposal is designed to best fit the needs of our employees and provide quality customer service. Therefore, '°` 2 the following areas were incorporated to provide a comprehensive method of evaluating the vehicle for replacement. No one criterion should be used as the measure to replace a vehicle, but rather consider all criteria to move a vehicle systematically through the process until its effectiveness and efficiency has been maximized. Comprehensive Replacement Criteria --age --safety --vehicle condition --function of use --obsolescence --downtime --available funds for --mileage --ops. and maint. cost --major repair costs --market value --replacement costs --morale and image replacement & operations FISCAL IMPACT• We cannot accurately predict the full fiscal impact of this policy. Due to the complexity of evaluating the needs for repair, relocation, or replacement of a vehicle, the two teams can only forecast the first phase of implementation. It will require a Fleet Manager at an annual salary not less than $42,000, and a computerized management system estimated at $90,000. The Fleet Manager is needed in this fiscal year, with the computer to be funded in the next fiscal year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: That the board approve a position of Fleet Manager and funding for the position and a computer system. That they also approve the vehicle replacement policy. Respectfully Submitted, im Jone Assistant Director of Parks Approved, mer C. Hodge County Administrator Action Vote Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Ref erred to Motion by Minnix Eddy Johnson Kohinke Nickens No Yes Abs j j~rpts~vehmaint.agn ~,-i VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICY * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ Outlined below is the summarized version of the replacement policy for all County vehicles and equipment. It was through the extensive efforts of the Facilities Management Team that we offer these recommendations to be adopted as policy for all departments in the County of Roanoke. All Roanoke County Departments are included under this program. The County School Baard is not covered under this program. School buses have state mandates fox replacement which they have to follow. The Schools could adopt this policy in the same manner as we adopted their sick leave policy. The policy considers several factors before replacing a vehicle or piece of equipment. The poli.cy;, of which there is no perfect plan, is designed to best fit the needs of our employees and provide quality customer service. Therefore, the following areas were incorporated to provide a comprehensive method of evaluating the vehicle for replacement. No one criterion should be used as the measure to replace a vehicle, but rather consider all criteria to move a vehicle systematically through the process until its effectiveness and efficiency has been maximized. Con-prehensive Replacement Criteria --age --mileage --safety --ops. and maim . cost --vehicle condition --major repair costs --function of use --market value --obsolescence --replacement costs --downtime --morale and image --available funds for• replacement & operations The agencies surveyed are as follows. Cities: Lynchburg Hampton Roanoke City Portsmouth Suffolk Counties: Albemarle Hanauer James City Loudon Montgomery Rockingham Stafford State: State Police Forestry Parks. Transportation -1- ~_/ page 2 Vehicle Replacement 3uly 29, 1.993 Agencies cont~.nued. Federal: rational Park Service Private: Dominion Bank APCO First Virginia Bank C&P Telephone Hertz Car Rental Avis Car Rental Standard County Vehicles Vehicle Type Sedans (emergency) Sedans (non-emergency} Pick-up Trucks (all} Vans Dump Trucks (single axle} Replacement Eligibility 75,000 miles or 4 ,years 100,000 miles or 7 years 100,000 miles or 7 years 100,000 miles or 7 years 100,000 miles or 10 ,years Fire and Rescue. Vehicles/Equipment Vehicle Type Replacement Eligibility Ambulance 60,000 miles or 6 years Crash Trucks (light & med. duty} 100,000 miles or 15 years Crash Trucks (heavy duty} 100,000 miles. or 20 years Fire Trucks 12 years Ladder and Brush Trucks 15 years Air Trucks 75,000 miles or 5 years D-~ page 3 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICY This is a policy to be used as a guideline for planning and budgeting the replacement of vehicles and equipment in' Roanoke County. It will allow the Board of Supervisors to provide a dependable cost efficient motorized fleet within the County. The following recammerid.ations outlined below describe the means to implement the policy. A. Automated Fleet Management System (FMS): Cost savings can be realized through improved planning of preventive vehicle/equipment maintenance. Better management of purchasing, replacement, fleet review, historical cost analysis, department charge backs, and a parts inventory would be the goals of this system. The computer system would allow a manager to track maintenance histories, identify potential problems, and .coordinate future work and preventive maintenance. An option could be available to prevent or restrict the amount of fuel a vehicle would receive at the pumps if not kept up to date on preventive maintenance via set mileage limits. Emergency vehicles should be exempt from this. B. Develop a Position of Fleet Manager: Employ a person to operate and manage the FMS. This will need to be a full time employee who is capable of working with the Departments to manage a comprehensive vehicle inventory. Not only will the position manage vehicle/equipment resources, but develop standards, specifications, and review purchases of all County vehicles. This employee would also act as the chairperson for the recommended Fleet Management Advisory Committee (see item E.). The position and pay .grade will be developed in cooperation with Human Resources. C. Funding: A charge-back program is recommended as the means to fund the ongoing operation of FMS and the Fleet Manager position. As vehicles depreciate over their life expectancy, a pro-rated charge back program can be established to fund the preventive maintenance and replacement of the vehicles. Pro-ration (depreciation) is to be based on a per mile or per hour of use. A five percent use r• fee should be added to offset inflation for future vehicle .replacement costs. It is also recommended that the revenues generated from the sale of surplus vehicles be put back into this account. C?-/ page 4 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 D. Create a Vehicle Pool: Some vehicles can be used by various departments in an effort to get the best utilization from the fewest number of vehicles. For example, a passenger van could serve multiple functions far the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, Human Resources, etc. Pool vehicles can serve as loaners when departments have one in for repair or maintenance. `T'hose departments or employees who do not have an assigned vehicle can now schedule use of a vehicle as an occasional user. The pool can also support departments during peak times when additional transportation is needed, i.e. Real Estate Assessment for reassessments. The fleet manager will be the coordinator and care taker of the pool vehicles. This way a schedule of use and maintenance can be managed to insure the quality and dependability of our vehicles. Standing equipment or arrangements for on-demand rental of specialized equipment such as loaders and graders can be managed from this position. Not to mention, the value it would have in the event of an emergency. F. Fleet Advisorv Committee: This could quite possibly be a standing responsibility of the Facilities Management Team or the present Vehicle Advisory Committee. The purpose of the committee would be to provide policy direction and serve as a liaison to administration and recommend the purchase and replacement of vehicles/equipment. They would also be responsible for approval ar development of vehicle specifications with the input from the Departments, Ptarchasing, and the School Board Garage. This would insure that the vehicles would be compatible with their intended use. It would also insure that vehicles would be purchased based on quality rather than low cost. F page 5 Vehicle Replacement 3uly 29, 1993 r. Establish Replacement Criteria Based on Vehicle and Equipment Classifications: Certain factors must be considered when determining the replacement of a particular vehicle or piece of equipment. The following can be a set of preliminary guidelines used to evaluate the need for replacement. - safety, age, mileage, downtime, obsolescence, - acquisition cost, morale, image, function - total maintenance and operation (including fuel) - cost per mile or cast per hour for equipment - overall condition of the vehicle/equipment - available funds far replacement & operations A "decision tr.•ee" has been. developed as a guideline for moving the vehicle through the replacement process. The fleet manager and the advisory committee can be the governing body to determine if the vehicle/equipment qualifies for replacement. If for some reason a department has a vehicle that does not meet the replacement criteria they can make an appeal to the committee for early replacement or extension of the vehicle's use. It is also recommended that a vehicle be eligible for replacement when the repairs and maintenance costs are within ?5% - 100% of the current market value of the vehicle. This does not include total costs of operation over the life of the vehicle such as routine preventive maintenance. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT --County Vehicles-- Vehicle Type Replacement Eli.~ibility Sedans (emergency} 75,000 miles or 4 years Sedans (non-emergency} 100,000 miles or 7 years Pick-up Trucks (all} 100,000 miles or ? years Vans 100,000 miles or 7 years Dump Trucks (single axle} 100,000 miles or 10 years Specialized equipment such as an evidence van or other modified vehicle will be handled individually. Q-C page 6 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 The refuse trucks are considered speciaJ_ized vehicles that function as equipment, yet do not totallsr qualify as equipment. Due to the nature of operation, the refuse collection bodies wear out before the truck chassis. Therefore, the bodies must be replaced when they become ineffective and the vehicles/chassis can be managed. under the vehicle guidelines established far single axle dump trucks. --Fire anal Rescue-- Vehicle Type Ambulance Crash Trucks light duty medium duty heavy duty Fire Trucks Ladder Trucks Brush Trucks Air Trucks Replacement Eligibility 60,000 miles or 6 years 100,000 miles or 15 years 100,000 miles or 15 years 100,000 miles or 20 years 12 years 15 years 15 years 75,000 miles or 5 years Note: All. other vehicles such as cars are covered under emergency sedans. The Service truck is covered under the standard plan for pick-up trucks. W w Q', F zw OH cn a H W ~ ~ c~ U H ~. w w ~a a U dW C4 W a U z° a~ .,~ Ul U ~ ~ ~ A Gil ~ a~ ~ .~ O A «f~c~• rd~O~ >~~~ ~~-~~ a~~ -~ ~ •'~ ~ •rl d ~ N.~~U oo~~ L1U3•~ 0 ~ O f~ 1 c~• •~ dA ~ ~a~~ a~ ~ ~ nl ~ at ~~ U ~UG~1 ~ ~ U ~ ~ f~ ~ Sa a~ ~ f•a ~ U ,~ •~, ~ O O Z Z oW 0 0 ~' ~. ~~ -~i tt1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f3~ ~ ~~ ~ a~i o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ S~-i-i a~ ~ ~ U ~ •RS W ~ ~ O b~ a~ ~ •~ a~ a, •~, ~~ A O Ol O H~ •~ '~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ,C 4l +~ ~~~ U ~b a~ rl (si ~r .,~ .a a~ a~ -.•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W '~ '~ ,-•,I Z ~a .~ ~ N •ri O a ro~ ua ~ U a `~ a ~ a ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ n• '~ .r., A b °z ~ro ~ G! fd ~I U •f~d a U a a~a o +~ ~ ro •ri N •~ N U ~ U 0 H c~ Z ~' ~ a ~ a n n. n ~, mo a a ~ ~1 Q1 n U1.1 •rl •,.{ ~ ~ t0 N ~ a . l O ~ a ~ ~ 6 ~. a~ ~m a y n ~roa ~o~ - i , W ~ ,fi n 3 w 't3 E W N m a a d .a +.~ .-+ ~ n ~.~~ro waa.co ~ roa.1 OUn~ OlOI q ~ w 'O ~ b ~ • m + ~ ~ L~ C - d! N +~ ro 1~ .C U N TJ G- S.~ GI m w O a W U •.• iC iN C~> ro ro~~~x o+0 0 m W N ~ $ •••1 C Oi Sa O ro w a~ t i m O.COm W ro ro ro ~ '' " ia-~~ wa a i zs ~ ~ ~°' ~ ~~3a Eb y ~ ~ ~ C ~ 0 U r -I. 11 1+~ C! UR W ri fC U 1 ~ • U 7 ~ ~ ~ o I • I -- ,~ 7r U GI ro - U v a~ •,., ~ a ~ .c x ~ •.