Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/13/2004 - Regular Working Document -Subject to Revision Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Action Agenda January 13, 2004 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for January 13, 2004. 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 3:02 p.m. 2. Invocation: Pastor Bob Alderman Shenandoah Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS PMM added a closed session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract for the public safety center where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of appreciation to Joseph McNamara for his service as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2003 1 1 ~ 1. R-011304-1 RCF motion to adopt resolution AYES: Supervisors Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None PRESENT: Supervisor McNamara 2. Certificate of recognition to the following members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: (a) Donald R. Witt for nineteen years of service Certificate of recognition presented to Mr. Witt. Also present were Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, and Janet Scheid, Chief Planner. (b) William Todd Ross for ten years of service Certificate of recognition presented to Mr. Ross. Also present were Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, and Janet Scheid, Chief Planner. 3. Certificate of recognition to the following members of the Board of Equalization: (a) Galen W. Conner for sixteen years of service Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation, accepted the certificate of recognition on behalf of Mr. Conner. (b) Betty (B. J.) Brewer for twelve years of service Certificate of recognition presented to Mrs. Brewer. Also present was Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation. (c) Wanda Manuel for five years of service Certificate of recognition presented to Ms. Manuel. Also present was Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation. D. BRIEFINGS 1. Annual briefing by the Board of Directors of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. (Rita Gliniecki, Chair; Jim Sikkema, Executive Director) Briefing presented by Ms. Gliniecki. Also present were Jim Sikkema, Executive Director, and Hunter Roberts, Executive Assistant. 2 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt resolution accepting the employees of the Roanoke County Treasurer and Commonwealth Attorney's offices into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke County. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) R-011304-2 MAW motion to adopt resolution URC 2. Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards for 2004. (Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board) A-011304-3 RCF motion to approve staff recommendation with the following changes: (1) MAW to serve on the following committees: Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization -Alternate, Social Services Advisory Board; (2) MWA to serve on the Audit Committee and the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission Water Supply Policy Committee URC F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance to approve revisions to the Solid Waste Ordinance. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) JBC motion to approve 1St reading with amendment (AV zoning to be included in list of areas required to have cans removed from the curb by 7 a.m. the day following collection) 2"a reading - 1/27/04 URC 2. First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a portion of a 20' access easement and to accept in exchange a relocated new portion of a 20' access easement across Lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5, "The Groves", owned by Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., to The Groves sewer lift station, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) MAW motion to approve 1St reading 2"a reading - 1/27/04 URC 3 3. First reading of an ordinance to repeal in its entirety Chapter 8 of the Roanoke County Code entitled "Erosion and Sediment Control" and adopt Chapter 8.1 "Erosion and Sediment Control". (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) JBC motion to approve 1St reading 2"d reading - 1/27/04 URC 4. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the quitclaim and release of Roanoke County's interest in a portion of the "old Bushdale Road" pursuant to an agreement with Elga Draper and Lura Draper, Vinton Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) MWA motion to approve 1St reading 2"d reading - 1/27/04 URC G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20' waterline easement dedicated by Subdivision Plat and Revised Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 26-33, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and Plat Book 26, Page 11, respectively, and further shown on the Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 107-113, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 83, across property owned by CBI Developers (Tax Map Nos.27.20-1-29.1, 27.20-4-18 and 27.20-4-19), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 0-011304-4 MWA motion to adopt ordinance AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora 2. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1321, Page 354, and a 10` well lot access easement conveyed to the Board in Deed Book 1044, Page 816, on property owned by the Achievement Center Foundation (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-2-13 and 26.16-2-12), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 0-011304-5 RCF motion to adopt ordinance URC 4 H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appointed by District) 2. Building Code Board of Adjustments & Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) MAW nominated Rodney W. McNeil to serve afour-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. He asked that Mr. McNeil's name be placed on the consent agenda for confirmation at this meeting. 4. Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission JBC nominated Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer, to fill the unexpired three-year term of Alfred C. Anderson, former Treasurer of Roanoke County. This term will expire on June 30, 2004. 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-011304-6 JBC motion to adopt resolution URC 1. Approval of minutes -December 16, 2003 and January 5, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to Southwest Development Financing, fnc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission A-011304-6.a 3. Request from schools to appropriate $72,000 from the fund balance of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Program A-011304-6.b 4. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment excess revenues in the amount of $5,577.58 A-011304-6.c 5 5. Request from schools to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $50 from A. Victor Thomas A-011304-6.d 6. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $6,391 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment (Jaws of Life) A-011304-6.e 7. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate $1,400 of the initial reimbursement and all subsequent reimbursements from the Virginia Department of Health Advanced Life Support Training Fund for use in the annual recertification process for pre-hospital trauma life support A-011304-6.f 8. Request from the Sheriff's Office to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $15,975 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a criminal justice record system improvement program A-011304-6.g J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS None K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request to schedule two public hearings on January 27 and February 10, 2004, to solicit citizen comments on possible funding from the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) Local Innovation Program for entrepreneurial loans to Roanoke County businesses. (Melinda Cox, Existing Business Manager) A-011304-7 RCF motion to schedule public hearings for January 27 and February 10, 2004 URC L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None 6 1 .. ~ M. REPORTS RCF motion to receive and file the following reports URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in November 2003 N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that a house fire occurred in Roanoke County Saturday evening and a County resident lost his life and a volunteer firefighter was injured. He wished the firefighter a speedy recovery and noted that County professionals place their life on the line for every call they answer. (2) He advised that on Saturday, January 17 the Clearbrook Rescue Squad will host a cornbread and bean supper from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Supervisor Church: (1) He thanked Ms. Sara Franklin for her attendance at the Board meetings and stated that she represents the ideal Roanoke County citizen. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He referenced the house fire that occurred on Saturday evening and noted that less than one week ago, Roanoke County graduated 31 new firefighter/paramedics. He stated that they recognize the dangers involved in their profession and will make Roanoke County proud. O. WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Time: 5:04 p.m. until 5:55 p.m. The following members of the Budget Department were present: Brent Robertson, Director; Chad Sweeney, Budget Administrator; Cathy Weaver, Budget Analyst. The CIP Committee members who were present included: Dawn Erdman, Cave Spring District; Jason Perdue, Hollins District; Craig Sharp, Industrial Development Authority; Don Witt, Planning Commission; Chris 7 .. ;. .. Georgoulis, Public Safety; and Jack Griffith, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. Mr. Robertson advised that the committee prioritized the projects based on 12 separate criterions. The criterion were developed using values derived from previously adopted plans, policies, and guidance by the Board. The committee ranked the following projects as Level 1 (highest perceived community value): Fire and Rescue -upgrade/replace paging capabilities; Information Technology - HP migration; Fire and Rescue - EMS data reporting system; Information Technology -network infrastructure upgrade; Public Safety - 800 MHz radio system upgrade; Treasurer -upgrade remittance processing machine; Public Safety Center - option 2 excluding administration offices; Community Development -regional storm water management/flood control. Committee recommendations included the following: (1) Capital maintenance: develop a funding stream for recurring capital needs; consider the possibility of a future general obligation bond issue to meet critical capital needs; establish a sinking fund for future capital asset purchases. (2) Capital maintenance: increase funding of capital maintenance needs so that they do not become capital project needs. (3) Master planning: several departments would benefit from preparing/updating a facilities master plan. (4) Land banking: project future capital needs and acquire sites to be used for these facilities. The Board commended the committee for their work on this project, and requested that the committee meet with staff and develop a value for each project, draft a plan for implementing the priority projects, and identify funding sources. This information will then be reviewed by the Board during the upcoming budget process. 2. Work session to discuss the recently adopted Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for Roanoke County. (Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue) Time: 4:44 p.m. until 5:02 p.m. Fire and Rescue Department staff present at the meeting included: Rick Burch, Chief; Joey Stump, Division Chief -Administration; and Wina Green, Business Coordinator. Chief Burch reviewed the changes made in the recently adopted EOP. He advised that in addition to an EOP, the following are emergency management requirements for localities: State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Program (SHSAS), Local Capability and Assessment Review (LCAR), Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC). Many of these programs, as well as an adopted EOP, must be in place to qualify for grant funding. Chief Burch advised that a practice drill is planned for spring 2004, and the EOP is available on the County's Intranet for review. 8 3. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-7 "Reimbursement of Expenses for Emergency Response". (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) Time: 5:58 p.m. until 6:21 p.m. It was the consensus of the Board to proceed with the following revisions to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting: (1) expand the ordinance to include the offenses of driving without a license and leaving the scene of an accident; (2) change the amount of the fine charged for each offense to the maximum allowed by the state, rather than a specific amount. P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms of a contract with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. At 4:33 p.m., RCF moved to go into closed meeting following work sessions URC The closed meeting was held from 6:21 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-011304-8 RCF moved to adopt the certification resolution URC R. ADJOURNMENT RCF adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. 9 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda January 13, 2004 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for January 13, 2004. 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: Pastor Bob Alderman Shenandoah Baptist 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. Resolution of appreciation to Joseph McNamara for his service as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2003 2. Certificate of recognition to the following members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: (a) Donald R. Witt for nineteen years of service (b) William Todd Ross for ten years of service 3. Certificate of recognition to the following members of the Board of Equalization: (a) Galen W. Conner for sixteen years of service (b) Betty (B. J.) Brewer for twelve years of service (c) Wanda Manuel for five years of service 1 D. BRIEFINGS 1. Annual briefing by the Board of Directors of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. (Rita Gliniecki, Chair; Jim Sikkema, Executive Director) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt resolution accepting the employees of the Roanoke County Treasurer and Commonwealth Attorney's offices into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke County. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 2. Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards for 2004. (Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board) F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES First reading of an ordinance to approve revisions to the Solid Waste Ordinance. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) 2. First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a portion of a 20' access easement and to accept in exchange a relocated new portion of a 20' access easement across Lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5, "The Groves", owned by Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., to The Groves sewer lift station, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 3. First reading of an ordinance to repeal in its entirety Chapter 8 of the Roanoke County Code entitled "Erosion and Sediment Control" and adopt Chapter 8.1 "Erosion and Sediment Control". (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 4. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the quitclaim and release of Roanoke County's interest in a portion of the "old Bushdale Road" pursuant to an agreement with Elga Draper and Lura Draper, Vinton Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20' waterline easement dedicated by Subdivision Plat and Revised Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 26-33, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and Plat Book 26, Page 11, respectively, and further shown on the Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 107-113, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 83, across property owned by CBI Developers (Tax Map Nos.27.20-1-29.1, 27.20-4-18 and 27.20-4-19), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 2 2. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1321, Page 354, and a 10` well lot access easement conveyed to the Board in Deed Book 1044, Page 816, on property owned by the Achievement Center Foundation (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-2-13 and 26.16-2-12), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appointed by District) 2. Building Code Board of Adjustments & Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) 4. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes -December 16, 2003 and January 5, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission 3. Request from schools to appropriate $72,000 from the fund balance of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Program 4. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment excess revenues in the amount of $5,577.58 5. Request from schools to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $50 from A. Victor Thomas 6. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $6,391 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment (Jaws of Life) 7. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate $1,400 of the initial reimbursement and all subsequent reimbursements from the 3 Virginia Department of Health Advanced Life Support Training Fund for use in the annual recertification process for pre-hospital trauma life support 8. Request from the Sheriff's Office to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $15,975 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a criminal justice record system improvement program J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request to schedule two public hearings on January 27 and February 10, 2004, to solicit citizen comments on possible funding from the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) Local Innovation Program for entrepreneurial loans to Roanoke County businesses. (Melinda Cox, Existing Business Manager) L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in November 2003 N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS O. WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) 2. Work session to discuss the recently adopted Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for Roanoke County. (Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue) 3. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-7 "Reimbursement of Expenses for Emergency Response". (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 4 P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms of a contract with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. ADJOURNMENT 5 r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION 011304-1 OF APPRECIATION TO JOSEPH P. MCNAMARA FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2003 WHEREAS, Joseph P. McNamara served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 2003; and WHEREAS, during Mr. McNamara's term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety of accomplishments, including: - Manufacturing and commercial developments resulting in several new businesses moving into Roanoke County; - Existing business expansions in Roanoke County resulting in an estimated investment of over $27 million dollars; - Phase 2 school capital improvements totaling $22 million dollars; - Roanoke County Schools named Gold Medal School District Winner by Expansion Management Magazine and selected as one of the Best 100 Communities for Music Education for the second consecutive year; - Energy Star Label designation at the Roanoke County School Administration Building and Oak Grove Elementary School; - Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award for the Roanoke Valley Greenways Program; - E-2 Award from the Department of Environmental Quality; - Progress on a new Public Safety Center utilizing the Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) process; - Adoption of a revised Emergency Operations Plan to comply with new regulations established by the Department of Homeland Security; - Expansion of career firefighter coverage in Hollins, Catawba, and Masons Cove; - Virginia Association of Counties Fire & Rescue Achievement Award honoring excellence based on innovation; - National accreditation of the Sheriff's Office and re-accreditation of the Police Department; - Expansion of bulk and brush collection services; and - Wireless technology upgrade for the Roanoke County Public Library System. 1 WHEREAS, Chairman McNamara worked diligently during his term to represent the citizens of Roanoke County by promoting regional projects and initiatives to benefit all the residents of the Roanoke Valley and oversaw the creation of the Western Virginia Water Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to Joseph P. McNamara for his service as Chairman during 2003 and for his belief in democracy and championing of citizen participation in local government. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None PRESENT: Supervisor McNamara A COPY TESTE: I o ~ ~X . i/(~Q~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolution of Appreciation File 2 J 4 ~ 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: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to Joseph P. McNamara for his service as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2003 SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to recognize Supervisor McNamara for his services as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors during 2003. -. 1.' F AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOSEPH P. MCNAMARA FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2003 WHEREAS, Joseph P. McNamara served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 2003; and WHEREAS, during Mr. McNamara's term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety of accomplishments, including: - Manufacturing and commercial developments resulting in several new businesses moving into Roanoke County; - Existing business expansions in Roanoke County resulting in an estimated investment of over $27 million dollars; - Phase 2 school capital improvements totaling $22 million dollars; - Roanoke County Schools named Gold Medal School District Winner by Expansion Management Magazine and selected as one of the Best 100 Communities for Music Education for the second consecutive year; - Energy Star Label designation at the Roanoke County School Administration Building and Oak Grove Elementary School; - Virginia Environmental Stewardship Award for the Roanoke Valley Greenways Program; - E-2 Award from the Department of Environmental Quality; - Progress on a new Public Safety Center utilizing the Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) process; - Adoption of a revised Emergency Operations Plan to comply with new regulations established by the Department of Homeland Security; - Expansion of career firefighter coverage in Hollins, Catawba, and Masons Cove; - Virginia Association of Counties Fire & Rescue Achievement Award honoring excellence based on innovation; - National accreditation of the Sheriffs Office and re-accreditation of the Police Department; - Expansion of bulk and brush collection services; and - Wireless technology upgrade for the Roanoke County Public Library System. 1 N `7 WHEREAS, Chairman McNamara worked diligently during his term to represent the citizens of Roanoke County by promoting regional projects and initiatives to benefit all the residents of the Roanoke Valley and oversaw the creation of the Western Virginia Water Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to Joseph P. McNamara for his service as Chairman during 2003 and for his belief in democracy and championing of citizen participation in local government. ~.-4 2 . ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C - ~ C(l -b) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Certificates of recognition to the following members of the Planning Commission: (a) Donald R. Witt for nineteen years of service (b) William Todd Ross for ten years of service APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board wishes to express their appreciation to Mr. Witt and Mr. Ross for their many years of service on the Planning Commission. They are to be commended for their dedication to making Roanoke County a better place to live and for donating their time and talents to this vital commission. Mr. Witt, who represented the Cave Spring Magisterial District, served as a member of the Roanoke County Planning Commission from October 1984 through December 2003. Mr. Ross, who represented the Hollins Magisterial District, served from October 1993 through December 2003. Mr. Witt and Mr. Ross plan to be present at the meeting to accept their Certificate of Recognition. Also in attendance will be Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, and Janet Scheid, Chief Planner. .~ ~-~~~- cQoutttp ~f ~toatW~e CEKTIFICATE OF KECOC~IYITIOI~I Donald RroWitt for nineteen years of service on the Roanoke County Planning Commission > Mr. Witt served on the Planning Commission for nineteen years and two months from October 1984 until December 2003. > Mr. Witt, who represented the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is recognized forthe professionalism he displayed in providing fair representation to all of the citizens of the County, and for the knowledge, creativity, and innovation he exhibited as a member of the Planning Commission. > Mr. Witt contributed significantly to many regional projects including Smith Gap Landfill, Roanoke River Corridor Study, Open Space Steering Committee and the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenways Master Plan. > Mr. Witt provided leadership and was instrumental in the development of many Roanoke County initiatives including: Comprehensive Development Plan Sign Ordinance Clearbrook Overlay District Visioning Steering Committee Blue Ridge Parkway Viewshed Protection Study 1992 Zoning Ordinance > The Board of Supervisors expresses their deepest appreciation to Mr. Witt for his many years of capable and dedicated service to Roanoke County. Presented this 13th day of January, 2004 Rictiarc~C. i~loraLChairman~ ~h~%~ 2~ . (~ ' Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman C~~C 3. "~~'~~~. Joseph B. "Butch" Church ..jb~'eph McNamara (/ Michael A. Wray •'- ~, "" a ctLo~p ~ wee CERTIFICATE OF RECOC~I~IITIOIY wwarsnen To William Todd Ross for ten years of service on the Roanoke County Planning Commission > Mr. Ross served on the Planning Commission for ten years and two months from October 1993 until December 2003. > Mr. Ross, who represented the Hollins Magisterial District, is recognized for the professionalism he displayed in providing fair representation to all the citizens of Roanoke County, and for the knowledge, attentiveness, and courtesy he exhibited as a member of the Planning Commission. > During Mr. Ross' tenure on the Planning Commission, he contributed significantly to many Roanoke County initiatives such as the 1998 Community Plan, the Roanoke County Cluster Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance and the 2004 Community Plan. > The Board of Supervisors expresses their deepest appreciation to Mr. Ross for his many years of capable and dedicated service to Roanoke County. Presented this 13th day of January, 2004 Richard C. Flora, Chairman ~h~~ ~~ Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Joseph B. "Butch° Church ,~6~eph McNamara Michael A. Wray ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C ' 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Certificates of recognition to the following members of the Board of Equalization: (a) Galen W. Conner for sixteen years of service (b) Betty (B.J.) Brewer for twelve years of service (c) Wanda P. Manuel for five years of service APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~,~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board wishes to express their appreciation to Mr. Conner, Mrs. Brewer and Ms. Manuel for their many years of service on the Board of Equalization. They are to be commended for their dedication and professionalism in providing fair representation to all of the citizens of the County. Mr. Conner, who represented the Vinton Magisterial District, served from January 1, 1988 through December 31, 2003. Mrs. Brewer, representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District, served from January 1, 1992 through December 31, 2003. Ms. Manuel, representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, served from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003. Mr. Conner, Mrs. Brewer and Ms. Manuel plan to be present at the meeting to accept their Certificate of Recognition. Also in attendance will be Billy Driver, Director of the Real Estate Valuation Department. C-3.~ c4A' ~ ~e CERTIFICATE OF RECOC~IYITIOI~I AWARDED TO Galen W. Conner for sixteen years of service on the Roanoke County Board of Equalization Mr. Conner was appointed to the Board of Equalization by the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. He served for sixteen years with his term beginning on January 1, 1988, and ending on December 31, 2003. Mr. Conner, who represented the Vinton Magisterial District, is recognized for the professionalism he displayed in providing fair representation to all the citizens of the County, and for his knowledge within the field of real estate. During Mr. Conner's tenure on the Board of Equalization, he also served as Secretary to the Board for many years. The Board of Supervisors expresses their deepest appreciation to Mr. Conner for his many years of capable and dedicated service to Roanoke County. Presented this 13th day of January, 2004 Richard C. Flora, Chairman ~h~~ ~~ . Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman CCU. "~.~'~~~ Joseph B. "Butch" Church ,c,G„(,~.,,,,,,.`~ ph McNamara ~1 w-~.,,.Q Q . l~ Michael A. Wray ~,-~~~ ~o xiurtp of ~Ruattp~e CERTIFICATE OF RECOC~I~IITIOI~I AWARDED TO Betty (B.J.) Brewer for twelve years of service on the Roanoke County Board of Equalization Mrs. Brewer was appointed to the Board of Equalization by the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. She served for twelve years with her term beginning on January 1, 1992, and ending on December 31, 2003. Mrs. Brewer, who represented the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is recognized for the professionalism she displayed in providing fair representation to all of the citizens of Roanoke County. Mrs. Brewer could always be counted upon for her attentiveness and the knowledge that she brought to the Board of Equalization. The Board of Supervisors expresses their deepest appreciation to Mrs. Brewer for her many years of capable and dedicated service to Roanoke County. Presented this 13th day of January, 2004 J. --9 G ~~.~. Richard C. Flora, Chairman ~h~%~ 2~ . Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church eph McNamara ~1 ~,.Q Q • ~-J Michael A. Wray ~~~ ~ (4A~' ~ ~~~~e CEKTIFICATE OF KECOC><IYITIOIY AWARDED TO Wanda P. Manuel for five years of service on the Roanoke County Board of Equalization > Ms. Manuel was appointed to the Board of Equalization by the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. She served for five years with her term beginning January 1, 1999, and ending December 31, 2003. > Ms. Manuel, who represented the W indsor Hills Magisterial District, is recognized for the professionalism she displayed in providing fair representation to all of the citizens of the County, and for the courtesy she extended to the citizens and the other members of the Board. > During 2003, Ms. Manuel served as the Secretary to the Board of Equalization while fulfilling her other responsibilities as a Board member. > The Board of Supervisors expresses their deepest appreciation to Ms. Manuel for her capable and dedicated service to Roanoke County. Presented this 13th day of January, 2004 Richard C. Flora, Chairman ~h u~ 7~ Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman CCU. ,.~~ ~~~~ Joseph B. "Butch" Church ,~6~'eph McNamara Michael A. Wray ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Annual briefing by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~ ~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for an annual briefing by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare. Presenting the briefing will be Rita Gliniecki, Chair of the Board of Directors. Also present will be Jim Sikkema, Executive Director. o-~ BLUER/DCiE BEHAV/ORAL HEALTHCARE MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare is to support and promote the health, independence and self-worth of individuals and families impacted by mental illness, mental retardation and substance abuse by providing quality, community-based services that are responsive to the individual's needs. Report to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County January 73, 2004 ~-1 B/ue Ridg-e Behavioral Healthcare Pro , rq am Highlights -Roanoke County July 1, 2002 -June 30, 2003 This report is offered to provide you with information specific to BRBH's involvement with citizens of Roanoke County. We cover that in the next few pages. But we also want to call your attention to our website, www.brbh.org, which we hope you will visit for a more comprehensive look at our agency and the scope of our work throughout the Roanoke Valley. In fiscal year 2003, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare staff delivered 120,616 units of our various services to 3,163 County residents. The cost to Blue Ridge to provide those services was $3,279,554. The County's local tax contribution to our agency's operations was $117,755. That means that Roanoke County residents received $27.85 worth of services for each tax dollar allocated to their Community Services Board. The following are examples of how Blue Ridge is working for residents of Roanoke County: Prevention, Assessment and Counselin_g Services is the single gateway to agency services, crisis response, comprehensive assessment, and short-term interventions for all mental disabilities. This Department is also home to the agency's prevention services component. • Assessment and Outpatient Services have been made available to individuals who are on electronic monitoring rather than serving a sentence in the County/Salem Jail. • Prevention Services provided a variety of resiliency-building student support groups at four County elementary schools. • Two staff provided clinical or case management services to Spanish- speaking County residents. D-I • Project LINK served ten women with a substance use disorder who were pregnant or parenting young children, and provided case management to five of these women's children. An additional three new mothers received education, referral and follow-up services following birth of newborns. Child and Family Services provides a continuum of early intervention, therapeutic services and supports for families with children who are at risk of developing or who have serious emotional disorders, mental retardation and substance use disorders. • The middle school Day Treatment Program continued to be delivered in partnership with Roanoke County Schools and the Roanoke County Community Policy and Management Team at the Roland E. Cook site in Vinton. These services help to maintain adolescents in this public school site through therapy and case management, thereby avoiding more costly private day school or residential placements. • BRBH Child and Family Services staff are included in the Roanoke County Schools Crisis Plan to participate in crisis triage, assessment, treatment and follow-up services as requested. • BRBH certified trainers provided atwo-day Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) for Roanoke County Schools Guidance Counselors. Community Support Services is the Department that provides the necessary services and supports to consumers with long-term mental disabilities to maximize each individual's potential for independence, improved quality of life, and optimum level of functioning. • Our Case Managers worked with 134 Roanoke County consumers who have mental retardation and 233 individuals with a serious mental illness, providing almost 8,500 hours of service through our Adult Resource Management components. ~-i • A consumer who lives in Roanoke County has ongoing issues with anxiety. This client has progressed over the years from staying at home and not going out, to a point where now he enjoys an active life and is married, works, owns his own home and is attending school to get his Masters. The consumer has utilized Case Management to obtain these goals over the years. While he has ongoing needs that arise, he knows he can call his Case Manager to work on daily stressors, and help him keep focused on his goal of becoming a professional. On the following page is a table that displays Service data for Roanoke County in the manner the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services requires of us. It shows in summary: County clients seen according to service, the number of units of each type of service delivered, an indicator as to whether a given service unit is an hour, a day, etc., and the total cost of each type of service. D-1 B/ue Rid a Behavioral Hea/thcare Directl Funded Pro rams - FY 2003 Performance Re ort Roanoke Count Unduplicated Client Count b Service Number of Units Units of Service Total Cost of Services Mental Health Services Emer enc Services 296 2,271 SH 109223, Out atient Services 361 3,505 SH 295,502 Intensive In-Home Services 9 989 SH 63,750 Case Mana ement Services 233 4,253 SH 292,970 Children's Da Treatment 17 605 DSH 126,709 Rehabilitation Mountain House 21 4,137 DSH 75,510 Alternative Da Su ort 10 33 SH 1.588 Su ortive Residential Services 3 805 SH 21,321 Assertive Communit Treatment ALF SH Assertive Communit Treatment PACT 11 1,358 SH 86,394 Purchase of Individualized Services 3 6 48,276 MH Subtotal 964 17,962 $1,121,243 Mental Re tardation Services Case Mana ement Services 134 4,219 SH 94,401 Alternative Da Su ort 56 196 SH 4,638 Rehabilitation 4 178 DSH 55,844 Su orted Em to ment 5 261 D 15,168 Con re ate Residential Services 20 80,223 SH 1,287,677 Su ervised Residential Services BD Su ortive Residential Services 27 3,146 SH 39,310 Famil Su ort 11 28 F 14,375 Earl Intervention 23 251 SH 25,680 MR Subtotal 280 8s,5o2 $1,537,os3 Substance Abuse Services Out atient Services 164 5,366 SH 148,339 Case Mana ement Services 99 1,821 SH 101,327 Da Treatment Services 9 613 DSH 13,727 Hi hl Intensive Residential Services 31 105 BD 21,643 Intensive Residential 33 1,261 BD 161,782 Jail-Based Habilitation 6 2,896 BD 32,484 SA Subtotal 342 12,062 $479,302 Preve ntion Services MH Prevention Services 870 719 SH 36,551 SA Prevention Plus 707 1,371 SH 105,365 Prevention Subtotal 1,577 2,090 $141,916 Grand Total 3,163 120,616 $3,279,554 FY 2003 Local Tax Share $117,755 Service /Local Dollar $27.85 Units of Service: SH =Service Hours DSH= Day Support Hours D=Days BD=Bed Days F=Famnies ~ L AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION 011304-2 ACCEPTING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY TREASURER AND ROANOKE COUNTY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY INTO THE PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the employees of the Roanoke County Treasurer and the employees of the Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney, said constitutional officers having heretofore agreed in writing that their employees be accepted into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke, as authorized in Chapter 6 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke, be and such employees hereby are accepted into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke; and 2. That all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke as fully set forth in the Roanoke County Employee Handbook shall from and after the adoption hereof be applicable to each of the employees of the aforesaid offices; and 3. That the elected officer of the constitutional office shall be exempt from the terms, provisions, and conditions of the County personnel system. The Chief Deputy in each said office shall be exempt from the terms, provisions, and conditions of the County personnel system relating the application, qualification, 1 J ~4. appointment, disciplining, dismissal, and grievance procedure provisions of the Roanoke County Employee Handbook. The Chief Deputy of each said officer is deemed to be a confidential, policymaking position. These positions shall remain subject to the express provisions of Section 15.2-1603 of the State Code; and 4. The participation of the employees of these constitutional offices in the County personnel system shall continue until revoked by the constitutional officer, either by written notice to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or by the election, qualification, and assumption of office by a new individual; and 5. The effective date of this resolution shall be January 13, 2004. 6. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the Roanoke County Treasurer and the Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~Q1Q.~ ~~ . y~~~Q) Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer Randy Leach, Commonwealth's Attorney Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L` ° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to adopt resolution accepting the employees of the Roanoke County Treasurer and Commonwealth Attorney's Offices into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~:~IYICtI~ ~f SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Section 6.02 of the Roanoke County Charter provides for a personnel system. The personnel system includes a classification plan for service, a staff development plan, a uniform pay plan and a procedure for resolving grievances for employees of the Board. Employees of constitutional officers may participate in the personnel system "at the discretion of the board and upon concurrence of the constitutional officer." In 1980 the Board adopted resolutions accepting the employees of the several constitutional officers into the County personnel system. Similar action was taken in 1988 upon the election of two new constitutional officers: Mr. Burkhart and Mr. Kavanaugh. In 1992 the Board adopted resolutions accepting the employees of the Sheriff and the Clerk of the Circuit Court upon the election of Mr. Holt and Mr. McGraw. In 2001 the Board adopted a resolution accepting the employees of the Commissioner of the Revenue upon the election of Nancy Horn. The election and assumption of office of a new constitutional officer revokes the former constitutional officer's decision to participate in the County personnel system. Accordingly a decision by the new constitutional officer to participate in the County personnel system is necessary. r Based upon Section 6.02 of the Charter and historical precedent from 1980, each new constitutional officer has been requested to indicate his or her concurrence in participating in the County's personnel system. Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney Randy Leach and Roanoke County Treasurer F. Kevin Hutchins have indicated their willingness for their offices to participate in the County personnel system. The proposed resolution accepts the employees of the Commonwealth Attorney's office and the Treasurer's office into the personnel system, provides for an exemption for the elected official and his chief deputy (the chief deputy is deemed to be a confidential, policy-making position), as well as a revocation procedure and effective date. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the proposed resolution and accept the employees of the Commonwealth's Attorney and Treasurer into the Roanoke County personnel system. 2. Refuse to accept the employees of these constitutional officers into the Roanoke County personnel system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed Resolution. E -~ I 2 . - L -- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY TREASURER AND ROANOKE COUNTY COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY INTO THE PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the employees of the Roanoke County Treasurer and the employees of the Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney, said constitutional officers having heretofore agreed in writing that their employees be accepted into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke, as authorized in Chapter 6 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke, be and such employees hereby are accepted into the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke; and 2. That all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of the pay and classification plan and the personnel system of the County of Roanoke as fully set forth in the Roanoke County Employee Handbook shall from and after the adoption hereof be applicable to each of the employees of the aforesaid offices; and 3. That the elected officer of the constitutional office shall be exempt from the terms, provisions, and conditions of the County personnel system. The Chief Deputy in each said office shall be exempt from the terms, provisions, and conditions of the County personnel system relating the application, qualification, 1 . ~-i appointment, disciplining, dismissal, and grievance procedure provisions of the Roanoke County Employee Handbook. The Chief Deputy of each said officer is deemed to be a confidential, policymaking position. These positions shall remain subject to the express provisions of Section 15.2-1603 of the State Code; and 4. The participation of the employees of these constitutional offices in the County personnel system shall continue until revoked by the constitutional officer, either by written notice to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or by the election, qualification, and assumption of office by a new individual; and 5. The effective date of this resolution shall be January 13, 2004. 6. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the Roanoke County Treasurer and the Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney. 2 ACTION NO. 011304-3 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: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards for 2004 SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a list of current Board Member committee assignments. The appointments which are specific to the Chairman and Vice Chairman are indicated on the attachment and committee assignments have been changed accordingly. Also included in the listing are the vacancies which resulted due to the retirement of Supervisor Minnix. Appointments will need to be made to fill these vacancies. The Board may make any desired modifications to the appointments. Many of the appointments are for specified terms and, whenever possible, changes to these appointments should be made at the expiration of the term. Below is listed information regarding several of the committees: • Liaisons to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACoI: In 1994, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to interact directly with VACo regarding legislative matters. At a 1994 meeting, the Board recommended that the Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serve in this capacity; however, any Board member is eligible for appointment. In 1992, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to work directly with the regional representative on the VACo Board of Directors. The Chairman has served in this capacity for several years, but any Board member may be appointed. • Roanoke Vallev Economic Development Partnership The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serves on this organization. Accordingly, it is recommended that Chairman Flora be appointed to this position. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the 2004 committee assignments. VOTE: Supervisor Flora motion to approve staff recommendation with the following changes: (1) Supervisor Wray to serve on the following committees: Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization -Alternate, Social Services Advisory Board; (2) Supervisor Altizer to serve on the Audit Committee and the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission Water Supply Policy Committee Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Board Members 2 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2004 -CURRENT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS RICHARD C. FLORA • Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (Chairman) • Virginia Association of Counties Liaison (Chairman) • Urban Partnership (Chairman) • Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance (Chairman) • Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2-year term expires 5/5/05). Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, former Clerk of Circuit Court, is currently serving as his designee on this committee. • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/01/05) • Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (4-year term expires 7/1/06) • School Construction Committee (Chairman of this committee in his capacity as Director of Operations for Schools and not as a Board Member. ) MICHAEL W. ALTIZER • Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Liaison (Vice-Chairman) • Audit Committee • Roanoke County Cable Television Committee • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Water Supply Policy Committee • Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee • Western Virginia Water Authority JOSEPH B. CHURCH • Roanoke County Cable Television Committee (representing Catawba District) • Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority -Alternate (4-year term expires 7/1 /06) JOSEPH MCNAMARA • Audit Committee • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/05) • School Construction Committee (appointed by the Board of Supervisors on 1/13/98) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/1/05) MICHAEL A. WRAY • Social Services Advisory Board (4-year term expires 8/1/06) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/04) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization Alternate (3-year term expires 7/1 /05) 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: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards for 2004 SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a list of current Board Member committee assignments. The appointments which are specific to the Chairman and Vice Chairman are indicated on the attachment and committee assignments have been changed accordingly. Also included in the listing are the vacancies which resulted due to the retirement of Supervisor Minnix. Appointments will need to be made to fill these vacancies. The Board may make any desired modifications to the appointments. Many of the appointments are for specified terms and, whenever possible, changes to these appointments should be made at the expiration of the term. Below is listed information regarding several of the committees: • Liaisons to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo): In 1994, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to interact directly with VACo regarding legislative matters. At a 1994 meeting, the Board recommended that the Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serve in this capacity; however, any Board member is eligible for appointment. E-~ In 1992, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to work directly with the regional representative on the VACo Board of Directors. The Chairman has served in this capacity for several years, but any Board member may be appointed. • Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serves on this organization. Accordingly, it is recommended that Chairman Flora be appointed to this position. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the 2004 committee assignments. ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2004 -CURRENT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS RICHARD C. FLORA • Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (Chairman) • Virginia Association of Counties Liaison (Chairman) • Urban Partnership (Chairman) • Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance (Chairman • Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2-year term expires 5/5/05). Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes, former Clerk of Circuit Court, is currently serving as his designee on this committee. • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/04) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/01 /05) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Water Supply Policy Committee Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (4-year term expires 7/1/06) • School Construction Committee (Chairman of this committee in his capacity as Director of Operations for Schools and not as a Board Member.) MICHAEL W. ALTIZER • Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Liaison (Vice-Chairman) • Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee • Roanoke County Cable Television Committee • Western Virginia Water Authority JOSEPH B. CHURCH ~~~~ • Roanoke County Cable Television Committee (representing Catawba District) • Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority -Alternate (4-year term expires 7/1 /06) JOSEPH MCNAMARA • Audit Committee • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (3-year term expires 6/30/05) • School Construction Committee (appointed by the Board of Supervisors on 1/13/98) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization (3-year term expires 7/1 /05) Below are the committee vacancies which have resulted from the retirement of Supervisor H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix: • Audit Committee • Social Services Advisory Board (4-year term expires 8/1 /06) • Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization Alternate (3-year term expires 7/1 /05) 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: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 13, 2004 First reading of an ordinance to approve revisions to the Solid Waste Ordinance Anne Marie Green Director of General Services Elmer C. Hodge £~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Recommend approval. As discussed in the work session held on November 18, 2003, we have met with citizen groups throughout the County to resolve as many of the issues as possible prior to implementation. Staff will continue to work with neighborhood groups in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Solid Waste Ordinance was last revised in 1994. Since that time, various issues have arisen which need to be addressed including service on private roads and in townhouse and condominium developments, the type of waste which is acceptable for automated and bulk and brush pick up, and when cans should be placed at and removed from the curb. In September, 2003, the Board toured several areas which highlighted some of these concerns and in November, 2003, held a work session to discuss various proposed provisions. Based on the Board's directions, staff has revised the ordinance and a copy is attached. The major changes are as follows: Private roads -the current code requires that three or more houses must be located on a private road in order to receive service, and that waivers of liability be provided by all property owners. The new version adds a provision requiring that service to a road must be approved by the Director of General Services. A copy of the policy that will be used in making this determination is attached, and is based on safety for County vehicles and personnel, as well as the safety of County residents. Currently, the automated trucks travel on roads which require driving in reverse long distances where there is no area for turning around. Many of the Solid Waste Division's ~~ accidents occur during backing situations, which are extremely dangerous, given the size of the truck and the visibility provided by side mirrors. The other requirements for service on private roads have not been fully maintained in the past, and staff will be following up to make sure that all necessary hold harmless agreements are on file. Charges for premium and non-resident service -the current code provides for premium (backdoor) pickup and service to non-residents for a fee. The current fee for premium service is $8.00/month for up to 100 feet of service, and an additional $5.00 charge for each additional 100 feet or fraction thereof. Non County residents currently pay $10.00/month for pickup. The new ordinance has changed those fees to $15.00/month for basic premium service, with $10/each additional 100 feet, and $20.00/month for non County residents. These fees are more in line with the cost of providing the service. • Dumpster Service -the County currently provides a rebate to condominiums and townhouses which use dumpster service instead of county provided pickup. The cost of this service includes vendor overhead, profit and higher tipping fees. Additionally, the County and the School system also pay private dumpster services for pickup at various County and School facilities. The total paid for these services annually is $160,000. This contract has expired, and has been renewed on a temporary basis. The County can provide this service by purchasing an automated dumpster truck and containers for County and townhouse/condominium facilities. The Schools will also need to purchase dumpster containers and cover the tipping fees. The ordinance contains a provision authorizing the Solid Waste Division to provide dumpster service and staff will include the cost of implementing the service in the upcoming budget process. Types of waste collected -the new ordinance contains more specific regulations concerning the types of waste which will not be collected by the County -this includes automobile parts, ashes and construction .waste. There are also more specific rules concerning how to dispose of certain substances, such as needles, latex paint and pet waste. • Additional containers -currently commercial enterprises which need three or fewer 96 gallon cans receive County trash service. Under the current ordinance, the businesses receive those cans for free; the proposed ordinance provides one can for free, with the option to purchase two additional cans. County residents currently receive one can for free, and can receive an additional can for free if there are 5 or more residents in their household -otherwise, they can purchase an additional can. The new ordinance changes that threshold to six residents. Size of brush -the current ordinance required that limbs be no larger than 3 inches in diameter. That size was based on the old equipment used for this purpose, and the new ordinance raises that to 6 inches in diameter, which will make it easier for citizens to dispose of this waste. 2 ~~ Amount of bulk -the old ordinance restricted a bulk pickup to six items. This has been changed to a pick up truck load, which allows residents to dispose of more waste at one time. Timing of placing items at the curb - in response to citizen requests, which seem to be isolated to the urban areas, the proposed ordinance requires that cans be removed from the curb no later than 7 a.m. the day following collection in areas zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3. The proposed ordinance also changes the requirement that bulk and brush be placed out no earlier than 6 p.m. the day before pickup, and allows it to be placed at the curb the Saturday before the pick up day. Citizens have indicated that it is unrealistic to require placing large items and brush piles out during the week, since most work of this type is performed on the weekends. Penalties -the new ordinance provides that a resident not complying with the regulations can be denied access to solid waste service. This provision was included previously in the recycling part of the Code, and has not been expanded to include the entire Solid Waste Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: As the County moves away from the manual service, more residents may opt for premium garbage service, which will increase the revenues received in this category. Additionally, by raising the rate for citizens outside the County, some currently receiving the service may choose to use alternate methods to dispose of their garbage. This ordinance also approves dumpster service as an alternative for condominiums and townhouses. Because the purchase of this equipment will allow the Solid Waste Division to also serve County and School facilities, it will pay for itself in less than three years. Implementing this will require additional funding for a truck and containers, which will be addressed in the upcoming budget process by both the County and the School System. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of this ordinance. 3 F-i COUNTY OF ROANOKE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUBJECT: Solid Waste Private Road Collection POLICY NUMBER GS002 DATE ISSUED February 1, 2004 PAGE 1 OF LAST DATE REVISED February 1, 2004 AUTHORIZATION PURPOSE To provide guidelines for determining whether solid waste pickup can be provided on individual private roads. DEFINITIONS Private Road - a road, driveway or parking lot which is not maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Residential Solid Waste Collection - pick up of household trash and bulk and brush provided by Roanoke County to homes as identified in the Solid Waste Ordinance. Commercial Solid Waste Collection -pick up of non-hazardous solid waste, not including bulk and brush, provided by Roanoke County to small businesses as identified in the Solid Waste Ordinance. POLICY The primary function of the Roanoke County Solid Waste Division is to provide residential garbage and bulk/brush pick up to every County home. The Division also provides garbage service only to small businesses which meet the definition provided in the Solid Waste Ordinance. The standard of service for the County is automated pickup, using a County provided trash can and an automated truck. This requires that residents bring their cans to either a public road, or a private road which has been approved for pickup service. Bulk and brush are picked up with rear loaders and knuckleboom trucks and the same criteria apply. Backyard premium service is provided for a fee, and this service is also provided for free for those physically unable to take an automated can to the curb. _'" SUBJECT: Solid Waste Private POLICY NUMBER DATE ISSUED LAST REVISION DATE: Page 2 Road Collection GS002 February 1, February 1, 2004 2004 Pick up on private roads is available if the following three conditions are met: • Three or more houses are located on the road All owners of the road sign a County provided waiver form which absolves the County from paying for damage to the road due stemming from its use by County vehicles • The road is safe for use by the automated trucks The Solid Waste ordinance allows the Director of General Services to determine the issue of safety on private roads. In making this determination, the following criteria will be used: • Adequate space for turning around. Automated trucks will not service roads which require backing in either direction. • Suitable surface for traction for the automated trucks. While paving is not required, gravel and dirt roads must be passable to receive service. There may be times when a road becomes temporarily impassable, particularly due to weather, and service will not be provided until the road is again safe for the automated trucks to use. • Suitable clearance for the automated trucks. Roads which have low utility lines and/or low hanging limbs and branches will not be serviced. • Bridges which can support the weight of the automated trucks. Any private road with a bridge not capable of carrying at least XX tons will not be serviced. • Due to the topography of Roanoke County, some private roads may have a slope which is unsafe for use by large trucks. This may depend on the surface of the road and other conditions, and safety of a particular road will be determined on a case-by-case basis. When a private road has been determined to be unsafe, the Solid Waste Division will work with the residents to find a suitable alternative area for the placement of the automated cans. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20. SOLID WASTE OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY TO PROVIDE REVISED DEFINITIONS AND REVISED PROVISIONS FOR COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE FROM RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS WHEREAS, the current solid waste ordinance for Roanoke County was adopted in 1994, and with the passage of time numerous changes to this ordinance are necessary to reflect changed circumstances in the collection of solid waste; and WHEREAS, certain change are needed to improve the safety, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the service; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2004, and the second hearing was held on January 27, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That Chapter 20. Solid Waste of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended to read and provide as follows: ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 20-1. Definitions. The following words and terms, as used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: ,~, ~,utomated_rcollection; A _mechanical_lnethod _of_ garbac,~e collection utilizing_ a `, =' vehicle equipped with a hydraulic arm that empties special containers provided bathe ~ \ County ~` 1 ~-i rush collection: Curbside collection of brush, small tree limbs, and other ,,- ----------- - i-=-------------------------- -----------------~ arboreal materials from residential customers.. a ~~ Bulk collection: jylanual curbside collection from _residential customers _of ~~~, appliances, furnaces, air conditioners, furniture, carpeting{ rugs,_bagged leaves ands ~ `~ grass boxes four (4) unmounted tires and other permissible household items too large ~ ~, ` or heavy for garbage cans,_ ~,~~ Commercial collection~ioanoke County's limited curbside collection of_ arba e_ ~~ ` placed in approved containers generated by licensed business establishments, including 3-5 family rental properties 1-5 unit retail complexes churches and church- ~~, run daycares,_ Construction/ demolition waste: env structural waste_material_produced_in_the construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of buildings, homes, industrial plants, ~; , pavements and structures including but not limited to, lumber, concrete, asphalt °~~', pavement, roofing tile, plaster board, piping and all other similar items. `;, 0 Contractor/Commercial waste: Waste material, including construction/demolition ,`~, waste resulting from work performed under contract for consideration. This includes `, `; but is not limited to trimming yard maintenance and remodeling or other home repair. ~~ ` Curbside collection_ The collection of solid waste xhat_ _as _been placed no farther than five (5) feet from a curb or edge of a qualified road. ^„ \~ , ~~ Curbside recycle collection: Curbside collection of recyclable materials derived ~~ F• - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ ~ from residential customers.._ ~~ Debris waste_~Stumps, lops, limbs, wood, brush,Jeaveszsoil_and rock from land clearing operations. Dumpster service: The collection of solid waste utilizing vehicles and equipment at eligible facilities including schools, public buildings, townhouse and condiminiums. Deleted: Backyard co-lectron means at-the-house cAllecfron for ckizens who eitlier are physician certified as unable to carry waste to the street or who pay an extra fee for the service. ¶ Deleted: means Roanoke County's c Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, Not Italic ~:.® Deleted: means Roanoke Countys Deleted: or Delel~d: and other white goods derived from. households. Deleted: service means Deleted: waste generated,by tbmmerciaf establishments. For the .purpose of this document commercial also includes churches and church- run daycares. Deleted: Commercial waste means at solid. waste generated by establishments engaged in business operations other than manufacturing. ¶ Deleted: and Deleted: means Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Not Italic Deleted: means t' Deleted: material Deleted: have Deleted: means the c Deleted: households. ' ' Deleted: means s Deleted: and Free loader: ~umpster-style trailer which may be reserved by Roanoke_ County_,,- Deleted: maenad residential customers for one weekday or one weekend. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ - Deleted: residents Garbage~_ Solid and semi-solid items including discarded food wastes, wastes , _ - Deleted: means 1) discarded food likely to decompose, bottles, waste paper, cans and clothing. dw~o s~~asceallelytb Hazardous waste~__ "Hazardous substances" as defined by the Virginia_,,- Deleted:-meansa'hazaraous Hazardous Mana ement Waste Regulation; eosin a den er to human health, harm to waste"asdef.,~dbythevirginia g Q g Hazardous Management Waste the environment, including but not limited to oil-based paint, insecticides, herbicides, Regulation. poisons, corrosives, combustibles, caustics, acids, motor oils and gasoline. -I Household waste: ,~Von_hazardous material, including_garbage and_trash, derived,-- Deleted:-refuse means any waste - - - - - - - - - - - - - - material (nonhazardous), from households. Industrial waste_ any _solid_ waste _ generated _by _manufacturing _or_ industrial_, - process that is not a regulated hazardous waste. ,' anual collection: emoval of solid waste materials at the curb b personnel as j ~!''-- --- -~ --- ----------------------y-- ---- ---- -- ---- distinguished from automated collection. '~, Ph sy ically-challenged service: .Refuse pickup at the house for citizens who are physician-certified as unable to transport garbage to the street. Private road: A road not in the primary or secondary system. See also "Qualified Road" below. ,~ Premium a,~rbage collection: EOptional pickup of garbage from a residentialJ~%"~ customer for a fee. „~, Residential customers~County residents living in single-family_homes~ncluding~~ ,~ individually~owned townhouseS.duplexes, single lot mobile homes and condominium, _ J_ _ ' Residential collections _ Garbage. bulk and brush collection from residential_ , - customer's dwellings. Recvclables: Newspaper. cardboard, office paper, aluminum, copper, steel, tin auto batteries, motor oil. ,' Qualified road_ ~ road in the primary or seconda s stem_of highways_in_the,~~ •------------- ----------- ----~'--y - - Commonwealth of Virginia. This term also includes private roads meeting specific ~'~ Count prescribed conditions, as noted in Section 20-23 below. Seasonal collectior~ollection of Christmas trees and_bagg_ed leaves, during applicable times of the year. ~~ ,~~ „~ ~~, Solid waste_„_ Solid and semi-solid materials includin4 household~arbage, vard `;, waste. brush, bulk household waste. unmounted tires and other permissible_ds__carded l~, ~, non-hazardous materials. Yard waste: _ _ Lawn_ clppings,_ small_ brush and_ twigs, shrubbery_ clppingsl bagged leaves. ~~ ' Sec. 20-2. Reserved. ~, Secs. 20-3--20-20. Reserved. .~ ARTICLE II. COLLECTION BY COUNTY Sec. 20-21. Article not applicable to Town of Vinton. This article shall not apply to residents or commercial or industrial establishments of the Town of Vinton, Virginia, an incorporated town lying within the boundaries of the county, since the council for the town has provided for solid waste collection for the residents of the town. - Deleted: (Code 1971, § 14-7; Ord. ~-------------------------------------------------------------------~ No. 72694-4.§x.7-26-94) Sec. 20-22. Responsibility of county administrator under article. The administration of this article, including the establishment of a budget for providing effective solid waste collection service; the hiring of all employees necessary for providing such service; the billing of persons receiving such service; and all other matters related thereto shall be the responsibility of the county administrator; provided, that all matters pertaining to the establishment of an annual budget and the establishment of collection rates and charges shall be approved by the board of supervisors. - Deleted: (Code 1971,§ 14-5; Ord... •---------- ------------ ---------------- -~~ No: 72694-4,§1.7-26-94)¶ Sec. 20-23. Right to, and application for, service. All county residents shall be entitled to receive solid waste collection service_ , , - bDelecaa: ~?mss a d~~rnporations -------------------------------------------- consistent with the provisions of this article, subject to the determination of the county located ~ the county, administrator, or his designee, regarding the economic feasibility of providing such service to any particular location subject to the provisions of this chapter and the policies of the board of supervisors. Any person desiring such service shall make application through the office of general services. ~~ _ Arrangements for payment, if_ , , - required, ~Shall_be made at the time of application. Solid waste collection service shall be provided to County residents from_and along a_ _ _ _ qualified road. This service may be_provided from and along a private road under the__ _ _ following conditions• (i) there are at least three homes on the road, (ii) the county has written permission from all owners to be on the road the owner/s assume the risk of any damage to the private road arising from the provision of such service by the county. and viii) the Director of General Services has approved the collection. This approval shall be ~~, onyupontheinvitationof based on the feasibility and safety of operating refuse collection vehicles on the private ,' theowne-,andupontheowner road. 'assuming the risk of any damage to ' ~---------------------- - ------- - theprrvateroadarisingtnxnthe provision of such service by the Sec. 20-24. Specific collection categories. C01"~''~ (Gods 1971, § 14-6; Ord. No. 72694- 4, § 1,7.26-94j ~` J J~oanoke County shall provide weekly curbside garbaae collection of household_ - - - ~~~ ta) ___ waste at no charge ~o all_resid_ential customers,~meetin~requirements of this chapter, in_ - _ - Deleted: once per week curbside Roanoke County. To receive curbside collection,_, the following general rules must be__ ~Ni~ followed: Deletxid: senrx:e • All containers placed~vithin five ~5) feet of the_curbline_of agualified ro_adby_7:00•_-_-- a.m. of the scheduled collection day. `- • In R-1 R-2 and R-3 zoning districts containers shall be removed from the public '. street right-of-way no later than E7.00 .a m. of the dayr following the scheduled collection day. • No dead animals hazardous material automobile parts, ashes, liquids, debris, rocks or construction waste contractor/commercial waste, or any other material deemed unsafe for collection shall be placed in the containers for collection. • Sharps and needles must be sealed in proper needle disposal containers or other heavy capped plastic containers such as detergent bottles, milk iugs or soft drink bottles. • Pet feces must be double bagged before being placed in containers for collection. Deleted: housenolds • Latex paint may be placed in containers after it has completely solidified. ; Delef~drhouse ' ~ Deleted: householder Specific Rules Pertaining to Automated Collection ,' ~r~~ ~~;~,et5~ '~, All residential customers within the automated service area will receive one; ~ %;,;' automated container. Weekly collection will only be for household waste, garbage and %,';',~ yard waste placed within the container. The containers are assigned to the structure. %,;;'' not to the occupants Those households with_six_6_ r m_ore_occupants,will be entitled~;,',~~ to one additional automated contained No more than two (2~ containers per residential_,',~ customer will be allowed. When set t_o_t_h_e_c_u_r_b_lin_e_,_e_a_c_h_ _c_on_t_a_in_e_r_m_u_st_ _ha_ve_ _a_t le_a_s_t~' five (5) feet of clearance on all sides. _ _ • The replacement fee for a pontainer shall be established by the Solid Waste-_~ Manaaer subject to the approval of the County Administrator. `;~~~ • Residents may be charged for repairs or replacement of containers if the loss or '~~~, damage is due to negligence of the customer as determined by the Solid Waste ';;~`, ~~ Manager. ~~`~ ~~ ~~ Physically-Challenged Collection '~ ~~~ ~ ~ ack and household waste collection will be rovided to residential customers --y ------------ - - -- -p--------- .when everyone_living_in_the_structure is disabled or handicapped and unable to transport_~~~ the refuse to the curb. A Physician's certification of handicaps or disabilities is required ', ~, for all individuals residing in the household. Physically-challenged ~esidents_will be ~~,~ required to renew this certification gn an annual basis. The followin4 additional criteria ~, apply Deleted:: people Deleted: ,upon requeet Deleted: All others wal be required to purchase the second container. Residents will be charged for any ca~tainer damaged due to negl'gence. No more than two (2) containers per household will be albwed. Deleted: Weekly. collection will be for househokl refuse, garbageand yard waste ony. No dead animals, hazardous waste or any other matsrials deemed unsafe for county manpower or equipment or disposal n the: regional landfill will Ue collected: Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 035",Hanging: _0.25" Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: bst, stolen, or damaged Deleted: sixty-five doNars ($65.00} Formatted: Justified, Indent: First liner 0" Deletede (b) Deleted: households in which Deletedd`R Deletedo annuaAy. ,~.._- ~ I 71 • Customers receivinq this service are limited to one container. ~- - - Formattedp Bullets and Numbering • Customers will be subiect to all automated guidelines except placing container at curb. • All materials placed in containers for collection must be bagged. • Container weight is limited to 30 lbs. Deleted:... (c) Premium refuse ' .collection servbe will be provided to • This service is not available for bulk and brush collection. ,' all residential households for normal ~ household refuse only on an Premium Garbage Collection ~' individual application basis. ~ Deleted: eight dollars ($B.00) i ~ ' Fornwtted: Bullets and Numbenng Optional back~rard service may be available to residential customers for_, ~ , household waste only by application. The charge for premium backyard collection will ,' ;, be a minimum of fifteen dollars ($15.00 per month and will include service_up to oneJ' ; hundred (100) feet from the curbside pickup location. For each additional one hundred ; ;, (100) feet or fraction thereof an additional ten dollars ($10.00) charge will be assessed. ; ;; The premium refuse collection charges shall be paid in advance on a quarterly basis. ~; The following additional criteria apply: I ~I I ,I • Customers receivinq this service are limited to one container. ~~ ;; • Customers will be subject to all automated guidelines except placing container at ;; curb. ' I' • All materials placed in containers for collection must be bagged. ; ~~ , • Container weight is limited to 30 lbs. ; ~ ,', • This service is not available for bulk and brush collection. ~;~ ,';, ,,~ ~ '~, '~~. ~x , • Anon-refundable~pplication fee~n the amount of twenty dollars~$20.00~ shall be-°" ' made in advance together with proper application forms from the Solid Waste ~' ' ~ ~r Division of General Services. ' ,, ,,, Commercial Collection ' ~ ' ~,~, i , ~, ,j=ioanoke Counter shall provide free weekly curbside collection of 4arbage tom ~;;,'~ licensed commercial establishments (including churches and church-run daycares), ~ "'~~ ~'~~~ generating not more than three (3) Count r~provided automated containers per week. ~,;;'~ ,' This service will be_provided_by application only through the office of General Services. %4"' The aunty will not provide_collectiorL to_anY apartment~ffice. or retail complexes of~',~~ ; more than five (5) commercial establishments or to mobile homeparks of an~r size. _ _ _ _ J' ' i The County will provide licensed commercial establishments one (1) container at ' no cost the commercial establishment may purchase two (2) additional containers. ; Commercial establishments generating over three _hundred_ X300)_ gallons _of~ refuse per week are xequired _to_secure_private_collections The_followin4 condi_ti_o_n_s apply to Commercial Collection: Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: '0.25" Deleted: <#>FOr each additanal one hundred (100) feet or fractahthereof Dyer the fiM~l one hundred (100) feet,'. an addltionsl five dollars ($5.00) charge will be made. Premium refuse couection charge per month is as folbws for thud"stance ndicated: ¶ ~: 100 feet or less: Eight dollars ($13.00) per month (fNe dollars ($5.00) foc each additbnal one hundred (100) teeg: Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: An Deleted: charge Formatted: Justified, Fndent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25" Deleted: approved by the county... Deleted: Deleted: (d) Commercial collection SeNICB Deleted: c Deleted: `service -- Deletad: or ' Deleted:r Deleted: units or any Deleted: Roanoke County shall provide free once per week service to aN other Ncensed commercial establishments generating not more than ten (10) thirty-galbn cans or three. (3) ninety-five-galbn automated containers per week (total not to exceed three hundred (300) gallons)..: Commercial customers must place aH containers ti one central bcation. Refuse mustbe at the collection point by 7:00 a.m. on the scheduled collection day. ¶ All generators of Deleted: not eligDle for oounty collection and will be - t'' • Commercial customers within the automated service area will be subject to theme - - - - rules pertaining to standard automated collection and all County solid waste rules. ~ . • Bulk/brush or bagged leaf collection is not available to commercial customers %,' ,, , '~, ,, , Non-Resident Collection: '~ ~,' „, „ „~ ,' J~oanoke County mays at its option, provide weekl~r garbage collection ~o nearb _ ; `„',;~~' non-county residents upon application and approval. A month) ee of twenty dollars_~u,;;~" ($~OZ~will be re uire These customers are allowed only one container and they will beJ%' , required to pay a monthly rental fee of $1 00 for the use of the container. Non-Roanoke ;, County residents are not eligible for bulk/brush collection. ;; ,, ,, , Townhouse Development Collection ;; %, ,, ~, ,, '~, f~oanoke County shall provide_ once _weekly pickup by either_ an _ automat_ed_;; ~';' vehicle or County;provided dumpster services to residential customers residing in ; ~„ owner-occupied .condominium and townhouse development, ~The_method_of collection,%' ,' shall be consistent with the collection service received by other residential customers. ~' _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J ,General -' Debris waste will not be collected under any circumstances_ • Mixed or contaminated loads e q bulk intermingled with brush will not be-~ collected. • Solid waste contaminated with hazardous wastes will not be collected nor handled by County personnel. , Sec. 20-25. Supplemental collection service. , , ,, Brush Collection ~ ' , , ~, The County provides free brush collection every othery week to residential ~ ;%~ customers. Brush or other_yard_ waste collection service will not be_provided _to_, ,;', commercial or non-Roanoke County residential customers. It will be the responsibility of ;' ~~,' premium and physically-challenged pustomers toplace any brush items ~t the curb forte ~,' ; collection. rush must_be placed as close as_possible to the curbline~road and five_ ~5) Jy ; feet away from any horizontal obstruction and have overhead clearance, such that the ,' ,' operation of the equipment is not impaired or restricted. Such placement shall be made ; ,',' no earlier than the Saturdaypreceding ~he_scheduled collection_a_nd no later than_7:00~ ,' ;' a.m.ofthedayscheduledpollectiondate._________ _______ ________________~~`;'~ -- --- ' ~~ ~rush~esulting from normal property maintenance,~rlay not exceed six ~6~ feet_in-u ;~- length or six 6 'nches_in_diameter._Debris waste and tree_stumps_will_not be _ collected pursuant to this section. The cuttings and limbs must be placed in a pile' Fornwtted: Bullets and Numbering Deletedr (e) Deleteri: service Deleted: coAecton Deleted: ten Deletede ~o.oo Deleted: per month iDeletedt charged Deleted: (n Deleted: curbside or single bcatron Service Deleted: au Deleted: that are individually owned Deleted: The refuse must be at the "' ` collection point by 7:00 em. of the scheduled col~crpn day. Deleted: Any other request for service shall be subject to a collection Tee to be deterrn~ed by the county' admnistrator.