+ ~ a c n a a zy w ~~ ~ roroaa~ a AUH3~CUUUAN JUSTIFICATION FOR A FLEET MANAGER ~ Provide a dedicated person to begin the process of implementing the computer system and the vehicles records. ~ Better procurement of vehicles to insure quality and consistency for purpose and use. * Development of specifications. * Monitor vehicle conditions- to insure a dependable and efficient fleet for all Departments. ~ Provi_de someone with the responsibility and authority to completely .manage one of the County's most important resources. ~ There is no present position which is capable of handling .the duties as described in the policy. * Currently, information necessary to make educated decisions on replacing vehicles is missing. This position along with a .computerized system is needed to accurately implement the policy, ~ Determine worth of new programs -contracts -mileage -number of vehicles ~ Assess vehicle inventory, take home vehicles, reserve: pool vehicles ~ What type of vehicles should be in fleet ~ Assess maintenance savings cost of policy ~ Quality and standard of vehicles b:~benefits,mgr I ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ ` AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 8, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Policy. the Draft Vehicle Replacement COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I like the staff's approach. I prefer to have the computer costs considered in the budget process even though we approve it in concept now. John Willey has agreed to take on the Fleet Manager's duties in addition to his own. He will have to work closely with Purchasing, General Services, and the County garage. I do not foresee us being able to fund a large replacement program at one time. Perhaps it can be phased in. BACKGROUND• The Facilities Management Team submitted a draft policy for replacement of County vehicles (copy attached) to the Board of Supervisors in a work session on September 28, 1993. As a result of this meeting the Team was asked to research questions raised at the meeting and report their findings at the next work session. The following issues were researched for further explanation. o Assess the ability of the present computer system at the Garage to see if it is capable of managing the type of maintenance analysis system requested in the replacement policy. o Develop a recommendation for staffing the Fleet Manager's position. o Review the policy with appropriate staff in the Department of Fire and Rescue to assess the replacement of emergency service vehicles and equipment. o Review replacement policies of other private emergency service providers such as Carilion. STJNIlKARY OF INFORMATION: With respect to the computer system, members of the Team met with staff from the Garage and Management Information Services to evaluate the feasibility of using the existing computer system. As ~-...3 evaluate the feasibility of using the existing computer system. As a result of this meeting, it was determined that the system is unable to handle any programs other than those presently in the computer. Its age, capacity, and design make it obsolete. The present fuel monitoring system is outdated and in need of replacement due to its condition and unavailability of replacement/repair parts. John Willey will assume the responsibilities of implementing the acquisition and installation of the proposed fuel distribution system and maintenance monitoring system. The responsibility for the evaluation and coordination of the vehicle maintenance and replacement policy may ultimately remain within the Property Management Department. Action on emergency service vehicle management has been initiated by John Chambliss and Chief Fuqua. They are developing a recommendation for replacement and allocation of the Fire and Rescue Department's specialized vehicles. The team suggests that the Board review this report independently of the vehicle policy and add it to the policy at the appropriate time. This independent study would also address the methods used in the private sector. A Request for Proposal is being prepared to determine the cost of an appropriate automated fuel distribution and vehicle maintenance monitoring system. The cost of the proposed system will be presented to the Board as part of the budget process and the team hopes that it will receive a high priority. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. The implementation of the vehicle maintenance and replacement policy will require a fleet manager and a computerized management system. The responsibilities of the fleet manager as it pertains to the study and implementation of the system is being performed by the Property Management Department. The funding for the automated system will be included in the budget process. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Facilities Management Team recommends that the board adopt the attached policy for vehicle replacement to be used to manage the County's fleet. The Team further recommends that the selection of the computer analysis system be developed and presented to the Board as a part of the budget process. Respectfully Submitted, Ji Jones Fac' it ,; Ma agement Chairman Approved, e Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~~ - ITEM NUMBER AT A REGIILAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 10, 1995 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on Vehicle Replacement Policy COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This is a work session and 1 look forward to discussing the vehicle issue with you. There is a schedule enclosed which shows that our 10-year history of all vehicle purchases is less than $i million per year. Staff truly has been thrifty and we've gotten the job done. The work session data includes 3 scenarios for replacement of vehicle. These are examples only, even though they are all developed using realistic parameters. Mr. Rand and !suggest that we continue to capture the data, use the computer system as a guideline, and gradually implement replacement of vehicles as funds are available. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In July of 1993, the Facilities Management Team delivered a recommendation for a vehicle replacement policy to the Board of Supervisors. During the presentation, several suggestions were made for modifications to the proposal. These suggestions were incorporated in the criteria used to select a vehicle management program. The vehicle replacement module of the program that was purchased uses a modified point system for recommending vehicle replacement. The system will allow the use of the following criteria: age, mileage or hours, cumulative non-accident related maintenance cost, condition and life expectancy. The position of Fleet Manager was moved to the General Services Department in April 1995 and a computer program for vehicle maintenance, repair and replacement has been purchased. A fuel management system that interfaces with the management program was purchased earlier and is installed and operational. The vehicle management software module, called "Faster", was installed on July 1, 1995. It is used to track new work orders and parts and ongoing maintenance cost. Historical cost data is being entered and cannot be used at this time as one of the replacement criteria. However, the system can be used quite adequately for recommending vehicle replacement using the remaining criteria. We have used three sets of age and mileage criteria and generated three sets of replacement options using that data. We present these three options to you here. At the work session we would also like to~ discuss possible funding options and the possibility of creating a motor pool using surplus vehicles. ' Approved by: William J. hand III, Director Department of General Services '"cj`~ < Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator a-/ Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Eddy Johnson Kohinke Minnix Nickens VOTE No Yes Abs Enc. .~ ,f o-l VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY During the calendar years 1992 and 1993 the Facilities Management team studied the issue of a standardized vehicle replacement policy for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. In July of 1993 the FM team released an executive summary of its findings and recommendations of steps for implementation. A copy of this report (Addendum A) is attached. Several of the recommendations of that report have been adopted and implemented. These are the acquisition of a Fleet Management System and the establishment of the position of Fleet Manager. The computer- assisted management system was acquired from CCG Systems and is known as "Faster". This is interactive with a fuel management system (Fuelmaster) that was acquired shortly before. The position of Fleet Manager was combined with that of the Property Manager so no additional Roanoke County personnel positions were required. Other aspects of the report have not as yet been implemented. These include: 1) adoption of Fleet Replacement Criteria, 2) creation of a vehicle pool, and 3) a mechanism for funding fleet replacement. Also recommended was the creation of a Fleet Advisory Committee, but this step is not perceived by staff as~ being necessary at this time as similar parallel committees, Facilities Management and Vehicle Management Advisory, already exist. ,_ .""° "` ,~ The F. M. report had made recommendations regarding replacement criteria for the bulk of motorized equipment in the Roanoke County inventory. Criteria for such equipment as tractors, bulldozers, road graders, etc. was not established and would need to be handled on an individual basis. Regarding the creation of a motor pool, recent experience with surplus vehicles indicates that the presence of backup vehicles can be cost efficient. The ability to transport an employee or materials without a major loss of time obviously is cost efficient. Because a truck was in the surplus fleet pending disposal, the Parks and Recreation and Utility Billing departments saved over 30 days of work time. We simply activated the surplus truck temporarily and deactivated the broken equipment until repairs were complete. It is not possible to have a backup replacement available for every situation, but a small pool would serve in most cases. Repairs at the county garage, for example, would mean less employee downtime as "loaner" vehicles would be available. It is not practical to reserve a fire truck, but several police car type vehicles could serve both the Sheriff and Police departments in case of an accident or long term out- of-service repair to a vehicle. In general, the staff feels that, from experience and the standard practice of fleet management, a pool is economical in terms of time savings, particularly since the vehicles already are in place and department budgets could support the cost of gas and oil. i~~ / There are three basic mechanisms for funding any vehicle replace- ment policy adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. These are annuity replacement, amortized replacement, or lump sum replacement. The basis of annuity replacement is that a projection of the cost of replacement of fleet vehicles is estimated aver a fixed period of time. Yearly accounts for vehicle replacement are created and money is deposited for each year of replacement. These are interest-bearing accounts, the theory being that over the period of replacement the funds needed will become available. Amortized replacement theory is that the vehicle will pay for itself through surcharges on gas, oil and repairs over the useful life of the vehicle. These surcharges are billed back to the department and placed in accounts for vehicle replacement. The necessity here is to recover the replacement cost of the vehicle in a level series of payments that are added to the sale value of the vehicle at the time of replacement. The lump sum replacement methodology is based on short-term projections of the cost of vehicle replacement on a single year basis. This means that budget needs vary widely from year to year and many times replacement is continually deferred because of the fiscal impact to a single year's budget. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ESTIMATES Based on recommended age replacement from the Facilities Management Team (Attachment A, Pgs. 5 & 6) and using past historical and state contract costs, there are 166 motor vehicles eligible for replacement. Not included are tractors, non-motorized vehicles (trailers), heavy equipment or specialized equipment (compressors, generators). Emeraenc Fire: 11 pumper trucks @ $250,000 = $2,750,000 1 brush truck @ 60,000 = 60,000 1 utility truck @ 38,000 = 38,000 1 heavy duty truck @ 20,000 = 20,000 2 sedans @ 20,000 = 40,000 Rescue: 14 ambulances @ 80,000 = 1,120,000 Police: 28 sedans @ 22,000 = 616,000 Non-Emergency 10 med. size sedans @ 13,900 = 139,000 25 full size sedans @ 16,500 = 412,000 36 pickup trucks-1/2 ton @ 14,000 = 504,000 4 pickup trucks-1/2 ton 4x4 @ 16,700 = 66,800 8 utility, 4x4 @ 22,700 = 181,600 16 vans, cargo/passenger @ 15,200 = ~ 243,200 3 vans, xtra/passenger @ 18,500 = 55,500 2 dump trucks @ 60,000 = 120,000 5 refuse trucks @ 140,000 = 700,000 TOTAL 166 $7,066,100 Given the three possible replacement funding options previously x'7,06(, /Do mentioned, one lump sum of $ would replace the vehicles in inventory exceeding the median limits. In fiscal year 1996-97 an additional 43 vehicles would need replacing at an estimated cost of $2, 828, 500 . This total includes 5 pumper trucks, 2 ladder trucks and 14 police vehicles. This example serves to demonstrate the basis on which an annuity or amortized replacement schedule would be started. In practice such schedules would cover periods of up to 20 years in order to fully fund equipment replacement. w REPLACEMENT ELIGIBILITY & COST PROJECTIONS (ESTIMATED) Option "A" Elig ibilit y Number Cost Projection Sedans-Emergency 60,000 mi/3 yrs. 44 $ 964,000 " -Nonemergency 80,000 mi/6 yrs. 40 629,700 Pickup trucks 80,000 mi/6 yrs. 51 735,400 Vans 80,000 mi/6 yrs. 20 314,400 Dump trucks, single axle 80,000 mi/6 yrs. 2 120,000 Ambulances 50,000 mi/5 yrs. 17 1,360,000 Crash trucks, lt. & med. duty 80,000 mi/12 yrs. -0- -0- Crash trucks, heavy duty 80,000 mi/15 yrs. 1 50,000 Fire trucks Not app./10 yrs. 13 3,250,000 Ladder & brush trucks Not app./12 yrs. 3 180,000 Air trucks 60,000 mi/4 yrs. -0- -0- Utility veh., 4 x 4 80,000 mi/6 yrs. 11 248,900 Refuse trucks 110,000 mi/6 yrs. 5 700,000 207 $ 8,552,400 R REPLACEMENT ELIGIBILITY & COST PROJECTIONS (ESTIMATED) Option "B" Eligibility Number Cost Protection Sedans-Emergency 75,000 mi/4 yrs. 30 $ 656,000 " -Nonemergency 100,000 mi/7 yrs. 35 551,000 Pickup trucks 100,000 mi/7 yrs. 40 570,800 Vans 100,000 mi/7 yrs. 19 298,700 Dump trucks, single axle 100,000 mi/7 yrs. 2 120,000 Ambulances 60,000 mi/6 yrs. 14 1,120,000 Crash trucks, lt. & med. duty 100,000 mi/15 yrs. -0- -0- Crash trucks, heavy duty 100,000 mi/20 yrs. 1 50,000 Fire trucks Not app./12 yrs. 11 2,750,000 Ladder & brush trucks Not app./15 yrs. 1 60,000 Ai r_ trucks 75,000 mi/5 yrs. -0- -0- Utility veh., 4 x 4 100,000 mi/7 yrs. 8 181,600 Refuse trucks 125,000 mi/7 yrs. 5 700,000 166 $ 7,066,100 x ,.. REPLACEMEN'T' ELIGIBILITY & COST PROJECTIONS (ESTIMATED) Option "C" Elig ibilit y Number Cost Projection Sedans-Emergency 90,000 mi/5 yrs. 11 $ 240,500 " -Nonemergency 120,000 mi/9 yrs. 30 472,300 Pickup trucks 120,000 mi/9 yrs. 22 317,300 Vans 120,000 mi/9 yrs. 16 251,500 Dump trucks, single axle 120,000 mi/9 yrs. 2 120,000 Ambulances 75,000 mi/7 yrs. 11 880,000 Crash trucks, lt. & med. duty 120,000 mi/18 yrs. -0- -0- Crash trucks, heavy duty 120,000 mi/22 yrs. 1 50,000 Fire trucks Not app./15 yrs. 9 2,250,000 Ladder & brush trucks Not a pp./18 yrs. 1 60,000 Air trucks 90,000 mi/5 yrs. -0- -0- Utility veh., 4 x 4 120,000 mi/9 yrs. 4 90,500 Refuse trucks 150,000 mi/8 yrs. 4 5&0,000 111 $ 5,292,100 "~ ATT.A,CHMENT LTSTII,TG Attachment "A" - Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Policy as recommended by the Facilities Management Team Attachment "B" - Managing the Vehicle Inventory as recommended by JLARC Attachment "C" - Current Vehicle Utilization Policy as adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, 5/24/88 Attachment "D" - "Faster" System Vehicle Replacement Module - excerpts from users manual & EXAMPLES Attachment "E" - Excerpts from the 1994 Griffith Study for Replacement of Roanoke County Fire Department Vehicles and Equipment Attachment "A" ~i VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PQLICY X EYECUTIVE SUIvt~1ARY %~ Outlined beloca is the summarized version of the replacement policy for alt Comity vehicles and equipment. It cans through the extensive efforts of the Facilities rlanagement Team that sae offer these recommendations to be adopted as policy for all departments in the County of Roanoke. All Roanoke Countti• Departments are included under this program. Thy County School Board is not covered under this program. School buses have state mandates for replacement. which they havE: to folloca. The Schools could adopt this policy in the same manner as cae adopted their sick leave policy. The poLic~r considers several factors before replacin= a vehicle or piece of equipment. The policy, of cahich there is no perfect plan, is designed to best fit the needs of our employees and provide quality customer service. Therefore, the follocaing areas c:~ere incorporated to provide a comprehensive method of evaJ_uatinJ the vehicle for replacement. No one criterion should be used as the measttr.e to replace a vehicle, but rather consider. all criteria to move a vehicle systematically thz•ough the process until its effectiveness and efficiency has been maximized. Comprehensive Replacement Criteria __age --safety --vehicle condition --function of use --obsolescence --downtime --available funds for --mileage --ops. and mai.nt, cost --major repair costs --market value --replacement costs --morale-and image replacement & operations The agencies surveyed are as follows. Cities: Lynchburg Hampton Roanol~e City Portsmouth Suffolk Counties: Albemarle Hanover James City Loudon ~Sontgomery Rockingham Stafford -1- State: State Police Forestry Parks Transportation f ~/ page 2 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 Agencies continued. Federal: National Parl: Service Private: Dominion Bank APCO First Virginia Bank C&,P Telephone Hertz Car Rental Avis Car Rental Standard County Vehicles Vehicle TvUe Replacement Eli~ibilit~~ Sedans (emergency) 75,000 miles or ~2 Fears Sedans (non-emergency) 100,000 miles or 7 ~-ears Pich-up Trucks (all) 100,000 miles oz' 7 years Vans 100,000 miles or 7 years Dump Tr ucks (single axle} 100,000 miles or 10 years Fire and Rescue Vehicles/Equipment Vehicle Tvae Replacement Elidibilit~= Ambulance 60,000 miles or 6 years Crash Trucks (light & med. duty) 100,000 miles or 15 years Crash Trucks (heavy duty} 100,000 miles or 20 years Fire Trucks 12 years Ladder and Brush Trucks 15 years Air Trucks 75,000 miles or 5 years r~ page 3 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 VEHICLE/I~©UIP~iFNT R.EPLACE~iENT POLICY This is a policy to be used as a guide]_ine for plazining and budgeting the replacement of vehicles and equipment in' Roanoke County. It will alloc~ the Board of Supervisors to provide a dependable cost efficient motorized fleet within the County.. The foll_otai_n7 recommendations out7_ined below describe the means to implement the policy. A.. Automated Fleet ~1ana~ement Svstem (F~1S) Cost savings can be realized through improved planning of preventive vehicle/equipment maintenance. Better management. of purchasing, replacement, fleet r.evie~a, historical cost analysis, department charge backs, and a parts in~•entory could be the goals of this system. The computer system would allota a manager to track maintenance histories, identify potential. problems, and .coordinate future wort; and preventive maintenance. An option could be available to prevent or restrict the amount of fuel a vehicle ~~ou1cl receive at the pumps if not kept up to date on preventive maintenance via set mileage limits. Emergencl-vehicles should be exempt from this. B. Develop a Position of Fleet Trlanager: Employ a person to operate and manage the F'•1S. This t.~ill_ need to be a full Limo employee ~aho is capable of working with the Departments to manage a comprehensive vehicle inventory. A:ot only will the position manage vehicle/equipment resources, but develop standards, specifications, and review purchases of all County vehicles. This employee taould also act as the chairperson for the recommended Fleet ranagement Advisory Committee (see item E.}. The position and pay grade swill be developed in cooperation with Human Resources. C. Ftzndin~' A charge-back program is recommended as the means to fund the ongoing operation of F'~1S and the Fleet Tianager position. As vehicles depreciate over their life expectancy, a pro-rated charge baclt program can be established to fund the preventive maintenance and replacement of the vehicles. Pro-ration (depreciation) is to be based on a per mile or per hour of use. A five percent user fee should be added to offset inflation for future vehicle replacement costs. It is also recommended that the revenues generated from the sale of surplus vehicles be put back into this account. (~ page 4 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 D. Cr.eat;e a V"ehicle Pool.: Some vehicles can be tisecl by various departments in an effort to get the best utilization from the fewest number of vehicles. For example, a passenger van could serve multiple functions for the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, Human R.esources,.etc. Pool vehicles can serve as loaners when departments have oi;e in for repair or maintenance. Those departments or. employees who do not have an assigned vehicle can ,now schedule use of a vehicle as an occasional user. The pool can also support departments during peal: times when additional transportation is needed, i.e. Real Estate Assessment for reassessments. The fleet manager will be the coordinator and care taker of the pool vehicles. This way a schedule of use and maintenance can be managed to insure the quality and dependability of our vehicles. Standing equipment or arrangements for on-demand rental of specialized equipment such as loaders and graders can be managed from this posif,ion. \Tot to mention, the value it would have in the event of an emergency. E. Fleet Advisorv Committee: This could quite possibly be a standing responsibility of ti;e Facilities 1~Ianagement Tema or the present Vehicle Advisory Committee. The purpose of the committee would be to provide policy direction and serve as a liaison to administration and recommend the purchase and replacement of vehicles/equipment. They would also be responsible for approva]_ or development of vehicle specifications with the input from the Departments, Purchasing, and the School Board Garage. This would insure that the vehicles would be compatible with their intended use. It would also insure that vehicles would be purchased based on quality rather than low cost. ' ~ ~l page 5 Vehicle Replacement July 29, 1993 F. Establish Replacement Criteria Based on Vehicle and Equipment Classifications: Certain factors must be considered when determining the replacement of a particular vehicle or piece of equipment. The following can be a set of preliminary guidelines used to evaluate the need for replacement. - safety, age, mileage, do~:ntime, obsolescence, - acquisition cost, morale, image, function - total maintenance and operation (including fuel} - cost per mile or cost per hour for egtipment - overall condition of the vehicle/equipment - available funds for replacement & operations A "decision tree" has been developed as a guideline for moving the vehicle through the replacement process. T}re fleet manager and the advisory committee can be the governing body to determine if the vehicle/equipment qualifies for replacement. If for some reason a depari:ment has a vehicle that does not meet the replacement criteria they can make an appeal to the committee for early replacement or extension of the vehi.cle's use. It is also recommended t}~at a vehicle be eligible for replacement when the repairs and maintenance costs are c~•ithin 75% - 100% of the current market value of the vehicle. This does not include total costs of operation over the life of the vehicle such as routine preventive maintenance. VI::HICI,E REPLACEi~}ENT --County Vehicles.-- Vehicle Tvne Replacement Eli~ibilit~- Sedans (emergency) 75,000 miles or 4 years Sedans (non-emergency) 100,000 miles or 7 years Piclt-up Trucl~s (all } 100 , 000 miles or 7 years Vans 100,000 miles or 7 years Dump Trucks (single axle) 100,000 miles or 10 years Specialized equipment such as an evidence van or other modified vehicle twill be handled individually. ~- / page 6 Vehicle Replacement; Jti1y 29, 1993 The refuse trucks are considered specialized vehicles that function as equipment, yet do not totall~T.qualify as equipment. Due to the nature of operation, the refuse collection bodies wear out before the truck chassis. Therefore, the bodies must be replaced-when they become ineffective and the vehicles/chassis can be managed under the vehicle guidelines established for single a~1e dump trucks. --Eire and Rescue-- Vehicle ~fvpe Replacement Eli~ibilit~r Ambulance 60,000 miles or 6 years Crash T.ruclcs light duty 100,000 miles or 15 years. medium duty 100,000 miles or 15 years heavy duty 100,000 miles or 20 years Fire Trucks 7.2 years Ladder Trucks 15 ;rears Brush Trucks 16 years Air Trucks 75,000 miles or 5 years Note: All. other vehicles such as cars are covered under emergency sedans. T11e Service truck is covered under the standard plan for pick-up trucks. aJ ~? ~ ~ ~S o .,~ •~ +~ t0 U ® ~ cd ^ ~ ~ 41 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N r-1 .{-~ a' ~O.1 ~ ~ ~ N R'1 O ~ ~ O Q1 ~ ~ .~ O W ZS ~ ~ O ® ~ ~ ~ ~ O ® i~Jl O ~ H ~ ~ ~ 0 •j.~ Q~ ~ ~ ~' •r-I N ~ ~ ~ ~ -ri Off, ~ U ~, a~~m~ a~inla~ N~®~ R~ ~ Q O 3 ~ 't7 ~Ul •ri U ~+ ~ ~ '~ Q~l ~ cn a ~ ~ ~°~ ~ U .}~ - ~ ~ ~ o Cl1 ~ ~ •~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~' ~`• ~ ~ d ~ O ~ Ul U ~ ~ c. O rd i ~• ~ U •{~ ~ ~ •~ •~ U v 'O ~ cOn m •r-1 0\0 ~ .Li ~ (~• •~ CYi ~ P' U ~ n..-•~ U1 t3' Ul ,~ O N G (i$ LC1 r-~ ~ ~i -~-) -~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ m a ~ ~~ ~ o c•~ a «i O .~ tt3 ~ ~ ~ N ~ w -a -a .u ~ o b P a~ W ~ N ~ ~ xa~ ~U .um.~o~ W ~U+~ ~ ~m-u~~.~~b~oo0 ZW O f-t m>cd ~O'~wN~~w O Z N +~ ~ •}•~ ~ ~, a~ m N s~ o s+ zs uHia ~•~U a~i +~.~m++~+ova~a~bm b Sa k ~ 3 5+12 $ TJ N ~ a~ a~ ~ G ~ H W (~ W ~ UQ ~ O L~ N O ~vA N~~~,-Oi.~aroia ~ ~ H R+ m m~ >+~~>>>z> v~ N ~ a a,a~a roma~a ~ ~ vorti m,~t~rttcdbOcn CaU H3FCUU UqH JUL. +.~ r~ . °05' 95fVYEIl) 03:0' VDUT FLEET n4G~tT. TEL:80~ 367 8987 °. 002 I Attachment "B" d ~° / This analysis through changes in any shift away from assi availability of vehicles. ~ assignment would increase due to repair~sl, as would 1 c~~amanr9 7~1e ~p pooj 6up+ of the trip pool. dicates that t1YP size of t several camponents f th is of more than -day decrease in -crow v ' le avsilabili (such he use of a sup ement grin dent sho d use su Special Vehi~e Tpp tween January and September ] sedans. An average of only 2.5 s t daily basis. Single day requests February sad duly, and fior vans, ss there are days in which no stetson w that demand is generally met . by se such as van$ anti statioxt wagvas ' ., Recr~rnrne~da~tivis actively managed by the fleet s}wuld perform an analysis of f performed for thin study by the the use of as automated syste such a system could be used assignmeata, resulting in be of cpeciaity wehicTes should cialty vehicles can be d ~ trip pool could be reduced system. As stated before, a duration would innre8se the ~ time between return and ~ reducing vehicle downtime f new vehicles to cover high h methods to reduce the size de,~and logs show that be- .le regaests were $lled by 2.6 vans were needed on a t were as high ae night is April. Yet in each. month e requested. 'This suggests ~e use of specialty vellic.les ~uId be Iimfted. trip pool should be mare ~c basis, the fleet manager the trip pool similar to that tral Garage should consider ~signments. • The data from C vehicles aecess8ry to meet size. ~e current inventory - specific need for more spe- ~:: _.. pool v~ ,mast wagans 'gh as nine ns ar vans , and that the trip pool s: 'I'be' .. of t! ner. ~ $ pel''~ need for v 'cles atafl:. , C to track trip ~I estimate the n r management of fl maintained until tl :. l~ZANAGING T~ VESICLE ... Managing t~e~~vehi+ele inventory is~ an imp Central Cazage fleet manager. The functiaa involy mein, of vehicles. While the procurement of vehicles ' Department of Transportation. deasioag relating to ~. and the appropriate mig of vehicles are the respons' These deasions have a great impact oa the cost of o ~ replaced too early can result in higher than nee replaced too Iatc can cause high uperattng costs. An ' can result in unnecessarg capital costs, or unavaila$ ' customer a,gendes. It is important, then, for the fleet the fleet, inventory. ' ~ The JLA$C atafi' analysis cf vehicle cost$ -, placezaent criteria are too Iow. Passenger sedans 48 ' t responsibflitp of the the purchase And roplacc- the responsibility of the timing of replaceznent~s, ~ility of the fleet manager. sting the fleet. Vehicles capital costa, and vehicles PPreP~te mis of vehicles 'ty of vehic]pR needed by ger_to actively ananage bows that the ctur~ent re- d station wagons, for ex- ' ~_ !M ~_ JUL. -05'. 95 ~WEQ) 03:09 VDC~T FLEET MGMT. TEL~804 36i 8987 ems, w>u~ inclt~ae fuel, ana the parts and Hance and repair. Operating expenses for the purl ,.~r. ed by two variables, both expressed in per-mile anal mainteAance and repair expenses. The purchase price of each vehicle i$ a fluctuate with mileage. JLARC staff averaged th vehicles of all the made] years surreally operated calculate the average constant price. JLARC staff DP.alcra Association {NADA) salvage values and tL• e for vehicles t4 estimate the average salvage value, , auctions vehicles at paces louver than those found in' Guide, Ji.AI~C staff used the NADA high_mil~age die mate th,e tower auction value of the fleet. Capital in as distributed over the nwozbar of mites drivers; the the Iower the capital investment per mile. Because fuel and fluid e$pense is the s. operating rxpe~es, fuel economy ~ a major cansid Pml?~ timing far replacement. Older vehicles, whit] mileage on average, have not achieved the fire] econ mileage vehicles. Thin tends tQ hasten the euci of efl mileage vehicles. The other important component of t2nanee and r~P7ir E:~PC~, which may be 8howa t0 ~ more miles and major components regzire replacxrme The JLABC staff ansIya~c,'s shows that the c] a ftancti.on of the somber of m~1es that the vehicle ha considered but rejected n fiiag age as the basis fur ere Obviously, operating expenses such as fuel esgense driven, not as it egos. Salvage ar resale value, that p expense w.~ich varies and can be recovered from the Contra] Garage, may be seen to vary by either age ar mileage was considered preferable for Pxpressing cha rents. P. 00~ ~'-/ ar associated with maiate= of this analysis were meas- is: fuel and fluid expenses, istant, because iL dcaes not actual purchase prices 'for ithin a particular class to used National Automobile 'erase az~nuat fleet iaileage ecauae the Central Garage ~ NA.DA Offirr'ni Used Car owat in as sf.i~pt to esti- ~stment matt' be thought of anger the vehicle is in use, iglp largwat component of ration is determining th:e have greal,er accumulated my of more recent, lower- dent life for older, higher- perating expense is main- se as the vehicle is driven t.. .....~. ,_. B in vehicle expenses is been driven. JI~iRC staff :sing change in expenses. ~Iy change as a vehicle is roan of capital investment ariginal purchase pace by Mileage. For this analysis, sea in al! expense can~po- Total average expenses per mile is the sum of the three expen~a cam.. p0aenta~ capital 7nvcstment, fuel and fluid, and main ce anal repair expenses per mile. These expenses are scent to specify the iriimum point at which to consider replacement. ~ Figure $ demonstrates tl>e lationship between total average expenses per..mile in FY .198? and the thrc componennts usfug data olatalned from VDOT and Central Garage for compact ~ .. class of ve ~~~ ~ ~~ e~nse and mileage set, a formula based oa avers the minimum point at which to retire a vehicle. 50 '.ta are available for each can be urea to determine ~- mileago goiut at which ~" ~-~~ .~~ ti~UL. -05'.95 (WED j 03 ~ 08 VUOT FLEET DtGiYIT. r. TEL. 804 361 8987 ample, could be Dept in service for at least an ac also be kept in. service longer. Ia addition, the vehicles to be purchased for fleet uap are not B 1.ri,00~ miles. Vans could ~s relating ~ta the types of is snd obj~;tively based, ,- ~ More than 304 vehicles were disposed of by Central Garagc through State surplus property procedures at auction in FY 1 ?. Vehicles sold for an average price of $949.75 with a high of $2,300. Tho au ons in FY 198? were held frequently---every two ar three maat}~s. - Determining the appropriate dime at which to replace a vehicle is au impartan6 part of grog the inventory of vehicles. ~ A$ with an individual's private. automobile, ere i$ a point at ~vbich eubstanti~ value has been returned on the initial inv tmeat is a vehicle and furt~r use wild entail progi~sivedy higher operating A repazr expen$ea, TIz1.n point represents the earliest paint at which to consider lacement of the vehicle. If the vehicle is replaced before this point, it i$ lilccly t tI~ iAitiad investment hzas not been fully recovered.. . _ . , ... . . • The State hoe the capacity to make vehicle rep acement decisions based on experience with thausaads of vehicles, aaad a large mal~ng the best decision possible. ~ The Central Garages vestment is staked an uld Apply an objes;tive method ~.- identify size end of the efficient life of each v 'cle in the fleet. ~ ~ : - - i.ack of Objective Crateria.:Tbe Central -. age of the vehicle ar~d the amount @f ~,~ d i ~ age generally uses the e ven ~ r also considers the general condition of the vehicle and pdacenzent criteria, but availah,Iity of funds Central Garay ban based replacement on criteria of 80, age.. Of the 301 vehicles sold iu FY 1 987 242 d d . 0 miles ~ five years of . , ~ escee the $ve year cxiteria....In addition, in F'Y 1987 almost 15 the SO OOa mie and percent of the vehicl in the active fleet were five years old ~ had iifctime miter. Thus, current practice a ' es ges eaceedixtg 80,000 ppears not to consisten criteria, and appears to shoov that fleet vehi l y follow stancisrdized .... ~ ' . c es can r "' ~ " ~ ia service longer.' , . : ~ . Developing au Objective Vehicle Replac ~ Purpose of the JL,ARC staff analysis of the timin of vehi +nt . Formula. The l g test objec#ively the current standard, The analysis showed az'e flawed b li it d i l s reF $cetneuts was to that current standards y m e utp ementatioa, and pcrozit retir the State has received the full value of it i e t of vehicles before .. s nvestar nt. classes at 80,000 azil~ appears ine~cient..'A second p~ ~poteatiad methodology wlurh ca b : " " tiremeat of all vehicle ~ was to introduce one . n e used to set objecti..vel ria. In this seise, the JLATZC std aA,alys2s is not a final i t f f the repiACemeat critc- ~ ,. lti~aon but a startlin ..: n pa or urther analysis as better data. are collected. g ' ~ The component parts of the efficient Lif • of . e . a : iu~~:stmeat, which is .the purchase' pride less salvage v ehi e; - ~ ~~ f pe~rap1t~I ' . P. 003 0 ~'- 1 ~9 ~.:< JUL. -05' 95 (~iED j 03 ~ 10 VDOT FLEET ~~1G~1T. -. TEL~804 36' 8981 P. 005 - I Fgure $ ' ~.verage Vehicle Expense; aver the I~istarp of the Vehi Central. Garage Compact Sep FY 1957 ~o T i .. - .20 .: ,~~ ''. .:.~ '••f. Y~h1e1r ,Y" .iron '~+ 9cpen~q per mY~ - ---%..,,~~ ... _ ~ ; .:.:..-. • .. >~~~! .OS :. .. .. -• .. C.plty Mlvatlnrnt . ~ Ft~l i FWQ Erpnnrq • 20 Soutre:.TLARC staff'aaalysis of V3~OT autnmair~ e~ar~ . average total ezpenses per mile will fall no further and b to ' minimum mileagoe pout at which t~ retire the vehicle. As the totaiaverag ezpense continues to dec]ine, the Central Garage should no consider replacing the average vehicle becaure it continues to recover it$ initi investment without excessive operating,costs. ('riven gwd p~orzaanre with a 'claIar vehielo which can still he aPeratGd safely, the Central Garage ,could al ays delay retirement beyond the minimum replacement point. •-Eaxly rp Inc erad tidvan p t can Only be Consid-~ tage~us irx the case of as atypical, poo~Iype g Pehicle. ..~ . ~ ~.: Components of the Replacement Formula.' -- .: - ' .. . vestment - average capital in- .; Per mile tends -to dacre3se over' 4lie life. of the' v "cle ag the initial in- ~. ~ . vestment is spre$d aver more and more m~.es. ~ the average mile may h~~ expressed' ~mathe~uatic,3~II : Rita) investment gar ; :. ~ ~ : . _ _.. , .. _,~'' as shown in Eihi 't 4. ~ . v~...e a e o ~ ~ g menses tend to rise .ss ' ease increases .and _ v~stmeut to rnain,taia and opera 'Average operating . ~P~s per mile may be expressed mathematically, as wa in F•xhibit ~. si~•: JUL. -0,~' 95 (WED) 03 ~ 10 ~.~ ,~. I VDUT FLEET MGi-4T. TEL~844 367 8987 P. 006 ~0 Exhibit ~ Average Capital x , C(x) = sverugc capital invc~lment P .purchase price, tYnd; S(x) =salvage es1~e per mile at mile Source: JLARC staff analysis Function mile aL mile 8; F.zhibit 5 Average operating Exile se function . , o(x) = F(Y) + M&dt(z), where: . a(z) =average operating expenses per muffle at mile x; F(x) ; fuel and fluid ezpenses per mile at a, and; M&I~x) _ maintenance and repair eAp per mile at ante Y. Source: JLARC staff analysis . ~ :_.. Estimation of Mileage Effects on Fs mile GSt~J, fuel and fluid expenee per miip [F{=)~, , ~Ae~ .Per mfle [M&RLz)J are all estimated for this a eiperience of the fleet, nr, in the case of aslvage ~ National Automobile Dealers Association. Among the espendit~ p~ Vic, only the purchase price is fis,E madeZs within each vehicle class and ~is. unaffected b, ably factors i.s mathematically expressed ag a fuactio; a particular mileage, one could co~apute the ostin~ point for each of operating egpeases and salvage vale population parameters, not sample statistics, and ar analysis. ~ - . ... . 52 ;~ ' ,• ,` eases. Salvage value per ~3 mt~iatenaace and repair ~alysis based an the average due, the e~pprience of the factors contributing to total l as a single average of all, .... mile;age.. Each of the very- . of n411eage. Tlss,t is, given ed vslues at thab mileage a. 'I'hASe estimates will be derived from a regression JUL. =0~' 95 (~~'EQI 03:11 VDOT FLEET MG~fT, TEL: 804 367 8987 P, 00? ~- / .. ° ....TI~ARC staff used a livarzate regression an $ge salvage value and egpeu.~es pez~ mile of a given c fleet. The regression coefficient estimator, B, shows aad espcases per mile change aS mileage changes. C estimated as a function of mileage, the fsctora are average expense per mile at each mileage point. That cad be ,used to learn the rate of change in av~agie ~ as one more mile is driven by a particular cla¢ of regression makes it possible to i=apruve on a simple . ~ the mileage of the vehicle, ysis ~to estimate the aver- s of vehicle is the State racily how exlvage value ce each average factor is -mbiaod to yield a total ;, the re8xes~sion analysis :hide salvage value and of vehicle. Thus, the use nrag:e p~ mile hY knovP- Following the estimation of the lines. rep ling the two fuuctioaa, average operating ezpenres and average ca tat, roves added together to give the avpr~tge total ~ ant, the functions were fwactions ~cepresenting average total a ~peaase per ladle. Exhibit 6 shows the sufficient data for estimation. xFez'ses for the fo classes of vehicles with wagons or subcompacts; these v~Ie classes ~e bt dot to ar~ai3~e large station - - ~ Phased out of the fleet. Exhibit 6 ~.- E Average '!'otal Expense Fu ~~ lian ..~ ;: ,, . TAY) ~ .O~x) ± C(a), where: ~' T(x) =average total expenses per mile at mil a; •. . v1.... r .M.:.. .~.~. ~. C(x)' =average capital iAVtstment per mile a mile x; ~tY) =average operating expenses per mile mile x. . So~rre: ILARC analysis. . ,. .. ... ~ '. :. - . .. ~ .:. .Estimating the End of ~ the ~ch=c2e'a E~ average eapease per.mile may be graphed to show the a. for any given mileage point. figure 9 dealous~tcates tl ~'~ per mile for compact sedans in the Centra,i tsar; average ~~ lowest point of the ~ctiirQe is the ~mi2~ ~~ per mile. ' Following a doWn~vard sly right. as the average vehicle isdriven grcateir, mileage; decline .~ meanthat the vehicle co>a-tinuee tp be econom recovering its initial in°estmcat.~vithout operating ~~,m sine burden. As ~ the curve reaches a then tiaras u ~~~ miniinuxn tots PQ+~d,~ the. average vehicle will never age, 53•- feat Life. ~-'The fatal x8ge expense per m~1e ' average fatal vehicle ;e fleet_ pQjnt rriflx the lowest ~~ ` Pmg curve from left to ~ne map '~~'pret "the sI. =' The State is stfll '.' 