¶ Deleted: {g) The county admnistrator or his designee is authorized to devebp and mplement 'SUCK fegU18ti0f1S aS maybe necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section. ¶ (Ord1Vo. 62688-13(Aj, §§ t, 2, 6-26.. 88; Ord.`No. 72694-4; § 1, 7-26-94)¶ Formetted: Bullets and Numberng Deleted: {aj Upon request the County wig schedule and provide collectan of brush items or other yard waste materials from aB residential oustaners only. Deletede backyaro Deleted: to Deleted: The items, descrbed ndividuaNy bebw, Deleted: and Deleted: 6:00 p.m. of the day P~d~9 Deleted: for Deletes: (,> Fornwtted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.25",'Hanging: 0.25" Fprn~atted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: cuttings and tree limbs, r Deleted: will be scheduled and coAected by county personnel .., g Deleted: three (3) Deleted: T not to exceed six (6) by six (6) by six (6) feet in size. • Brush cuttings and tree limbs resulting from commercial tree trimming operations (contractor/commercial waste) will not be collected. • Brush resulting from land-clearing will not be collected. Yard Waste Residential customers may place small quantities of yard waste in their County--~, provided containers on their regularly-scheduled collection day. Excess quantities of yard waste must be placed in disposable containers to include but not be limited to, Deletedc The pigs must be adjacent to the road oY curbline and have at least five (5) feet clearance on all sides: The pile must be clear of any; overhanging: wires or branches, In order to be collected.¶ Formatted: Justified, indent: Lefts 0", First line: ' Q" plastic or paper bags or cardboard boxes and adjacent to the road or curbline for scheduled bulk collection. " The disposable containers must be of substantial ,~-- construction and shall not weigh more than~ifty_ (50) -pounds -when full. The containerized clippings must be separate from any other bulk or brush items set out for ~~ collection. ~~ Seasonal Collections. _ _ _ _ ~~ ,~or_a six_~6) week period, usually beginning with t_he first Monday_in NovemberY ba~ged__ leaves will be collected on a weekly basis from all residential customers._The county_will_~~; ' not provide vacuum service for the collection of leaves. ~~ `, • Leaves must be placed in sturdy tied plastic baps within five (5) feet of curb ands, ~~,~ may not exceed fifty (501 pounds per bap. ~ ` • Christmas trees will be collected separatey from other yard waste during aone- week period in January. Trees must be placed within five (5) feet of the curb with all decorations removed so they may be safely mulched. • Notice will be provided as to exact collection dates for these services. General Materials _ resulting _ from _ land _clearin~ _ operations- _or _ commercial _ yard _ waste- , -' management operations will not be collected pursuant to this section. Jt_wilt_be_the____ responsibility of the contractor or owner to properly dispose of any such materials. Bulk Collection Deleted: ¶ (2) Grass clpp~tgs or clippings from small shrubs or bushes must be placed in disposable containers, to' itclude but not limited to plastic or ..paper bags or cardboard boxes, and '' adjaoent to the road or oufilsre for :CAI~Ct10R. 'Deleted: Deleted: ¶ Deleted: ¶ (3) During leaf season, which is defnedas the period between Deleted: and December 29 Deleted: only::. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: ~ (4) .Deleted: Commercials defned as any trrnming or yard maintenance done for hire. Deleted: ¶ ¶ - (5) Schedul'usg collections under this section shall be done by the soli waste dNisbn.¶ (D) Upon request the county will schedule and Delebede from all Deletede 6:00 D.m. of the day , `Formattedp Bullets and Numbering _..._ _ Deleted:ll ..Deleted: (1) B Formatted: ]ust~ed, Indent: Left: 0.25" Hangingi 0.25" .The County provides free collection of bulk items_every_other_week_$o residential~~ f _ . . - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - customers. Bulk collection service will not be provided to any commercial customers. It `, will be the responsibility of premium and backyard service customers to place any bulk ', items adjacent to the qualified road or curbline for collection. The bulk items must be ~~ placed as close as possible to the curbline or road and five (5) feet away from any obstruction. The items must be completely clear of any overhanging wires or branches, ,~ in order to be collected. Such placement shall be made no earlier than the Saturday preceding scheduled collection and_no later than_7:00 a.m_ the day of collection- _ _ _ _ _ _ _,' , • Pursuant to Section 20-1, _ twlk collection items will be defined as households;; ~~ _' ~. waste<too lar~e_or heavy to_fit into the automated containers. / • pesldential customers can lac no more than a icku truck size load of bulk for icku fit is necessa for the materials to be containerized, the container must be of a disposable nature. • ~ulk_item~, include_ materials resultin from normal household activit includin -~ but of limited to, items such as liances, furniture four 4 un-mounted tires allots is Iles, swin sets disassembled , lawn furniture, and cardboard ~°,, ~ `~ moving boxes or other rash resultin from movin ~~ ~, • Any material that may be wind blown must be bagged Any glass items such as ~~~ mirrors windows or shower doors must be taped and tapped. ;'~ Excluded items• All prohibited waste such as construction waste, debris waste hazardous materials animal carcasses automobile parts, propane tanks and riding lawnmowers will be the responsibility of the owner or contractor to properly dispose of. Additional Disposal Services County residential customers are entitled to the use of a 14-foot "freeloader"=at_ no charge on a "first. come, first serve" basis. The freeloader must be scheduled in advance and is ~o be used du basement or attic clean yard work projects. Use of the freeloader is governed by the following criteria: ~ / ,~ • ~iesidential customers ma _ reserve the freeloaders no more than four ~4)-%' ~" --------------------y - -- -------------------------- times ayear. •~JVlaterials may only be hand loaded (not mechanicallyl Anto the trailer. _ _ _-;J ~ / • Small items or any material susceptible to wind must be containerized im---~ - some manner, such as bags or boxes. • The freeloader will be d_ elivered only_ to s~ccupied residential homes ;; ; - J-iomes currently under construction are not eligibly to receive the ~, freeloader. The freeloader_ will only be delivered to a safe and easily accessible location determined by Solid Waste staff. ,' • ,The resident must be home ~o_accept delivery of the freeloader to sign a~ i ; ; release liabilit form. • No hazardous materials, debris waste or construction waste shall bey: placed in freeloader. • Permissible items include brushL_bulk and yard waste pursuant to Section "- 20-1. • Prior to removal the loads will be inspected _and the resident will_ be-;'= _ Deleted: any .,.Any material placed to the curb for bulk collection that - could be placed in the automated container for weeldy collecton is subject to not berg collected at that time.. ... 4 Deleted: <#>¶ (2j ...are limited to plac~g..soc (6} items out to the curbline or road ' for any one colleotbn....A container will count as one item.¶ ,,. 5 Deleted: (3} As used h this seolion,'b Formatted: Justified, Indentaeft:- 0,25", Hanging: 0.25" Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: '...s, ...is ...household fumture; major household carpeting and rugs, no more than three (3}tires, ...refuse ,,, 6 Deleted: TI (4} Materials resulting from the constn:ction of a new home or an addition to an existing home, t 7 .Deleted: (c) upon request ... g Deleted.: (1) formatted ... 9 Formattede Bullets and. Numbering Deleted: (2) Formatted ... 10 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: must rat be mocha ,,, 11 Formatted " ... 12 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ~~ ..Deleted: , (3} Formatted - ... 13 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: previously constru ... 14 Deletedc (4) Formatted ... 15 Fomratted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: during the Formatted ... 16 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted ... 17 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: (5) Before pickup ....Formatted ... 18 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering l~" required to remove non-approved materialsti_ _ _ _ _ , , - Deleted: maybe responsible for - - - - materials requiring special disposal County residential customers are entitled to haul one pickup truck load of non--- - - r-or,natt~d: Justified, Indent: Left: hazardous household material directly to the Tinker Creek Transfer Station per week. o", First line: o^ ' The truck may be no larger than one (1) ton and must have a Roanoke County decal. This service is for residential customers onl rL. Roofing shingles are not included in this program This service is at no cost to County residential customers. Sec.20-26. Penalties A~ violation of the provisions of Article II. shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor In addition collection service by the County may be discontinued until the violation is abated or corrected. Deleted:.¶ (d) ,It shall be the duty of every ' owner or occupant utilizing ihe' .supplemental collection Service to propery secure the materials placed .for collection in such a manner as m ensure the safety of the public. ¶ (Ord. No. 2t77, 11-14-76; Ord. No. Deleted: ~ Sec. 20-26. Reserv~ed.¶ Editors Note: Ord.No. 72694-4, § 1, adopted Juy 26, 1994, deleted, in effect repeated, § 20-26, which pertained to certain ftems excluded from nom:al collection and derived from Ord. No. 2177, adopted Nov: 14, 1978.¶ ' 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be (? July 1, 2004). t~ Page 3: [i] Deleted Sue Bane 1/5/2004 4:33 PM Townhomes and/or condominium collection means collection of household refuse for multifamily dwellings that are individually owned. Page 3: [2] Deleted Sue Bane 1/5/2004 3:47 PM Editors Note: Ord. No. 72694-4, § 1, adopted July 26, 1994, deleted, in effect repealed, § 20-2, which pertained to rates and charges for use of county landfill. Page 7: [3] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:13 PM will be scheduled and collected by county personnel upon request. The cuttings or limbs individually Page 9: [4] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:39 PM any Page 9: [4] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:39 PM Any material placed to the curb for bulk collection that could be placed in the automated container for weekly collection is subject to not being collected at that time. Page 9: [5] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:39 PM (2) Page 9: [5] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:40 PM are limited to placing Page 9: [5] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:40 PM six (6) items out to the curbline or road for any one collection. Page 9: [5] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:40 PM A container will count as one item. Page 9: [6] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:41 PM ~~ Page 9: [6] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:41 PM S, Page 9: [6] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:42 PM IS Page 9: [6] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:42 PM household furniture, major household Page 9: [6] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:43 PM carpeting and rugs, no more than three (3) tires, Page 9: [6] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:43 PM refuse Page 9: [7] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:46 PM (4) Materials resulting from the construction of a new home or an addition to an existing home, to include installations, remodelings, renovations or major repairs to a home, will not be collected ~- -~- i pursuant to this section. It will be the responsibility of the owner or contractor to properly dispose of such materials. (5) No dead animals, hazardous material or any other item deemed unsafe for the county's manpower or equipment, or for disposal in the regional landfill as determined by the director of general services will be collected by county personnel pursuant to this article. It will be the responsibility of the owner of these materials to properly dispose of such items. Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:47 PM (c) Upon request, the county will deliver a Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:47 PM to all residential customers. Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:48 PM mainly Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:48 PM one-time clean-ups such as Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:48 PM S Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:49 PM OUtS Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:49 PM moving materials Page 9: [8] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:49 PM restrictions: Page 9: [9] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:49 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [10] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:49 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [11] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:50 PM must not be mechanically loaded Page 9: [12] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:50 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [13] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:50 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [14] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:51 PM previously constructed Page 9: [14] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:51 PM No h Page 9: [14] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:51 PM will be allowed Page 9: [14] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:51 PM trailer ~ .~ ~~-~ t Page 9: [14] Deleted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:51 PM n Page 9: [15] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:52 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [16] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:52 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [17] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:52 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" Page 9: [18] Formatted Sue Bane 1/6/2004 3:52 PM Justified, Indent: Hanging: 0.25" ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a portion of a 20' access easement and to accept in exchange a relocated new portion of a 20' access easement across Lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5, "The Groves", owned by Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., to The Groves sewer lift station, Cave Spring Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Gary Robertson Utility Director Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., is the current owner of lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5 "The Groves". The existing 20' access easement was originally acquired by dedication, recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 101. This 20' access easement contains the access drive to The Groves sewer lift station. Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc. has indicated that the existing 20' access easement, along with the other existing easements on Lot 2, render the lot virtually unusable for residential construction. Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc. desires to vacate a portion of the existing 20' access easement. This portion of the 20' access easement to be vacated is shown on the attached plat (Exhibit "A"). Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc. is prepared to relocate the existing access drive to The Groves sewer lift station, replacing it with a new access drive and a new 20' access easement as shown on the attached plat (Exhibit "B"). The Utility Department has reviewed these plats and approves of the access drive and 20' access easement relocations. FISCAL IMPACT: Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc. will incur all costs associated with the vacation of a portion of this 20' access easements, the relocation of the existing access drive, and the dedication of the new 20' access easement. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Vacate the portion of the 20' access easement as shown on the attached plat (Exhibit "A")and authorize acceptance of the relocated 20' access easement as shown on the attached plat (Exhibit "B"). 2. Deny the vacation of the portion of the 20' access easement as shown on the attached plat (Exhibit "A"). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. ~~ -..e *>. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE TO VACATE, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE A PORTION OF A 20' ACCESS EASEMENT AND TO ACCEPT IN EXCHANGE A RELOCATED NEW PORTION OF A 20' ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 1 AND 2, SECTION NO. 5, "THE GROVES", (TAX MAP NOS. 96.07- 9-18 AND 96.07-9-19), OWNED BY BOONE, BOONE & LOEB, INC., TO THE GROVES SEWER LIFT STATION IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by Deed dated July 16, 2001, Palm Land Company, L.C., conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, a .400-acre pump station lot, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #96.07-99-1, together with a 20' access easement across Lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5, The Groves, for ingress, egress and regress to and from said lot; and, WHEREAS, Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., is the current owner of Lots 1 and 2, and has determined that the location of said 20' access easement renders Lot 2 virtually unusable for residential construction; and, WHEREAS, Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., has proposed an acceptable alternative location for a portion of the 20' access easement (Exhibit B) and has requested that the Board of Supervisors authorize a portion of the former access easement (Exhibit A) to be quit-claimed and released; and, WHEREAS, the relocation is to be accomplished without cost to the County and meets the requirements of the Utility Department. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2004; and a second reading on January 27, 2004; and '~~•,. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (portion of easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses; and 3. That, conditioned upon the exchange as hereinafter provided, vacation, quit- claim and release of the "PORTION OF EXISTING 20' ACCESS EASEMENT HEREBY VACATED" as shown hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto, across Lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5, "The Groves", (Tax Map Nos. 96.07-9-18 and 96.07-9-19), owned by Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., is hereby authorized and approved; and, 4. That, in exchange, acquisition and acceptance of a "NEW 20' ACCESS EASEMENT" as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto, for purposes of ingress, egress and regress across Lots 1 and 2, Section No. 5, "The Groves", to and from the Pump Station lot (Tax Map No. 96.07-99-1) is hereby authorized and approved; and, 5. That, as a condition to the adoption of this ordinance, all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, recordation fees, survey costs, and relocation of the access drive, shall be the responsibility of the petitioners, Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc., or their successors or assigns; and, 6. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation and acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on the date of its adoption. M~NET -~g,IVE 50 RIw 1 83 A1' /}1" E "~ 10 ~-~ .134 -T _ %\A ~X~ - ~ -~,~ 4- 11 pG. 9g~ ~. 21, pG. 4i , g3 41 41 6 Ei~/ P 8 121 pG 40~ ~ ~ EX 20, M~g,L. ~ J~ EX. 20' W.L.E. & S.S.E. (D.B. 1412, PG~36~P•6~15, PG. 150) i ~ ~ / \ ~~ ~ S ' ~`~~~° ~ ; ' EX. 20 ACCESS ! ~ '~ ~ o i EASEMENT F\ ~ P B 17 PG ~` '' . . , . 101 1 EX. 20' S.S.E. P.B. 17, PG. 89- '"- , ~ LOT 1 o~~ F~F 5 ti ti ~ 9~~O~y ~~~~ \ ~, o, 9 s 9 ? G s~ A 9 G, s G~~~"9`9~~~Cn ~ m 0 -~~ S ~~ miss ~ ~ c'am' .p ..o z a, Z ~ A G O~'~ 2 ' 15' P.U.E. & PVT. r ~ WALKING TRAIL cn v o ,o ~GF, ~ ~oA EASEMENT O c~ A O,~ O,~ !. v~ 9~~`y~ 9 ~i 0 9 LOT 2 ~ EX. 50' AST TENNESSEE NATURAL GAS CO. EASEMENT D.B. 769, PG. 55 D.B. 7I 2, PG. 457 `n ~- EX. D.E. ~rn _ P.B. 21, PG. -PORTION 0~ EXISTING °. ZO' ACCESS BASEMENT ~ HEREBY VACATED 1 3 4 ~ g\ e~ s 1z~~5~i ~5 ~ ~N TAX #96 07-99-1 EXISTING 20' ACCESS EASEMENT TO BE VACATED CORNER BEARING DISTANCE 1-2 S 24'28'09" E 8.58' 2-3 S 33'06'52" E 131.01' 3-4 S 72'13'53" W 20.74' 4-5 N 33'06'52° W 127.03' 5-6 N 24'28'09" W 10.09' 6-1 N 65'31'51" E 20.00' AREA = 2,767 S.F. ~~',y5~~ \ PROPERTY OF \ 5~~' PALM LAND COMPANY, L.C. ~ \ \ EX. PUMP \ ~ STATION LOT ~ ~, ~~/ CURVE DATA CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C1 52.00' 7.19' 3.60' 7.19' S 18'19'26" E 07'55'33" NOTES: 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 20' ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 1 AND 2, SECTION No.5, THE GROVES, PLAT BOOK 17, PAGE 40 AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY. 2. AREA BOUNDED BY CORNERS 1 THRU 6 TO 1, INCLUSIVE IS HEREBY VACATED. 3. THIS PLAT IS FROM RECORDS AND IS NOT.BASED ON AN ACTUAL FlELD. SURVEY. PLAT SHOWING yTH OF ~,~ D1, PORTION OF EXISTING ' ~a~iQ~4•.Sr Z0°3 ~~ 20' ACCESS EASEMENT o TIMOTH ~ TO 8E VACATED ~ `~/H L ~ CROSSING LOTS 1 & 2, SECTION No. 5 ~~..LL "THE, GROVES ; P.B. 21, PG. 40 EXHIBIT SITUATED ALONG MONET DRIVE a 11 ^ ~' L ~o~. CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ~ /~- RDANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE. AUGUST 5, zoos LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P.C. scALE: ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 1 -4o ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMM. NO.: 1996-408 4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE PHONE: (540) 774-4411 CADD FILE: P.O. BOX 20669 FAX: (540) 772-9445 F:\1996\96408\SUR\98406EP.DWG ROANOKE, VIRG)NIA 24018 E-MAIL: MAIL@LUMSDENPC.COM 1LOT 3 O W /\ N \/ \ -. "~~. // F B 1~ pG. 89~ E< B 21, 4' i TTtt ~,RIV~" EX. W.1.E E ~ 90 00 EX• 15 F ~ /~~'~' 4 M~lv~p' R/W N 83'+41'h1 - '~ / M ~ (,p.8.121• pG. 103.05 4 / ~' EX• 20 I - - --- " ~ C1 Zc~.3 _ - .41'41 ~ ~ `-~ EX. 20' W.L.E. & S.S.E. ~~ o ~ _ 15, PG. 150) ,~kp.~ (D.B. 1412, PG~3641& P.B~ / .i ~ \s - ~ / ~, ~ °a, •. EX. 50' AST TENNESSEE tO ~ ~`~Ys ~ °'' LOT 2~ NATURAL AS CO. EASEMENT ' EX. 20' ACCE S \ o °~ -r ~ D.B. 769, PG. 55 1`~ EASEMENT i°' °~ ~' D.B. 772, PG. 457 J P.B. 17, PG. 101 ``~\ ~ - -~ ~ 1 - - ~'w. EX. 20' S.S.E. A -- P.B. 17, PG. 89- "'- + ~ o EX. D.E. / \ +~++ -c O i _ P.B. 21, PG. 40 LOT 1 +~ ~~ .yGN \ °~ ~ ~ ~ _ \ ++ + \ G u, tP O ~ 1 LO T 3 ~, \++ ++ NEW 20' ACCESS ~, `~' 2 s~ + + EASEMENT `'` ~ 9 .o m + \/ \ + + \ Z s G2 15' P.U.E. & PVT. + +++ ~' "' \ o ~ ~~o ,o WALKING TRAIL + + + ~ s ~G s Po EASEMENT + -v z ~ 9 AF ~6, (P.B. 21, PG. 40) + ++ \ p~ A~,c~O t + + \ g5 „ ~1 TAX #96.07-99-1 \ ~ ~5j~ ~ PROPERTY OF \ \ S 1`~ \ \ PALM LAEX. PO MPPANY, L.C. \ STATION LOT /\ CENTERLINE NEW 20' ACCESS EASEMENT CORNER BEARING DISTANCE 1-A S 65'31'51" W 10.00' TIE A-B S 07'31'33" E 34.96' CH. B-C S 09'55'27" E 15.08' CH. C-D S 29'15'59" E 87.26' AREA = 2,738 S.F. CURVE DATA CORNER RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA A-B 59.98' 35.48' 18.27' 34.96' S 07'31'33" E 33'53'12" B-C 22.77' 15.37' 7.99' 15.08' S 09'55'27' E 38'41'01" C1 52.00' 7.19' 3.60' 7.19' S 18'19'26" E 07'55'33" NOTES: 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO CREATE A NEW 20' ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE PUMP STATION LOT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY. 2. NOT ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY ARE SHOWN HEREON. PLAT SHOWING NEW 20' ACCESS EASEMENT BEING GRANTED BY PALM LAND COMPANY, L.C. CROSSING LOTS 1 & 2, SECTION No. 5 "THE GROVES'; P.B. 21, PG. 40 EXHIBIT SITUATED ALONG MONET DRIVE ~ ~~~.r CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 'a. ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA oATE: AUGUST 5, Zoos LUMSDEN ASSOCI ATES, P.C. scALE: ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 1 -ao ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMM. NOa 1996-408 .4664 BRAMBLETON AVENUE PHONE: (540) 774-4411 CADD FILE: P.O. BOX 20669 FAX: (540) 772-9445 F:\1996\98408\SUR\98408EP.DWG ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 E-MAIL: MAIL@LUMSDENPC.COM ~'k '^-••C ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ - ?j 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: January 13, 2004 First reading of an ordinance to repeal in its entirety Chapter 8 of the Roanoke County Code entitled "Erosion and Sediment Control" and adopt Chapter 8.1 "Erosion and Sediment Control" Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: We have met with the Homebuilders Association and they are supportive of the proposed changes. However due to the significance of these amendments, we would like to schedule a work session with the Board at the January 27 meeting to address any questions you may have. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On August 12, 2003, staff presented to the Board of Supervisors an overview of the County's drainage maintenance program identifying immediate needs and prevention recommendations. The heavy rains and the enormous number of drainage complaints received last year raised concerns about additional development standards. With the continued development on steep slopes, marginal soils and lots, staff offered short-term and long-term actions. One of the short-term actions identified was amending Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance to reduce the disturbed area exemption. The reduction in the disturbed area exemption will require the development community to submit additional information to the County allowing staff the opportunity to review the information and ensure that proper development practices are used during construction. County staff and representatives from the Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association have worked together and support the proposed changes. Administrative changes have been made to correct department names and titles and to correspond with Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law. The following is a summary r "1 1.. A of the revisions to the current Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance affecting daily operations. • Inspectors, Plan Reviewers and Program Administrators must hold a certificate of competence from the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board in their area of expertise, except that a Certified Plan Reviewer is certified by being licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor. • Certified Inspectors may be employed by developers on job sites to reduce the amount of Erosion and Sediment Control permit fees that need to be paid prior to plan approval. • A Responsible Land Disturber, an individual from the project or development team, is required by the State of Virginia. This person will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out gland-disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who (i) holds a Responsible Land Disturber certificate of competence, (ii) holds a current certificate of competence from the Board in the areas of Combined Administration, Program Administration, Inspection or Plan Review, (iii) holds a current Contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control, or (iv) is licensed in Virginia as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor. Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence prior toengaging inland-disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this ordinance. • Transfer of properties in a subdivision to another owner, will result in the new owner being responsible for obtaining a certified Responsible Land Disturber and submitting a plot plan for each lot to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control permit. • If the grade of a site is more than 33.3%, a developer must refer to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for grading and building requirements in steep slope areas. • Square footage and cubic yard requirements are as follows: Square Feet Cubic Yards Requirements <2,500 0 Exempt from E & S Plan; *Building Permit Plot Plan required 2,500-5,000 250-500 "A reement in Lieu" of a plan; permit fee; "Buildin Permit Plot Plan required 5,000-10,000 500-750 Certified RLD,'Buildin Permit Plot Plan b a certified RLD or a P.E.; permit fee >10,000 >750 RLD, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a P.E.; agreement; surety; and a *Building Permit Plot Plan *Refer to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for Building Permit Plot Plan Requirements. • To handle the administrative review required for land disturbing activities involving all single family structures, a 3-day work review schedule will be implemented. • Persons requesting to initiate land disturbing activities shall pay the following fees to cover the administrative expense of review, permitting, and inspection: ~`°` ~,.~..,. Square Feet Cubic Yards Fees Cap Requirement <2,500 <250 $0.00 ~ None 2,500-5,000 250-500 $25.00 In Lieu of Agreement 5,000-10,000 500-750 $50.00 Responsible Land Disturber >10,000 >750 $100 + $100/disturbed acre or portion $500.00 Certified Ins ector for pro~ect >10,000 >750 $100 + $100/disturbed acre or portion No Certified Inspector for project FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the first reading to amend portions of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance with an effective date of February 1, 2004. 2. Approve the first reading to amend only those items that deal with Administrative changes to correspond with Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law with an effective date of February 1, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. -~ CHAPTER 8.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Section 8.1-1 TITLE, PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This ordinance shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of the County of Roanoke, Virginia." The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water, air and other natural resources of the County of Roanoke by establishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation, and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced. Section 8.1-2 APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER IN TOWN OF VINTON The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable within the corporate limits of the Town of Vinton. Administrative procedures and review fees may be established to accommodate the review of plans for development located within the town. Section 8.1-3 DEFINITIONS: As used in the ordinance, unless the context requires a different meaning: A. "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" means a contract between the plan-approving authority and the owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in all construction disturbing between 2,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet and/or 250-500 cubic yards; this contract may be executed by the plan-approving authority in lieu of a formal site plan. B. "Applicant" means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activities to commence. C. "Board" means the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. D. "Certified Inspector" means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of project inspection. E. "Certified Plan Reviewer" means an employee or agent of a program authority who (i) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of plan review (ii) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec. 54.1-400 et seq,) of Chapter 4 of Title 54.1. F. "Certified Program Administrator" means an employee or agent of a program. authority who holds a certificate of competence from the. Board in the area of program administration. G. "Clearing" means any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover including, but not limited to, root mat removal or top soil removal. H. "Conservation Plan," "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" or "Plan" means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. I. "County" means the County of Roanoke. J. "Denuded" means a term applied to land that has been physically disturbed and no longer supports vegetative cover. K. "Department" means the Department of Conservation and Recreation. t-" L. "Development" means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. M. "Director" means the Director of Community Development or his assignee. N. "District" or "Soil and Water Conservation District" refers to the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District. O. "Dormant" refers to denuded land that is not actively being brought to a desired grade or condition. P. "Erosion Impact Area" means an area of land not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of 10,000 square feet or less used for residential purposes. Q. "Excavating" means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth materials. R. "Filling" means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials. S. "Grading" means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions. T. "Land-Disturbing Activity" means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; 2. Individual service connections; 3. Installation, maintenance, or repairs of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land-disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard-surfaced; 4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; 5. Surface or deep mining; 6. Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and off-site disposal areas; 7. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however, this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 (Sec. 10.1-1100 et seq.) of this title or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B of Sec. 10.1-1163; Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; 2 ~___, _. 9. Agricultural engineering operations including but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safety Act, Article 2 (Section 10.1-604 et. seq.) of Chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing,contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; 10. Disturbed land areas for all uses of less than 2,500 square feet„and/or-less than 250. cubic yards in size; 11. Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; 12. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land- disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority. U. "Land disturbing permit" means a permit issued by the County of Roanoke for the clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any purpose set forth herein. V. "Local Erosion and Sediment Control Program" or "program" means an outline of the various methods employed by the County of Roanoke to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation. W. "Owner" means the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. X. "Permittee" means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. Y. "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity. Z. "Plan-approving authority" means the Department of Community Development which is responsible for determining the adequacy of a conservation plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans. AA. "Post-development" refers to conditions that may be reasonably expected or anticipated to exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site or tract of land. BB. "Pre-development" refers to conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to the plan-approving authority. Where phased development or plan approval occurs (preliminary grading, roads and utilities, etc.), the existing conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan for the initial phase is submitted for approval shall establish pre-development conditions. CC. "Program authority" means the County of Roanoke which has adopted a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program approved by the Board. DD. "Responsible Land Disturber" means an individual from the.project or development team, who will be`in charge of and responsible for carrying out aland-disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who (i) holds a Responsible Land Disturber certificate of competence, (ii) holds a current certificate of competence from the Board in the areas of Combined Administration, Program Administration, Inspection or Plan Review, (iii) holds a current Contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control, or (iv) is licensed in Virginia as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec. 54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 54.1. ,~~.,_. .... ~d r/i EE. "Single-family residence" means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family. FF. "Stabilized" means an area that can be expected to withstand normal exposure to atmospheric conditions without incurring erosion damage. GG. "State waters" means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdictions. HH. "Town" means the incorporated Town of Vinton. I I. "Transporting" means any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs. Section 8.1-4 ADMINISTRATION OF CHAPTER IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCES. This chapter shall be administered, where applicable, in conjunction with the county's subdivision and zoning ordinances wherein such apply to the development and subdivision of land within the county or where such apply to development on previously subdivided land within the county. Section 8.1-5 LOCAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM A. Pursuant to section 10.1-562 Of the Code of Vir ig nia, the County of Roanoke hereby adopts the regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board and those more stringent local stormwater management criteria which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Said regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for erosion and sediment control are included in but not limited to the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations" and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended. B. The County of Roanoke hereby designates the Director of Community Development or his assignee as the plan-approving authority. C. The program and regulations provided for in this ordinance shall be made available for public inspection at the office of the Department of Community Development. D. Pursuant to Sec. 10.1-561.1 of the Code of Virginia, an erosion control plan shall not be approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections of land-disturbing activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The Erosion Control Program of the County of Roanoke shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified inspector, who may be the same person. Section 8.1-6. REGULATED LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES; SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS; CONTENTS OF PLANS A. Except as provided herein, no person SHALL engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has submitted to the Department of Community Development for the County of Roanoke one of the following for the land-disturbing activity and it has been approved by the plan approving authority. 