'e ~ an excel- : - '•"~ p~ mile and ' rave a lower pax mzZe .. t r JUL. -05' 9~ (WED) Q3 ~ 11 VDCrT FLEET h9Gi~T. TEL 8Q~ 367 8981 P. OUS ;. • 1r figure 9 Deter~inatiorlt of ~ehicle Minimum Repla~eme t 11~ileage for Corup~et Sedans,~'Y x.9$7 1440 . .1435 .1 d30 Tots! average .1425 expenses in datiarc por • m~7e .1420 ".1415 .7410 . , ,1405 • •• ~.7 40 .1400 • ~ •70 '$0 90 00 110 120 -, ~ {Miles x 100 ) Source: JLARC staflEansl~sis of VDOT automated ~_~. cost. Egch acir3itional mile driven fie at greater c use to the ^~tate due to riaing operating expenses on average, and 2$ espectExi continue rising as the vehicle is driven additional m.37.eage... . Using differential calculus, which f on the rate of change, dLARC staff completed the vehicle replacement aaalgsi~ s dsterniining thw mi]~ge at which this relative minimum, expense per mile; stationary point in the rate of change per mile, accura. ~ 7'he complete cslculati are available in a separate technicsi appeudia to this report:. JIjARC staff cal fed the minimuzt2 using the fizst derivative of the fatal average eaPera~ Per function. The staff azu~lysis proved that this was a single unique rn;,,;,,,um int far each vehicle class by tak.iug the second derivative of the average total a per mile ftmction. 54 JUL. -OS' 95 (WED) O,i ~ 12 VBOT FLEET MGMT. TEL. 8G4 36; 898 i P. 009 U ~~ ~; ~: ~: :~; "~ I.~ARC staff computed a separate formal compact sedan, compact statian wagon, large sedan, formulas for average tats? e~peasss per mile 'and mileage derived frnm these formulas. T $ or these vehicle classes: van. Table 6 shows the :,,;»;~,~ replacement a t~ ~ "° 'V'ehicle Replacement For alas }:. ~- :ai Formula for - Replacement - ~~ehic~e~ C ass Toia Av a ~~ n ~~ :~. - ~ - l Compaq Sedans ~ 4.08 + ,(QA040o034-x ~) ~ ` (307} 95,000 k~ ;•- ~ Compract Wagons 0.4s3~ + t4.oo40442a x X) • (s~e8l~ 1Y8,4o4 ~: Large 6edans 0.452 + 14.40000066 x X) (4777/ $5,000 ~: ~ :. ~~ . ~ 4.209 ~ + (0.00040023 x x) f4o141~ 132,000 , ( ' Savrce:- JI~RC staff analysis of VDQT data ~• ~' . ~. : : .. ;~ .; ' . As shown. in Table $, the data ciuz~ently av 'able suggest that retire- ' ' ment of Central Garag~r vehicles should occur at same uint beyond 80,000 miles ~: for all classes of vehicles: Based on the curxent data, the mttlimum retirement "' milea~~ for the compact dedaz3s is 95,000 miles. estimate is based on the - largest vehicle .class with the most fleet experience the lowest er ror in esti- . oration of the Enaction. Pending further analysis by . the Central Garage, this • mileage criterion should be used far all passenger oars. JL11RC staff analysis a]r;o suggests that the 132,000 mile criterion could be used ~ the retirement point for _ vans. Thin er#imatioa is problematic, however, bees the actual experience of the vans in the fleet. it i5 Sn estimate beyond R ' The actual experience with vans approa the criterion maq show a sharp increase in costs at high,px mileages. For ezampl , n3aintenancs and repaix costs may increase sharplq ait~r 10,0,000 miles. ~ ~ SecauB e there is not yet enough L experience at these higher mileages, the 132,400 mile criterion should be reas- _ 8essed each gt2arter, end if higher mai,atenance and ' mate should be recalculated. ~ • . _ . , _ ~ . . air Costs occur, the esti- .. J~1_+ Btafl'reCO~A'LZe that Some expenses ~ factory defects, serious accidents, and other relatixvely r ~ be estrAOrdingry due to ui occ Idnds of problems lead to vehicles which must be retir~ urrences. These d early. Central Garage must take cave to fxack aIl vehicle expenses from the da of purchase and identify '~ 55 ... JUL, ;~ -03' 95 (WED) 03 ~ 13 VD~1T rLEET MGMT, TEL. 804 361 8981 P, 010 and replace highcost vchicles ae soon ~ possibl For example, the Central Garage should retire vehicles which prematurely d the estimated lifetime repair costs for thQ average vehicle. These costs estimated at $$,2p0 for passenger cars in use 95,0tt0 miles, and~$12,500 fo vans in use 152,OOa miles. fi~ JT~ARC staff ansIgsis in.dicgtrae that ra is a need fur the Central Garage tp be more aware Of the need for systematic 'cle replacement critezia. The results from the aualpsie should be considered a guide, and are subject to further refinement a8 improved data are made av ' le. ~eco~nrnenda.tion (21~. Pending furthez~ by the Central Garage, the fleet manager should eat tirement policy, with a minimum of 9.5,odQ miles as of passenger car8, and 132,000 miles as the criterion Central Garage shrn~ld revise the formulas based vn the methodoiagq, but continue to replace vehicles ba The Central Garage should generate moni allow the,r~. to identify vehicles which have met the rE past month and immediately recall theme vehicles Central Garage should generate esceptian reports frn expenses ~rhich alreadq reach ar wiIl reach ~vi4h the average maintenance ~d reps. expense fax the ef6a~ vehicles Should also be recalled. The ~~~ ~$~ tiara efforts for mileage, operating expenses, and capit track the above ftrrictions for each fleet vehicle. The Cen#sal Garage .fleet is t~mposed pri Station wagons, vans, and large Sedans make up appro flcst. The station wagons and vans are used to transpa cargo or more passengers, anal clearly hatre same utili~ vehicles in the Central Garage fleet is not based as governing the needs fur or uses of various vehicle sizes. fleet can have an important impact on eapense$ if d have. Subst,ultlslly di#,'ferenL rXpenSeB. JI~i,KC 6t3~ e vehicle classes using the Virginia Department of Trap, based on Crantral Garage reporting. That analysis ShC cant di$'ernnces based on the life•to-datp expenses of a through ~~ 1987. .. tlyRis wind data collocti,on sh an interim vehicle re- . criterion for retirement retirement of vans. The data and refinemer5,ts of on objective Griteri,a. tly Faxrpption sports which irement mileage within the for auction. py,~cther, the vehicles with maintenance nett repair the estimated 1t life of the vehicle. These ~hauld improve data caIleo- l invicet4.ment to continually rarity of a~mpact sedans. imstQly on2~uerter of the t larger loads, either mare ~. But the current nnia of systematic decision rule$ 'The naia of vehicles in the ferent classes of vehicles rammed eapeases for the E'lortatioa sutQmated data ~ that there are siginifi- ~*ehicles i.a these clauses Peel Expenses by ~Tehicle Class..~el is the single largest operating cast item for fleet velicles. zn FY 1987 the a crags compact sedan and compact station wagon achi$ved 26.5 miles and 26.5 mi~es ppr gallon of gasoline, 56 . -~ JUL. -45' 95 (1NED) 03 ~ l3 VDOT FLEET MGMT. TEL 844 367 8981 P. OI 1 ~~ ~. ~, respectively. In contrast, the average urge sedan was dr sad the average van achieved only 12.4 miles per galls the fleet has travelled spprommstely 50,000 uuhes. At has used appro~mately fi50 gallor:s more gasoline than A van, will have aced 2,100 galhons more. At the currpm Per gallon paid by the State, this represents an addition each Iarge sedan and $1,00 for each van. The average at 50,000 miles, assuming current Stag gasoline cast,$, Figure YO Average iota! ~'ueI Cast'of ~'V at SO,UOU Miles :van 18.8 miles per gallon . The average vehicle in is mileage, a Large sedan ;he average compact cur. price for gasoline of $.6~ ~t coat of almost $500 for oral fuel cost per vehicle is shown in Figure 10. Class G+ompact Sedan . • ~ .. Gompact Station Wagon • ~ ~ L-arcle Sedan ~ .. .Van e . .: _ .so soo tooo ysoo ,~ zooo zs o ~ aooa a~oo aooo Source' .TL.A-RC analysis of CettaaI Garage expenses. Matatea$aCe and $ep8ir ~pease9 by Ve ' IB CI8S8. ~ JLARC analysis of maintenance and repair costs in F'Y l;h$7 was aced on three catego- ries: 'Parts, labor, and ~cammerciai service. These costs are only slightly Ieaa over the hfe of the gverago vehicle then are fuel costs, and th ore represent another Substa~},tl$I C0271po218at of vehicle C05ts. The average coiupact sedan costs 2.8 cents per s average compact station wagon was slightly more expensivE The average Large sedan vas even mare expepgive to main its maintenance ch~g~ p~ mr1e. The average van, at 7.5 c mor,~ e~ensiv~ to maintain than the average p,ass~enger car average total maintenance cost per vehicle at 50,000 miles. average .mttintenanc~ costs, a van has cost $2,350 mare to sedan has cost $400 more to maintain than a compgcL eed wagon cosh ~~ rating Coate, ~ ~ summazY~ the eve Per mite more to operate th$n ~ ~7 dle to maintain. The at 3.1 cents per mile_ sin, casting 3.6 cents zits per rails, ws$ far figure Z 1 shows the pit 60,000 miles given naintain and a Large ~ ~ --- ~.ge ~ compact station bmpACt sed3u. The Attachment "C" VEHICLE UTILIZATION POLICY Purpose It is necessary and proper far many County employees to have County-owned or personal vehicles at their disposal to properly perform their assigned duties. The County does not desire to curtail the use of vehicles that are necessary for effective service delivery, however, it is essential that guidelines be established to ensure that the vehicles are being used with the utmost care and discretion and that they are being used in a manner consistent with the intent of the assignment. This policy will establish the criteria under which vehicles will be assigned to departments, the criteria under which vehicles will be authorized for take-home by employees, and the criteria for equitable compensation for County employees utilizing personal vehicles in the performance oz their duties. Policv 1. General Qse a. County-owned vehicles may be used only for official County business. It is recognized that officia'_ County business occurs both during regular business hours and after hours for some e.*nployees. b. Personal use is prohibited under this policy. De minimis personal use (such as transportation to and from meal and break periods) is allowed under this policy. c. Only County employees who have a valid and current Virginia motor vehicle operator's license may drive a County-owned vehicle. In addition, only County employees or those individuals engaged in County business may ride in a County-owned vehicle. 2. Assignment of Vehicles to Departments a. Regular full-time assignment of vehicles to a department must be justified and proven cost effective A department's request shall be based on at Ieast one of the following: 1. A vehicle is or does contain special equipment necessary for the proper and effective performance of County work. 2. P_ vehicle will be used for official County business a minimum of 12,800 miles per year or a minimum of 20 hours away from the office per week. 3. No other vehicle already assigned to the depar tmen t can be reassigned on a time-sharing basis to fill the department's requirements. -2- 4. Documented evidence must prove that it is to the County's benefit from an economic or level of service standpoint for the department to have a vehicle assigned to it. (The motor pool has been eliminated at this time.) b. On January 1st of each fiscal year, each department shall submit to the Department of Management an d Budge t a listing of all vehicles assigned to their department. The list shall include the vehicle number, description, condition, and a brief justification as to why the department needs that vehicle. 3. Nighttime Assignment of Vehicles to Individuals a, A County-owned vehicle shall not be taken home on a regular basis unless authorized by the County Administrator or his designee. A list of vehicle assignments to be authorized shall be submitted by each departmen ~ manager through his Director to the County Administratcr annually on January 1st. The list shall include detailed justification for each vehicle recommended and shall cite the specific criteria outlined below upon which the recommendation is based. This list may be combined with th.e list required from Section 2, but must also include the employee's home address, round-trip distance to the employee's residence, and a more detailed justification. b. The following criteria shall be used in recommending approval for taking a County-owned vehicle home on a regular basis: 1. The employee must answer emergency calls involving the potential loss of life or property where an immediate response is required, 2. The employee must routinely attend to work-related functions, away from the normal work site and outside of normal working hours. 3, Documented evidence must prove that it is to the County's benefit from an economic or level of service standpoint for the employee to have a vehicle assigned to him for take-home use. c. No employee may drive a vehicle to and from his residence outside of the County's borders without specific approval from the County Administrator. 4. Utilization of Personal Vehicles on County Business Employees using personal vehicles in the performance of their assigned duties shall be compensated for such usace at the current mileag e reimbursement rate established by the Board of Supervisors (currently 21C/mile), These employees must receive prior authorization from their department managers or director and file a monthly report of mileage to receive compensation. May 24,_1988 .-_ . Attachment "D" V'el~icle Replacement Module This module is designed to be used as an additional tool in determining when a piece of equipment should be replaced and also in traclting the collection of recovery dollars toward the purchase of a replacement piece of equipment. It is designed to assist the "human" decision malting process: not to replace it. The Vehicle Replacement Module is a replacement analysis program which calculates and displays on-line the remaining life (in months) and projected replacement date of each piece of equipment in your fleet. It is updated "real time" for mileage and for non-accident maintenance dollars (Work Order Labor, parts, and sublet dollars for non-accident RTY Codes). It is updated for ase in months when the End of Month EQ Posting is run. Thus program can also be customized to: Automatically track EQ revenue recovered (through your monthly billing program) Compare that revenue recovered with the cost of replacing the EQ Project the dollar amount needed to be billed (or recovered) for the neat two $scal years in order to stay on trac.