1. Where the land-disturbing activity results in between 2,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet and/or 250-500. cubic yards of disturbed area, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" may be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the plan-approving authority. 2. Where the land-disturbing activity results in between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet and/or 500-750 cubic yards of disturbed area, either a plot plan prepared by a certified 4 -~ Responsible Land Disturber or an engineered plan prepared by a professional engineer showing the erosion and sediment control measures must be submitted and executed by the plan-approving authority. A certified Responsible Land Disturber must be named. Where the land-disturbing activity results in 10,000 square feet or more. and/or 750 cubic yards or `more of disturbed area; an erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted which has .been prepared by a professional engineer. For disturbed areas of less than 10,000 square feet, refer to the chart below to determine requirements for the site. S uare Feet &/or Cubic Yards Re uirements <2,500 0 Exem t from E & S Plan; *Buildin Permit Plot Plan re uired 2,500-5,000 250-500 "A reement in Lieu" of a Ian; ermit fee; *Buildin Permit Plot Plan re uired 5,000-10,000 500-750 Certified RLD, *Buildin Permit Plot Plan b a certified RLD or a P.E.; ermit fee >10,000 >750 RLD, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a P.E.; agreement; surety; a *Buildin Permit Plot Plan, if re uired b the Buildin Commissioner B. *Refer to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Buildine Code for Building Permit Plot Plan Requirements. C. If lots in a subdivision are sold to another owner, that. person is responsible for obtaining a certified Responsible Land Disturber and submitting a plot plan for each lot to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control permit. D. The standards contained with The "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations," and The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and those more stringent local stormwater management criteria which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this ordinance and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. In cases where one standard conflicts with another, the more stringent applies. The plan approving authority, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines. E. The plan approving authority shall grant written approval within 45 days of the receipt of the plan, if it is determined that the plan meets the requirements of the local control program, and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he or she will properly perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions of this ordinance. When the plan is determined to be inadequate, written notice of disapproval stating the specific reasons for disapproval shall be communicated to the applicant within forty-five days. The notice shall specify the modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken by the plan- approving authority within the time specified above, the plan shall be deemed approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. F. Responsible Land Disturber requirement. As a prerequisite to engaging in the land-disturbing activities shown on the approved plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, to the program authority, as provided by Section 10.1-561, of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity (the Responsible Land Disturber). Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence prior to engaging in land-disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this ordinance.. However, the plan-approving authority may waive the certificate of competence for an "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" for construction of asingle-family residence meeting the requirements. in 8.1-3T (10) of this ordinance. If a violation occurs during the land-disturbing activity, then the person responsible for carrying out the "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" shall correct the violation and provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, as provided by Section .10.1-561 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Failure to provide the name of an individual. holding a certificate of competence shall be a violation of this ordinance and may result in penalties provided in this ordinance. G. An approved plan may be changed by the plan approving authority when: The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or 2. The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, are agreed to by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan. H. In order to prevent further erosion, the County of Roanoke may require approval of a conservation plan for any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area. I. When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. J. Whenever electric and telephone utility companies or railroad companies undertake any of the activities included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection, they shall be considered exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. 1. Construction, installation or maintenance of electric transmission, natural gas and telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and 2. Construction of the tracks, rights-of--way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of the railroad company. The Board shall have 60 days in which to approve the specifications. If not action is taken by the Board within 60 days, the specifications shall be deemed approved. Individual approval of separate projects within subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection is not necessary when approved specifications are followed. Projects not included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate local erosion and sediment control program. The Board shall have the authority to enforce approved specifications. K. State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, pursuant to Section 10.1-564 of the Code of Virginia. L. If the grade of a site is more than 33.3%, refer to the International Building Code for Steep Slope Development requirements, Section 8.1-7. PERMITS; FEES; BONDING; ETC.: A. Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving land-disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. B. No person SHALL engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has acquired aland-disturbing permit, unless the proposed land-disturbing activity is specifically exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, and has paid the fees and posted the required bond. C. Fees; An applicant requesting permission to.begin land-disturbing activity pursuant to this article shall pay the following fees to cover the administrative expense of review, permitting, and inspection: ~. J S uare Feet &/or Cubic Yards Fees Ca Re uirement <2,500 <250 $0.00 None 2,500-5,000 250-500 $25.00 In Lieu of A reement 5,000-10,000 500-750 $50.00 Res onsible Land Disturber >10,000 >750 $100 + $100/disturbed acre or ortion $500.00 Certified Ins ector for ro'ect >10,000 >750 $100 + $100/disturbed acre or ortion No Certified Ins ector for ro'ect D. Bond: All applicants for permits shall provide to the County of Roanoke a performance bond, cash escrow, or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Director of Community Development or his assignee, to ensure that measures could be taken by the County of Roanoke at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail, AFTER PROPER NOTICE, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation measures required of him as a result of his land-disturbing activity. Should it be necessary for the County of Roanoke to take such conservation action, the County of Roanoke may collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the amount of the surety held. Within sixty (60) days of adequate stabilization and completion of all other site requirements, as determined by the Director of Community Development or his assignee, such bond, cash escrow or letter of credit, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof shall be either refunded to the applicant or terminated. E. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits. Section 8.1-8. MONITORING, REPORTS, AND INSPECTIONS A. The County of Roanoke may require the person responsible for carrying out the plan and/or the Responsible Land Disturber to monitor and maintain the land-disturbing activity. The Responsible Land Disturber will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. B. The Department of Community Development shall periodically inspect the land-disturbing activity as required under the state program to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. If the. Director of Community Development or his assignee determines that there is a failure to comply with: the plan, or if the plan is determined to be inadequate, notice shall be served upon the permittee, person responsible for carrying out the plan or the Responsible Land Disturber by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the 'site of the land- disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply within the specified time, the permit may be revoked and the permittee shall be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance and, upon conviction, shall be subject to the penalties provided by this ordinance. C. Upon determination of a violation of this ordinance, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. If land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or proper permits, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all of the land-disturbing and/or construction activities be stopped until an approved plan or any required permits are obtained. Failure to comply will result in civil penalties as outlined in Section 8.1-9 of this ordinance,. 7 Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance. Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate relief to the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or any required permits within seven days from the date of service of the order, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and any required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or the land records of the County of Roanoke. The owner may appeal the issuance of an order to the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the Director of Community Development or his assignee may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Director of Community Development or his assignee from taking any other action authorized by this ordinance. Section 5.1-9. PENALTIES, INJUNCTIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ACTIONS A. Violators of this ordinance shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. B. Civil Penalties: 1. A civil penalty in the amount listed on the schedule below shall be assessed for each violation of the respective offenses: a) Commencement of land disturbing activity without an approved plan as provided in Section 8.6-1 shall be $1,000/day. b) Vegetative Measures -failure to comply with items 1, 2 and 3 of the Minimum Standards shall be $100/violation/day. c) Structural Measures -failure to comply with items 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17 of the Minimum Standards shall be $100/violation/day. d) Watercourse Measures -failure to comply with items 12, 13 and 15 of the Minimum Standards shall be $100/violation day. e) Underground Utility Measures -failure to comply with item 16(a) and/or (c) shall be $100/violation/day. f) Failure to obey a stop work order shall be $100/day. g) Failure to stop work when permit revoked $100/day. 2. Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, in no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $3,000, except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of land-disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $10,000. The assessment of civil penalties ~;~, _.. according to this schedule shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions and shall preclude the prosecution of such violation as a misdemeanor under Subsection A of this section. C. The Director of Community Development or his assignee may apply to the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this ordinance, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. D. In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this ordinance, any person who violates any provision of this ordinance may be liable to the County of Roanoke in a civil action for damages. E. Civil Penalty Enumerated: Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. A civil action for such violation or failure may be brought by the County of Roanoke. Any civil penalties assessed by a court shall be paid into the Treasury of the County of Roanoke, except that where the violator is the locality itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the State Treasury. F. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this ordinance, the County of Roanoke may provide for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in Subsection B(2) of this section. Such civil chazges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under Subsection B or E. G. The County's Attorney shall, upon request of the County of Roanoke or the permit issuing authority, take legal action to enforce the provisions of this ordinance. H. Compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any damages. Section 8.1-10. APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW Any applicant under the provision of this ordinance who is aggrieved by any action of the County of Roanoke or its agent in disapproving plans submitted pursuant to this ordinance shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. In reviewing the agent's actions, the Board of Supervisors shall consider evidence and opinions presented by the aggrieved applicant and agent. After considering the evidence and opinions, the Board of Supervisors decision shall be final, subject only to review by the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. Any applicant who seeks an appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors shall be heazd at the next regularly scheduled Boazd of Supervisors public hearing provided that the Board of Supervisors and other involved parties have at least 30 days prior notice. Final decisions of the County of Roanoke under this ordinance shall be subject to review by the County of Roanoke Circuit Court, provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties, or privileges of the person engaging in or proposing to engage in land-disturbing activities. Section 8-1.11 CIVIL VIOLATIONS, SUMMONS, GENERALLY. A. The Director shall prepare an appropriate "Erosion and Sediment Control Civil Violation Summons" for use in enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. B. Any inspector of the plan approving authority charged with enforcing this Chapter shall serve upon any owner or permittee in violation of this Chapter, a summons notifying the owner or permittee of said violation. If unable to serve the owner or permittee in person, the inspector may notify by summons an owner or permittee committing or suffering the existence of a violation by certified, return receipt requested mail, of the infraction. The Roanoke County Sheriff's Office may also deliver the summons. The summons shall contain the following information: r-.~, ~,_. ~~ The name and address of the person charged. 2. The nature of the violation and ordinance provision(s) being violated. The location, date, and time that the violation occurred, or was observed. 4. The amount of the civil penalty assessed for the violation. The manner, location, and time that the civil penalty may be paid to the County. 6. The right of the recipient of the summons to elect to stand trial for the infraction and the date of such trial. C. The summons shall provide that any person summoned for a violation may, within 5 days of actual receipt of the summons or, within 10 days from the date of mailing of the summons, elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in person, or in writing by mail to the Roanoke County Treasurer's Office and, by such appearance, may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the violation charged and provide that a signature to an admission of liability shall have the same force and effect as a judgment in court; however, an admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. D. If a person charged with a violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the County shall cause the Sheriff of Roanoke County to serve the summons on the person charged in the manner prescribed by law. The violation shall be tried in General District Court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided for in Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia. In any trial for a scheduled violation authorized by this section, it shall be the burden of the County to show the liability of the violator by the preponderance of the evidence. Any admission of liability, or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction for any purpose. E. The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative, and are not exclusive and, except as provided above, shall be in addition to any other remedies by law. F. The owner or permittee may pay the civil penalty to the Treasurer prior to the trial date, provided he also pays necessary court costs in addition to the civil penalty. G. Within the time period prescribed in C., above, the owner or permittee, may contest the violation by presenting it to the Director, who shall certify the contest in writing, on an appropriate form, to the General District Court. H. Failure to pay the civil penalty, or to contest the violation, within the time period prescribed in C., above, shall result in the immediate issuance of a stop work order and the revocation of the permit, if any. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be February 1, 2004. 10 y...,.. ~""„t ,..,,.. .~+ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE TO REPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 8. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 8.1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Article 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Chapter 5, SOIL ANA WATER CONSERVATION, of Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the County of Roanoke, Virginia, is authorized to establish and administer an erosion and sediment control program, including an Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, at the request of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, staff is reviewing the development standards and is recommending several revisions to be made effective by repeal of the former ordinance and adoption of the following Code provisions; and, WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been published in a newspaper of general circulation within Roanoke County on January 13, 2004, and January 20, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2002, and the second reading and public hearing was held on January 27, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 8. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL of the Roanoke County Code be, and hereby is, repealed in its entirety. 2. That Chapter 8.1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL of the Roanoke County Code be enacted as follows: r~. CHAPTER 8.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Section 8.1-1 TITLE, PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This ordinance shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of the County of Roanoke, Virginia." The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water, air and other natural resources of the County of Roanoke by establishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation, and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced. Section 8.1-2 APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER IN TOWN OF VINTON The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable within the corporate limits of the Town of Vinton. Administrative procedures and review fees may be established to accommodate the review of plans for development located within the town. Section 8.1-3 DEFINITIONS: As used in the ordinance, unless the context requires a different meaning: A. "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" means a contract between the plan-approving authority and the owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in all construction disturbing between 2,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet and/or 250-500 cubic yards; this contract may be executed by the plan-approving authority in lieu of a formal site plan. B. "Applicant" means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land-disturbing activities to commence. C. "Board" means the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. D. "Certified Inspector" means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of project inspection. E. "Certified Plan Reviewer" means an employee or agent of a program authority who (i) holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of plan review (ii) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec. 54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 54.1. F. "Certified Program Administrator" means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the Board in the area of program administration. G. "Clearing" means any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover including, but not limited to, root mat removal or top soil removal. H. "Conservation Plan," "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" or "Plan" means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. I. "County" means the County of Roanoke. J. "Denuded" means a term applied to land that has been physically disturbed and no longer supports vegetative cover. 2 r-~ x K. "Department" means the Department of Conservation and Recreation. "`~ L. "Development" means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling units. M. "Director" means the Director of Community Development or his assignee. N. "District" or "Soil and Water Conservation District" refers to the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District. O. "Dormant" refers to denuded land that is not actively being brought to a desired grade or condition. P. "Erosion Impact Area" means an area of land not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of 10,000 square feet or less used for residential purposes. Q. "Excavating" means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth materials. R. "Filling" means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials. S. "Grading" means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions. T. "Land-Disturbing Activity" means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; Individual service connections; Installation, maintenance, or repairs of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land-disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which ishard-surfaced; 4. Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; Surface or deep mining; Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and off-site disposal areas; Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however, this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 (Sec. 10.1-1100 et seq.) of this title or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B of Sec. 10.1-1163; Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of--way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; ..~ Agricultural engineering operations including but not lin>ited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safety Act, Article 2 (Section 10.1-604 et. seq.) of Chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing,contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; 10. Disturbed land areas for all uses of less than 2,500 square feet and/or less than 250 cubic yards in size; 11. Installation offence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; 12. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land- disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority. U. "Land disturbing permit" means a permit issued by the County of Roanoke for the clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any purpose set forth herein. V. "Local Erosion and Sediment Control Program" or "program" means an outline of the various methods employed by the County of Roanoke to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation. W. "Owner" means the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. X. "Permittee" means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. Y. "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the conmlonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity. Z. "Plan-approving authority" means the Department of Community Development which is responsible for determining the adequacy of a conservation plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans. AA. "Post-development" refers to conditions that may be reasonably expected or anticipated to exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site or tract of land. BB. "Pre-development" refers to conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to the plan-approving authority. Where phased development or plan approval occurs (preliminary grading, roads and utilities, etc.), the existing conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan for the initial phase is submitted for approval shall establish pre-development conditions. CC. "Program authority" means the County of Roanoke which has adopted a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program approved by the Board. DD. "Responsible Land Disturber" means an individual from the project or development team, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out aland-disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who (i) holds a Responsible Land Disturber certificate of competence, (ii) holds a current certificate of competence from the Board in the areas of Combined Administration, Program Administration, Inspection or Plan Review, (iii) holds a current Contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control, or (iv) is licensed in Virginia as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Sec. 54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 54.1. 4 .. x. .y- ~... ~~ EE. "Single-family residence" means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family. FF. "Stabilized" means an area that can be expected to withstand normal exposure to atmospheric conditions without incurring erosion damage. GG. "State waters" means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdictions. HH. "Town" means the incorporated Town of Vinton. I I. "Transporting" means any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs. Section 8.1-4 ADMINISTRATION OF CHAPTER IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCES. This chapter shall be administered, where applicable, in conjunction with the county's subdivision and zoning ordinances wherein such apply to the development and subdivision of land within the county or where such apply to development on previously subdivided land within the county. Section 8.1-5 LOCAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM A. Pursuant to section 10.1-562 Of the Code of Virginia, the County of Roanoke hereby adopts the regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board and those more stringent local stormwater management criteria which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources. Said regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for erosion and sediment control are included in but not limited to the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations" and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended. B. The County of Roanoke hereby designates the Director of Community Development or his assignee as the plan-approving authority. C. The program and regulations provided for in this ordinance shall be made available for public inspection at the office of the Department of Community Development. D. Pursuant to Sec. 10.1-561.1 of the Code of Virginia, an erosion control plan shall not be approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections of land-disturbing activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The Erosion Control Program of the County of Roanoke shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified inspector, who may be the same person. Section 8.1-6. REGULATED LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES; SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS; CONTENTS OF PLANS A. Except as provided herein, no person SHALL engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has submitted to the Department of Community Development for the County of Roanoke one of the following for the land-disturbing activity and it has been approved by the plan approving authority. 1. Where the land-disturbing activity results in between 2,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet and/or 250-500 cubic yards of disturbed area, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" maybe substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the plan-approving authority. 2. Where the land-disturbing activity results in between 5,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet and/or 500-750 cubic yards of disturbed area, either a plot plan prepared by a certified „~' Responsible Land Disturber or an engineered plan prepared by a professional engineer showing the erosion and sediment control measures must be submitted and executed by the plan-approving authority. A certified Responsible Land Disturber must be named. Where the land-disturbing activity results in 10,000 square feet or more and/or 750 cubic yards or more of disturbed area, an erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted which has been prepared by a professional engineer. For disturbed areas of less than 10,000 square feet, refer to the chart below to determine requirements for the site. Square Feet &/or Cubic Yards Requirements <2,500 0 Exempt from E & S Plan; *Building Permit Plot Plan required 2,500-5,000 250-500 "Agreement in Lieu" of a plan; permit fee; "Building Permit Plot Plan required 5,000-10,000 500-750 Certified RLD, 'Building Permit Plot Plan by a certified RLD or a P.E.; permit fee >10,000 >750 RLD, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a P.E.; agreement; surety; a *Buildin Permit Plot Plan, if required by the Building Commissioner B. *Refer to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building_Code for Building Permit Plot Plan Requirements. C. If lots in a subdivision are sold to another owner, that person is responsible for obtaining a certified Responsible Land Disturber and submitting a plot plan for each lot to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control permit. D. The standards contained with The "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations," and The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and those more stringent local stormwater management criteria which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this ordinance and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. In cases where one standard conflicts with another, the more stringent applies. The plan approving authority, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines. E. The plan approving authority shall grant written approval within 45 days of the receipt of the plan, if it is determined that the plan meets the requirements of the local control program, and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he or she will properly perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions of this ordinance. When the plan is determined to be inadequate, written notice of disapproval stating the specific reasons for disapproval shall be communicated to the applicant within forty-five days. The notice shall specify the modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken by the plan- approving authority within the time specified above, the plan shall be deemed approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. F. Responsible Land Disturber requirement. As a prerequisite to engaging in the land-disturbing activities shown on the approved plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, to the program authority, as provided by Section 10.1-561, of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity (the Responsible Land Disturber). Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence prior to engaging in land-disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this ordinance. However, the plan-approving authority may waive the certificate of competence for an "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" for construction of asingle-family residence meeting the requirements in 8.1-3T (10) of this ordinance. If a violation occurs during the land-disturbing activity, then the person responsible for carrying out the "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" shall correct the violation and provide the name of an individual ~„" """ holding a certificate of competence, as provided by Section 10.1-561 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence shall be a violation of this ordinance and may result in penalties provided in this ordinance. G. An approved plan may be changed by the plan approving authority when: The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this ordinance, are agreed to by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan. H. In order to prevent further erosion, the County of Roanoke may require approval of a conservation plan for any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area. I. When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. Whenever electric and telephone utility companies or railroad companies undertake any of the activities included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection, they shall be considered exempt fi-om the provisions of this ordinance. Construction, installation or maintenance of electric transmission, natural gas and telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and 2. Construction of the tracks, rights-of--way, bridges, conununication facilities and other related structures and facilities of the railroad company. The Board shall have 60 days in which to approve the specifications. If not action is taken by the Board within 60 days, the specifications shall be deemed approved. Individual approval of separate projects within subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection is not necessary when approved specifications are followed. Projects not included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate local erosion and sediment control program. The Board shall have the authority to enforce approved specifications. K. State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, pursuant to Section 10.1-564 of the Code of Virginia. L. If the grade of a site is more than 33.3%, refer to the International Building Code for Steep Slope Development requirements. Section 8.1-7. PERMITS; FEES; BONDING; ETC.: A. Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving land-disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. B. No person SHALL engage in any land-disturbing activity until he has acquired aland-disturbing permit, unless the proposed land-disturbing activity is specifically exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, and has paid the fees and posted the required bond. C. Fees: An applicant requesting permission to begin land-disturbing activity pursuant to this article shall pay the following fees to cover the administrative expense of review, permitting, and inspection. ~-3 Square Feet &/or Cubic Yards Fees Cap Requirement <2,500 <250 $0.00 None 2,500-5,000 250-500 $25.00 In Lieu of A reement 5,000-10,000 500-750 $50.00 Responsible Land Disturber >10,000 >750 $100 + $100/disturbed acre or portion $500.00 Certified Inspector for pro~ect >10,000 >750 $100 + $100/disturbed acre or portion No Certified Inspector for pro~ect D. Bond: All applicants for permits shall provide to the County of Roanoke a performance bond, cash escrow, or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Director of Community Development or his assignee, to ensure that measures could be taken by the County of Roanoke at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail, AFTER PROPER NOTICE, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation measures required of him as a result of his land-disturbing activity. Should it be necessary for the County of Roanoke to take such conservation action, the County of Roanoke may collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the amount of the surety held. Within sixty (60) days of adequate stabilization and completion of all other site requirements, as determined by the Director of Community Development or his assignee, such bond, cash escrow or letter of credit, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof shall be either refunded to the applicant or terminated. E. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits. Section 8.1-8. MONITORING, REPORTS, AND INSPECTIONS A. The County of Roanoke may require the person responsible for carrying out the plan and/or the Responsible Land Disturber to monitor and maintain the land-disturbing activity. The Responsible Land Disturber will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. B. The Department of Community Development shall periodically inspect the land-disturbing activity as required under the state program to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. If the Director of Community Development or his assignee determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan or if the plan is determined to be inadequate, notice shall be served upon the permittee, person responsible for carrying out the plan or the Responsible Land Disturber by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the site of the land- disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply within the specified time, the permit may be revoked and the permittee shall be deemed to be in violation of this ordinance and, upon conviction, shall be subject to the penalties provided by this ordinance. C. Upon determination of a violation of this ordinance, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. If land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or proper permits, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance, issue an order requiring that all of the land-disturbing and/or construction activities be stopped until an approved plan or any required permits are obtained. Failure to comply will result in civil penalties as outlined in Section 8.1-9 of this ordinance. 