~ for fully recovering that cost. (NOTE: Customi;,arion costs are based on programming time C ~~ 00/day) The VRP Module consists of two screens: Vehicle Replacement Setup Screen Vehicle Replacement Screen The VRP Module generates the Vehicle Replacement Analysis Report - FMGVRI' 1 d ~` VEHICLE REPLACEME~'T SETUP To begin using the VRP module the following fields must be set up on the FEQ screen for each piece of equipment: Life expectancy in months Acquisition cost The following information must also be set up for each piece of equipment: Life expectancy in miles/hours Inflation rate % to calculate replacement cost Salvage °% to calculate the salvage cost Additional billing information can also be tracked: Division Fund Cost Center A special utilities program allows you to easily set up this information. It is accessed by selecting update Replacement Stds from the Table Lookup Utilities Menu off the File :Maintenance Menu. The scr eea looks like this Action Vehicle Replacement Setup Screen -Replacement IIsage Code -Division- -Fond- C-Center Ean-I~Iiles Curr-Recov Recov-Coil ~-~ D D O 0.00 0.ao Inrlation Rate : 0.000 Salvage Percent: .IN>U Eater ~ctioa Inq, Add. Upd, Dei Action Inq, Add, Upd, Del Replacement Usage Code This is the same as equipment usage code (EUC) and is tracked on (2 ~ one of the ~ EUC fields on the FEQ Screen. You will want to add one for each class of equipment in your fleet. You may also want to add some for individual pieces of equipment. Division An optional biIling/accounting code specific to your site. Fund An optional billinJaccounting code specific to your site. Cost Center An optional bilIing/accounting code specific to your site. Eap-iVliies Life expectancy in miles/hours for the class of equipment. 2 't 7 Curr-Rezov An optional field representing the dollar amount biIled/collected year-to-date. The VRP module can be customized to capture this dollar amount automatically from your billing program. To track this information manually, you would key in the monthly billing dollars at the end of each month. Res;ov-Coll An optional field representing the dollar amount billed/collected life-to-date. As e.~cpiained above, the VRP module can be customized to capture this dollar amount from your billing program.. To track this amount manually, you would key in the total dollars billed life to date at the end of each fiscal year. Inflation Rate The °'° of inflation you wish to use in calculating the replacement cost. For example: 4 1/2 % should be entered as 0.045 Salvage Percent T'ne °'o of purchase price (acquisition cost) you expect to recover. For example: 7°'o should be entered as 0.070 Once these fields have been completed, Equipment/Ciass Entry mass update fields appear at the bottom of the screen. The VR Setup Screen now looks like this: action Vehicle Replacement Setup Screen R1 -Replacement Usage Code -Division- -F~u~nd- C-C~_ente~r Ez~ CurrReco~ Reco~ 1000001 0.00 0.00 Inflation Rate : 0.045 Salvage Percent: O.U70 Enter Equipment Numbers or Classes for this Code Equipment or Class Entry Eq/EQC Result Eq/EQC Result Ea/EQC Result Eq/EQC Result Enter the Equipment ID or EQC code for records to be updated and <CTRL> A. T'r~e Replacement Usage Code will be placed in the neat available EUC field on the equipment record. i a i VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SCREEN The Vehicle Replacement Screen is accessed from the F.~STER Master Menu. When accessed, erner the Vehicle ID of the piece of equipment you wish to see. It looks like this: Action 0 Vehicle Replacement Screen Date: Ea~~ Ye^ar -Ma~del- -1'I~-ake~- i1Tet~er Type/Readin -Dent--Fun~d- U -Division-Cost Center Purchase DatelPnce Ezsoected Life/Miles (---~ ~ ~ C_~ ~ Rating Points: Mileage/Houn: Q Maintenance: C,Age: ~Tocal: Q Current Life:~0 Original Remaining Lifer Original Repl Date: i Dace: d R d ep juste Adjusted Remaining Life: 0 A Maint Cost LTD O. UO Curr Recovery Salvage Cost Replacement Cost 0• W 0.00 0• W Recovery Collected 0.00 Fiscal Year -Recovery- Balance a ~ ~ 0. tN1 0.00 0.00 Enter Eq uipment Number For Replacement Analysis The screen consists of 6 lines which are described in detail below: Line 1: The fields in this line captwe information from fie:ds on the FEQ Screen and the VR Setup Screen: Equip~# Equipment ID Year Year Model Model ' Meter Type Hour or Miles Reading Life-to-date miles or hours Dept DPN code Fund Optional billinglaccounting code entered on VR Screen Line 2: The fields in this line also capture information from fields on the FEQ Screra and the VR Setup Screen: Division Optional billing code entered on VR Screen Cost Center Optional billing code entered on VR Screen 4 ~t Purchase Date Acquire date on FEQ Price Acquire price on FEQ Expected Life Life expectancy in Months Expected Miles Life expectancy in Mi1es/Hours Line 3: This line contains three rating point fields plus a total rating point field which is automatically calculated based on information collected. The Rating Points are used to evaluate three major areas that impact when a piece of equipment should be replaced. These areas are mileage,~hours, age, and maintenance dollars spent on non-accident repairs. MileageJ'hours and age are evaluated equally. Maintenance is evaluated twice as high, because it has the Jreatest impact on replacing a piece of equipment. If maintenance dollars are low, equipment is used longer. If maintenance dollars are high, equipment may be replaced earlier. Here are the formulas used for the calculations: Rating ~'oints Mileage/Hours: This field contains a rating value of up to ~ points. Ties value is calculated by dividing the car~ent mileage (hour meter reading) by the life expected miles/hours to Jet a percent. The percent is multiplied by ~ to get the current value. Actual Mileage.~Hours Life Expected Miles/Hours = °% s ~ _ _ _ Rating Value Maintenance: This field contains a rating value of up to 10 points. This value is calculated by dividing the actual life-to-date non-accident dollars spent on the equipment by the average of the original cost & replacement cost of the equipme^.t to Jet a percent. The percent is multiplied by 10 to get the current value. Maintenance Cost Life-to-Date Original & Replacement Cost Average = x 10 = _ _ Rating V aloe Total: This field represents the rating value total of ~eageiHours + Mai.*:tenarce + Age. When this total reaches 15, the program calculates that the piece of equipment should be replaced. The remaining life and replacement date are calculated and adjusted as the rating point total moves toward l~. 5 ~~ Line 4: The fields in this line use information from the FEQ Record. Current Life The vehicle age in months Original Remaining Life The difi'erence between the expected life in months and the current life in months. Original Replacement Date The Life Expectancy Expires Date from the FEQ Screen. Line 5: The information in these two fields are calculated by the program. Adjusted Remaining Life: The remaining life in months that the equipment should be used based on the rating points in Line 4. This is reduced or extended based on how quicldy or slowly the rating point total reaches 15. Adjusted Replacement Date: The date the equipment should be replaced based on the rating points in Line 4. This is adjusted based on the rating point total. The replacement date is extended if the total does not reach 15 before the original replacement date. Line b These fields display calculated information. Maint Cost LTD The life to-date costs of labor, parts, sublets for non-accident repair type codes. Curr Recovery The year-to-date dollars billed on the equipment Salvage Cost Acquire Cost X Salvage % = Salvage Cost Replacement Cost The projected cost of replacing the equipment. (Based on the annual inflation rate which you entered as a °% on VR Setup) The remaining fields also display calculated information. Recovery Collected Life-to-date dollars billed on the equipment Fiscal Year -Recovery- Annual dollar amount to be billed the next 2 fiscal years to stay on target for recovering replacement costs on the vehicle Balance Replacement Cost -Salvage Cost -Recovery Collected The remaining dollar amount to be collected to recover the replacement cost on the vehicle. 6 ., - T.~ ~~ ~• VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS REPORT - FMGVRP FMGVRP is accessed from the Exception Reports Menu ogthe FASTER Report Menu or Easy Menus. The Screen looks tike this: Date: 11/10/94 FASTER Reporting System Option Screea Time: 16:24 VRPRPT - Vehicle Replacement Report Class Range: ^ ^ Department Range: ^ ^ Eq Usage Code: ^ Equipment Range: ^ ^. Eq Shop: ^ Eq Operator: ^ Eq Stacus Code: Q FE2 L.Y 1 FLD 3 : ^^ FE2 L!Y I FLD 4 : ~- ~ FE2 LN 2 FLD 2: ^ Notes: Print Options- (P)rint, (D)isplay, (L)ocal for PCWS: Q Output File Name: .FI~IGVRP Output IInit: PR Enter Report Paramesers or <CR> for All f [ ] This report lists epuipment in numeric order and provides replacement data. The report herders look like this: VEHICLE REPLAC'.l~iE`tT .~PI_~I.YSIS POL`t'I'S- -ORIGINAL- -~D.it7STED- REPL~CE- EQUIP# YEAR -I~IAh'E-- -,140DEL- -DEPT- .14ILES 1~1A1'`tT AGE TOT.~I. LIFE -DATE-- LIFE -DATE- -COST- 7 -, O TAAHSPORTpTION DEPT. EQUIPMENT LIST BY DEPARTMENT Page 1 Program FNG210 DEPARTMENT: 622 000- SOLID WASTE DIVISIDN Date 49r21J95 Release 4. 8G Time 14:13 --DATE-- LICENSE- ---DEPR--- --NAINT--- -YTD-- --MILES NRS-- M EQUIP$ YR ---HAKE--- --MODEL--- CLASS ---SERIAL NUMBER---- -ACQRD-- -NUMBER- ---COST--- --VALUE--- ---LTD---- -MILES BE6-FY CURRNT T 6SKEY1 94 FUEL CAN KEY 1 FCKY GEN.SERV. FUEL KEY 1 41JO1J94 X 0.00 4.04 0.04 D 0 0 M RC0832 95 CHEVROLET 2500 PU34 16CGK24K6SE171193 43j47j95 18-0411 0.64 4.00 521.88 15430 3077 18501 M RC0833 95 CHEVROLET 2504 PU34 1GCGK24KOSE110915 43JO1J95 11-824L 4.40 4.40 304.03 15541 3206 18153 M RC0839 16 FORD RECYCLE SAST F61DVC15293 1OJ26(76 90-8451 36900.04 4.04 32842.62 118082 D 118482 M RC0846 94 FORD F SERIES SAST 1FDXF80C1SVA46487 OflJ02J94 78-0431 4.00 0.04 2211.62 26723 0 26123 N RC4847 94 FORD F SERIES SAST 1FDXF84C3SVA06088 48J42J94 90-8441 4.40 4.44 3511.31 28229 0 28229 M RC0848 94 FORD F SERIES SAST 1FDXK74C9PVR33365 46J18J93 11-885L 4.40 0.44 9380.04 42508 0 42508 M RC0853 84 FORD LN 8000 SRST 1FDYR80U6EVp46045 O1J24J84 78-0461 44716.00 14185.31 161351.31 205111 D 245711 M RC4854 84 FDRD IN 8400 SRST 1FDYRBOU4EVA06044 O1J24(84 11-623L 44716.00 10185.31 88043.18 195523 4 195623 N RC0857 85 PEERLESS TRAILER TATR TWTH4058 05J08f85 94-7861 5244.40 1646.61 8754.81 0 0 0 M RC0858 85 PEERLESS TRAILER TATR TWTH4061 45J08J85 94-ISIL 5200.44 1646.61 10583.11 4 0 4 M RC0860 76 DODGE D600 PUTR D51F66J041114 12j03f15 90-9091 9000.44 0.00 29944.13 976 1976 2952 M RC0861 95 CHEUROLET 2544 PU34 16CGK24KDSE195454 05j16J95 86-]68L 0.04 0.00 124.09 1315 3029 14344 M RC4852 95 CHEUROLET 2504 PU34 16CGK24K1SE18825I 05J16J95 11-153L 19804,40 0.00 40,87 8651 D 8651 M RC4863 95 CHEVROLET 250D PU34 16CGK24K2SE181828 05J16J95 86-846L 1984D.00 4.00 0.00 2682 0 2682 M RC0864 85 WHITE WX64 RELR 1WXDCHJOOFN103905 49f03J85 90-7891 80004.00 27111.11 144363.19 192454 4 192450 M RC4865 85 WHITE WX64 RELR 1WXOCHJD2FN103906 09J03j85 90-841L 80404.00 21111.11 146333.06 154388 4 154388 M RC0866 85 WHITE WX64 RELR iWXOCHJD6FN103908 09J03J85 94-7911 80004.04 27111.11 113122.39 161375 0 161315 M RC0859 85 WHITE WXLLDU42 BAND 4V2HAFND5JNS01527 04JO5J88 T8-151L 4.44 0.04 216793.61 121163 4 121163 M RC4810 94 WHITE WX64 BAND 4V2HCFME6RN680111 05J23J94 40-7131 4.04 0.00 19441.14 28998 0 28998 N RC4811 94 WHITE WX64 BAND 4V2NCFMESRN680118 D5J24f94 90-715L 4.04 0.04 25340.44 25029 4 25429 M RC4812 81 WHITE WXLlDU42 BAND 1WXHAHM05HN121801 O7J14(88 86-1661 O.OD 4.44 197582.9D 114306 4 114306 M RC0813 94 WHITE WX64 BAND 4V2HCFMEXRN684119 46J41(94 90-193L 4.04 O.OD 16160.33 21457 4 21051 M RC0876 91 WHITE WX64 BAND 4V2HCFMO1MN639177 11J19J90 86-1151 0.44 4.00 93688.11 81941 4 61942 M RC08Tl 91 WHITE WX64 BRND 4V2HGfMD8NN539175 12(44J94 18-4131 4.00 4.44 126638.93 85416 4 85416 M RC4818 91 WHITE WX64 BAND 4V2HCFMDXNN639716 12(OIJ90 86-1761 0.44 0.04 142875.36 17491 D 71491 N RC0819 91 MITSUBISHI FN 1TDW JW6CED1D7NL041304 O1J29J91 86-836L 24951.13 11321.59 11433.35 11119 4 11719 M SWKEYI 94 FUEL CAN KEY 1 FCKY SOLID WAST FUEL KEY1 O1JOlj94 X 4.04 4.04 4.40 4 4 4 M SWKEY2 94 FUEL CpN KEY 2 FCKY SDIID WAST FUEL KEYZ O1JO1J94 X 0.40 0.04 0.00 1 0 1 M SWNISC 95 MISC. PRRTS MPPU SOLID WASTE DIVISION 47(O1J95 X 0.00 0.00 688.14 4 0 0 M DEPT TOTALS: IT EMS 30 CO ST ;450,2 84 DE PRECIATED VAL UE ;122,3 25 NR iNT ENANCE (lT 0} ;1,528,2 24 NT NLY CHG + INS UR. AMT $4 MILES DRIVEN (YTD) 11554 98 HOURS DRIVEN (YTD} J ITEMS 4 J 0 OTFI ER METER U SED (YTD) J ITEMS 4 J 4 TRANSPORTATION DEPT. EQUIPMENT LIST BY DEPARTMENT Program FgG210 REPDRT SUMMARY Release 4.8G "' REPORT TOTALS: ITEMS 30 COST 3450,284 DEPRECIATED VALUE $122,325 gAINTENAHCE (lTD) X1,528,224 MTHLY CHG + INSUR. ANT SD MILES DRIVER (YTD) 1155498 HOURS DRIVEN (YTD) ~ ITEMS 0 J 0 OTHER METER USED (YTD) ~ ITEM5 0 ~ 0 RUN-TINE OPTIONS (MDT SHOWN IN PRINT HEADERS): {SPACES MEANS 'All') Sort = D Beg. Class = End Class = Beg. Dept. = 522040 End Dept. = 522000 Beg. Eq-Id = End Eq-Id = Operator = shop {EQ.) = 02 Status {EQ.) _ Usage {EQ.) _ FE2 IN 1 FLD 3 = FE2 IN 1 FlD 4 = PA INSPECTION = Detail = Page 2 T°i m ee 1049:~1~ ~ 95 ~? TRANSPORTATION DEPT. EQUIPMENT IiST BY DEPARTMENT Page 1 Program FM6210 DEPARTMENT: 000000- SURPIUS VEHICLES Date 09J21J95 Release 4.86 Tuna 14:22 --DATE-- LICENSE- ---DEPR--- --MAINT--- -YTD-- --MILES NRS-- M EQUIPI YR ---MAKE--- --MODEL--- CLASS ---SERIAL NUMBER-- -- -gCQRD-- -NUMBER- ---COST--- --VALUE--- ---LTD---- -MILES BE6-fY CURRNT T 000108 86 PLYMOUTH RELIANT PC4D 1P3BPZ6D26F283313 06J24J86 SURPLUS 7219.00 1104.48 4.00 0 0 4 M E00718 86 PLYMOUTH SEDAN PC40 1P36P26DX6F283371 46J24J86 SURPLUS 1219.00 1704.48 0.00 0 0 4 M JS0999 81 CHEVROLET CELEBRITY PC4D 161AW51WXH6161301 02J03J81 SURPLUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 O 0 4 M PR4148 85 DODGE OMNI PC40 1836218C2fD191464 12J26J84 SURPLUS b887.40 4.00 0.04 0 0 0 M RC0831 86 DODGE PICKUP PUTR JB1fK24E26P4978O1 O)J49J86 SURPIUS 8500.44 2065.97 0.04 0 0 0 M RC0837 88 FORD CROWN YIC PC4D 2FABP72f3JX187294 06JO1J88 SURPLUS 12055.83 4.00 O.D4 O 0 O M RC0841 88 FORD CROWN VIC PC4D 2FABP12F6JX167283 46J01J88 SURPLUS 12055.83 4855.82 0.40 4 0 0 M SS0032 89 CHEVROLET XXXX PC4D 161JC5112K1195165 03J14J89 SURPLUS 8565.66 4.40 0.40 D O 0 M TEMPKI 95 TEMP. FUEL KEY 1 TFKY TEMPORARY FUEL KEY 1 41jO1J95 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 9423 0 9023 M 084519 84 FORD CROWN VIC PC4D 2fABP4366EX185819 41J24J84 SURPIUS 9600.00 0,00 237.15 95278 0 95278 M 090111 90 CHEVROLET CAPRICE PC4D 1618154111A139649 05J22J90 SURPIUS D,40 4.04 O.DO 4 0 4 M * DEPT TOTALS: ITEMS 11 COST $72 ,103 DEPRECIATED VAL UE $10 ,330 MAINTENANCE (LT D} $238 MTHLY CH6 + INS UR. AMT $0 MILES DRIVEN (YTD} 10 4301 HOURS DRIVEN (YTD} ( ITEMS O J 0 OTHER METER U SED (YTDj J ITEMS 0 ( 4 TRANSPORTATION DEPT. EQUIPMENT HISTORY SU MMARY ~ Page 23 Progra~ FNG211 DEPRRTMEHT: 522040- SOLID WASTE DIVISION Date 49~21f95 Release 4 .8 Tt~e 11:32 MILES- -----MAINTENAN CE COST----- MTCPM- -------OPERATIONS-------- -MPG- ----CPN----- --ODOMETER--- EQUIPi YR ---gRKE--- --NOOEI--- -YTD-- ----YTD----- ----110----- -YTD-- ----GALS---- ----COST---- -YTD- ----YTD----- BEG-FY CURRNT GSKEYI 94 FUEL CAM KEY 1 0 0 RC083Z 95 CHEVROLET 2500 15430 116.08 511.88 1]5.60 444.18 19.8 0.03 3011 1850] RC4833 95 CHEVROLET 2500 15541 133.10 304.03 686.00 391.19 22.6 0.03 3205 18153 RC0839 16 FORD RECYCLE 118062 1,639.49 32,802.62 4.01 225.10 128.61 513.1 0.41 0 118082 RC0846 94 FORD f SERIES 26123 948.54 2,211.52 0.03 996.10 519.42 26.8 0.05 4 26113 RC0641 94 FORD F SERIES 28229 1,129.60 3,511.31 0.04 842.40 446.63 33.5 0.05 0 18229 RC0848 94 FORD F SERIES 42508 218.92 9,380.D4 639.40 345.84 66.4 0.01 4 42508 RC0853 84 FORD LN 8040 205171 653.61 161,351.31 561.50 344.55 366.4 D 205111 RC0854 84 FORD LN 8000 195523 684.64 88,043.18 412.20 239.15 414.3 4 195523 RC0851 85 PEERLESS TRRIIER 318.16 8,154.61 0 0 RC0858 85 PEERLESS TRAILER 81.13 10,583.11 0 0 RC0860 76 DODGE D600 853 802.85 19,889.6& 0.94 119.30 68.18 1.1 1.02 1915 2829 RCOSbI 95 CHEVROLET 2540 1315 19.33 124,09 0.01 601.24 346.83 11.1 4.05 3029 10344 RC0862 95 tHEVROlE1 1504 865] 40.61 40.8] 411.54 268.99 18.3 4.03 0 8651 RCD863 95 CHEVROLET 2504 2682 188.00 105.91 14.2 0.03 0 2682 RC0854 85 WHITE WX64 192450 1,083.56 104,353.19 530.50 292.90 361.1 0 192450 RC08b5 85 WHITE WX64 154388 1,105.60 146,333.06 541.90 290.02 284.9 0 154388 RC08bb 85 WHITE WX64 1613]5 4,864.11 113,122,39 0.02 544.40 299.16 341.4 0.03 0 161315 RC0669 85 WHITE WXLLDU42 121163 4,4&2.11 216,193.61 0.03 1,503.9D 891.11 80.9 4.44 0 121163 RC4814 94 WHITE WXb4 28998 4,965.91 19,401,14 0.11 2,018.&0 1,128.30 13.9 4.21 0 28998 RCO611 94 WHITE WX64 25029 6,858.54 25,340.44 0.21 1,910.10 1,469.33 12.1 D.31 4 25029 RC0812 81 WHITE WXLLDU42 11430& 4,246.12 19],582.90 0.03 1,591.30 988.36 11.5 4.44 4 114306 RC0813 94 WHITE WX64 21051 3,341.11 16,]60.33 0.12 1,551.34 830.&6 11,4 0.15 D 11451 RC0816 91 WHITE WX54 81942 4,454.81 93,688.11 0.05 1,596.24 902.89 51.3 4.05 D 61942 RC0611 91 WHITE WX64 85416 5,138.88. 126,638.93 0.06 1,410.04 822.83 5$.1 0.06 D 85416 RC0818 91 WHITE WX64 71491 2,O1b.16 102,815.38 0.02 2,159.30 1,268.16 35.1 0.44 0 11491 RC0819 91 MITSUBISHI FH 11119 810.51 11,341.56 0.41 539.90 286.10 21.8 4.49 0 11119 SWKEYI 94 FUEL CAN KEY 1 D 0 SWKEY2 94 FUEL CRN KEY 2 1 96.44 63.10 63.10 0 1 SWMISC 95 MISC. PARTS 685.14 688.14 0 D DEPT. TOTAL: VEHICLES - 30 1155315 5D,932.25 1,528,119.13 12,141.58 J~~ FEH Action INQ * EQUIPMENT HISTORY * Date 092195 Equip# RC0853 Type (M OR Y) M License# 78-046L Oper-Id Dept-# 52200 Yr -- 84 Make FORD -------------- Mod -Monthly- 1 ~N 8000 Class SAST MG i~is ory----------------- E-~h~ 071 ~ ---- a cu a a~t-WO 00119 e ---- Mo --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOM-MH Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4 0 0.0 0.0 03 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.4 0 0 0.0 0.0 07 595.63 173.20 90.07 2.0 203650 203650 999.9 999.9 08 57.98 279.90 148.51 0.0 205228 1578 5.6 0.0 09 0.00 108.40 61.97 2.0 0 * 543 0.0 0.0 10 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 ------------Year /Life-To-Date-History------------ ---Calculated---- --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Oil-Qt Cur-MH -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM Y 653.61 561.50 300.55 4.0 205771 366.5 514.4 0.00 L 161351.31 43890.80 25802.98 4.0 205771 4.7 514.4 0.91 Accident- $-Ltd: 0,00 Depreciated-Value: 10185.31 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0853 * SEE NOTE * SysReq N FEH Action INQ * EQpUIPMENT HISTORY Equip# RC085 Type (M OR Y} Y L icense# 78-046L Yr 84 Make FORD Mod el LN 8000 Class SAST MG -- -------------- -Yearly-H istory------------------ Yr --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOY-MH 95 13151.07 2371.60 1307.22 0.0 0 94 14520.95 5552.84 3032.07 0.0 0 93 13040.33 5426.40 3291.25 0.0 0 92 12148.57 4930.20 2970.82 0.0 0 91 8242.58 5476.10 3959.56 0.0 0 90 11659.59 5352.20 3332.34 0.0 0 ------------Year/Life-To-Date-Histo --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Y 653.61 561.50 300.55 L 161351.31 43890.80 25802.98 Accident-$-Ltd: 0.00 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0853 Oper-Id Depte#052zC)0( E-Shp 02 Last-WO 001194 ----Calculated---- Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ry------------ Oil-~Qt Cur-MH 4.0 205771 4.0 205771 Depreciated-Value: * SEE NOTE ---Calculated---- -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM 366.5 514.4 0.00 4.7 514.4 0.91 10185.31 SysReq N 07~_ ~ FEquAp#i~~085~ Type (M OR Y)E1~U~5.~~i?Se#IZ~~S~3L Oper-Id D~~~e#O~l~~~b5~ Yr 84 Make FORD Model LN 8000 Cla ss SAST MG E-Shp 02 Last-WO 00176 -----------------Monthly-History---------- ------- ----Calculat ed---- Mo --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOM-MH Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 07 271.65 246.70 139.51 17.5 194194 194194 787.2 111.0 08 116.14 50.20 35.85 12.1 194769 575 11.5 0.5 09 296.85 115.30 64.39 0.0 0 * 754 0.0 0.0 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 ------------Year /Life-To-Date-History------------ ---Calculated---- --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Oil-Qt Cur-MH -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM Y 684.64 412.20 239.75 29.6 195523 474.3 66.1 0.00 L 88043.28 40692.50 24064.70 29.6 195523 4.8 66.1 0.57 Accident- $-Ltd: 0.00 Depreciated-Value: 101 85.31 INQUIRY COMPLETE D: RC0854 * SEE NOTE * Sys Req N FEH i C 1RC 8 4 EYU i ~8 I 0 Y qqu p 0 5 # 84 k Type (M OR Y} L cense# 11 23L Oper-Id Depth# 522O~C r Ma e FORD Mod el LN 8000 Class SAST MG E-Shp 02 L ast-WO 00176C --- ------------- -Yearly-H istory------------------ ----Cal culat ed---- Yr --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOY-MH Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 95 6412.09 3287.60 1821.98 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 94 10822.77 5142.10 2913.15 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 93 11608.26 4413.90 2713.50 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 92 9832.51 4210.40 2553.15 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 91 7072.10 5077.40 3656.39 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 90 9095.20 4227,50 2630.19 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 ------------Year/Life-To-Date-Histo --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Y 684.64 412.20 239.75 L 88043.18 40692.50 24064.70 Accident-$-Ltd: 0.00 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0854 ry---.--------- Oil-Qt Cur-MH ?..9. G 195523 29,6 195523 Depreciated-Value: * SEE NOTE ---Calculated---- -MPG- -HriQ- -TCPM 474.3 66.1 0.00 4.8 66.1 0.57 10185.31 * SysReq N ~~ ~. FEH Action INQ * EQUIPMENT HISTORY * Date 092195 Equ1p# RC0865 Type (M OR Y~ M License# 90-807L Oper-Id Dept-# 52200( Yr 85 Make WHITE Model WX64 Class RELR MG E-Sh p 02 Last-WO 00119: __ _______________Monthly-History------------------ ----Ca lculated---- Mo --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOM-MH Tot-MH -MFG- -HMQ- 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 07 1098.09 248.00 129.00 0.0 153243 153243 617.9 0.0 08 7.51 133.60 71.62 0.0 153848 605 4.5 0.0 09 0.00 160.30 89.40 0.0 0 * 540 0.0 0.0 la o.o0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 O.o o.a 12 0.00 o.ao o.oo o.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 ------------Year/Life-To-Date-History------------ ---Calculated---- --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Oil-Qt Cur-MH -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM Y 1105.60 541.90 290.02 0.0 154388 284.9 0.0 0.01 L 146333.06 58574.80 34260.62 0.0 154388 2.6 0.0 1.17 Accident-$-Ltd: 0.00 Depreciated-Value: 27111.11 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0865 ~` SEE NOTE * SysReq N F EquAp#i~C0865 T M OR Y EYULi~ens #290~80 epth 052204 ype ( ) e 7L Oper-Id D C # Yr 85 Make WHITE Mod el WX64 Class RELR MG E-Sh p 02 L ast-WO 00119 -- ---------------Yearly-H istory------------------- ----Ca lculat ed---- Yr --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOY-MH Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 95 11875.11 4077.50 2200.41 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 94 23821.37 8182.90 4441.54 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 93 25770.14 7751.20 4602.60 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 92 17999.56 7429.00 4393.53 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 91 14627.48 6925.80 4918.43 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 90 17616.73 6840.10 4216.04 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 ------------Year/Life-To-Date-Histo --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Y 1105.60 541.90 290.02 L 146333.06 58574.80 34260.62 Accident-$-Ltd: 0.00 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0865 ry------------ Oil-Qt Cur-MH 0.0 154388 0.0 154388 Depreciated-Value: * SEE NOTE ---Calculated---- -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM 284.9 0.0 0.01 2.6 0.0 1.17 27111.11 * SysReq N F EH Action INQ * EQUIPMENT HISTORY * Date 092195 ( Equip# RC087 Type {M OR Yj M L icense# 90-773L Op er-Id Dept-# 52200 Yr 94 Make WHITE Mod el WX64 Class BAND MG E-Shp 02 L ast-WO 00175 -- -------------- -Monthly- History----------------- ----Calculat ed---- Mo --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- --Fuel--$-- Oil-Qt EOM-MH Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 07 713.20 740.30 395.18 26.4 25138 25138 34.0 9.5 08 1229.92 887.10 475.94 4.0 27644 2506 2.8 6.3 09 3023.79 451.20 257.18 8.0 0 * 1354 0.0 0.0 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 11 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 -- ----------Year /Life-To- Date-History------------ ---Calculat ed---- --Maint-$- -F uel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Oil-Qt Cur-MH -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM Y 4966.91 2078.60 1128.30 38.4 28998 14.0 7.6 0.21. L 19007.14 10473.90 5709.81 38.4 28998 2.8 7.6 0.85 Accident- $-Ltd: 0.00 Depreciated-Value: 0.00 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0870 * SEE NOTE * SysReq N F~~u~~~1~~0~~~ Type {M OR Y)E~U~Pi~~~~e~I~~QPt~3L Oper-Id D~~~e#0~~~~~t Yr 94 Make WHITE Model WX64 Class BAND MG E-5hp 02 Last-WO 00175 -----------------Yearly-History------------------ ----Cal culated---- Yr --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- --Fuel-$-- Oil-Qt EOY-MH Tot-MH -MPG- -HMQ- 95 13830.15 8181.20 4412.10 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 94 210.08 214.10 169.41 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 ------------Year/Life-To-Date-Histo --Maint-$- -Fuel-Gal- -OP-Cost-- Y 4966.91 2078.60 1128.30 L 19007.14 10473.90 5709.81 Accident-$-Ltd: 0.00 INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0870 ry------------ ---Calculated---- Oil-Qt Cur-MH -MPG- -HMQ- -TCPM 38.4 28998 14.0 7.6 0.21 38.4 28998 2.8 7.6 0.85 Depreciated-Value: 0.00 * SEE NOTE * SysReq N .Y. . FEQ Action INQ * Equipment Details * Last-Change-Date 092195 Equip# License# ----°-Serial-#______ ______Title-#------- Shop Oper-ID RC0853 78-046L 1FDYR80U6EVA06045 32850796 02 Yr ---Make--- ---Model-- Class MG -Date- ---Cost--- Status Vendor-- 84 FORD LN 8000 SAST Acquire: 012084 44716.00 A Dispose: ---Tire-Sz-- Eng-Sz Tran-Sz -GVW- -PO-#- -Meter-Replacement- 315/80R22.5 3208 MT653 0 0 -Date- Time Offset- 315/80422.5 Deprec.Val Insp-Dat 10185.31 120195 RVo: 0 Radio Lease DT-Type ---Miles-Hours--- Life-Expectancy Fuel- e Serv-Date Months Expires Type 012084 180 012099 D A/C CC --Misc-- Color Key-#-1- Key-#-2- Accident-$ N N TAN 0.00 Actual -Insurance-- -----Billing---- M/H Beg-FY L-t-D- Meter- -Amt- Charge Code Monthly-Chg Dept: 522000 M 0 205771 205771 0 0 1 0 Site: 42 Comments: E-Z PACK APOLLO Downtime: BOUGHT AT CAVALIER EQUIPMENT -Eq.Use-Codes- ON RL INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0853 * SEE NOTE SysReq N O f FEQ Action NXT * Equipment Details * Last-Change-Date 092195 Equip# License# °-----Serial-#------ ------Title-#------- Shop Oper-ID RC0839 90-806L F61DVC75293 23021062 02 Yr ---Make--- ---Model-- Class MG -Date- ---Cost--- Status Vendor-- 76 FORD RECYCLE SAST Acquire: 102676 36900.00 A Dispose: ---Tire-Sz-- Eng-Sz Tran-Sz -GVW- -PO-#- -Meter-Replacement- 8.25R20 391 CU AT545 0 0 -Date- Time Offset- 8.25R20 Life-Expectancy Fuel- Deprec.Val Insp-Date Serv-Date Months Expires Type 0.00 080496 102676 180 102691 U RVo: 0 Radio Lease DT-Type A/C CC --Misc-- Color Key-#-1- Key-#-2- Accident-$ R N N 0.00 ---Miles-Hours--- Actual -Insurance-- -----Billing---- M/H Beg-FY L-t-D- Meter- -Amt- Charge Code Monthly-Chg Dept: 522000 M 0 118082 118082 0 0 1 0 Site: 42 Comments: Downtime: -Eq.Use-Codes- ON INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0839 ~:~ .: FEQ Act#ionLINQ * Equiiplme#nt Details * Last-Change-Date 092195 R~08~4 11C~23L# 1FDYR80t~~E~AOb044--- 3285079~t1e-#------- S~~p Oper-ID Yr ---Make--- ---Model-- Class MG -Date- ---Cost--- Status Vendor-- 84 FORD LN 8000 SAST Acquire: 012084 44716.00 A Dispose: ---Tire-Sz-- Eng-Sz Tran-Sz -GVW- -PO-#- -Meter-Replacement- 315/80R22.5 3208 MT653 0 0 -Date- Time Offset- 315/80422.5 Life-Expectancy Fuel- Deprec.Val Insp-Date Serv-Date Months Expires Type 10185.31 100195 012084 180 012099 D RVs: 0 Radio Lease DT-Type A/C CC --Misc-- Color Key-#-1- Key-#-2- Accident-$ N N TAN 0.00 ---Miles-Hours--- Actual -Insurance-- -----Billing---- M/H Beg-FY L-t-D- Meter- -Amt- Charge M 0 195523 195523 0 0 Comments: E-Z PACK,APOLLO PACK BODY DT MODEL#A300RL-20 SER.