8 Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmfi-1 erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this ordinance. Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate relief to the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or any required permits within seven days from the date of service of the order, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and any required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or the land records of the County of Roanoke. The owner may appeal the issuance of an order to the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the Director of Community Development or his assignee may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Director of Community Development or his assignee from taking any other action authorized by this ordinance. Section 8.1-9. PENALTIES, INJUNCTIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ACTIONS A. Violators of this ordinance shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. B. Civil Penalties: 1. A civil penalty in the amount listed on the schedule below shall be assessed for each violation of the respective offenses: a) Commencement of land disturbing activity without an approved plan as provided in Section 8.6-1 shall be $1,000/day. b) Vegetative Measures -failure to comply with items 1, 2 and 3 of the Minimum Standards shall be $100/violation/day. c) Structural Measures -failure to comply with items 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17 of the Minimum Standards shall be $100/violation day. d) Watercourse Measures -failure to comply with items 12, 13 and 15 of the Minimum Standards shall be $100/violation/day. e) Underground Utility Measures -failure to comply with item 16(a) and/or (c) shall be $100/violation/day. f) Failure to obey a stop work order shall be $100/day. g) Failure to stop work when permit revoked $100/day. 2. Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, in no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $3,000, except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of land-disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of $10,000. The assessment of civil penalties ~~ ., ,, ~, according to this schedule shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions and shall preclude the prosecution of such violation as a misdemeanor under Subsection A of this section. C. The Director of Community Development or his assignee may apply to the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of this ordinance, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. D. In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this ordinance, any person who violates any provision of this ordinance may be liable to the County of Roanoke in a civil action for damages. E. Civil Penalty Enumerated: Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,000 for each violation. A civil action for such~violation or failL~re may be brought by the County of Roanoke. Any civil penalties assessed by a court shall be paid into the Treasury of the County of Roanoke, except that where the violator is the locality itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the State Treasury. F. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this ordinance, the County of Roanoke may provide for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in Subsection B(2) of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under Subsection B or E. G. The County's Attorney shall, upon request of the County of Roanoke or the permit issuing authority, take legal action to enforce the provisions of this ordinance. H. Compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any damages. Section 8.1-10. APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW Any applicant under the provision of this ordinance who is aggrieved by any action of the County of Roanoke or its agent in disapproving plans submitted pursuant to this ordinance shall have the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. In reviewing the agent's actions, the Board of Supervisors shall consider evidence and opinions presented by the aggrieved applicant and agent. After considering the evidence and opinions, the Board of Supervisors decision shall be final, subject only to review by the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke. Any applicant who seeks an appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors public hearing provided that the Board of Supervisors and other involved parties have at least 30 days prior notice. Final decisions of the County of Roanoke under this ordinance shall be subject to review by the County of Roanoke Circuit Court, provided an appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties, or privileges of the person engaging in or proposing to engage in land-disturbing activities. Section 8-1.11 CIVIL VIOLATIONS, SUMMONS, GENERALLY. A. The Director shall prepare an appropriate "Erosion and Sediment Control Civil Violation Sunmions" for use in enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. B. Any inspector of the plan approving authority charged with enforcing this Chapter shall serve upon any owner or permittee in violation of this Chapter, a summons notifying the owner or permittee of said violation. If unable to serve the owner or permittee in person, the inspector may notify by summons an owner or permittee committing or suffering the existence of a violation by certified, return receipt requested mail, of the infraction. The Roanoke County Sheriffs Office may also deliver the summons. The summons shall contain the following information: 10 r, ~, C~" ,~'~ ,., - ,~,~ The name and address of the person charged. '~"' .,~' 2. The nature of the violation and ordinance provision(s) being violated. The location, date, and time that the violation occurred, or was observed 4. The amount of the civil penalty assessed for the violation. The manner, location, and time that the civil penalty may be paid to the County. The right of the recipient of the summons toelect to stand trial for the infraction and the date of such trial. C. The summons shall provide that any person summoned for a violation may, within 5 days of actual receipt of the summons or, within 10 days from the date of mailing of the summons, elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in person, or in writing by mail to the Roanoke County Treasurer's Office and, by such appearance, may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the violation charged and provide that a signature to an admission of liability shall have the same force and effect as a judgment in court; however, an admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. D. If a person charged with a violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the County shall cause the Sheriff of Roanoke County to serve the summons on the person charged in the manner prescribed by law. The violation shall be tried in General District Court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided for in Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia. In any trial for a scheduled violation authorized by this section, it shall be the burden of the County to show the liability of the violator by the preponderance of the evidence. Any admission of liability, or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction for any purpose. E. The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative, and are not exclusive and, except as provided above, shall be in addition to any other remedies by law. F. The owner or permittee may pay the civil penalty to the Treasurer prior to the trial date, provided he also pays necessary court costs in addition to the civil penalty. G. Within the time period prescribed in C., above, the owner or permittee, may contest the violation by presenting it to the Director, who shall certify the contest in writing, on an appropriate form, to the General District Court. H. Failure to pay the civil penalty, or to contest the violation, within the time period prescribed in C., above, shall result in the immediate issuance of a stop work order and the revocation of the permit, if any. That the provisions of this ordinance shall be effective on February I, 2004. 11 ~ , ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ -t-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance authorizing the quitclaim and release of Roanoke County's interest in a portion of the "old Bushdale Road" pursuant to an agreement with Elga Draper and Lura Draper, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Vickie L. Huffman Senior Assistant County Attorney Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the request of the residents of Bushdale Road, this private roadway was placed on the Rural Addition Priority List for upgrade for future State maintenance. Acquisition of certain rights-of-way for the relocation of portions of Bushdale Road was undertaken by the County. Road construction was provided by VDOT through Rural Addition Funds and the cost associated with engineering and right-of-way acquisition was funded by Roanoke County. In connection with this road project, the donation of all right, title and interest to a portion of Bushdale Road from Elga Draper and Lura Draper (Deed Book 1394, page 781) was accepted by the Board of Supervisors. In exchange for this, Elga and Lura Draper negotiated with County staff regarding the eventual disposition of the section of Bushdale Road which is located between the Bush property and the Draper property, cross-hatched on the attached map (Exhibit A) and hereinafter referred to as the "old Bushdale Road section." This section was not scheduled to become part of the improved Bushdale Road and the Drapers wanted this road to provide them with continued private access to their properties. Staff anticipated that this section would no longer be necessary to the County, the public, or the other property owners on Bushdale Road when the project was completed, and recommended approval of the .~ agreement. The acceptance of this donation and the execution of this agreement were approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1993. The Board approval provided that once the project was completed and staff had confirmed that the "old Bushdale Road section" was no longer required for any public purpose, the matter would be returned to the Board of Supervisors to authorize the conveyance of the real estate by two readings of an ordinance. County staff has confirmed that the "old Bushdale Road section" is no longer required for any public purpose. The heirs of Elga Draper and Lura Draper have conveyed a portion of the property that is adjacent to the "old Bushdale Road section" and have requested that this matter be finalized. This Board action authorizes the quitclaim and release of Roanoke County's interest in the "old Bushdale Road section" pursuant to the agreement with Elga Draper and Lura Draper: (i) That portion of the "old Bushdale Road" adjacent to Tax Map No. 79.03-4- 36 to be conveyed to the new property owners, Jeffrey A. Dorsett and Stephanie R. Dorsett; and (ii) the remaining portion of the "old Bushdale Road section" adjacent to Tax Map No. 79.03-4-35.1 to be conveyed to the heirs of Elga Draper and Lura Draper; all as shown on a map prepared by Balzer and Associates dated November 28, 2003, and a portion of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A first reading of the attached ordinance authorizing this quitclaim and release is scheduled for January 13, 2004, and the second reading is scheduled for January 27, 2004. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. 2 r -~; AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE OF ROANOKE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE "OLD BUSHDALE ROAD" PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH ELGA DRAPER AND LURA DRAPER, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Bushdale Road was placed on the Rural Addition Priority List for upgrade for future State maintenance, with road construction being provided by VDOT through Rural Addition Funds and the cost associated with engineering and right-of-way acquisition being funded by Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the donation of all right, title and interest in Bushdale Road by Elga Draper and Lura Draper was contingent upon Roanoke County's agreement to quitclaim and release the "old Bushdale Road section" to the Drapers once the project was complete and staff had determined that this portion of Bushdale Road was no longer required for any public purpose; and WHEREAS, the Bushdale Road project is complete and this road has been accepted by VDOT as part of the State Secondary System; and WHEREAS, County staff has determined that the "old Bushdale Road section" is no longer required for any public purpose and can be quitclaimed and released pursuant to the agreement between Roanoke County and the Drapers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by 1 f#,Y,.~ ~ •~.• 'one. y,~ -~~ t ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2004, and the second reading was held on January 27, 2004; and, 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be released are no longer needed for any public purpose; and 3. That quit-claim and release to Jeffrey A. Dorsett and Stephanie R. Dorsett of that portion of the "old Bushdale Road section," adjacent to Tax Map No. 79.003-4-36 as shown on the attached map prepared by Balzer and Associates dated November 28, 2003, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized. 4. That quit-claim and release to the heirs of Elga Draper and Lura Draper of the remaining portion of the "old Bushdale Road section," adjacent to Tax Map No. 79.03-4-35.1 as shown on the attached map prepared by Balzer and Associates dated November 28, 2003, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized. 5. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 _~.`nfi = - DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A MPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT ACCURATE .BOUNDARY SURVEY. ~ ._~ iG PROP. OF V. CYPHERS, ET ~. " TD BE rtnc~cn ,PEAS TAX MAP NO EXHiBiT ____ _____...-.,-.,~,r,r., nr.~ri~ nma~r, arm T1ATFi'• 7 ~17Iq' ~~ C7 Q ~~ `~ o .~ ~ v t~ v o ~ a m o ~ (may oA~~ ~~o r O ~ ~ M' o~y o a ~ ~+ c o~o ti m ~, (O n o ~~ o w o o a~ C o ~a /^~ ~~ o CONC.~WALK N~~ ~~\ ti /~ 59.9 " ~ti ~~ W 2 C ~'o~,~ ~"9~l ~~ lr vn nruiu ur~r_~.n~.~r nvnrr~ U .. I S79'40 "00'E 302 00'- o a "''' n = ~ ~ i o g ~ /x~ fi ~ ~ v~ x x l ti~v \" ~^~ ~ a '~ ~ w ,- ~ tE ~ a C ~ pPPOG pRp.It~fIE~~ ~ '~ `~~ E~15TI~G, L' ~ '~ yo ~ZO ~C~ 000 W~~ r i~ ~~~ (>co ~ cnvv~ ~ ~~? n ~~Z ~nnn ~ ~~ ;, ,ooh `'woo p~~~w ~ ~ ssoo, ~p~y I~ ~n ac„ os•I ~-- GHU-"- OHU- W ~ jj ^j ll ,,.... aL.. , v® I y0 O~ c~j c°» v ti ~a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~y a ~O~ ~ p~ Q ~~O °j O ~la ~~ ~... - N29'44 42'1N 151:05 101.64' ~ hz ~ ,, ~~~~.rn ~- ro 00 ' ~ ~ ~~~0 ~ "Zo of a ~~ ~O~ I 1 ~~ ®88• 0~0 o~~y ~'A ,' ~ o0 0-~ ~a ac~~ ai n n~ y'1/ '~ ~ ni `° a ' ~ W r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~'1 nl V I V ~ ~ G,py~Fl ~ ra ~~ .t, ~ W a ~i ~~0~ ~ ~' ~ V ~ ~ y O ~ Q Z ~ ~ ~ ~$ ~~ ~ r Oa~O r o ~' ~-a ~ y~ I Z °w ~ // ` \ 7 ~~ i l ~~ n`af r r ~ ~ n cWn ~ r'1 I I Oy ~ I f~ ~ / ,fig' , yG\ ~ O r~r ~ ~ v o ~ ~ ~ ~ v °~ N ~ ?293 °~ ~ I~~ y~~ ~ `~ a > ~ ~ ~J ~ e~~ o ti/~TOT9~J o s~ ~ rn~ ~ ~ ^~i I ~ ~7 a 4 't' ~N o S ~ C7 m r. v n ~ C ~ 7sr~'9~liV TIC 3`S 9~+~00\~~7 _ ~ ° o ~ o ~ (fj .,l' 93 ~F ~F,p h ~'F r j - gyp. -, ~ (~ ~ ~ D "'{ J m O O uj ~ ~j,9 jO,9c 'vN~,l/ O ~Sg N n z < ..,~ -~ , ~ -i -i z , um, . p~ F ~S G,S+ y Z S~T~ cn °~ a ~~ Z m -- D ~, o X z D C (Tl S S9 t~ g oT ~~~``~zp°mo~n W ~n °~oG~ r Ir-~o 80 ~~ go?~ ~J~ ~'S.3S- a °tZo~OC~~m-Ci D~ cnm o ~~~Cn r DAZ o -~A~ , v c1 v- << S D^ ~` - co to 0 ~ Z W n'I G m R° rn ~ ~^O O = ITZI O CW/r x O N I~ ~I '~ ~ tom- 2 O Q) n~Nwm~nmm-n cn~m 0°~n D~vzrnz~~ mNmN~- r-~~~lDco~l ~~~ A ~~ n ~R1oo < zroo m - _+ m ~ °o Vl~o~~~~~~'«r~i~Z °=rno ~Um ~ ~pU1 ~co once-i~m~S~V ~ zm c°Z°m~ ~ D~< ~.~ w ~ovAi°~ o o ~c7 y nl -p ~ ~ DCm7° ~ ~ ~m ~ hl NP ~ Z o O m W ~ ~ o A~Z~ N 9 N _ w ~ o n o a 0 C'N -+ ~O CO J O U ? W N ~ n 0 Z m 7 O a. a a ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ z (O 0] 00 CT ~ U rn Ur 01 c0 O .-L7 OO1 (On COJ7 ~ UI O ~ ~ W OOi A ° _ O . N ~ S ( tr W ( iJ N (n N ~ W Ut Z D W ~ O W G7 --i Of T ~ T ( -0~ -P N i O i O m r A ? A A A J A ? 0 ~A t0 Ut O A D ~ ~ cp W J ~ J ~ J W ~ J b c ~ ~ c U [ lr Cn ~I ? cO ? i O Co J N - ` J N Ov Z j ? Clr J (71 ~ (T 01 c0 1 O J J ~ W N N u7 (O Cv W ~P N N J J Ut O] CO z ~ ~ j /MENT o CE ~ ' ~ m m PA ~ RDAD D r~ a ° ~ ` BUSHDALE ° WIDTH R/~' LE m < i /ARIAB m z ~~..°hO ° in ° _ W _° ~ o ~~ m ~ m c7 ' ~ o '9 2 r o i ~ 'm*~ ~ Vl ~ C W ~ ~ ~ O m ~ W O D ~ vu ~ F~ O ~ ~ o o~'~\C D~ N y dIN~ -'~ ~ f 1~ m Exhibit B J - ~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~s - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 13, 2003 Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20' waterline easement dedicated by subdivision plat and revised subdivision plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 26-33, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and Plat Book 26, Page 11, respectively, and further shown on the subdivision plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 107-113, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 83, across property owned by CBI Developers (Tax Map Nos. 27.20-1- 29.1, 27.20-4-18 and 27.20-4-19), Hollins Magisterial District Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~I-ca~nme~ (?~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The petitioner, CBI Developers, LLC, is the current owner of property and requests that an unused 20 ft. water line easement be vacated. The existing water line easement was originally dedicated to the public by subdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and revised in Plat Book 26, Page 11. CBI Developers, LLC, revised their subdivision development plans for The Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, relocating the 20 ft. water line easement to another location to allow a different configuration of lots as shown on the approved development plans. To be able to build houses on Lots 118 and 119, it is necessary to vacate the 20 ft. water line easement encumbering these lots. The easement being vacated is shown on the attached plat. The Department of Community Development and the Utility Department have both reviewed the submitted plans and approved them for construction. Both departments have no objection to the vacation of this easement. .J ~ . r 7 u-I FISCAL IMPACT: CBI Developers, LLC, will be responsible for all costs associated with the vacation of this 20 ft. water line easement. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the second reading of the proposed ordinance to vacate the water line easement as shown on the attached plat. 2. Decline approval of the vacation of the water line easement as shown on the attached plat. 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, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26-33, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 171, AND PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 11, RESPECTIVELY, AND FURTHER SHOWN ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107- 113, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 83, ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY CBI DEVELOPERS (TAX MAP NOS. 27.20-1-29.1, 27.20-4- 18 AND 27.20-4-19) LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 25, page 171, and revised subdivision plat of record in Plat Book 26, page 11, for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26- 33", dated July 23, 2002, and revised September 3, 2002, the developer, CBI Developers, LLC, dedicated and created a "NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT", shown on Sheet 2 of said plat; and, WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107-113", dated February 24, 2003, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 26, page 83, said waterline easement was relocated by dedication of a `New 30' Public Water & Sanitary Sewer Easement'; and, WHEREAS, the existing 20' waterline easement is unused and no longer required; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner-Developer, CBI Developers, LLC, has requested that the subject 20' waterline easement, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, c-i WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, will not interfere with the provision of public services, and has been approved by the affected County departments; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on December 16, 2003, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the "EX. 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 11" shown cross-hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated and created as "NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT" by subdivision plat and revised subdivision plat of "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26- 33", dated July 23, 2002, and revised September 3, 2002, and recorded as aforesaid in Plat Book 25, page 171, and Plat Book 26, page 11, respectively, and being further shown on the subdivision plat for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1 , LOTS 1 O7- 113", dated February 24, 2003, and of record in Plat Book 26, page 83, located in the Hollins Magisterial District, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner, CBI Developers, LLC. 2 ~.~~ 3. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 3 _.-- i i ,~ EX. 11' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ~ ~ Q ( ( I P.B. 26 PG. 11 I Z f _--- --- `-' 1 ~ M~ /~ EXISTING I I I ~ \ 30' PUBLIC I C~ WATER & SANITAR~ I J~ / SEWER EASEMEN / \.B. 26 PG 83 ~ ~ ~ O ;~ EX. 20 PUBLIC ~ I I I O~ / FUTURE LOTS WATERLINE EASEMENT ~ I I Q ~ P.B. 26 PG. 11 ~ EXISTING Z~ ~ 15' PRIVATE STORM DRAIN \ \ ~O I EASEMENT ~ ___-- ~~ ~ 0-O I --- .,_,_P.B. 26 PG. 83 r ~ ~ ~~ ~ -- -._.. ~ ~ ~--- ____ -- _ I ~~ ~~~ -"~ ~~ ____ ----' _ EXISTING ---' ~ -- "' I PUBLIC WATER ~" & SANITA Y SEWER EXISTING PUBLIC o~ I I EASEMEN WATER & SANITARY I P.B. 26 PG. 83 SEWER EASEMENT ~~ I P.B. 26 PG 83 LOT 117 LOT 118 Nk LOT 119 LOT 120 I ~~ , '<,.,/o ~ (TIE ONLY) I ~ I I I / ' , --N 14'37'22" ' W 103.89' (TOTAL) ~ ~ SOUTH BATTERY DRIVE 32' R/W (PRIVATE) I I - - ----~--- ~~. i I ~~ ____ ___- /-1 ~\ ~~ I EXISTING 1I5' PRIVATE ~r / I EX S.S.E. ( STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ~ P.B. 26 PG. 3 P.B. 26, PG. 83 I LOT 104 I LOT 103 ~ LOT 102 ~ LOT 101 EX 11' P.U.E. FUTURE LEGEND: P.B. 26 PG. 83 -------~~ LOTS ~ IRON PIN SET f ~yTH OF y~~ ff ~ 1 t~ DA A. PERFATER a iNo. 18 7 ~ ~~ ~~ ~U , ~1dIND ~~' MATTERN & CRAIC}, INC. 701 FIRST STREET ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 TELEPHONE (540)345-9342 S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA VACATION PLAT FOR THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK SHOWING VACATION OF EXISTING 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT (P.B. 26, PG. 11) SRUATE ON PLANTATION ROAD BEING THE PROPERTY OF CBI DEVELOPERS, LLC SCALE: 1" = 40' APPROVED: DATE: 10 31 03 PLAN N0. ______ NOTARY AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, .2004 ORDINANCE 011304-4 TO VACATE A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26-33, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 171, AND PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 11, RESPECTIVELY, AND FURTHER SHOWN ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107-113, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 83, ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY CBI DEVELOPERS (TAX MAP NOS. 27.20-1- 29.1, 27.20,4-18 AND 27.20-4-19) LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 25, page 171, and revised subdivision plat of record in Plat Book 26, page 11, for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26- 33", dated July 23, 2002, and revised September 3, 2002, the developer, CBI Developers, LLC, dedicated and created a "NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT", shown on Sheet 2 of said plat; and, WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107-113", dated February 24, 2003, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 26, page 83, said waterline easement was relocated by dedication of a `New 30' Public Water & Sanitary Sewer Easement'; and, WHEREAS, the existing 20' waterline easement is unused and no longer required; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner-Developer, CBI Developers, LLC, has requested that the subject 20' waterline easement, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, 1 WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, will not interfere with the provision of public services, and has been approved by the affected County departments; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on December 16, 2003, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the "EX. 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 11" shown cross-hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated and created as "NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT" by subdivision plat and revised subdivision plat of "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26- 33", dated July 23, 2002, and revised September 3, 2002, and recorded as aforesaid in Plat Book 25, page 171, and Plat Book 26, page 11, respectively, and being further shown on the subdivision plat for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107- 113", dated February 24, 2003, and of record in Plat Book 26, page 83, located in the Hollins Magisterial District, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner, CBI Developers, LLC. 3. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be 2 necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, 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, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora A COPY TESTE: cc: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 3 ~~ ~~- I I ---I ~3 • • • ~~_EX. 11' PUBLIC p ~ ~ I I I UTILITY EASEMENT Z ~ P.B. 26 PG. 11~I O CV ~ ~ __-- ~` __-- 1 M ~ /~ 30XIPUBLIC I I ~ O WATER & SANITAR~ I J ~ SEWER EASEMEN / / \.B. 26 PG 83 I ~ ~ O / ~ ( U~ I N \ ~ TT V+ N EX. 20' PUBLIC ~ ~ I I ~ ~ / FUTURE LOTS WATERLINE EASEMENT ~- P.B. 26 PG. 11 ~ Z ~ / EXISTING \ ~ \ I ~~ I 15' PRIVATE STORM DRAIN ~ J ~ 0 I EASEMENT x ~ \ ~ - -- P.B. 26 PG. 83 ----- `I . .---- ---' .~ I ~' ..C ___ "- --- ~ .~- ~~ EXISTING --- `- ~ I PUBLIC ~' -~ WATER _--- I & SANITA Y ~ --- SEWER EXISTING PUBLIC ~~ EASEMEN WATER & SANITARY ° I I P.B. 26 PGA 83 SEWER EASEMENT ~"\ I P.B. 26 PG 83 I ``~~ 3 LOT 118 Nk LOT 119 LOT 120 I r ~o LOT 117 _ a 14'56' " 5.50, I ~~ ~~~ ( I I I _ N (TIE ONLY) I= I I I I _ i ~ ----N 14'37'22-W 103.89' (TOTAL) ~ ~ ' ~ SOUTH BATE E RIVATEI) E 32' RAW ~P I I - - ----~'- - _ ~~ I I ~~ ~/j ' ~ EXISTING 15' PRIVATE ~, / ~ EX S.S.E. STORM DRAI~J EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 3 P.B. 26, PG. 83 I ~ I LOT 103 ~ LOT 102 ~ LOT 101 LOT 104 LEGEND: EX 11' P.U.E. FUTURE P.B. 26 PG. 83 ---~~ LOTS ~ IRON PIN SET S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT .~.-~-.,._ P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 0~~~1,'~H. OF Dl ~~, ~' l0 3~~0 3 '~~ v DA A. PgEpRFAT~ER~ 1N c ~/~% / ~L MATTERN & CRAIC3, INC. 701 FIRST STREET' ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 TELEPHONE (540)345-9342 HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA VACATION PLAT FOR THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK SHOWING VACATION OF EXISTING 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEIAENT (P.B. 26, PG. 11) SITUATE ON PLANTATION ROAD BEING THE PROPERLY OF CBI DEVELOPERS, LLC SCALE: 1" 40'APPROVED: ( DATE: 10/3'1 /03 1 PLAN NO NOTARY AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE 011304-5 TO VACATE, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE A 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN DEED BOOK 1321, PAGE 354, AND A 10' WELL LOT ACCESS EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD IN DEED BOOK 1044, PAGE 816, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ACHIEVEMENT CENTER FOUNDATION (TAX MAP NOS. 26.16-2-13 AND 26.16-2-12) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by deed of easement dated March 3, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1321, page 354, the Trustees of Azusa Street Ministries, U.P.C.1., a predecessor in title to the current owner, the Achievement Center Foundation, conveyed a 20' sanitary sewer easement to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, upon and across the parcel of land identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-13; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1044, page 816, the Roanoke County Public Service Authority conveyed a 10' access easement to and from a County well lot to the Board of County Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, upon and across the parcel of land identified as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-12; and, WHEREAS, during a recent land survey of the Achievement Center Foundation's property, it was discovered that neither the existing sanitary sewer line nor the gravel access road to the County's well lot was within the County's respective easements; and, WHEREAS, by `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in 1 Plat Book 27, page 47, the property owner has corrected the discrepancies by dedication of the easements in their respective correct locations to the County; and, WHEREAS, the Achievement Center Foundation has requested that the original unused easements as described above be vacated, quit-claimed and released by the County; and, WHEREAS, the new easements meet the requirements of the affected County departments and the relocation will accurately reflect the County's actual usage of the easements. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 16, 2003, and a second reading was held on January 13, 2004. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (unused sanitary sewer easement and well lot access easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That the 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the County by deed of easement dated March 3, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1321, page 354, across the property of the Achievement Center Foundation identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-13 in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, designated as "APPROX. LOCATION 2 4 EXISTING 20' S.S.E. D.B. 1321, PG. 363 TO BE VACATED" on the `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 47, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is authorized to be vacated, quit-claimed and released. 4. That the 10' well lot access easement conveyed to the County by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1044, page 816, across the property of the Achievement Center Foundation identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-12 in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, designated as "EXISTING 10' ACCESS EASEMENT (D.B. 1044, PG. 816) TO BE VACATED" on the `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 47, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is authorized to be vacated, quit-claimed and released. 5. That Roanoke County will assume the costs of preparing and recording the deeds of release associated with this action, to be paid from the available funds of the Department of Community Development. 6. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation and release, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 3 On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Paul Mahoney, County Attorney 4 4! C~ I i/a ~o [~ O ` ~~~ ,W ~. ~ , a~rg o ~ ~ (,~ 2 ~I 1 ~.r I ~I? ~rTM~ ~I Q ~I ~~ oI 2 l O F. ° IMF ~~ I J, ~~ ~~ Z ~~ I $I © ,/ \ ~~ ;~ ~ ~ `!, o~ rrAA yv, p'`~~'Y I ~ D / ~ ~ IN ~ N U / k l \ I t'7 III ~I{ O ~ ~+ ~ ~(/ ~ I 'V.. ~ .1 /// LV o f ~ _ ~ ~! ~ ~_ o ~ j .n c~ m Z ~:J c sLa~ r~ b ~ -~~ t 1 ;, ~~ .~ ^~ 1-9-F1'LZ~dVlYXVl ^• ~•^^ L6 'Od '653 9'0 .00'62! 3..00. Bf.OSS- • ~'~ ~' '40ynH.7 N77213.U653Xd '~ 390!2! N332l9 'r, tf T'Z J ~:,~ ! .SIN y ._ _ _ ~ /~'86Z 3„ 00, 86.865-_. F'tOly~53 3N/7 Sy~+ 1N3iY3Sb3 3N17 ~f'~ `.r 2/31Y,M 0178nd ,OZ `s'~ ~ y ,J y ONrlst'b •Ol M3N 3Nnb3tN39 ~ oy ,~ O 4i ~~ o~ 0.2 ¢ t~.~ av,p 72/n0 ~ ',u ~K ~~ ~6~ Z U J U ~ ' 211~~"' ~- u "~ '{~ U ~ 1 U - F ~l~B~~Z/~l Q W N ~ ~yoss i '~ de ~`~! ~ ~ V a N W 1 m o ~ N Q ~~ ~~ ~ z~~ ~ 117.99. ~ ~ ~q'14~- o UN e 56ea_.--" l~ o , • I e Ll fu ~ ti/9 L/ Q N~ i~ yh"~i/ Ai i~ ~~ ti bOh ~ / ~~ '' ^^ ~ ~~u ~ y~~ ~~ 4 ~ CAN / /~ ~11~L/~ yiV / / / 4 ~~04~ ~ /~u L N ~~m0 t~l, .1 KJ // ~ yk ~ 'V~"~ "lip ~ ~\\ 4~?hN /~'h'k j 567. ~ > Z a ~ ~ I _-~_ ti Z• ~o N ~ ~ z ~~~ a ~+s BZ,r~ .~ M h_ h~m~ N v ~ts ~ ` ~i"s r MJOj ;I-p J t~ q ~~ 2 ~ ddb V ~FF'S! . ~ b'SV0.y ~ l 9 `t;p ~ F n ~ I Z~ l,~h,. FSl ~d d ~ 1N_1Y O ~a b,~ d ~j ~/CWi N ~..J Mk rJ~' y ~ ly ii 1 L O G IV'J~ 1 ~~ 2 W y ,F ^ ', i ~~ O ~ v~'T iv z m ~ ~ ¢j ~ i„:0. ~ W fl' _ ~ m° U ~w _ _ _~ o q•y7•~y O~ z 4~~ 12.TU g~ owv N~~nc°.~ Baaia ~'~, ~~b a~J~=~' ~cWwr.~Cn~N ll,co•oal n ~,?~°.ro ~ ~y~~ . zU01°-n~~o`~a~~~°S~$ N ~~tt'' ^~ 4 u~ d N 0,8S,86S-- ~0~~0 2~~ry w~~m~awm~lwir J~`'oim o 5~u Q rn~ySrntLU O ~"O ~ v/ ' ~ r ~ ~ ~ V ~' n -- --~ m 0 ~ •~ ~ /~l/ OS ?~ V 6 ~ = 3mW = 7 s7 O r :LS 1H~lMO ~ Q O ~' a s ~ o N B-3-f['LZ fl0l '~ 8811{ '8'0 vaN ~ °o NrHanun 3N/Hl"l?INHO ~7 3H0003HL ~ ¢ ~ ~ -_d/N \ o o m y D 1 J !~ ^ f9Ll 'Oo 'SS6l ''&'O U ~ ~ ~ m ^ ON1)QA 72+830 ~ x2lvlY ~ ~ n /V / WWI - V 1 ~w~ ' 2~ ! ~~ >` ~ Ol-9-Sf'LZ %Nl 69f1 ~ad '23s1 a•n M3NONV S1M37 I ~ . p ~~ ~ ~ / ,13i1bVH j/N O~ ~ ' ' p s ~j ~~ ~ • ! LZ W1 !!-_9-Fl ~. rLZ '~d so9e 's'o / 0 ,aNVO talc n3io 9Nb'0 sNnNN 37 T ~ .~li`N _ /~y _ - - __ Z t'•101~ 00 00l .;, 00, 8S.86S-- ~ 8 ~ 6.8£ZSN -LD'Z6 Zl -9-t!'LZ fYl ~ gL99 'Od FY9! '8'0~ _. _ ~ ~ - ' -~ p 2 0 3700 HtlQnl' q ~~ 3790 N~Hd3LS 4! ~, j/lJ 1~ ~ ~ /"~ 1 ' y ~~ ~ ' 3 v ~ 2~ ~~4~ Ol q Z _ _ ~ ~ U i Q~'~'~ 0 ' W ~~ ~q OOJ, ' Z l LZ iW:f fl-9-fl ' ' ' u F7 (~ ' ~ 0' M B SS 69 Jd 3.~Nb? 2 NO>371 ° ~ ~ ~`O ( 4 ~/N ~ ~ M pp ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ II x' f $ o ~ ~ ~ 8'0 1961 986 Jd Nt4YY7712/d k13H5 .N Y ' OI ' ' ~ ~ h b ~ ~ ~ r, t H. Ylll~N~37 N7 /1 H ~ N $ p C .t C lF7 g~ 133~5_S3N01' p ~" 3aN3d U ~ ~ ~ z I I ! ../ z ~W J~~ I ~ I o~n~~ I 4 II1 iv^ II ~ ~'~ b~Z I I ! i . ;~ ~ o'^ u o ~ I ! 1 I ~ ~ s N~ N ~ ~Wz~ y711 !~ 'L ~ ~ ~ O W `` II~ I W ~O W4~o ~ ~ ~ 2~ I M I Oll\ Elm J J! ~~ ~, a = ~ c~~3h~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~©l91 Q~ I ! 5 \ r\\~-~~ ~j ~ C ~yw r~~ 1 U 0 N?~ Z~Z 7 oWV, T~O i N ~~ . ~j Uc '~ 4 m J ~y~y.4 F-'~{ O YZ aN m b ,y 2~ We~ / "4 W ~J N~ £s~ M kj~ ti ~a3 Q ~.J ~i ''`.~ ` 4 ~~ r . •~, ~ ~ y ~~ ~' ~9 ~~~~o ~ ~ VD ~ ~ ~~ o~ Q ~~ ~ v ~ ~~ ~4 ~ ti Q Z ~' C~'EEK ~,q~~S ~7T 2 -9/~~ r.~/F l TAX ~q~ ~9Ep-9 c'p,,~GyF ~~6 G ¢¢4 o~S'D ,6`2~ ~S /1/S3.T~ J 36h ~o Z I ^~ ~ ~~ ~l~' \' ~~ ~~~ -~ ~\ ~! l.~~i ~. l i i ~ 1 I ~ 1 ~ ,~- ;~~ /! ~~•_ (Q ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 7"p~'~~J gyp, Sq~'r~~'~i~,E 20o r Nir~Rr S 'vim' P~,~ c ~~E NOr~' ~s ~s~'~ENr . S S~ N/F JESSE JDNES, . JR. •- ELIZABETH JONES • W.B. •57, PG 454 .TAX MAP #26. J 6-2-14 1 LEGEND I ss SANITARY SEWER rt9ANHOLE ~ CLEAN OUT ® WATER METER -~- S/GN ~f LIGHT POLE ,~' 1JTILII'Y POL_F x FENCE. ~ ..,.~_~ ~O o~ ~~ :o ti r' i // FENCE Oh'U --------- U - --._.. APPROX. LOCATIONf~'` ZONE X(UNSHADED~ APPRO,k' L DCgT/O/~ P~ ~~ sd,~ ~ ~'/STING 2 p ~ 5• S, E ~~ Tp BE3~ 1. PG r~ 9 o~~ A~'ATfp 36`3 ... ~.G l ~ ~ T.M. ~26 ~ `s' .Q' ~6 ~ • ~~,.95 ~ ~, CENTERLINE NE ~~\cs\ '9s ~ 20' .SANJTARY 0 ~~ mss`` ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ti ~-. ~ ~~'~ ~~ss~. ~ \ ~p~~ ~. ,y \ \ ~~ ~ ` ~ \~ ~ ~ 0 ~ CENTERL/NE NEW Pr41!/ATE-' u, 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ,. w v e / ~~m~ ~O ~~. ,~ 0~ ,o ~. .281.23' ~- ~' 4~~ ~~o~~ ~, .~,~I ~~ ~~ ,6S'6Sl ~ ~'Z~ ~ ~~o,~ ~, ~r~5 . Z 0 ~ / ~ c.~ `' JN IyU /H.L / !~/U ~ © ~NY4 DNnHN 3? / ~ g d/N ~~ ~ ~ f~ ~ -- 8~~ 8£.ZSN -LO'Z6 -- O~ ~~ N ~,~N3.~ o ZL -9-~'L 'LZ {N1 o ~~~ ~d `~~~~ a~o o ~7ao H1~Qnr ~~ .37~Q N3Hd31S ~. ~/N £'l -9-f 1 L~' 'W 1 ~s 'ad `ss 'e M No13?lddd .~aN~ d/N ~1-s-~~ lz wl ~8s 'ad `t s~~ '8'0 Nb'Wb'77/dd lb'3h'S Nb'W b'77/~Jd ?~b~HalfN d/N M~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o a U~ ~ O V' ~ j y~j~.I,t ~Wi., O 4 0 J . ,_ ~~~ 4 Z ~ ~ ~ l ~~~~~~~~ ~v~~ i~ 0 (~ ~ ~~ d ~ V Exhibit -'~`'` ._..__ ~~:~:~_~~_,_. m. {r101~. OD 'DD t 3,r OQ, 85;85 ,~- ~ ~~ ~ z° ~ U~~W~o~ htiJ ° ° ~~ °' ~ ~ o N = m ~~. Zf'7 0 ho 0 zm ~h ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ w Q~'' ~ l~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~ ~ o 0 L• ~~ D !I ~~~ ~~ N ~1 ~ O o _ 11 ~, p ~... o iy I "^ {`''~~ -~ Q ~~ v 1 ~~ ~Q~ ~ ~ 1 eW w~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 o~ ~~~ ~ ~'I ~ ~~l ~~,~ ~~ ~~ W ~ WQz ~ Q ~--- --- ~ W 4 ~ _ ~ 67 v O ~~ ~ ~ f Dd 7 ti ~ " ° ~ 'o ~ ,~,. - - _ _~. ~. Z7 m ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ ,~~ ~~ 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: January 13, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1321, Page 354, and a 10' well lot access easement conveyed to the Board in Deed Book 1044, Page 816, on property owned by the Achievement Center Foundation (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-2-13 and 26.16-2-12), Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~' County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: l~ccommcnd o-~~ro~l SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The petitioner, the Achievement Center Foundation, is the current owner of the property and requests that an unused 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement and an unused 10 ft. access easement be vacated and released. The existing sanitary sewer easement was originally acquired by deed of easement recorded in Deed Book 1321, Page 363, and the existing 10 ft. access easement was originally acquired by deed recorded in Deed Book 1044, Page 816. During the recent survey of the petitioner's property, it was discovered that the existing sanitary sewer line was not located within the dedicated 20' easement. During the same survey, it was also discovered that the gravel access road to a Roanoke County well lot was not located within the dedicated 10' easement. To rectify these discrepancies, the Achievement Center Foundation has agreed to relocate both of these easements as shown on Plat Book 27, Page 47, labeled as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 shows the existing 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement and the new 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement dedicated in Plat Book 27, Page 47. Exhibit 3 shows the existing 10 ft. access easement and the new 10 ft. access easement dedicated in Plat Book 27, Page 47. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County will assume the costs associated with the preparation and recordation of the release deeds for the easements to be vacated. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve second reading of the proposed ordinance to vacate, quit-claim, and release the original 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement as shown on Exhibit 2, and the 10 ft. access easement as shown on Exhibit 3. 2. Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance and authorize relocation of the County sanitary sewer line and well lot access road to the existing easements. 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, JANUARY 13, 2004 ORDINANCE TO VACATE, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE A 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN DEED BOOK 1321, PAGE 354, AND A 10' WELL LOT ACCESS EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD IN DEED BOOK 1044, PAGE 816, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ACHIEVEMENT CENTER FOUNDATION (TAX MAP NOS. 26.16-2-13 AND 26.16-2-12) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by deed of easement dated March 3, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1321, page 354, the Trustees of Azusa Street Ministries, U.P.C.I., a predecessor in title to the current owner, the Achievement Center Foundation, conveyed a 20' sanitary sewer easement to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, upon and across the parcel of land identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-13; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1044, page 816, the Roanoke County Public Service Authority conveyed a 10' access easement to and from a County well lot to the Board of County Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, upon and across the parcel of land identified as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-12; and, WHEREAS, during a recent land survey of the Achievement Center Foundation's property, it was discovered that neither the existing sanitary sewer line nor the gravel access road to the County's well lot was within the County's respective easements; and, WHEREAS, by `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in 1 c~ Plat Book 27, page 47, the property owner has corrected the discrepancies by dedication of the easements in their respective correct locations to the County; and, WHEREAS, the Achievement Center Foundation has requested that the original unused easements as described above be vacated, quit-claimed and released by the County; and, WHEREAS, the new easements meet the requirements of the affected County departments and the relocation will accurately reflect the County's actual usage of the easements. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 16, 2003, and a second reading was held on January 13, 2004. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (unused sanitary sewer easement and well lot access easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That the 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the County by deed of easement dated March 3, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1321, page 354, across the property of the Achievement Center Foundation identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-13 in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, designated as "APPROX. LOCATION 2 <~ .. ~a r~.:=~, EXISTING 20' S.S.E. D.B. 1321, PG. 363 TO BE VACATED" on the `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 47, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is authorized to be vacated, quit-claimed and released. 4. That the 10' well lot access easement conveyed to the County by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1044, page 816, across the property of the Achievement Center Foundation identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-12 in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, designated as "EXISTING 10' ACCESS EASEMENT (D.B. 1044, PG. 816) TO BE VACATED" on the `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 47, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is authorized to be vacated, quit-claimed and released. 5. That Roanoke County will assume the costs of preparing and recording the deeds of release associated with this action, to be paid from the available funds of the Department of Community Development. 6. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation and release, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 3 i. ~~ . 0 ~., G '' ~ 1-9-f!'LZ},` dVW XY1 ~ ~ ~ nJ ~ ~ 1 Lb 'Jd 'o S9 B'0 NJ'JnHO Ndk13L(8532ld 00'SZt 00 6f OSS ~~ ~~ ' o . . . - N33d9 3901b ,b_ FZ _ ~ O , ._ ._ . _. _- . -..- _ ---._~,.,. ! ~f q ^ - - - ---_-..-.-_ ~. -.. - -! l~ J "~ 2 - -.-.--- .-_..-- _ f ~~ ~ r$ ~n F't 0[ ;1d otZ[ ',9.0 -_- - _;f~ ~, ' v I 9 `+ ~ ~ 1jy53 3, 1N3iY35N3 3N/7 ~, r , ~J t131YM Ol78nd ,OZ S'~ ~ y ~ ON l ' ~ ~ I SlX3 o ` ~ ~-•. 0 M3N 3N172r3.IN39 I ~ ~ ~ _, ~. ~ tl.~. ;'~ o~° ~ ~ / 4 ~y ~w (~~ °~~ yr~ / G,~Gti Ih o / IIN / ' \ of N 4" / ~I k~ ~ o ~I°;..1 G c _~ i m ~ o "~ n ^~ ~~ ~~ I _ ~ ~¢ ~ `° Z n W ~ J I •oa r~ Y 3~p• ~ -~ .°j~ a~ :~J N~ ~ 4y ~ O ~~ ~I ~i b~ ;u M ~I a 2 O +~ 2~ I J~ ~~ O ~ I 2 ~I I µzU, I r ~1 73ri Y119 W ^ ~ z 0 I~ V 1 QWN ~N vQ~ ANN ~fi 4~g ttj ~~ / ~ ~' ~~ ~ j. U m ~ I(16 AO p JZ ~! ~ a u1 015 d U 1/- m _~ ~ 3 ~ ~3 h N 4l 2 Z~~~ oeW o~cvi !17.98-'j iq ~9"E---- V Nye 5b9 a--'- ~'' µ /''~ - 1 s~( ~~ , ,~~i 4~y1P~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ •a c 1° cT G4 „`~ ' /R ~ h/~/, ~6 N ~ I ~h ~ , ¢~ ~ ~I Q N ~ ~ ~g0 ~~~ V ~ ~ ~ ~. 9 2-p~ ~ ~~~3 5~/ ~ 4 0~ VN / ~~ c71'S~tL WV C ~~ ~ / , ,/ / 3~ ~k qr; ?~ ii ~ ~~ ~4~ "4j~~ / i t ~O ~r°y "N4 r~ /~~° L c~N k~ ~ ~ a J ~ p~ N ~ /!n e~oa h' ~~ ~ ,~' ~ ~' J z e £'b,OL15 _~^~~1~ ~~ ~ ~'Sl _9 rs ool yt ~• FSl 9Z,&^ c ! ~~ryd~t~o br s ,ry! l O ~~~ S~Z~yi ~ ~/ \ ~(j2 ~ ~ hjtihN %~ \ ~;~ , i _ O' ! Z ~ ~ ~wZCid ~Br~bN ~, ~ ~h,\ 4~ \ Q a: 2 W~¢i~ Ws ~ >. ~` y ~ 'sF'h' ^'~ V h ry f i __._ 1 h" z ro 00 ~zq~ W4' ~ ° as ~O j e4,~_` ~1.. W~ o / ~J z _ ~ o ~ - o ~ n ~p ~, / Q.~C~ Z ~-~ oon v~U UQ 10 ~^)~ q ~`~~ i. hh ~ F..VCj9c~wzc~.>u~~~~~a~ LI, 00'00! ,:` ti. ") ~ z ~> fLi 4 w a a N Z2 z p S N~ n! ~,00,9>:9bS-^ 0~~0 \~L'o-h w~.~mmaw_mciWp~~i`_m4 ~; •\ 4\,~~ 42QN4N ui viV00Wr?OON 1 \~f C ~~1~~ F~(Vp0°Q~'Jm h s' 00 y,~ p O~O«- O~ a~Jw ~U~-tn0~ `IJ 4~ ~~ ~~,I --~ S~~~N upzo~=azT ~ !} -/-}-'~ ~{~~ mho. n~.aym~=~ b7 ~~I/a ~ VS ~ V a' N p to ~,on g~ 1S 1HJ/MO Q s ~ `~-- - ~ ~ ~ m N O ~ ~ \ ~ a-9-fl'LZ 'W :L ~N flol 'od 'aab! •a'o 0 0 NYNOnY~ 3NMi'YNbNO ~ 32/0003H1 !~~ ~ d~N °~.c ^e __ ~ V ~ mac n N n ~ ~ fbLl "Od SS&J '8'O ~ o ~?~ ONfILLI Y2/830 Td N~JYiY °' f.7 n ~ .~/N ~ n ¢ W 2 ~ e u V 1i ,e h~' ~y ~S r(JO / 2 4l `JCJ 2~~3 ~ ~j U_ 24 Ol-9-Sl'LZ 7N1 ;~ 1 ' ~ bb£l ~d 'aesl a'n ° < ~,; ~ o I ,c~nrlvN [H3aaNe siM37 N d ~, ~ d/N w N,o c,N a r~o y,~0i 19 .- Z~ ~a t ~ s ~ /~j~ /~ p ll-9-F['LZ 7YY ~' r l ,~~`.ILZ 'Od S09t 'a'0 0 JNYO /Nl n3/0 m `~' / o / ^~ 9Nd0 9NnHN 37 ~ d/N v~ __ _ . _ ~ fLO1),OO ppl .% OO aS ab ~ . , . S-- bb,8£.ZSN W - - -LO'Z6 o Zl -9-Fi'LZ 'W1 Lbb 'Od £Lb[ '8'0 ~ - - '- - --7. ~ O ~ o 0 370o aulanr ~~ 3790 N3Nd3CS N ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ 1 ~. / 0 ~~ M ~ ~ 2~ y V~~ OI Q 2 _- V^ ~ ~ . C Q~•~R~ 0 W ~4 ooe~ ~ Z 49 '`Jd 'SS '8iN ' Ory t0'~1 £" .o ~ ° ~ cy N0~71t1Yd 3.ONb? j/N C ] Z ~ m ~ O ~ i 1 .h yhh ~2 p g h , ~ N -- ~ ? c W ~ y q l` 02^ h I~0 P ~ ~0 il-9-fl'LZ %Yl II ° o ~ ~ " ras ~d l9b! a'a NHWN77R1d k13N5 ,cV ~ ~ b i ^ ~ n ~,^, NdiY1f177t/d 73D'HSIW N ''~ O~ d/N v ~ O !£7 ~r`I aa7~+ :sa y ~ ~ 133XiS 53N01' o ~, 30N3~-J U W ~iJ a ~ II 2 _ D ~~ Z ~ v~ Q O C7 ~^j~j v0~"O ~ ~ Q y I 4 Z~~~~~ ~ ! ~~~ I f ~ _~ z`~ ~ ~ I h I t ! ~ V ~ ~~` ti '^~ ZaW I ~ ! ! I I I 1, 2~~ ie~ N~ Vry~ V I I! lO f7I! ! ti N 0' ~~~ j~ W Q ~ iW ~~ I w ~ E' Oll\ ( M f m 3w $2 ti ~ ~~ V i;_=-~ -~ ~ yl ~ { p N ~ ~" ~1 „O' ~ i ~ Z7 \ S W o j ~.J ~ 1 o4 ~ 3 v, '~_ _ ~4) ~- Z O p ~ ~ ~`~8~1'OT. JJ .,~,~ ~~ ~, v Q ~Q . ~- ~~ 0. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ Q UO Q, ~1 V Ll7 oQ ~~~ ~w ~ ,~. o 0 Q ~ Q~ ti ~ Q III` 2 -/ TAX '~-9P ~9,~ Gq C'S''`gGVF 2' ~S A~33• 7)3~„ ry I~ ~1 ~l ~~ , i If 3a ~~\~ ~~ t3~ ~~ ~~ ~,-~~.~ _~~\W~ I ~~\\~ ~ I \ ~ ~~ \~ / .... / ~ .. ~O ~~ 6 ~' 0~ 'orA~ /:^~ FENCE J~ n, ~ ~~ '~ OHU--- U.._ V Q ----_ ~~ ~~ ~_ APPROX. LOCATIONN~` '~ ZONE X(UNSHADE:D~ ~\ ~1-OTq~ \ \ ,~ (S,rg 4,2'4 5qN/TAY E ~~ p ~ S~`E N~TE• ~`a ~ ~~ NT SS~ ~ I N/F JESSE JONES, . JR. ELIZABETH JONES t~! B. ~57, PG 454 ,TAX MAP #26. 16-2-14 APPRO,~ LOCAT/O/~ P~I~,i ~ X/ST/NG ,2p ~ E. 1321 S S \ ~~ Tp BE liq~,q ~D 363 ~..~2 \ ~~~ T. M. X26 J \ Ss4 47 ~. ~ ~ ~~ .s ~ CENTERLINE NE \ •~\ ~ 20' .SAN/TARY E 0 \\ ~6~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ ~s ~ ~. ~ ~ \ 4>.~ ALL d ~ \ p~~ \ ~~ \ ~ ~8 ~ ~ a ~ CENTERL/NE NEW PRI~ATE~ ~~ 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1 LEGEND ss SANlT.4RY SEWER MANHOLE ~ CLEAN OUT ® WATE-R METER -~- S/GN ~f LIGHT POLE „CT' L+TIU?Y POL_f" x FENCE nN~ i 011FRHF~/? ~~RES v 2B 1.23' QZ~At- ~.~.~ r~~ , ~ ~ tt-~• p~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ss ~ssl ~~ z 4 N ~'z5 i ~~o,~ ~, ~~h . JN~O ~Nnl-l/V ~? i~~ _ _ E -.~ 8~~~s.zsN L -L4'zfi 'i z~ -9-£'l 'LZ {N1 t ,°oL~~ ~d `fL~t '8~0~ a ~7~D Hl/Qn/' p W {°~~ ~7~o N3Hd31S E ~ ~ ~ ~/N z~ -- i '----~_ ~ f'l -9-£'l 'LZ 'W :1 ~s ',~d `s5 a M No1.~~1~dd .3SN~7 N d/N ~: ~~ ~~ -~-s~ ~z wl X86 '~d `L9t~d '8'0 N~'1N1~17/dd lJ3HS Nb'~'V b`77/dd 73k~NSIfN d/N M~~ ~s .~.~~.1~ ~ _---= ~~N3~ ~ ~ o z ~ W U -~ - ~ ~ O Q ~ W j~ >-o~ ~ ~ oo. ~~~~ ~ ~x~ ~v~~ ;~ ` ° N~®a ~~ f Exhibit _-'.~~_._.__ _. ~~~~ ~ ~. (1o1~,oa'oat .~~oa,8e8~s ~ `~ ,-~ ~ / -~ ~~ ~~ f ,~ ~ w~ ~ . ~, h ~° ~ ~4~ ,o~ ~ o ~ ~Q~ Q~ ~ ~ 't ~ rn ~ ~ J~~ ' ~ `' ~ h o 0 zm -~`~h~~ ry h ~ ~o o w~ ~, ~ ~, Ok ~ ~ ~1~ ~` ~, w o~ ~ ~z~ ~ Lo ° ~~4 ,o 0 II ~~~ ~o ~ ~~ry ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ ~ C£'7 0 "~ rn ~ D ~' _If ~~ ~~~ w ~'~ Z ~z ~~w ~~ ~~~ !~v o ~ ~ ~ ~ fl ~ ~~ ~ww ~ o~ w z 1-r, cv W U N '.~ ~W ~Q z ~ ~ ~~ ~ I W ~ ~~ ~ I I { I / 1 ! I ~ 1 ~I I /v~ I I I 1, , I~ I l { ry ~~ ~ ~ i a ~~ ,~ ~ < 7 O ~w C1t~ wq ~ y~ ~ `~ Q' w ~ I ~ ~ z~ ~ \ ~"~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ N p~ Qy~ -~ z qyW ~m~ ,~~ 0 ~. W Q ~~ J w `'' z`~w ~v~ ~m~ z~.~ U Q ® ._ ----- ~~ ., z ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ { - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge E~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (Appointed by District) Rodney W. McNeil, Cave Spring Magisterial District, has accepted an appointment to the Roanoke County Planning Commission. His five-year term will expire on June 30, 2004. 2. BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS (FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS) The four-year term of Thomas A. Darnall will expire on January 22, 2004. 3. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (Appointed by District) The four-year term of Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring Magisterial District, expired on December 31, 2003. Supervisor Wray has indicated that he will nominate Rodney W McNeil to fill this vacancy and has asked that his name be placed on the consent agenda for confirmation at this meeting. 1 4. ROANOKE VALLEY-ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION The three-year term of Alfred C. Anderson, former Roanoke County Treasurer, will expire on June 30, 2004. An elected representative must be appointed to fill this vacancy. 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION 011304-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 13, 2004, 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 1-8, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -December 16, 2003 and January 5, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission 3. Request from schools to appropriate $72,000 from the fund balance of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Program 4. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment excess revenues in the amount of $5,577.58 5. Request from schools to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $50 from A. Victor Thomas fi. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $6,391 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment (Jaws of Life) 7. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate $1,400 of the initial reimbursement and all subsequent reimbursements from the Virginia Department of Health Advanced Life Support Training Fund for use in the annual recertification process for pre-hospital trauma life support 8. Request from the Sheriff's Office to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $15,975 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a criminal justice record system improvement program 1 f 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Richard Burch, Fire & Rescue Chief Gerald Holt, Sheriff Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Dr. Linda Weber, Schools Superintendent Dr. Lorraine Lange, Assistant Superintendent of Instruction Dr. Patricia Ratcliffe, Director, Special Education & Pupil Personnel Services Brenda Chastain, Clerk to School Board 2 f ~ ~ ~ r 1 ~ ~ <.,I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 13, 2004, 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 1-8, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -December 16, 2003 and January 5, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission 3. Request from schools to appropriate $72,000 from the fund balance of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Program 4. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment excess revenues in the amount of $5,577.58 5. Request from schools to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $50 from A. Victor Thomas 6. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $6,391 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment (Jaws of Life) 7. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate $1,400 of the initial reimbursement and all subsequent reimbursements from the Virginia Department of Health Advanced Life Support Training Fund for use in the annual recertification process for pre-hospital trauma life support 8. Request from the Sheriff's Office to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $15,975 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a criminal justice record system improvement program 1 ,, ~,., ~ .M.. ', 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. r 1 ~- ACTION NO. A-011304-6.a ITEM NO. I-2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of committee appointments to the Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT FINANCING, INC. At the December 16, 2003 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated Wendi Schultz, Tourism and Event Coordinator, to serve an additionaltwo-year term which will expire on January 1, 2006. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION At the January 13, 2004 meeting, Supervisor Wray nominated Rodney W. McNeil to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District for afour-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments to the Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission be confirmed. 1 . ~ ~, VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Southwest Development Financing, Inc., File Roanoke County Planning Commission File 2 1 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: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of committee appointments to the Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge E~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT FINANCING, INC. At the December 16, 2003 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated Wendi Schultz, Tourism and Event Coordinator, to serve an additional two-year term which will expire on January 1, 2006. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION At the January 13, 2004 meeting, Supervisor Wray nominated Rodney W. McNeil to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District for afour-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments to the Southwest Development Financing, Inc. and the Roanoke County Planning Commission be confirmed. /~ l r 7 ACTION NO. A-011304-6.b ITEM NO. I-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to appropriate $72,000 from the fund balance of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Program SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Patricia Ratcliffe Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County School Board serves as the fiscal agent for the Roanoke Valley Regional Program. The Regional Board has approved the appropriation of $72,000 from the fund balance of the Regional Program to cover one-time in-service activities, instructional materials, and equipment as done in prior years. The appropriation of $72,000 is to be utilized by the six participating divisions and distributed as follows: $2, 000 $15, 000 $55, 000 FISCAL IMPACT: In-service activities Instructional materials Equipment Funds will be appropriated out of the fiscal year 2002-2003 audited fund balance of $401,851 less the 4% reserve of the current budget of $236,244, leaving an estimated balance of $93,607. ALTERNATIVES: 1 l None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ~- . a , Staff recommends approval of the following appropriations for fiscal year 2003-2004: $2,000 In-service activities $15,000 Instructional materials 55 000 Equipment 72 000 VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Dr. Patricia Ratcliffe, Director, Special Education & Pupil Personnel Services Dr. Linda Weber, Schools Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk to School Board Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 2 .,,-. r ,l ..,,. . . ..~ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ - `~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT TH'E ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to appropriate $72,000 from the fund balance of the Roanoke Valley Regional Special Education Program SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Patricia Ratcliffe Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge E~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County School Board serves as the fiscal agent for the Roanoke Valley Regional Program. The Regional Board has approved the appropriation of $72,000 from the fund balance of the Regional Program to cover one-time in-service activities, instructional materials, and equipment as done in prior years. The appropriation of $72,000 is to be utilized by the six participating divisions and distributed as follows: $2,000 $15,000 $55,000 FISCAL IMPACT: In-service activities Instructional materials Equipment Funds will be appropriated out of the fiscal year 2002-2003 audited fund balance of $401,851 less the 4% reserve of the current budget of $236,244, leaving an estimated balance of $93,607. ALTERNATIVES: None .~ a 1 ,~~~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following appropriations for fiscal year 2003-2004: $2,000 In-service activities $15,000 Instructional materials 55 000 Equipment 72 000 ACTION N0. A-011304-6.c ITEM NO. I-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment excess revenues in the amount of $5,577.58 SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Lorraine Lange Assistant Superintendent of Instruction APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Schools and Virginia Western Community College have an agreement whereby the college provides college level courses in English, US History, AP Calculus and certain technical and science subjects. These courses are taught by Roanoke County teachers who meet the college's criteria for adjunct professors. Monies that have been collected exceed the expenses; therefore, there is a request for these additional funds to be appropriated. Roanoke County Schools collected $48,235.00 tuition from 862 students. VWCC will reimburse $127,972.26 for services rendered (teachers, administrating expenses, rooms, utilities, and maintenance). Roanoke County Schools owes VWCC $170,629.68 for tuition and technology fees and college service fees. The difference between what was collected and what was spent is $5,577.58. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The excess revenues of $5,577.58 are available for the purchase of instructional materials. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Roanoke County Schools requests that $5,577.58 be appropriated to the instructional program. Budget Code: 797530-6501 VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Dr. Lorraine Lange, Assistant Superintendent of Instruction Dr. Linda Weber, Schools Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk to School Board Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 2 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: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: January 13, 2004 Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment excess revenues in the amount of $5,577.58 Dr. Lorraine Lange Assistant Superintendent of Instruction Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County Schools and Virginia Western Community College have an agreement whereby the college provides college level courses in English, US History, AP Calculus and certain technical and science subjects. These courses are taught by Roanoke County teachers who meet the college's criteria for adjunct professors. Monies that have been collected exceed the expenses; therefore, there is a request for these additional funds to be appropriated. Roanoke County Schools collected $48,235.00 tuition from 862 students. VWCC will reimburse $127,972.26 for services rendered (teachers, administrating expenses, rooms, utilities, and maintenance). Roanoke County Schools owes VWCC $170,629.68 for tuition and technology fees and college service fees. The difference between what was collected and what was spent is $5,577.58. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The excess revenues of $5,577.58 are available for the purchase of instructional materials. ALTERNATIVES: None T-~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Roanoke County Schools requests that $5,577.58 be appropriated to the instructional program. Budget Code: 797530-6501 ~ ~ ACTION NO. A-011304-6.d ITEM NO. I-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $50 from A. Victor Thomas. SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Patricia Radcliffe Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A donation of $50 was given to Roanoke County Public Schools Special Education Department by Delegate A. Victor Thomas. Special Education supervisors made the decision to use the donation for materials that will benefit students. FISCAL IMPACT: The donation wil! be deposited into Revenue Code - 000210-0534 -and offset by Expenditure Code - 832001-6301, to purchase elementary instructional material. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of funds in the amount of $50 for elementary instructional materials. •~ VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Dr. Patricia Radcliffe, Director, Special Education & Pupil Personnel Services Dr. Linda Weber, Schools Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk to School Board Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. `Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request from schools to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $50 from A. Victor Thomas. SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Patricia Radcliffe Director of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A donation of $50 was given to Roanoke County Public Schools Special Education Department by Delegate A. Victor Thomas. Special Education supervisors made the decision to use the donation for materials that will benefit students. FISCAL IMPACT: The donation will be deposited into Revenue Code - 000210-0534 -and offset by Expenditure Code - 832001-6301, to purchase elementary instructional material. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of funds in the amount of $50 for elementary instructional materials. ACTION NO. A-011304-6.e ITEM NO. I-6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $6,391.00 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment (Jaws of Life) SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch, Jr. Fire and Rescue Chief APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, awarded the Fire and Rescue Department a 50 % matching grant totaling $6,391.00 to purchase extrication equipment. The extrication equipment is being placed on a first run fire engine to provide rapid extrication to trapped patients of auto accidents and industrial/manufacturing emergencies. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fire and Rescue Department has budgeted funds for the 50% match that the state requires for the grant. ALTERNATIVES: The Fire and Rescue Department will not be able to purchase the extrication equipment without the matching funds from the state. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of the funds in the amount of $6,391.00 into the Fire and Rescue Department's budget. N (.' VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Richard Burch, Fire and Rescue Chief Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. Z AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $6,391.00 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment (Jaws of Life) SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch, Jr. Fire and Rescue Chief APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, awarded the Fire and Rescue Department a 50 % matching grant totaling $6,391.00 to purchase extrication equipment. The extrication equipment is being placed on a first run fire engine to provide rapid extrication to trapped patients of auto accidents and industrial/manufacturing emergencies. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fire and Rescue Department has budgeted funds for the 50% match that the state requires for the grant. ALTERNATIVES: The Fire and Rescue Department will not be able to purchase the extrication equipment without the matching funds from the state. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of the funds in the amount of $6,391.00 into the Fire and Rescue Department's budget. • ACTION N0. A-011304-6.f ITEM N0. I-7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate $1,400.00 of the initial reimbursement and all subsequent reimbursements from the Virginia Department of Health Advanced Life Support Training Fund for use in the annual recertification process for Pre- Hospital Trauma Life Support SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch Jr. Fire and Rescue Chief APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has established the new Advanced Life Support (ALS) Training Fund. This program is designed to provide financial support for Advanced Life Support programs. These funds are now available for any programs that started in 2003 and will continue in the years following. The Fire and Rescue Department holds 6 continuous ALS training programs per year for the department's ALS providers and basic providers; these classes are essential for the initial- certification and re-certification process. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department must incur the training costs upfront and apply for reimbursement from the Virginia Department of Health after approved courses are completed. ~ `i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of these initial funds in the amount of $1,400.00 for Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support and all subsequent reimbursements for future ALS training into the Fire and Rescue Department's budget. VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ~ (~ Mr. Church ® ~ ~ Mr. Wray ® ~ ~ Mr. Altizer ® ~ ~ Mr. Flora ® ~ ~ cc: File Richard Burch, Fire and Rescue Chief Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate $1,400.00 of the initial reimbursement and all subsequent reimbursements from the Virginia Department of Health Advanced Life Support Training Fund for use in the annual recertification process for Pre- Hospital Trauma Life Support SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Richard E. Burch Jr. Fire and Rescue Chief Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has established the new Advanced Life Support (ALS) Training Fund. This program is designed to provide financial support for Advanced Life Support programs. These funds are now available for any programs that started in 2003 and will continue in the years following. The Fire and Rescue Department holds 6 continuous ALS training programs per year for the department's ALS providers and basic providers; these classes are essential for the initial- certification and re-certification process. FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department must incur the training costs upfront and apply for reimbursement from the Virginia Department of Health after approved courses are completed. - ~. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of these initial funds in the amount of $1,400.00 for Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support and all subsequent reimbursements for future ALS training into the Fire and Rescue Department's budget. ti ACTION NO. A-011304-6.g ITEM NO. I-8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $15,975 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a criminal justice record system improvement program SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Gerald S. Holt Sheriff Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Sheriff's Office has received approval for a grant, which provides continued funds from the Department of Criminal Justice Services, for a criminal justice record system improvement program. This program will provide funds to purchase additional equipment that will further upgrade the jail management system and document imaging software. The grant was approved by letter on December 23, 2003, and is for a twelve-month period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Matching funds are available in the Sheriffs Office budget. The grant is in the amount of $15,975 in federal funds and $5,325 local cash match for a total of $21,300. No additional funding from the Board of Supervisors is required. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of the awarded funds. ~~~ VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Gerald Holt, Sheriff Rebecca Owens, pirector, Finance 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $15,975 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a criminal justice record system improvement program SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Gerald S. Holt Sheriff Elmer C. Hodge ~.~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Sheriff's Office has received approval for a grant, which provides continued funds from the Department of Criminal Justice Services, for a criminal justice record system improvement program. This program will provide funds to purchase additional equipment that will further upgrade the jail management system and document imaging software. The grant was approved by letter on December 23, 2003, and is for a twelve-month period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Matching funds are available in the Sheriff's Office budget. The grant is in the amount of $15,975 in federal funds and $5,325 local cash match for a total of $21,300. No additional funding from the Board of Supervisors is required. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of the awarded funds. ACTION NO. A-011304-7 ITEM NO. K-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to schedule two public hearings on January 27 and February 10, 2004, to solicit citizen comments on possible funding from the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) Local Innovation Program for entrepreneurial loans to Roanoke County businesses SUBMITTED BY: Melinda J. Cox Existing Business Manager APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The purpose of the public hearings is as follows: To introduce the concept of seeking funds for Roanoke County entrepreneurial businesses in partnership with the Business Seed Capital, Inc., a 501- C3 subsidiary organization of Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) 2. To inform citizens of this program and of the opportunities for citizen participation in the development of the program 3. To request the adoption of a resolution of support Guidelines for the funding request are outlined below. • CDBG funding of approximately $100,000 for assistance to Roanoke County businesses only 1- t T • Roanoke County will be responsible for distribution of funds upon request from the Business Seed Capital, Inc. • The grant does not require matching funds or a commitment from the County's General Fund • Two public hearings at Board of Supervisors meetings are required • The Board of Supervisors is required to adopt a resolution of support for funding FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact on the County is anticipated. The County will disburse grant funds as requested by the Business Seed Capital, Inc. Board of Directors, who will qualify all loan applications and candidates. VOTE: Supervisor Flora motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Wray ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ cc: File Melinda Cox, Existing Business Manager Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance ACTION NO. ITEM NO. K - I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Request to schedule two public hearings on January 27 and February 10, 2004, to solicit citizen comments on possible funding from the Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) Local Innovation Program for entrepreneurial loans to Roanoke County businesses SUBMITTED BY: Melinda J. Cox Existing Business Manager APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge E~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The purpose of the public hearings is as follows: 1. To introduce the concept of seeking funds for Roanoke County entrepreneurial businesses in partnership with the Business Seed Capital, Inc., a 501- C3 subsidiary organization of Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) 2. To inform citizens of this program and of the opportunities for citizen participation in the development of the program 3. To request the adoption of a resolution of support Guidelines for the funding request are outlined below: • CDBG funding of approximately $100,000 for assistance to Roanoke County businesses only K-i • Roanoke County will be responsible for distribution of funds upon request from the Business Seed Capital, Inc. • The grant does not require matching funds or a commitment from the County's General Fund • Two public hearings at Board of Supervisors meetings are required • The Board of Supervisors is required to adopt a resolution of support for funding FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact on the County is anticipated. The County will disburse grant funds as requested by the Business Seed Capital, Inc. Board of Directors, who will qualify all loan applications and candidates. O~ ~OANp~~ 6 ~' p 2 ~ (~ az ~L~~~~ ~~ ~~~~.~ 1838 O~~ice of the County Administrator ELMER C. HODGE P.O. Box 29800 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 December 30, 2003 Mr. Todd Christensen Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development 501 North 2"d St Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mr. Christensen, a;- Phone: (540) 772-2004 Fax: (540) 772-2193 E-mail: ehodge~co.roanoke.va.us This letter is to inform you of Roanoke County's intention to apply for funding from the VCDBG Local Innovation Program. Below is information regarding our proposal. Project Name: Roanoke County Microloan Program Project Location: Roanoke County Project Cost: Roanoke County is requesting $100,000 from the Local Innovation Fund, to be spent entirely on loans to entrepreneurs. Roanoke County will partner with Business Seed Capital Incorporated, (BSCI), a local nonprofit organization that originates and manages small business loans. BSCI is contributing to the project matching funds that it has been granted through other sources. (Note that these funds have been awarded for BSCI's general operation, which serves a larger territory than the proposed CDBG project. However, about 50% of BSCI's activity occurs in Roanoke County, therefore a large percentage of these matching funds will be directly invested in the target area of the proposed CDBG project.) These matching funds are: • $66,437 from the U.S. Small Business Association's Microenterprise Development Program (PRIME); fiscal year is October to September; funds are used to provide classes and technical assistance to entrepreneurs; • $66,913 in administrative funds from the U.S. Small Business Administration's Microloan Demonstration Program; fiscal year is April to March; funds support staff costs associated with originating and managing loans, as well as providing technical assistance; • $35,000 in loan funds from the U.S. Small Business Administration's Microloan Demonstration Program; fiscal year is April to March; funds are dedicated loan funds; k-! • $53,120 from the Virginia Enterprise Initiative; fiscal year is July to June; funds support administrative costs and loan loss reserves; and • $17,587 from Total Action Against Poverty, the community action agency from which BSCI originated; fiscal year is July to June; funds support staff, administrative and loan costs. In summary, total project costs are $239,057, with $139,057 of that amount contributed from non-VCDBG sources. Project Description and Results: If funded, Roanoke County will contract with BSCI to conduct small business development classes and training, and to make microloans to entrepreneurs in Roanoke County. All classes, training activities, staff and overhead costs will be funded through the match funding contributed by BSCI. VCDBG Local Innovation funds will be spent entirely on microloans, which will be originated within the project year. BSCI expects that for every $1 of CDBG funds loaned, local banks will originate $1 through amulti-party loan, for an estimated total investment in Roanoke County of $200,000. Entrepreneurs will use the microloans to start new small businesses or expand existing small businesses in Roanoke County, resulting in the creation of new jobs. Attached is a one-page program description that provides more detail on the services BSCI will provide. Intended results are that BSCI will originate a minimum of six loans to new or expanding small businesses. This will result in the creation of at least 30 jobs; at least 51% of which (16) will be held by or made available to low- and moderate-income persons, thereby meeting the HI1D/CDBG national objective of benefiting low- and moderate-income persons. Innovation: The proposed project is unique in that it offers the only source of alternative financing in this area to low-income entrepreneurs who typically are denied conventional bank financing. There are some other organizations that offer limited services similar to some of BSCI's services, such as entrepreneur training, classes, etc. However, unlike these other groups, BSCI is the only organization in the area that takes a financial risk by investing in these entrepreneurs. Capacity: Capacity of Roanoke County: The proposed project will be managed by Roanoke County's Department of Economic Development. Its mission is to design and implement innovative economic development programs and services that leverage community assets, create wealth and prosperity, and embrace the region's future. The department is committed to the following activities, which enhance the livability and vitality of an already award- winning county: • Locating new technology based businesses and high tech manufacturing operations, • Aiding in the retention and expansion of the county's existing industries, and 2 ~~ • Working cooperatively with workforce development organizations, schools and businesses in support of timely and competitive workforce development initiatives. Recent major investments by businesses which were assisted by Roanoke County's Department of Economic Development are as follows: • The department assisted Marvin's Integrity Windows and Doors, a Minnesota-based corporation that has selected Valley Gateway Business Park as a new location. This represents a $32 million investment, with plans for over 400,000 square feet of manufacturing space and 350 new jobs. The department helped this company in obtaining a $500,000 Governor's Opportunity Fund grant and a $300,000 industrial access road grant as an incentive to offset their development costs. • The department also assisted Novozymes Biologicals with a 7,000 square foot expansion to their new R&D/administration facility located in the Center for Research and Technology. • With the help of Public/Private Partnership funds, Roanoke County retained the headquarters of Fink's Jewelers, the 39th largest jeweler in the United States. Fink's Jewelers recently announced a new 12,000 sq. ft. corporate headquarters and flagship retail store to be built in South County, representing a $3 million capital investment and 45 jobs retained to the Roanoke Valley. • Anew 100,000 sq. ft. Lowe's Home Improvement Center was announced off of Route 460 in East County, representing a +/- $10 million investment. • Gold's Gym announced a new 30,000 sq. ft. facility representing a $4 million capital investment and the creation of 30 new jobs. The Roanoke County Department of Economic Development not only succeeds at attracting new business investments, but also makes a concerted effort to retain and grow existing businesses through its Existing Business Program. Through this program. Economic Development staff members made personal visits to over 180 businesses last year. The Department also sponsors a local television show, an electronic newsletter, and quarterly roundtables to highlight achievements of large and small businesses, and to facilitate dialogue between business owners and local government. The Department partners with BSCI and other organizations such as the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) to encourage the development of small and micro businesses. Last year existing business new construction and expansions resulted in an estimated investment of $27,996,800, which encompasses 180,900 square feet and resulted in 127 new jobs in Roanoke County. Roanoke County's management team, profiled below, includes a wealth of ,experience in economic development, project administration, and community development. • Elmer Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator has ultimate responsibility for fulfilling commitments made by Roanoke County to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Hodge has served as Roanoke County Administrator since 1985, and has worked in local government for 28 years. ~_'' ~ ,~ • Doug Chittum, Roanoke County Economic Development Director, has responsibility for oversight of this project. Chittum has served with Roanoke County since 2001, and previously served for fifteen years in the Roanoke. City Economic Development Department with his last post being Assistant Director. Chittum also has substantial experience in commercial development. • Melinda Cox, Existing Business Program Manager, will act as the primary liaison between Roanoke County and its contracted partner in this project, BSCI. Cox will be responsible for project management and reporting. Cox has served with the Roanoke County Economic Development Department since 1996, and prior to that served for ten years as a Director with Roanoke College. Capacity of Partner Organization: BSCI is a non-profit organization offering small business development services including financing, counseling, training and technical assistance to entrepreneurs. BSCI currently serves the counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, Alleghany, Craig and Bath, and the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem. BSCI originated as a program of Total Action Against Poverty (herein after referred to as TAP). TAP was established in 1965 as the designated Community Action Agency for a ruraUurban service area of 2,244 square miles in southwestern Virginia, containing a general population of more than 280,000 persons. TAP currently operates 31 programs and employs over 300 people. In 1994, TAP began operating the Business Seed Loan Program, targeting low-to- moderate income individuals for microenterprise development. In 2000, the Business Seed Loan Program was approved as an SBA Intermediary Microloan Program, and in 2001, it was awarded an SBA Prime grant to provide technical assistance services to entrepreneurs. In 2002, the Business Seed Loan Program of TAP formed Business Seed Capital Inc. (BSCI) in order to qualify to become a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI). BSCI has an application pending with the United States Department of the Treasury. This designation would allow BSCI to make larger loans to larger businesses.' Since its origin with TAP nine years ago, The Business Seed Loan program, now BSCI, has continued to expand its ability to service more clients each year. Over the past nine years it has accomplished the following: • Assisted over 1200 persons with business development training. • Assisted over 550 persons with one-on-one counseling. • Assisted over 220 persons with starting or strengthening a business. • Helped entrepreneurs start over 50 new businesses. • Originated loans totaling $534,000. • Entrepreneurs then leveraged this capital to secure additional multiparty loans from conventional banks in excess of $523,000, for a total investment in small businesses of $1,057,000. 