#310210 BOUGHT AT CAVALIER EQUIPMENT INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0854 Code Monthly-Chg Dept: 522000 1 0 Site: 42 /OFIMFG 4/93 Downtime: 20 YRD.UNIT -Eq.Use-Codes- CORP. ON RL * SEE NOTE * SysReq N FEQ Action INQ Equip# License# RC0870 90-773L Yr ---Make--- ---Mop 94 WHITE WX64 * equipment Details * Last-Change-Date 092195 ------Serial-#------ ------Title-#------- Shop Oper-ID 4V2HCFME6RN680177 85603204 02 del-- Class MG -Date- ---Cost--- Status Vendor-- BAND Acquire: 052394 0.00 A Dispose: ---Tire-Sz-- Eng-Sz Tran-Sz -GVW- -PO-#- -Meter-Replacement- 315/80R22.5 300CUM HT740 0 0 -Date- Time Offset- 315/80R22.5 Life-Expectancy Fuel- Deprec.Val Insp-Date Serv-Date Months Expires Type 0.00 050195 052394 180 052309 D RV%: 0 Radio Lease DT-Type A/C CC --Misc-- Color Key-#-1- Key-#-2- Accident-$ R Y N TAN 0.00 ---Miles-Hours--- Actual -Insurance-- -----Billing---- M/H Beg-FY L-t-D- Meter- -Amt- Charge Code Monthly-Chg Dept: 522000 M 0 28998 28998 0 0 1 0 Site: 42 Comments: BANDIT #6 Downtime: WAYNE CURBTENDER #13381 INSTALLED AT -Eq.Use-Codes- WAYNE ENGINEERING IN IOWA. ON AR INQUIRY COMPLETED: RC0870 * SEE NOTE * SysReq N } Attachment "E" ,"`~'~`~~ ~ m ~ „c ca C C _~ O » -CL ~ ?? w 3 ~ L L O ~ '~ L C CSf ..~. ~ N • C ~ Q1 U ~ L.1. > L1. ~ ~ 3 -~ O C _~ ~ ~ .N ~ (6 , ~ N p o U ' O U N .C O ~ U ~ II ""' C -C C (II ~ C C p (/~ ~ (B LL U ;~ L C ~ ~ ~ Z7 C r t~ O Cff a q~ ,~ •- O (II C U ~ C ° (~ C6 ?, a a ,~ o ~ co O ~' i~ °' (B ~ ~ C cu o U fl. ~ ~ cn ~ ° p v U ~ `~ ~ E a~ a `_" ca U ~ O C~ U O C O ?+ ~ O C D~ U ~ U O -Q ~. o U ~ o U U° ~- O c Uo O A c :D CII ~ -cE ~ U ° >, ' .D ~, Q ~ ~~a~' c cv (II E ,a U p c o'- Q .~ -~ cn > .~ •- . a ~ . o rfj ~ ~ E ~ 3 °' ~ ~ ~ a~ cn = ~ c U 'in --~ i~ c ~` ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ v ~ N O C~ t~II ~ C ,~ cn "C ~ O ~ (II ~., U r a~ a~ E .S Q. z-~ o m '~ ~ C ~ ~ ( O O ~ L C N U tD T L ~ ~ ~ O L .... O (II ~ .C O J O L C ~ ~ N ~ O (II N U ~ ~~ C ~ ~ Q) Q C to 7 (II ~ C ~ C a~ o ~ ~ a c C C ~ U Q. (II ~. s ~ o~~~ •~ ~ ~~ .... ~~ ~ ~o o o cu ~ c~ c~ Q ~ c ~ ai ° E ~ ~ , o ~ a- s ° ° cn ~ U a~ . ~ .~ a~ ~r o ~ ~ o-~ > ~ 3 ~~ m >,E ~ o • m • U ~ co ~ cn ° c ° c C ~ ' ° C c LL1 O ~ ~ N O `~ U Q. `~~'~ ~ V ~'~ U~ ~ (Q O o ~ (6 ~ (Q 'LL. p to N L ~- O U N ~ E .~' ~~ aUi ~ a .~ o c ~ o a° o m~ ~ aci o ~ o~ o c~~~ ~ c ° ~ o 0 0°~ E o ~ ~ o s r ai c °~ a s ~ ~ ~ m .x a~ -Q ~ v ~ U ~ ~ cv ~ ~ ~ m ~ c v~ s ~ a ~ `~ `~ a~ a~ ~ aci caa~ o ~ ~ 3 v Q. m Q _ c~ ~ ~~ r r r> .~ >, a ~' x E ~ ~ 4 ~ . c - a~ a, ~ ~ w ~, a _ w a~ a~ ~. ~ 3 ~ C ~, o °' U ~ C 'c~ Q • ~ L ~ r U ` ~ o ` ~ ~° ~ ~ ca co .~ ° c n a °~ Q° ~U~ ~ m° .c _ ~~ ~ V ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ua~uu~2 ~~y N b ~!z W ))~ ~L'.~L/~ L.i~~ z rrr~ rL.L~ V 'Q. LNL1 6L.. z ~~ ~'~/ fair U t ~~ r P- ~ o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ° O o o ~ ~ = - U L ,«,, T ~ > ~ O ~ ~ O E U ~, ~ ~ ~, U Q "~ N RS a ~ to ~ ~ O O .L ~ a ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'/ ~ M C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X O M ~ ~ O ~ O cB .~ ° ~ r.+ U ~ ~ ~ r "'~ (n r ~ O ~ ~ `i ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ U ~ r ~ ~. ~ ~ O cif ,~ p ~'+ 00 ~ (II ~ ~ E ~ ~ cn O M • to L U ~ rn ~ n'• ~ ~ v ~ O 4- Lf~ tB -Q T' _' U O O O N r C~ Z 0 C .C ~ ~ ~ L ~ U ~ 6g 7 ~ c E 'S ' ~ a~ o o ~ ~ Q ° Q L 'D CD . cn o a~ a~ co rn U W ~ N cn . ~ ~ N ~ ' 6~4 ~ 0 '~ ~ _ C~ H~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ a ~ cv ~ Q1 0 ~ ~ _ N C ~ '`'' L1 ,. = Q L ~. ' a ~ ~ O ctJ U a, ~ -a ~ ~ o ~ ~ >, ;~ O ~ o -C E ~ci ~ 3 ~ lfy U O ~ O ~ U O ° •~ c~ v~ ~ Q°' rn ~ a ro U o U ,_ ..._ ,C `_ ~ a~ ppp N ~ N ~ CD ~ O .~ v1 O~ .~ ~j f ~O ,~ O O U 07 d' ~ ~ -~ s ~C ° Op O rn s O ~ ° ~ 4? r a~ cri --~ o ~ ~ d. c~ E ~ '~ o ~~ U Q ~~ U C~ ° C ' ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ U E o ° "' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a~i a~ E C cu ''_ r~ L O ..C 'O E O r ~ 'fl ~ ~ U ~ ~ ` rn °' .~ -a ~ n. ~ o a-°i .c ° ~ ~ a LL c~ .~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ (tS ~ - U N (~ »~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 64 O Q ~ C ~ ~ ~ (~ • ~ . O .O p a~ a m a~ ~o m~ ~ m W ~k b U N _ - v! o~ _~ • ~C G f~ rV^/ ~! ! _ z .J Q. `~! t i.i.1 .. ^^o . ~..C. O r F` .,,..~ b c ri a> o ~ ~ o s V ~ r `r °' ~ N > N ° o ~ `o_ c ~ ~ o cn o N '~ o y, o ~ ~ c - ~ •_ o o o ~ 0 0 ~ .n W o 0 o c~ a`~ ~ aUi = o (gyp Q N y ~ H L r >+ N - N Vi ~ co ~ N L ~ ~... M j C ~ ~ •fl C 0 0 "' - O N O w 3 co o •io ~ ~ o ~ o >. o N U N ~ ~ ~ tf) '-' ~O (II a - N p -a C C C O O N ~-- fD F ~ ~ ~ ~ W ( 4 ~ ~ .a O ~ U co U ~ ~ °' E y E ~' m ~ N • ~ `~ E o a s ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ° U ~ ~ o - c ~ ~ ~ - ` ° n o o •° C ~ a~ i ~~ . ~ - ~ ~ C ~ ~ N ~ ~ N •C ~ - - • ~ N ri W ~ vi o .n ,- E ~ o •c cv E ~ ~ ..- E o o ~ U ° -v ~ o c N O - ~ ~ " N O ~ .~ N b •fl a m L C g a~ C a~ ~ o N N ... r cD - O w C6 N O ~ ~ ~ OS N C ~ 0 O ~ N C~ O ~ C O 0 O N O O F O ~ f~ O ~ U O ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ o ca p `o O ti to c ~ a~ m ' a c ~ ' ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ v v a~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ _ o - ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ~ ~ n. ~ ~ E = y _ 3 c v a~ c v a~ c a a~ c a a~ m a~ c o a~ c a a~ c u a~ ~ a ~ ~ _ •3 ,C 0- vi ~ o ~ ~ a> > t.C) CD O tt~ N d' t~• t!') ~ ~ ~' _ • _ ~ ~N.. - (O 3 ~ C _ = ~- • ' C ~- N .- .- W 3 ~ a~ ~ ~ ccs ~ ~ o ~ F- aNi ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ • of ~ ~.... o iri ai cv 5 Sri m m C > o o U ~ o ~ ~ o y ~ ~ N voi H ~ _ C ~ N U N N N U o W '~ •E N Y tN C ~ ~ ~~ ~ L_ ~ O C Y U ~ C O ~ C L N N N - V . ~ (Sf a C c4 }•' o ` F-- _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ N W ~ m li N C C F- ~ F- U L C ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ N ~ t- o c a ` o ~ Q ~ U (~ ~ (A U1 a~ ~.. ~ H ~ m ~ ~ Q m ~ (A Cn ~ (A a ~ L Q U i' LL/ a0 'D z Q J z U Q ^J 'L.1. i.i.~l r'~ ~~W v, 0 Q.. O c c ~ o ~- ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ >, . ~ ~ ~ N .,.. O O S C C ~ ~ L Q1 L ... _ C ~ O _ O E N o U O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ CiS `, C .N U O a, Q~ c~ Q ~ a~ U E O ~ `~ _ ~ c~ U ~ ~ Q1 ~ O ~ C -~ L 0 C .~ U ai ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ In .,.. _ U O ~ ~'+ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ .~ ~ ~ '~ ~- o _~ N t. .a a~ '` Q O C O N U N L (E r..~ ~ ~ L (n .~ C O C c •~ N 'cn O - t ~ ~ w., o ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ?~ C 'N C c~ s ~ a~ ~ c ~ o E c cu `- ~ -o x O O ~ -~ U O C17 tII f-- ~ 0 O 0 ~ 'p o ~ d' F- m O O ~ o m o p N T O ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ T 0 ~ ~ H? _~ C ~ a x w ~ ~ O o cfl T (U ~- O Q CO ~ U o N ~ t- p_ O U t' fn b4 C ~ N ~ Q~j `- ~ O Cfl p C C ~ ~ W ~ a ~ o Q. ~ W p p T Q) Q~ T ti Q1 m r m r p r CO N N CD r p N r- ~ ~" ~ M t.C) T ~ r' N M ti N r ~- ~ N r r T T ~' N d' c~ t- r i .i V! U N ~ ~ N ` ~ V ~ N ~ _ .~ E Y -v Lv, ~ v = a~ C Z7 ~ ~ ~_ .C .a.. N~ `~ U ~ / r i /. V _z z (~.. t l/o V 0 W U ^^~ L~ r!~ W j ~ ~. ,, ~ .r 4 ~ C L _ ~C -a C _ _ '~ ~ C C .~ ~ '~ O O C -~ ~ p r N C C 6 _C ' ~ ~ O - U ~ ~' " C p tII N p ) C O L O N ` ~ L ~ > E "" ~ O .~ ~ ~ N _O O a U O ~ ~ ~ C O E ~ O •C O CB ~ ~ `- "C ~ d C ~ C ~ ~ cv ~, °' °' ~ ~., Q .c O p ~ ~~ U ~ O p aU U ~~~ a~ -c - ~ -a a~ ° E A ~ C C i- O C L f0 .«.. ` Q. ~ ~ L LT U ~ ~ aCIIi a- ~n ~ c O cn c ~+ O rn c O _~ ~- ~`- ma~~ L C ~~ ~ p C - Q)QN O~ r. O O ... C O L Ec .~ ~E t3 ~. cLc ~ C O X~ ~`.' O O . ~ ~.~ Leo ~E ~ •c a~ o ~ n. O n. ~ L f a~ "-' ~ ' Q ~ ~ L Q~ > ~ ~ E ° o c~ ' c ~ c aci ~ o ~-~ ~ >, .~ ~~ C a 4a ~~ O O C Uo U ~ C cn E ~ N ~~ a EAU • i a a a i a~ ~~_ ~cm 0 0 cn O ~~ >' C O ~o° ~ ~ t4 L a, o Q, rnv C O U = E- o c ~ m rn ~ o a~ - U U ~ ~o° ~ E-o ~ °a ~ Qa I.() O O ~ L O L C N .~ ~ O i ...+ Q3 ._ L p c oo ° sE ~, a °' °' . ~a~~ _ a~oo ° m ~ ~. c~_. ~~~E o cn o~ :~ _ cL m L o o c c ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ -p ~' ~ C ~+ C ~ ~ v7 ~ ~ ~ cE '0 ~, ~~,~ o o~ ~ ~~~ = E cps oa•'>, ~ is Ua i c' ia i~ O E~c L ~ E U . U L O N N O O O X (6 O . O . a ~ 1- O. d' ~ ~ O L ~ C "'. o O O II. . ' • ~ L ~ Q~ ° o a ° c .° ~ ~ c' tic~a E- p,co U ,_. :x. rte' ::', .~. ti'x_~.~._ - .. .1 F?fn+"~ :~~ I~, ~~~.~• ~~ 4 {~~ 1 'S..Ca` ~`...i i- ¢d. y,Y . ,'. 1,. . Z Q ~ .3,it 5w~" ~w~ O Q .-. ~~~.. CC W W p U O W m O U Appendix III C iL C z LL N o O O O $ O O O O O f-- N ~ ~ ~ O N O N U V X X 5 X r W ~ ~~ X X 'w i Z r. N r ~_ F- Z d C3 W U = J ~ ~ F- ~ ~ = F- W U Q ~ W ~ W ~ ~ ~ W ; ; ~ ~ ~ NI a U IL W A N ~ a} O ~ Z ~ ~ U ~ W Z Y W? O ~ O ~ W N Z~ F- W Z Q Q Y Y (~ V~ U Z~ N W= W p~ U ~ z W Z ~~ ~ a W~ W Wo w 3 O Q Q voo W ~ ~~ Z¢ f' W J Q ~ n UW ~¢~z ~ o ,- ~, w ~ 2 ~wc wc~W -- a ~ Q U ~ U ? ~ ~ ~ O W y W ~p ~O WV 1i Z ~ O a Z Z < _ Z F- Z ~? U ~ Z Z 4 a~0=aa wUw~~Cl~ZZ= Z U3 ~ i ~ Q Q ~ .~ V ~+ W ~ ~ .t < ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Q N ~ O ~ W O ~ p Q ~ - U ~ p U a 245 ~ ..». Z .,,~, Qa S w ~~~ D O W O U d > m ~ u O ~ V ? u 0 w Z ti Z $ Q g po 0 N 0 N N 25 O ~ ~ N N ~ ~ 0 . - • - U w W U 5 X x W w X X X Z N ~ r- N ~_ ~ H Z Q Q O O O O O O a' ~ O O O O m m +- ~ ~ y O ~ IA ~!' Cf7 ~ O O ~D •- N LO ~ U w w U g X X X X X X W W Z X .- .- N ~- N H H Z Q N Z O W ~ ~ U ~ ~ F= W O ~+- Z W a w w U Z ~+- a? U O W~ Z Z Q 4 Z ~ W CL z~ ? Y m O Z Z 2 O M Z ~~ Y Z Q Z y D ~ J Y O W O 2 O? Z U ~ Z j ~~ D O N V Q F Z Z V Y ~¢~ Q F- p ¢~ 2 j Z~ ~ W~ w~ Y {' ~ 2 d~ J Z cn w a~ J ~ ~ O d~ J Z~ J ~ Q O d U ~ H ~ w F- w Q U Z fA = Z~ Z , - Y Z Z U Z Z- O (~ V ~ W Z Z= a ~ Y~ `= Z W U Y ~ - W ~ ~ Y m Q w - Z ~i 4~ z v `r o -- ~ U a = Z Z Z~ W Q g a>~> 2 - W ~ W ~ > ~ O O V~ ~ a° Z W U Y~= Q Q 3>~ a a ° 2 U a ~ ~ o w g m a Z o ~ cs a a Z Q ~1 AL !7 _C ~~ ,..~ >)~; . i ':4 ^y. :'yq ~' x.,.e ~4~~ Y- - . ,; x - ~ ~ ; ~ ~: ~, `,; r~' . . ~s r r .~ ;; Zvi ~, ;a~~:~ - ~' t' ' Ti 1 ~ ~~~,~' { ~. : ~ f y` ~ ~ 11.1 O Z LL I e, (., Z d 2 ~ W A W ZO Q ~- < S ~ W O U O D w O ~ v Z ~~r d~ p O N H ~p m V' p 0 ~ W O ~ U rt ~ 0 q W U ~ x W Q W Z '" n ~ a u ~ rt .. Q II a 0 0 0 ~ o ° u ~ ~ O ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ rt ~ u U ~ 11 II , II W U g x x x x W w z H N r- N ~ ~ fl II 11 -= 4 u ~ ii 11 Q u rt W Z U W > ~ [L ~ m Q Z U ~ O~m y _ F- Q ¢ ~ Fes- W W W Z ~ O w v~ av~3r > ~ -- ~ ~ z W _= O Z to .r ~ Y Z W~ W Z W V¢ O ~ F- m aZ CC a ~3 1-a1-~3st7i ~ ~ ~ of v - 0 ~~ ~3~3r~' ~ - 247 a N _N V L d '~ C LL ~ O ~ ~ O O N t 0 t N to d' O O O N CO M r N O N OD r (O ~ O M ~ ~ ~" V N O M N N r N O O M O O O O ~ ~ 'f O O O O O O O O O to O (O t0 r r O O ~ 1~ M ~- r 00 ~t r N r Of M r CO N N r f0 r r M ~ O M O N to O O r '~t O ~ O a0 M t0 O tp ~ O f0 O M 00 M O <D N M b~ O M r O O N N P N r M M ~ N '- ~ O M n O T O O ~ C 0 t D ~ fh ~ O O M O N O ~ I~ Q r r r ~ "V' r N M (D ~O r N O O O O O O N O O N N M N ~ H O I ' V O O r r M N ~' r ap ~tf r N ,[ O O O t n O O M O O O X 0 0 O t0 O O R M M fD O ~ f0 In r r Of t0 N N tO `7 M M r ~ r (p M M O D O t p O O O O O O N O D a0 ~ O O O r d' r et !'7 Ci OD et V' O .O O n a0 tG M a0 r r r ~ N CD M M d' r r r r r~ N Of N 0 0 0 O O O tq O t0 O O r O In O M N r N ~' O S O W m M ~ ~ t~ CO r r M tp Ip N ~ - 1~ M M N r N r 0 M r M O O O O 0 O O O f D ( 0 N N 00 f~ O (O O ~ to ~ r I~ 0 0 (D O QI O O' M ~ O ~ O r ~p ~ r ~O r ~ r (p r M r M ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ( O O O O t0 N O a0 ~ O CO O 0 0 M ~ G O r O M M V 0 0 ~ O N r N tD ~ r N f~ r ~•- r cp r 'a r r of U C w N w 7 a = ~ o I v ~ ~ c ¢ ~ o y E ~ m• O I I a ~ c ¢~~N ~ ~~~~ ~~ a h V aS ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ of ~ v ~ m ~, tlJ N C~ ~ N .G ~ O '~ Y ~ 7 L O _ 4l QQWLLU' JO.~aaO.d~tn» ~j