1 Currently BSCI can only make microloans of up to $35,000 to microbusinesses, which are defined as having five or fewer employees. Small business loans are larger, and can be loaned to businesses with up to 500 employees. K-- i • In the past year alone, these services have resulted in the creation of over 100 new jobs. Through these experiences, BSCI has developed and refined commercial financing products and business development training to be more effective to its clients. BSCI has developed a staff experienced in lending and familiar with its target market, and a board with experience in community development, commercial lending, venture capital, equity investing, and law. BSCI's management team is profiled briefly below and includes a well rounded pool of skills: • Ted Edlich, President of BSCI with ultimate responsibility for fulfilling contractual obligations of this project, has over 30 years of experience in community development; • Dick Robers, Senior Vice President with responsibility for oversight of this project, has over 30 year of experience in business management and international business development; and • Chris Scott, Vice President with day-to-day supervisory and management responsibilities for this project, has eight years of direct experience in small business management and lending. Readiness: Roanoke County and BSCI are ready to implement this project now for three reasons: • The program infrastructure is well-established, so the partners will be able to begin making loans as soon as funds are granted. BSCI has a program infrastructure and board that are well-developed, and its administrative and overhead costs are secured through other funding sources. • The demand for microloans in Roanoke County is strong. BSCI currently has $205,000 loaned to 15 businesses in the greater Roanoke area, with a waiting list of 12 entrepreneurs in this area whose loan requests total over $180,000. • BSCI has almost fulfilled its current capacity to originate loans in Roanoke County. BSCI's loan pool has diminished to $35,000, and it must recapitalize it in order to expand its capacity and meet the demand described above. Roanoke County looks forward to hearing from you regarding our intention to apply for VCDBG Local Innovation Funds. If there is more information that you need at this time, please contact me at the number provided on this letterhead. . Sincerely Elmer C. Hod e Administrator Enclosure Description of BSCI Services ~` Entrepreneur Training and Technical Assistance • Outreach: BSCI conducts extensive outreach in the community using grassroots venues, local media, and networking with economic development offices, chambers of commerce, banks and other organizations. • Classes: Each month BSCI conducts one-day classes covering Basic Small Business Management and Basic Small Business Financing. Classes are often taught in partnership with other local organizations such as the SBA Small Business Development Center, SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives), and others. • Counseling: BSCI staffprovide one-on-one business counseling to entrepreneurs who are serious about starting a small business. Through counseling sessions BSCI staff help the entrepreneur develop a business plan and financing application, and help them work through any obstacles that stand in the way of starting their business. • Technical Assistance: After the entrepreneur has started a business, BSCI staff provide regular technical assistance to address problems and help the business owner stay on track. Financing • . Financing options include term loans and multi-party loans. • Loan packages range from $S00 to $35,000. • Terms range from 30 days to S years. • Interest rates are fixed at 9.99%. • There is a $30 loan application fee, and a loan closing fee of 2% of the loan amount. • Multi-party loans pair BSCI financing with bank funding to provide applicants with a source of capital often viewed by the banks as a substitute for the owner's equity capital. Typically the entire loan package ranges from $35,000 to $1 OS,000. If the total loan is over $50,000, BSCI usually commits $35,000. • For the purposes of the CDBG Local Innovation Funds, prunary eligibility requirements for a loan will be that the applicant business is located in Roanoke County, and that the applicant is low to moderate income, or agrees to hire low to moderate income employees. • .Loan applicants must complete a loan application which includes a complete business plan, and must complete the BSCI Small Business Management Class and the BSCI Small Business Financing Class. The Loan Officer and the BSCI Director review the applicant's loan application and credit history. Viable applications are reviewed by a Loan Review Committee, which makes final decisions on whether or not to approve the loan, interest rate, and loan term. • Amore detailed description of BSCI's due diligence and loan review process is available upon request, and will be included with the full application. ~~ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Prior Report Balance Addition from 2002-03 Operations Audited Balance at June 30, 2003 July 1, 2003 Explore Park Loan Repayment of General ~ Amount Fund Revenue: $8,977,656 6.60% 1,483,629 10,461,285 25,000 Balance at January 13, 2004 10,486,285 7.71 Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $10,486,285 $10,486,285 7.71 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 2003 - 2004 General Fund Revenues $135,971,831 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $8,498,239 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator I o~ CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 10/28/2003 110/28/2003 Amount Audited Balance at June 30, 2003 $360,172.56 Transfer from Department Savings 2002-03 274,972.00 Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 200: 77,485.69 Equipment and software for electronic records managemer (73,057.00)I system for Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office Reimbursement from Water Fund for debt service payment 11,000,000.00 made related to Spring Hollow Reservoir Balance at January 13, 2004 $11,639,573.25 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M-3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2003-2004 Original Budget $107,940.00 July 8, 2003 Appropriation towards Roanoke Regional Airport Alliance (8,193.00) July 22, 2003 Appropriation towards Project 50 Capital Campaign July 22, 2003 Reserve towards Project 50 Capital Campaign August 12, 2003 Appropriation for debris removal and stablilization December 16, 2003 Appropriation for Office Support Specialist in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office Balance at January 13, 2004 (10,000.00) (5,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00) $54,747.00 ~ Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator M -~ y FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $670,000.00 Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1,113,043.00 FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772.00 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145.00 Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363.00 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421.00 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (465,400) Savings from 2001-02 debt fund 116,594 1,651,194.00 FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,592,125) (592,125.00) FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,202,725) (202,725.00) Balance at January 13, 2004 $8,435,088.00 Reserved for Future School Operations FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation $1,500,000.00 July 11, 2000 SW Co Regional Stormwater (290,000.00) FY2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 1,500,000.00 July 1, 2001 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle (1,858,135.00) July 1, 2002 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle (35,047.00) July 1, 2002 Transfer to Operating in original 2002-03 Budget (566,818.00) July 1, 2003 Transfer to Operating in original 2003-04 Budget (250,000.00) Balance at January 13, 2004 - Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator yA CINI 7 i~ ' e tl.~_ " ®`-11VJ1®L `I V • ~~~Y ~ Of V ~~~~~4~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219-2000 PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER December 16, 2003 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: 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 (who is also the Director of the Local Assistance Division) in November 2003. All changes to the Secondary System, with the exception of legal discontinuances, 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. Michael Estes /`'~L~ ~~~~' ~- ~= Director, Local Assistance Division ME/MII M-5 VirginiaDOTorg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING o ~ °' 7 U •C N Q w i V. b W V1 C .~ .°~' o ~a ~ ~ b0 p~" .a .~ .~ L L ^~ V~ tl ~ ~ r.+ N W rrw~w _1 o ~" .~ .'fir ~~ ~ ~ u '~ ~o L o °, obi ~ 'C 0~ ~ a ~' o' L .~., bA ~ ~ d ~ O ~ R ~ ~ z ~ o Y v a W ~ O ~ i ~' O C OQ'i O ~ U C 0 ~' 'O '. .D Q, ca s U e M O O M O N N O O O O r cG w O z M O O E--~ 'O O i N 0. .~-1 f~ ~-, z O ~ M ~ o CG L N O Cz. 0.. v CL CC bA a v Z O M O O 0 CC c m L N c o o x a` s (~1-F ~1 O 0 1 i U Q r O i Q 0 m r 0 0 i 0 s d r O O U N O N Y O n. i m C s h C~ ~4 s O N ?, h '~ r 0 U d s r r cs s m y c N i h r 0 b 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: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the members of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Review Committee for their work over the last several months. This group spent many hours establishing objectives and evaluation criteria, reviewing project requests, interviewing department heads, conducting site visits, and preparing a final report to present to the Board of Supervisors. I attended several of the meetings and was impressed by the level of interest and commitment shown by each member of the Committee. I was also impressed by the process developed and followed by the Committee in reviewing the County's capital program. It was an exciting process and the diverse make-up of the group's membership offered many different and important perspectives and the results offered for the Board's consideration are truly citizen-based. As we move forward, I hope we can refine this process and continue to use it in the future as we continue to seek ways to improve our capital planning. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the October 28, 2003 Board of Supervisor's meeting, a briefing was held to update the Board of Supervisors and the public on the CIP Review Committee's work to-date, work remaining to be completed, and a planned time-line for completion of the committee's evaluation and prioritization of submitted capital projects to the Board of Supervisors. During the months of November and December, the Committee completed the evaluation process and prepared a report reviewing the results of the Committee's work. This time has been set aside to review the final report of the Committee and to discuss the findings and recommendations with Committee members. "_1 ~DUTItp Df ~O~ItO~e Capital Improvement Program Review Committee Evaluation and Recommendations January 2004 ~.~t Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Table of Contents I. Committee Appointments .............................................................................. 1 II. Executive Summarv ....................................................................................... 2 III. Capital Project Recommendations Capital Project Prioritization .............................................................. 4 Recommendations .............................................................................. 6 Footnotes on Specific Projects ........................................................... 9 IV. A p~ endix Committee Goals & Objectives .........................................................A1 Project Evaluation Criteria .................................................................A2 Evaluation Scoring Factors ................................................................A3 Project Score Summary -All Projects ...............................................A4 Project Score Summary - By Category .............................................AS General Committee Comments ..........................................................A6 Project Specific Comments ................................................................A7 o-- Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Committee Appointments In developing the FY2005-2009 Roanoke County CIP, the Board of Supervisors approved a CIP Review Committee comprised ofBoard-appointed representatives for each magisterial district and members of County-appointed commissions and boards. This unique approach allows a diverse perspective in reviewing and prioritizing capital needs that exist throughout the county. The CIP Committee is comprised of the following appointed members: Appointment: Representing: Ms. Barbara Fasnacht Catawba Magisterial District Ms. Dawn Erdman Cave Spring Magisterial District Mr. Jason Perdue Hollins Magisterial District Mr. Michael Roop Vinton Magisterial District Mr. Lee Eddy Windsor Hills Magisterial District Mr. Craig Sharp Industrial Development Authority Ms. Connie Goodman Library Board Mr. Don Witt Planning Commission Mr. Chris Georgoulis Public Safety Mr. Jack Griffith Recreation Commission Facilitated by Roanoke County Staff: Mr. W. Brent Robertson Director, Management and Budget Mr. Chad Sweeney Budget Administrator Ms. Cathy Weaver Budget Analyst t Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Executive Summary January, 2004 Background A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a significant tool to assist in long-range planning for municipal capital needs. In October, 2003 the Board of Supervisors selected a committee of citizens to evaluate and prioritize submitted capital projects for the Board to consider in developing current and future years capital budgets. The Committee established guiding goals and objectives (listed in Appendix); then interviewed departmental staff to understand specific projects and conducted site visits to view capital needs firsthand. Members committed approximately 35 hours to the evaluation and prioritization process. It is important to note that the scope of the CIP Review Committee's evaluation did not include School capital needs or Enterprise (Utility) Fund needs. Results of Evaluation The Committee prioritized capital project requests by applying a set of evaluation criteria to each individual project. The Committee developed 12 separate criterion to score projects using values important to the community that were derived from previously adopted plans, policies (i.e. Community Plan), and statements previously articulated by the Board of Supervisors. While a topic of considerable discussion by the Committee, cost was not an element of the scoring criterion in the evaluation of individual projects. After scoring was completed be each committee member, each project's average score was calculated and listed in numerical order with the highest score representing the greatest priority. This listing was then grouped into Priority Levels (Levels 1-4), where Level 1 Priority projects represent needs that have the highest perceived community value. The Committee has identified Level 1 Priority capital projects as follows: • Fire & Rescue - Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities • Information Technology - HP Migration • Fire & Rescue -EMS Data Reporting System • Information Technology - Network Infrastructure Upgrade • Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade • Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine • Public Safety Center; Option 2 (excludes administration offices) • Community Development -Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control Committee Recommendations While charged with developing acitizen-based evaluation of existing capital needs, the Committee also discussed and reached consensus on a number of capital programming recommendations for the Board to consider: • Capital Financingz In order to meet on-going major equipment, facility, and infrastructure needs a significant, recurring funding stream is essential. o Debt Financing-Consider the possibility of a future General Obligation Bond issue to meet critical capital needs. ~` o Sinking Funds-Set aside funds for (known) future capital asset purchases. • Capital Maintenance. Increase the funding of capital maintenance at a level that will not only protect the County's capital investments, but also will mitigate potential safety concerns at public use facilities (Parks and Recreation facilities noted). Master Planning. Roanoke County has undergone significant demographic and service demand changes over the last decade, and these changes are anticipated to continue into the future. As a result, the Committee felt that several departments would benefit from preparing or updating a facilities master plan in order to continue to define the evolving needs of our citizens. • Land Banking. This idea would involve projecting capital needs into the future and then acquiring sites that would be used to locate future capital facilities. Footnotes on Specific Capital Proiects Requests There were two projects that generated some disagreement as to whether or not these projects should be evaluated differently than other requests-The Public Safety Center and the Jail Renovation. Points of discussion in regards to the Public Safety Center included concerns about unknown scope and cost estimates (due to the early planning stages) and Jail Renovation discussions centered on the need for updated and additional information (See Footnotes). Individual Committee Member Comments Information presented in the Capital Project Prioritization report represents the general consensus of the members of the CIP Review Committee. While consensus information related to the Committee's task is presented, Committee members' individual comments about specific projects and capital planning in general are included in the Appendix. t`/~ .- Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Capital Project Prioritization January, 2004 Using the Committee's adopted evaluation criteria, total project scores were averaged and listed in descending order. The projects were then grouped in four priority levels, with Level 1 Priority representing projects that have the greatest community value, as determined by applying the established criteria to each project. Succeeding priority levels were determined by grouping projects together that had successively lower scores; thus the project represents a need that is perceived to have less community value than projects with higher scores. The Committee's recommendations on capital priorities are as follows: Level l Priority: • Fire & Rescue -Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities • Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade • Information Technology - HP Migration • Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine • Fire & Rescue -EMS Data Reporting System • Public Safety -Public Safety Center; Option 2 (See explanation in Footnotes) • Information Technology -Network Infrastructure Upgrade • Community Development -Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control Leve12 Priority: • Community Development - GIS Phase II -Integration • Public Safety -Public Safety Center; Option 3 (See explanation in Footnotes) • Public Safety -Public Safety Center; Option 1 (See explanation in Footnotes) • General Services -Garage at Kessler Mill Road • Library - HQ Library Replacement • Economic Development -Center for Research & Technology • Sheriff -Jail Renovations (See explanation in Footnotes) • Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Leve13 Priority: • Fire & Rescue -Vinton Rescue -New Building • Police -Evidence Vault Addition • Fire & Rescue -Back Creek Station Addition • Fire & Rescue -Hanging Rock New Station • Police -South County Police Precinct • Fire & Rescue -Hollins Road New Station • Library - Mt. Pleasant Library Replacement • Library - Glenvar Library Expansion • Library -Vinton Library Renovation • Parks & Recreation -Playgrounds .,,. Leve14 Priority: • Community Development -GIS -New Server • Real Estate Valuation -Field Data Collection System • Parks & Recreation - Garst Mill Park Improvements • Library -Bent Mountain Library Expansion • Parks & Recreation -Camp Roanoke • Parks & Recreation - Brambleton Center • Parks & Recreation -Spring Hollow Park • Parks & Recreation -Starkey Park • Parks & Recreation -Family Water Park • Fire & Rescue -Bay Heater Upgrades • Parks & Recreation -Green Hill Park Phase III • Parks & Recreation -Parks & Recreation Land Bank • Parks & Recreation -Vinyard Park Phase III • Community Development -GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer • Greenway Development -Roanoke River Greenway -East • Parks & Recreation -Burton Complex • Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway • Information Technology - In-Building Radio Frequency (RF) Coverage • Fire & Rescue -Bunk Room Additions • Parks & Recreation -Picnic Shelters • Parks & Recreation -Hollins Park • Police -Bomb Disposal Unit • Fire & Rescue -Station Security System • Greenway Development -Tinker Creek Greenway • Parks & Recreation -Improvements for Parking Areas • Parks & Recreation - Walrond Park Phase III • General Services -Recycling Trailers • Parks & Recreation -Whispering Pines • Parks & Recreation -Tennis Court Resurfacing • Fire & Rescue -Station Fuel Control System s CIP Review Committee Recommendations Capital Proiect Financing The Committee recognizes the value of long-term capital planning and the need to fund critical capital assets that will benefit the citizens of Roanoke County (and of the Roanoke Valley). In order to accomplish this task, several options should be considered: Dedicated Funding -The Committee feels strongly that to meet on-going major equipment, facility, and infrastructure needs a sizeable, recurring funding stream is essential. There should be a commitment to this annual source of funding before specific capital projects are identified. While the need for capital replacement will always be greater than the resources available to fund those needs, this approach will ensure the most important capital needs will be addressed and funded. Examples of potential sources for this funding stream would be current new revenue, existing debt drop-off (or other expenditure savings), user fees, taxes on new private sector development (impact fees), special assessments, public/private partnerships, etc. Other Funding Considerations Debt Financing. While borrowing increases the overall cost of a capital project, it is at times desirable to incur debt to satisfy an important capital need by spreading the cost over a longer period of time. This method allows more flexibility to fund other current operational or capital needs. Typical debt financing instruments include general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and lease/purchase agreements. Considering the extensive capital needs observed throughout the county, the Committee believes serious consideration should be given to the possibility of a General Obligation Bond issue sometime in the near future, coupled with the appropriate master planning. The last GO Bond Issue in Roanoke County was 1992 and totaled approximately $10 million. • Capital Program Sinking Fund. Capital project proposals tend to be "all-or-nothing" requests that require an allocation of funds for the total cost of the project; and therefore do not get approved because of the lack of available monies. If a capital project request has merit, then strategies should be developed to initiate the project. Funds could be initially allocated to purchase needed land, fund a feasibility study (or A&E work), or to simply set aside money in a holding fund until enough funds are accumulated to complete the project. In addition, this methodology can also be used to fund replacement and upgrade requirements for known obsolescence for various operational areas throughout the county such as Information Technology (computer equipment and infrastructure), Treasurer (remittance processor), Community Development (GIS development/upgrades), Libraries (minor renovations and equipment), and Fire & Rescue (pager replacement). Operating departments can have the opportunity to contribute operational funds for these projects by incorporating the rollover process with this funding methodology. v-~ This funding mechanism would allow proactive replacement and upgrade of departmental capital needs and will significantly reduce the need for large (new) budget allocations in any single year. Capital Maintenance In reviewing capital requests it was noted that certain projects, on face value, did not look to be suitable for inclusion in a capital program. These projects had the character of repair and maintenance requests that are normally provided for in operational budgets, and were mainly found in the Parks and Recreation area. Over time, these maintenance requests (such as tennis court replacement/resurfacing, picnic shelter renovation, parking lot repair, playground upgrades, lighting replacement, etc.) have received limited funding and, as a result, the maintenance need has grown to a capital need. Based upon the significant investment by the County in parks and other public facilities, the Committee strongly suggests increasing the funding of capital maintenance at a level that will not only protect the County's capital investments, but also will mitigate potential safety concerns at public use facilities. Parks and Recreation's capital program included a significant number of requests that addressed maintenance needs at facilities throughout the county. While acknowledging there was a significant need, several members of the Committee reported that these projects were scored lower in the evaluation in relation to other projects that represented a true "capital" investment. Master Planning Over the last decade Roanoke County has undergone significant demographic and service demand changes, and these changes are anticipated to continue into the future. These changes will most likely alter the type and level of services provided-including the placement and design of County facilities. In addition, the Committee noted that some capital project requests had a direct or indirect relationship with other capital (and operating) needs and felt that several departments would benefit from preparing or updating a facilities master plan. The departments identified that would most benefit are as follows: • Libraries • Parks and Recreation • Fire and Rescue This process would include a needs assessment that would factor in current and projected demographic data and capital asset requirements, with the intent to update the master plan on a periodic basis. In addition, the Committee is of the opinion that any master planning process should consider all alternative scenarios that would include schools, public/private partnerships, regional initiatives, etc. D-I Land Banking The Committee discussed and endorsed the concept of "land banking." This idea would involve projecting capital needs into the future and then acquiring sites that would be used to locate future capital facilities. As the County develops, available real estate for future use is becoming a scarce commodity (and less affordable). This concept supports one of the Committee's adopted Guiding Principles-to anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital resources of the community. CIP Review Committee -What Next? The relative value of any process is subjective and is dependant upon one's individual perspective. At this point, the value the CIP Review Committee's prioritization and evaluation process contributes to the Board of Supervisors operating and capital budgeting process is yet to be determined. If the Board considers this process to provide value, the Committee will meet shortly after this year's budget process has been completed to critique the process and suggest modifications to improve procedures for the future. ~~~ ... Footnotes on Specific Capital Projects Public Safety Building The project request for a new Public Safety/Emergency Communications Center was a difficult project for the Committee to evaluate. The project is in the conceptual stages of planning and utilizes a (relatively) new state law, the Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act, and the scope, location, and cost estimates of the project have not yet been determined. While the Committee considered the overall need for a new Safety Center, the unknown aspects of the project made it very difficult to evaluate based on the adopted project evaluation criteria. Even though the scope of the proposal is still conceptual, County staff presented three possible alternatives for developing a new facility that would contain the following: • Option 1: Dispatch Center, IT Department, Emergency Operations Center, Police and Fire Administrative offices, and include the upgrade to the radio system. • Option 2: Same as Option 1, but would not include Police and Fire Administration offices. • Option 3: Same as Option 2, but would not include upgrade of the radio system. While not unanimous, the consensus of the Committee was to apply the evaluation criteria to each alternative to allow a comparison of the relative importance of different aspects of the project. An evaluation of the alternatives would also allow assessment of the importance of the project relative to other submitted projects county-wide. Roanoke County Jail While not unique to Roanoke County, overcrowding at the jail raised concerns of Committee members. Crowded conditions raise the potential for safety concerns of both employees of the jail and inmates. The capital project presented by the Sheriffs office requested renovations that added additional space to the current facility; however, the Sheriff s staff also discussed the option of constructing a new facility. There are additional considerations that can be explored, such as a regional jail facility with other localities or outsourcing inmates to other facilities that have unused capacity (such as Roanoke City). Based upon the fact that the existing study ofrenovation/space needs at the Roanoke County Jail is outdated, the Committee felt the capital project, as submitted, is not a viable project for consideration. While the need to address overcrowding in the jail was acknowledged, the Committee did not feel enough information was available with which to make a reasonable evaluation of capital requirements. The ranking of jail renovations as a Leve12 Priority was based upon the recognition of a need that calls for remediation-not an endorsement of the submitted project. The Committee recommends a comprehensive professional study of this issue that would clearly outline various alternatives and provide a more detailed cost estimate for each scenario. The study should be funded in FY2005 with possible construction/renovation scheduled for subsequent years. ~~ .~~ 9 Appendix County of Roanoke CIP Review Committee Goal & Objectives Committee Goal The CIP Review Committee is a collaborative group established to evaluate and prioritize identified capital projects from a community perspective based upon countywide priorities articulated by the Board of Supervisors. Committee Objectives 1. To be acquainted with the history of the County of Roanoke's Capital Improvement Program and the proposed process for the development of the FY2005-2009 CIP. 2. To become familiar with countywide capital needs identified by department heads through the review of proposals, participation in site visits, and interviews as needed. 3. To evaluate submitted capital projects based on criteria that support the County's mission and guiding principals. 4. To make recommendations on capital priorities for the Board of Supervisor's consideration by January 2004. Al-1 Capital Improvement Program Project Evaluation Criteria Providing effective and efficient services and improving the quality of life of its citizens is the County of Roanoke's mission and the foundation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Capital Improvement Review Committee has identified the following Guiding Principles for evaluating and prioritizing capital project requests in making recommendations to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. These principles are based on the stated priorities and approved plans of the Board of Supervisors. These principles are presented in no particular order of importance, as individual perspective will influence the relative value of each principle when compared to one another. The Guiding Principles are as follows: • Provide effective and efficient governmental services to the citizens. • Enhance public health, safety, and/or welfare issue(s). • Promote the safety and security of our citizens while at home, at work, and at play. • Consider solutions that extend beyond the County's boundaries in meeting future challenges. • Use public investment as a catalyst for economic growth in a manner consistent with the Community Plan. • Safeguard the environment and natural beauty for present and future generations. • Maintain and sustain effective land use planning. • Maintain or enhance cultural, recreational, educational, and social opportunities for all citizens. • Protect existing investment in facilities and infrastructure that are vital in delivering fundamental services to our citizens. • Anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital resources of the community. • Comply with applicable state and federal mandates. A2-1 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Evaluation Scoring Factors Committee members scored each capital project using a point range of 1-10 for each of the following factors: Improve Public Safety or Public Health: Does the project address public safety, life protection, health, and welfare issues that benefit our citizens? Does the project mitigate an existing or potential liability issue. Improve Public Quality of Life: Does the project directly address a major demand or meet a community obligation for cultural, social, educational or leisure services? Legal Requirements: Is the project required by law, regulation or mandate from local, state, or federal government? Economic Development Impact: Does the project directly or indirectly increase net community wealth/resources? Increases Tax or Fee Revenue: Does the project directly increase County's recurring revenues? Enhances Existing Services: Does the project maintain or enhance existing service levels that are at risk without the project? Benefit/Cost Factor: Does project implementation produce a community benefit that exceeds investment of resources or will the project generate resources/investments from outside sources (grants, donations, etc.)? Address Obsolescence: Does the project address requirements for asset replacement, due to age and wear, that supports essential services or addresses the need for a new or changing service demand? Investment to Reduce Future Costs: Will investment in the project reduce/contain increased expenditures at a future date. Extent of Service Area: Does the project benefit a large population (i.e. a project that benefits a larger population/area will have greater value than a project that benefits a smaller population/area)? Project Supports Existing County Plans or Policies: Is the project directly referenced in existing county plans or policies as a priority? Urgency of Need: Does the project meet an urgent need? A3-1 W J W O O~ r ~ ~ M ~ .--~ ~ O ~ Q~ ~o P ~o P ~o ~O ~o ~O ~o ~ ~o ~ ~o ~t ~o M ~o M ~o M ~o O~ ~n j W O ( ~ H N Q ~' U v, ~ v, a, ~ o, o, r o v ~ ~ ~ o0 C oo ~o ~ oo vi ~ vi vi ~n ~o ~ ~n ~n v ~ vi vi N L fn ~ ~ ~ O oo O --~ M ~n O O t~ ~O ~n N O N ~ .~ U ~o ~o ~o ~o vi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~n ~ ~ ~ v ~ . a O ~ V ~!1 Vl O [~ M [~ M ~ O ~ O\ V 00 l~ V1 M V (0 ~j 00 DD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ Vl C~ V1 Vl ~O ~!1 ~ Q ~ V N N O\ Q\ M ~ ,-• ~ .--~ 00 V'1 OO .-. ~ M ~--~ O ~!1 00 ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl l~ 'c~ ~/1 ~1 ~ vj ~ ~ O ~U ~ N V ~ 00 00 M N 01 M ~ 00 V1 M O\ V' 00 ~--~ M DD p p Q\ o0 00 00 ~ ~ oo ~n ~o t~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ p p ~ U 0 N ~w V \ ~ ~y .-+ N ~O D\ 00 ~O ~ N ~ ~O N O ~ O v'l O ~O 1 ~' ~ ~ NO ~ ~ ~ 7 ~D v~ vi ~O ~n ~n ~n vi ~n l~ vi [h v-i ~ ~ U ~ m rT ~ O~ O • ~ Q\ D N 0 -~ 0 ~ ~ O O O O Q\ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q\ O O ~ [~ '1 ~ O ICI /~ ~ ~ V D o 0 l ~ D ~ ~ [~ \O vl ~ V ~ Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ O y r~ ~ ~ ; p ~O N O N ~ V ~ vi N v1 O N N ~ ~ M ~ ~+i O N O N M ~ M N o0 h 7 N V N M N V1 O ~ C O t~ ~ ~ oo M N M M a, oo M N oo -~ N O [~ v'i O ~ 0 ~ M M ~O ~D ~ M Vl V1 ~ M ~ Vl V1 DD N Vr M w ~~ '~ ~~y ~ l~ V O~ O O ~ ~O ul .-• ~ ~ ~O N -~ 00 N ~ ~ ~ M ~ M M ~O M N V M M M N M N Vl M N / ~~ Fil ~ ~ ~ J •O y O~ oo vi M V' N M ~O M V ~O N N O N V ~N t 1~1 ~~ 4~- ~ V ~ M M ~ V1 M ~ ~ ~ M 00 Vl ~ ~ M ~ V ~ F+~ J ~ 00 00 [~ O\ M \O ~O 00 N M v) O N 00 N U ~.~ ~ a0 00 V M I~ [~ t7 l~ ~O l~ [~ ~O ~ M [~ V1 l~ (~ _ ~ U O ~ O C .U. = U C G1. '~ ~ U ~ pA C . ~ ~ U 'b U c d++ yU, O. },. U ~ ~~., ~ 'b °~ ~ .~ bq Q. U ~ a ~~ .G oo ~ N ~ a U ~ ~ ~= M .--. ~ ~ .G' ro C~ ~ ~ b ~ a c ~ ~ ~ o° ~ ~ ~ Q. O w a ~ ~ a O a O ~ a~ ~ > ~ 0] 0. ~, ~ ou ~, y 3 ~ ~ p ~ a~ ~ °~, aCi '~ ° 3 ' on c n ~ a~i `~ ~ °' ~ y O f~ ' °' ~ U z ~ _ U U `~ ro `n C~ C1~. ~ cd w ' w w a i ro U ' a i ~ N T ~ cd ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~, ~ ~r 4 R ~ Gl. ~ O 0 C b .G ~ ~ O O ~ .D ~ c 0 . > O C G 0 0 V U ~ W C1r V y > N > N C1. L1. ~ ~ ~ ~ > U ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ a ~ U ? ~ ~ ~ ~ c y ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ti a iw a S F w a ~ U U w a C7 a w ~ U i=. V Q W a Q ~ ~ ~ O O~ ~ 00 ~ l~ ~ P ~, [~ ~ ~O ~ ~O ~n ~O ~n ~O v> 1n ~ 1n ~ V) ~ ~ ~n 'tt ~n M ~ N v; N ~ WOU >~cn Q ~` O~ h 'c1' N N V ~ N l~ M ~D M ~t ~ ~O V'1 ~ Vl ~ ~1 ~ ~1 d' 'V V R 7 ~ M M ~ Q1 L (/1 f/I ~ 00 ~--~ Vl M ' Vl O~ O~ M l~ O V"1 l~ 00 O ~ ' [~ N C U v1 ~ ~ V ) ~ ~ ~ Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Yl CI ~ vl (0 - d O ~ ~/1 ~O ~!1 ~O 'cF ~O M ~ 01 O M [~ M O ~ U (0 'j ~ ~n vi ~n ~O ~n ~n ~n vl ~O vl ~O ~n 7 ~O ~n l~ ~ Q ~ V N N v1 ~ ~ ~ N vi ~ ~ O O ~ 00 ~ ~-+ ~ --~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ V M M M V l~ Yl V M ~ ~ ~ 'cY ~ ~ ~ ~~U ~ U O ~ ~ vl 01 ~ ~ \O M O ~ O ~ N O ~ [~ O C l~ ~ Vl v1 vl v) ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'V' ~t ~ y O ~ O ~ _ " O O oo M O~ oo ~O ~O ~n O~ N O~ ~n ~n O O 1 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~o d' ~o ~o U i" m r~~ ~ Q •~I ~ O ~ ~n ~ O M O N O M M ~O 1 V ' N ~ M v1 ~ ~ O N F~ ' ^ () D D ~D \ \ ~!1 Vl ~! cl ~ ~ ~ v1 ~ ~ ~ ~ V1 ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (/~ O ~ ' ~ r~ ~ i ; ~ ~O .-• N cV ~ (V N N M O~ •--~ O~ ..-. V cV V .-. O M ~O v'l v1 ,-. .-. N ~!1 cV ,-. N l cV O N 0 ~ C C O ~O vi N M O~ ~O ~ ~ n N O O N ~ ~ O ~ O ~ N ~ 'V' ~ ~ ~ ~ V' M M ~ 7 v'i ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~ ~~y ~ ~--~ M M O M M ~ 00 M ~--~ O~ l~ M l~ M ~ h ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N ~--~ .., N ~ N ~ ~--~ .,~ ~ • ~ ~ J F~ Q ~ ~ O O N o0 ~ ~ ~ vi o0 ~ M M ~ v1 v'i ~~ ~I '~ ~ M M ~ M 7 I~ [~ l~ ~ N N ~ [~ \O v1 ~ ~ V a = -~ a M rh Vl O M M ~ 00 M 00 7 O\ N ~D ~/1 U j, L ~ ~ r 00 ~ V V ~ v'i V N vi M V ~ V V ` 7 ~ ~ a ~ _ w y 'Y O C w. ~ ~ ~ ~ p :b ' ~ ;~ C O O y ~ U i3. ~ 'rn w. ?C b ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ?; ~ cd ' rn 3 ~ a ~~ c ~ " z U ~ °x' W . e ° ' 3 G o ? ~ z ~ ° a i ~ a o `~ ~ cn `~ Q a '= ~ ~ ° G ~ o ~ ~ oro ~ ° b ~ ~ ° C7 '° ~ ~ ~ . ' . h b d 'x ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ W ~ ~ ° ~ ~ a ~ a ~ oq a c i ~ U c a ~ .a ro ~' c ~ k' ~ c e a ~ c ro cd U cd ~ cd ~ ;-• O ~ ~ ra p C GL O ~ i C ~ O i C i C ~ ~ i C ~ y ~ '~[' O '~' c~ y, ~ O ^y ~y O O O O O O CL Q ~ '° v v ~ ~ ~ ~ v > v y ~ v v v ~ ~ X23 X23 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. a iz, i=.w a. k. a .:a :a a U rx o, a a. a a. a. N W a Q ~ N ~ M M ~ ~ O~ V1 t7 N ~ ~ V1 ~ O Q\ ~D w LL ~ O V1 V1 ~ 1A V1 V1 R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~!' tY ~ R ~ WOU >~cn Q ~' N ~D O l~ ~--~ M Vl ~O 00 l~ M M ~O M C M ~ M 7 M V M M M ~/1 7 M M ~ d' M M i .. to ~ ~ N G\ ~O 01 M ' ' ~D ~ N O V ~ N N OO O 01 C U ~ M ~ M c1 M ~ ~ V1 ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M (~ a O d ~ ~ ~ \O 01 ~ N O ~ ~ h [~ M ~ M O U ~ [~ Cf Vl lp ~1 ~ l~ Vl \O M M V1 Vl V1 M \O ~O Q U N w N ~ O h O v1 ~ --~ [~ N [~ [~ --~ N f~ ~--~ M ~~ N M ~O ~ ~!1 '~' Vl N ~ M V V M 7 M ~ M Vl ~ ~ 0 ~~U N U o ~o a~ a~ oo t~ ~o v oo v .n t~ v o0 00 0o v Q ~ V \O ~ ~ ~ l~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~F ~ ~ vi N \O y ~ ~ U ~ N +-+ I ~ ~ O Vl ~ V"1 ~ Vl ~ V1 ~ Vl ~ M Vl ~ ~ ~ V1 M C ~" ~ m U ~ ~ rT ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ W ~--~ M 01 O ~ N ' M ~ l~ Vl N ~ ~ N ~ h l ^ T~ ~ U N ~ ~ V M \O M V M V1 ~ M M ~ 7 M M V l A, W ^^ ll W •~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ r~ r~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ M N ~ N ~ ~--~ ~ N N M ~ ~ ~ M O N O cV a\ ~ N N O N ~ ~-+ oo ~--~ O N ~ ^-~ V1 / O ~ C ~ M ~ N M o0 'cY ~--~ ~ ~D M M d' V1 7 00 --~ N V 00 .--. ' ~ M 01 N V Q\ N ~„~ 0 ~ ~ ~ f N ~7 ~ f M M / W ~~ I ~j ~~I ~ M l~ V Vl 00 ~ l~ 01 \O O M v1 M ~ ~D Q~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~ c -. ~--~ --~ ,--~ ~--~ .--~ N N N ~--~ .-. N N ,-. ,-~ ~~ // Fil y ~ J ~..~ •Q ~ ~+ oo [~ N V ~ N O O~ ~O N O~ N N O l~ h ~~ ~„~ ' ~ ~ vi N ~D ~O \O N I~ ~O ~D N ~ v~ ~O N N ~O V `/ 0. J ~ U1 O O M N 00 h (~ O 00 M O~ N l~ ~O U j, L ri vi ~ ~Y V ri ri ri ri ~C vi ~ V ~G ~D ri ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ = y ~ `~ (~ W U \ ~ a5 cd 7 C T a1 «i ~ 3 „ ~ ~ ~° `n ~ a~i ~ " c °' c`~ a ~ ° C7 C7 ~ 'tJ °' ~ x ~ 0. N X ~ LLr N ~i .~ U C C O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ a v '~.. z . C ~ ~ 'O ' .~~.~ .gel ~% C~ ~ C 3 a ~ x ~ ' a ' ~ ~ 0 ° ;v 7 S b ~ .c ~ a ~'' .~ ~ >, ° ~ ° Cd C7 ~ ~ ~ ~' U C r ~ U ~ E, > 7 7 T °o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ x C 0. ~ ~ ~ Cn y ~ o ~ as ~ o ~ y ^ o ~ pa c o c 0 c 0 ~ o n. 0 c 0 o. 0 ° ~ . a pa ~ o ^ o o a ~ d o. 0 c 0 ~ .~ ~ is ca a~i ~ ~ ~ y ~ '~ '~ Q ~ ~ a~ .~ Z a`~i ~ ~ a~i a~i Q Q a~~i Q ~ v y y ~ ° v Q y ,,., rx a~ ~ ~ a ~ ' c ~ ~ ~ ° c i ~ ~ c~ ~q a ~ ~, rx ~ ~ ~3 ~ X23 v3 ° 3 ~3 3 d ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ .~ ~ v ~, ~, ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~2i ~, ~, ~ ~ c d a ii. a o. a U C7 a C7 ~ w a a a° i~. C7 a M Q W a Q ~' ~ i i ~ ~ v v ON ; Q ~' U ~ V1 O~ N ~ M M M M M L ~ ~ ^ ~ ^ M ~ ~ ~ M ~ M C ~U (0 d O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U (d ' ~ ~o ~ d' ri ~ ~ Q ~ V ~ N ~ rn ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ M M M ~ U1 ~ ~ ~ ~U ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vi ~n ~, O C O ~,~ ~ m U ~ O •~ ~ (~ o, M oo M ~ M oo M .-. ~ T~~/~ Vl '~~ ~ ~~ (n ~ 0 ~~y I FBI r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~--~ .~ ~ N V1 O ~ C [~ O O l~ ~ O ~ M ~ M M ~ ~ W •~ ~ ~ .I f0 . N `O O N iy ~ ~- !~ y ^~ N J ~i .~ •Q ~ ~T, O ~O o0 o O ~' ~I '~ ~ ~ d' V'1 V1 N ~ ~I 7 J M N N U ~~ ~ J V V ~ V c~i . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ bq ~ ~. y ~ 0.. ~ `~ ' ~ w 7 y ~" ~ >, ~ ~ a ~ ~. ~ on '~ U U K o ~ n. ~, N ~ 3 ~ ~ H ~ .s x d ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ (S ~ ~ a ~ F. U ~ ~ a ~ U ~ ~ C C7 ~ F, U ~ a ~ F. U ~ a ~ U w V Q Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Project Average Score Summary By Category The capital projects are grouped into three broad categories: Public Safety, Technology, and Quality of Life. This grouping may help determine priorities in a way different from using the overall project score summary. The following displays projects from highest to lowest priority within each category: Average Total Department & Project Name Score Category A: Public Safety Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 2 69.0 Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 3 66.0 Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 1 65.9 Sheriff -Jail Renovations 63.5 Fire & Rescue -Vinton Rescue -New Building 59.4 Police -Evidence Vault Addition 59.0 Fire & Rescue -Back Creek Station Addition 58.7 Police -South County Police Precinct 57.7 Fire & Rescue -Hanging Rock New Station 57.7 Fire & Rescue -Hollins Road New Station 57.6 Fire & Rescue -Bay Heater Upgrades 51.6 Fire & Rescue -Bunk Room Additions 49.1 Police -Bomb Disposal Unit 47.4 Cate~orv B: Technolo Fire & Rescue -Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities 79.4 Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade 75.6 Information Technology - HP Migration 73.6 Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine 71.7 Fire & Rescue -EMS Data Reporting System 70.3 Information Technology -Network Infrastructure Upgrade 67.7 Community Development -GIS Phase II -Integration 66.0 Community Development -GIS -New Server 55.6 Real Estate Valuation -Field Data Collection System 55.1 Community Development -GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer 50.6 Information Technology - In-Building Radio Frequency Coverage System 49.2 Fire & Rescue -Station Security System 47.0 Fire & Rescue -Station Fuel Control System 44.1 AS-1 CIP Review Committee FY05-09 General Committee Comments In the process of evaluating proposals and subsequent discussions, the members of the CIP Review Committee commented on several ways to enhance the capital programming process. The following comments are not necessarily the consensus of the entire committee, but are important to be noted: • The staff established a $50,000 minimum for capital projects. These projects, if lower on the priority list, may not get funded, yet they are relatively easy projects to accomplish and would probably be higher on the priority list if cost were a factor in developing the priority. Another alternative is to allow the departments to fund these projects within their own budget. • Conditions may arise under which grants are available to fund projects that would influence their importance and comprise additional factors to be considered. Federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security are a good example of this type of external funding. • Opportunities for regional projects, such as joint fire and rescue facilities with neighboring localities, may develop that would change priority ranking for these projects. Such changes would depend greatly on the level of interest by another locality. • Projects for which the community has raised money should be given special consideration. A good example is the proposed Bent Mountain Library addition, for which the community has privately raised $10,000. • Amend the debt policy resolution 051496-9.a to increase the allowable debt per capita from $1,500 to a higher number ($2,000) to account for inflation since 1996. Consider applying an inflation factor so that the value would automatically be adjusted. • Establish a storm water utility, preferably on a regional basis. • Establish a dedicated annual funding source for Greenway Development, similar to the existing concept that uses a designated revenue source for storm water improvements. • Terminate the VDOT Revenue Sharing program for a few years, until other capital needs are addressed. • Develop the new public safety center in phases, as follows: a. Select a site large enough for the ultimate installation. b. Construct new facilities for IT, Dispatch, and radio equipment. c. Add radio equipment. d. Add facilities for EOC and administrative offices for police, fire and rescue. Continue to use existing facilities for these functions for a number of years in the future and upgrade as needed. A6 CIP Review Committee FY05-09 Committee Comments by Department/Project Community Development -GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer Average Total Score: 51.0, Leve14 • This could be part of an ongoing fund to address technology. • This item could have been included in the "GIS Phase II Integration". However, as a separate project it scores higher, mostly due to the obsolescence and potential cost reduction factors. Community Development -GIS -New Server Average Total Score: 56.0, Leve14 • This item could have been included in the "GIS Phase II Integration". However, as a separate project it scored higher, which may be misleading as it's a component of the "GIS Phase II" project. Community Development -GIS Phase II -Integration Average Total Score: 66.0, Leve12 • I personally believe that a GIS system can greatly benefit the citizens of Roanoke county far, far beyond the cost of implementation. However, it is dependent upon the user as to how effective it will be... and that human factor is always an unknown. Finally, most citizens won't recognize the importance of a system like this when compared to, say, fixing the road in front of their house. Little do they realize that the proper implementation of a GIS system will help insure that their road gets fixed on time and with money available to do so. • This project, through its applicability to a variety of essential services, benefits all Roanoke County residents. • I think this is a worthwhile ongoing program at a reasonable cost. It may be preferable to make this continuing expenditure a line item in annual budgets. Community Development -Regional Storm Water MgdFlood Control Average Total Score: 67.0, Level 1 • Need a regional stormwater authority. • This is an important subject that should have a dedicated funding source such as fees from a storm water utility, preferably on a regional basis. • With developers buying multiple land parcels that are considered a "Phase II" or "Phase III" of an originaUexisting development, and this expansion is obvious, why doesn't the planning commission require developers to construct regional detention ponds? Purchasing of flood prone properties needs to be limited. Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Average Total Score: 63.0, Leve12 • The County has participated in this program for many years. It may be time to devote those local resources to other capital needs. Economic Development -Center for Research & Technology Average Total Score: 64.0, Leve12 • Once started we should continue with development of the CRT. However, I believe there are other CIP projects with a more urgent need. • CRT is important to developing future county growth and stability and needs to be supported. However, the level of support and amount of financing may need to be reviewed and prioritized in relation to other CIP projects. Fire & Rescue -Back Creek Station Addition Average Total Score: 59.0, Leve13 • All of these building projects should be done as a single project to save money and insure the benefit to all residents. • If the request is for only one bay, $330,000 seems to be an excessive cost. A7-1 Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway Average Total Score: 49.0, Leve14 • This is a personal priority project that needs a multiplier to balance out the cost/benefit ratio of these projects. I believe that the hidden benefits to this community for these projects can't be • The County needs a dedicated continuing source of revenue for greenway development. Greenway Development -Roanoke River Greenway -East Average Total Score: 50.0, Leve14 • This is a personal priority project that needs a multiplier to balance out the cost/benefit ratio of these projects. I believe that the hidden benefits to this community for these projects can't be • The County needs a dedicated continuing source of revenue for greenway development. Greenway Development -Tinker Creek Greenway Average Total Score: 47.0, Leve14 • This is a personal priority project that needs a multiplier to balance out the cost/benefit ratio of these projects. I believe that the hidden benefits to this community for these projects can't be • The County needs a dedicated continuing source of revenue for greenway development. • This project contradicts efforts by local municipalities to keep people out of Carvins Cove. Information Technology - HP Migration Average Total Score: 74.0, Level 1 • I believe the county should be leasing this equipment to insure that it is updated when it is obsolete, instead of purchasing them. I believe this firmly enough that I almost ranked this request very low, but I felt that there would be no purpose served by doing so. • This might be incorporated into an overall fund for technology upgrades. Information Technology - In-Building Radio Frequency (RF) Coverage System Average Total Score: 49.0, Leve14 • I believe the county should be leasing this equipment to insure that it is updated when it is obsolete, instead of purchasing them. I believe this firmly enough that I almost ranked this request very low, but I felt that there would be no purpose served by doing so. • There may be less expensive ways to address this problem such as closed circuit TV and intercom. Information Technology -Network Infrastructure Upgrade Average Total Score: 68.0, Level 1 • I believe the county should be leasing this equipment to insure that it is updated when it is obsolete, instead of purchasing them. I believe this firmly enough that I almost ranked this request very low, but I felt that there would be no purpose served by doing so. • This might be incorporated into an overall fund for technology upgrades. Will improved efficiency result in lower personnel costs? Library -Bent Mountain Library Expansion Average Total Score: 54.0, Leve14 • Libraries delivered through the school system should be designed with the future in mind and coordinated with the school system site development plans. Technology should also be a major form of service delivery instead of built space. This is the wrong focus for the future. A master plan establishing the direction for the libraries of the future should first be developed. • A cost of over $300 per square foot seems excessive. I would add some weight to the scoring because the community is helping to raise money for the project. Library - Glenvar Library Expansion Average Total Score: 56.0, Leve13 • Libraries should be delivered through the school system so that resources are shared. Designs can be achieved that will accomplish this as proven by many communities. Technology should also be a major form of service delivery instead of built space. This is the wrong focus for the future. A master plan establishing the direction for the libraries of the future should first be developed. • A cost of over $300 per square foot seems excessive. A7-3 Parks & Recreation -Green Hill Park Phase III Average Total Score: 51.0, Level 4 • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Hollins Park Average Total Score: 48.0, Leve14 • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Improvements for Parking Areas Average Total Score: 47.0, Leve14 • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) • Would like to have seen this divided into individual projects. Parks & Recreation -Parks & Recreation Land Bank Average Total Score: 51.0, Leve14 • Developers (housing) should be required to put aside a designated amount of recreation area proportionate to the rise of development for the use of that development. Several adjacent developments may combine for larger area with reduced costs to each. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Picnic Shelters Average Total Score: 48.0, Leve14 • One or two per year. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Playgrounds Average Total Score: 56.0, Leve13 • Perhaps one per year. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Spring Hollow Park Average Total Score: 53.0, Leve14 • Recent concerns raised by the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security pertaining to protection of water resources owned by municipalities suggest this project should be re-considered. Parks & Recreation -Tennis Court Resurfacing Average Total Score: 44.0, Leve14 • Like many of the P&R projects, this project is capital maintenance. P&R's yearly capital maintenance budget should be increased from the current $SOK to approx. $200K. This would alleviate maintenance projects from the CIP and give the department the flexibility make repairs on a timely basis instead of depending on a CIP grant. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) A7-5 Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 2 Average Total Score: 69.0, Level 1 • Rank this project as a need first -then decide what option to do. • The police, sheriff, public safety and other related projects need to be master planned before any money is spent on physical plants. Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 3 Average Total Score: 66.0, Leve12 • Rank this project as a need first -then decide what option to do. • The police, sheriff, public safety and other related projects need to be master planned before any money is spent on physical plants. • One additional option should be considered that would address the greatest current needs, but limit the initial cost. Provide a new facility for IT and the dispatch center, and provide building space for the radio equipment. Leave police, fire and rescue administration and the EOC at the current location until such future time that other important capital needs have been satisfied. Functionally, the EOC should be in the same location as the administration offices. Real Estate Valuation -Field Data Collection System Average Total Score: 55.0, Leve14 • Could reduce personnel costs. • Is the County paying overtime to have these reports entered into the system? Sheriff -Jail Renovations Average Total Score: 64.0, Leve12 • The police, sheriff, public safety and other related projects need to be master planned before any money is spent on physical plants. The jail, in particular, should have a study funded instead of a specific project before plans are made. • A&E needs to be authorized immediately for the 6th and 7th floor additions to the existing jail. Also a study should be enacted to determine the long term resolution for the overcrowded jail. • It is time for the governments in the Roanoke Valley to explore the establishment of a regional detention center to serve the region. • Suggest an updated study in FY05 with construction funds in FY06. Seek maximum financial participation from Salem and the State. • We need to bring this proposal up-to-date, and develop a plan should a judicial mandate be imposed on the County. Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine Average Total Score: 72.0, Level 1 • Scoring does not accurately describe the need for this project. This should be an asset replacement and not a CIP item. A7-7 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. (~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss recently adopted Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch Chief of Fire and Rescue APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the December 16, 2003 meeting, the Board adopted a revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP). Each locality in the state is required to have an adopted EOP, which is the reference document in the event of a local emergency. Historically, this plan was for natural hazards but recent events have required the transition to an "All Hazards" plan. This is required to be reviewed each year and re-adopted every five years. Our plan also contains extensive revision and additions due to various federal and state mandates that have been put in place in recent years. The County Administrator remains the Director of Emergency Management and daily functions of emergency management are delegated to the Coordinator of Emergency Management within the Fire and Rescue Department. The Fire and Rescue Department will facilitate a drill within the next year to test and further revise this plan as necessary. This work session will bean overview of the content and the utilization of the EOP by county staff. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. O' 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 13, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-7 "Reimbursement of Expenses for Emergency Response" SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On March 12, 2002, the Board of Supervisor amended the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Section 2-7. "Reimbursement of expenses incurred for emergency response to accidents or incidents caused by driving while impaired." This section authorizes the County to attempt to recover reasonable expenses incurred in providing appropriate emergency response to accidents or incidents arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, engine, train, or water craft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In determining "reasonable expenses" a locality may bill a flat fee of $100 or a minute-by- minute accounting of the actual costs incurred, but liability shall not exceed $1,000. On October 14, 2003, the Board considered at first reading an ordinance to expand this ordinance to include additional traffic offenses: reckless driving, driving without a license and leaving the scene of an accident. The 2003 session of the General Assembly expanded the coverage of this legislation to include these additional offenses. The Board requested a work session on this ordinance to consider two issues: expanding the coverage of this ordinance, and the costs and benefits of collection activities. The Board requested a work session on October 28, 2003, to consider these amendments as well as administrative collection matters. This work session was postponed until December 16, 2003. On November 18, 2003, the Board adopted a resolution identifying its legislative initiatives for the 2004 session of the Virginia General Assembly. One of these initiatives is to amend the State enabling legislation by increasing the flat fee from $100 to $500. Administratively Ihave advised County staff to limit collection activities only to charges involving accidents. The number of cases involving accidents for 2002 is as follows: Year 2002 Accidents Involving Charges DUI 43 Drivin without a license $ Reckless 175 Leave the scene 7 Total Char es 233 The number of cases involving "incidents" is as follows: Year 2002 Incidents DUI 203 Drivin without a license 176 Reckless 316 Leave the scene 7 Total Char es 702 Of the 1467 traffic accident reports, 175 charges were filed (12%) alleging reckless driving. Staff has surveyed other localities concerning their collection activities. No other local government in this region has adopted such an ordinance. Chesterfield, Loudoun and Virginia Beach use the flat fee approach, having determined that the minute-by-minute accounting is not cost effective, and in many instances, results in a lower cost recovery than the flat fee. This conclusion is consistent with Roanoke County's data. For example, using an average of $.57 per minute ($34 per hour for two police officers) for a "simple" DUI incident the time expended at the scene of arrest is on average 20 minutes. One officer could be involved for up to 3 hours in some instances (transport to magistrate and jail, paperwork, interviewing witnesses, etc.). The following administrative costs are not recoverable: monitoring cases to conviction (since only convictions are eligible for cost recovery), retrieving the data from the CAD system for minute-by-minute accounting, separating out volunteer fire and rescue time, preparing and mailing demand letters, preparing and handling collection cases in general district court, and other costs of collection. As in all collection matters there is a significant number of judgments that are uncollectible. The Treasurer advises me that he places a higher priority on the collection of delinquent taxes. Staff recommends the following: (i) do not amend Sec. 2-7 at this time, (ii) monitor the use of this expanded legislation in other localities to determine its suitability for Roanoke County (iii) continue to collect reasonable expenses from DUI accidents, (iv) use the $100 _J flat fee to minimize administrative costs and expenses, and (v) use minute-by-minute accounting in those rare situations when justified by the expense of the emergency response. If it is the pleasure of the Board to amend Section 2-7 or to make any other changes to the collection policies or procedures, then I shall draft the appropriate amendments or changes and submit them to the Board for action at a future meeting. 3 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION 011304-8 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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Closed Meeting File . ,. Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 RESOLUTION 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. O~ POANO,S.F ti ~A A 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 January 27, 2004 The Honorable Michael A. Wray Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Supervisor Wray: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton®co.roanoke.va.us I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 2004, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as the Board Liaison to the Social Services Advisory Board to complete the unexpired portion of Mr. H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix's four-year term. This term began on August 1, 2002, and will expire on August 1, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw at 387-6205 to arrange to have this oath administered. Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely 1 /~J /',, ,, ,, l l ~ . C'.6~G~~ J~~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors C~.a~xt~~ a~ ~~~z~~~.~ Enclosures cc: Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court of aoaruo4.~ ~~ Z ` c~ aZ C~~~~~ ~~ ~~x~~. 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 DIANE S. CHILDERS FAX (540) 772-2193 CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchiiders~co.roanoke.va.us January 27, 2004 Mr. James D. Campbell Executive Director Virginia Association of Counties 1001 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mr. Campbell: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us At their organizational meeting in January 2004, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors elected Richard C. Flora to serve as Chairman and Michael W. Altizer to serve as Vice-Chairman. In his capacity as Chairman, Supervisor Flora will serve as the Liaison Board Member from Roanoke County to the Virginia Association of Counties. Supervisor Altizer, as Vice-Chairman, will serve as the Legislative Contact. Also, in January 2004, Supervisor Michael A. Wray replaced H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix as the representative from the Cave Spring Magisterial District. I am attaching an updated list of the 2004 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, . ~~~.~~ ~' ~~~a~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment 6 O~ pOANp,~.~ ti ~~ ~ Z L7 z v a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us (~~~nt~ n~ ~n~xxta~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540)772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 January 27, 2004 Mr. Phil Sparks, President Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership 111 Franklin Plaza, Suite 333 Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Sparks: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton ~co.roanoke.va.us At their organization meeting in January 2004, the Board of Supervisors elected Richard C. Flora to serve as Chairman. For your information, I am attaching a list of the members of the Board of Supervisor for 2004. This is to inform you that as Chairman, Supervisor Flora will be serving on the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership. His County address and telephone number will remain the same as for the previous chairman: P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 540-772-2005. If you need further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ,~lca~~ ~ C',lu.~G~~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: The Honorable Richard C. Flora, Chairman O~ ROANp~~ ~ ,A i Z 9 1838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 DIANE S. CHILDERS FAX (540) 772-2193 CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us January 27, 2004 Mr. Wayne Strickland, Executive Director .Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission P. O. Box 2569 Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Strickland: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us This is to inform you that at their meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2004, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to make the following Board appointments: Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance The Board elected Richard C. Flora at their organizational meeting in January 2004 to serve as Chairman, and he will serve on the Alliance replacing former Chairman Joseph McNamara. Roanoke Valle -~Ileghan~Regional Commission -Supervisor Michael A. Wray was appointed to complete the unexpired three-year term of Supervisor Flora. This term began on July 1, 2001 and will expire on June 30, 2004 Roanoke Vallev-Alleahany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization -Supervisor Wray was appointed as an alternate to complete the unexpired three-yearterm of H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix. This term began on July 1, 2002 and will expire on June 30, 2005. Roanoke Vallev-Alleghany Regional Commission Water Supply Policy Committee - Supervisor Michael W. Altizer was appointed to replace Supervisor Flora on this committee. I am attaching a list of the members of the Board of Supervisors for 2004. If you need further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ cc: The Honorable Richard C. Flora, Chairman The Honorable Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman The Honorable Michael A. Wray Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment i O~ ROANp'FF +~ ' ~ ~ 'xi z ~ `"aZ ~~r~xxr~ ~pr~ ~~xx~.~.~..~e 1838 Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Richard C. Flora, Chairman Hollins Magisterial District Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Vinton Magisterial District January 14, 2004 Pastor Bob Alderman Shenandoah Baptis# Church 6520 Williamson Road, NW Roanoke, VA 24012 Dear Pastor Alderman. Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District Joseph McNamara Windsor Hills Magisterial District Michael A. Wray Cave Spring Magisterial District On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2004. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings, and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. It was good to have you with us. With kindest regards, Richard C. Flora, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors v OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: (540) 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 E-MAIL: bos @ co. roanoke.va. us O~ ROANp~~ ti '~ p 2 ~ z J ~z.. .ate 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 January 15, 2004 Brig. Gen. Rodney W. McNeil, Ret. 5540 Arthur Street Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear General McNeil: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, January 15, 2004, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Planning Commission representing the Cave Spring Magisterial District for afour-year term. Your term began on December 31, 2003, and will expire on December 31, 2007. 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. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered. Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, CGpd~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure C~n~x~~ u~ ~n~~n~e cc: Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court O~ ROANps.~ a ti ~ ~ ~ Z ~ 2 °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 January 14, 2004 Ms. Wendi Schultz Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Tourism and Event Coordinator 1206 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Dear Ms. Schultz: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton ~co.roanoke.va.us I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, January 13, 2004, the Board of Supervisors reappointed you to the Southwest Development Financing, Inc. Board of Directors for atwo-year term. This term began on January 12, 2004, and will expire January 12, 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~~`~ ~~~(!L Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosures cc: Robert Goldsmith, Executive Director Stn District Development Financing, Inc. 1173 W. Main Street Abingdon, VA 24210 C~n~xrt~ .v# ~Z~~t~.~C~ O~ pOANp~,~ .. ti '~ A z c~ ~ a 1838 PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2007 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2089 December 17, 2003 JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY (540) 772-2071 F. Kevin Hutchins Roanoke County Treasurer Dear Mr. Hutchins: As a result of your election as Treasurer for Roanoke County, it is necessary to determine whether or not the employees in your office will continue to be participants in Roanoke County's personnel system. By formal action taken in 1988, the Board of Supervisors has accepted the employees of the constitutional officers for Roanoke County into the County's personnel system. The election and/or assumption of office of a new constitutional officer operates to revoke the former constitutional officer's decision to participate in the County's personnel system. Accordingly, a decision by the new officer whether or not to participate in the County's personnel system is necessary. Section 6.02 of the Roanoke County Charter provides, in part, that employees of constitutional officers may participate in the County's personnel system at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors and upon the concurrence of the constitutional officer. Based upon this provision of the charter and historical precedent from 1980 in which the Board adopted resolutions accepting the employees of the constitutional officers into the County's personnel system, it is necessary for each constitutional officer to indicate his or her concurrence in participating in the County's personnel system to the Board in writing. It is requested that your written decision concerning such participation be returned to me or to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors by January 1, 2004. For your convenience, enclosed you will find a form to indicate your decision. Assuming you decide to participate, it is my plan to submit to the Board of Supervisors a resolution accepting your employees into the County's personnel system at their meeting on January 13, 2004. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. PMM/ spb C~~~xt~~r u~ ~~~t~a~e Very tyruly(~+youurs, ~/~ > ®~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney c: Board reading file Elmer C. Hodge Joe Sgroi OF ROANp~.~ a ~' ~ z ~. v az 1838 PAUL M. MAHONEY COUNTY ATTORNEY (sao> 772-2007 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 FAX (540) 772-2089 December 17, 2003 JOSEPH B. OBENSHAIN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY VICKIE L. HUFFMAN SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY (s40)772-2071 Randy Leach Roanoke County Commonwealth's Attorney Dear Mr. Leach: As a result of your election as Commonwealth's Attorney for Roanoke County, it is necessary to determine whether or not the employees in your office will continue to be participants in Roanoke County's personnel system. By formal action taken in 1988, the Board of Supervisors has accepted the employees of the constitutional officers for Roanoke County into the County's personnel system. The election and/or assumption of office of a new constitutional officer operates to revoke the former constitutional officer's decision to participate in the County's personnel system. Accordingly, a decision by the new officer whether or not to participate in the County's personnel system is necessary. Section 6.02 of the Roanoke County Charter provides, in part, that employees of constitutional officers may participate in the County's personnel system at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors and upon the concurrence of the constitutional officer. Based upon this provision of the charter and historical precedent from 1980 in which the Board adopted resolutions accepting the employees of the constitutional officers into the County's personnel system, it is necessary for each constitutional officer to indicate his or her concurrence in participating in the County's personnel system to the Board in writing. It is requested that your written decision concerning such participation be returned to me or to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors by January 1, 2004. For your convenience, enclosed you will find a form to indicate your decision. Assuming you decide to participate, it is my plan to submit to the Board of Supervisors a resolution accepting your employees into the County's personnel system at their meeting on January 13, 2004. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. PMM/ spb C~~~trt#~ o~ ~u~t~.aC~Ce ~- ery truly yours, ., e Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Board reading file Elmer C. Hodge Joe Sgroi Rita J. Gliniecki Chairman R I u e Ridge John M. Hudgins, Jr. Vice Chairman Behavioral Robert Williams, Jr. Treasurer Meredith B. Waid Secretary Healthcare Executive Director S. James Sikkema, LCSW d~,~ c~~ October 24, 2003 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge Roanoke County Administrator P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Hodge: E~.,~i~lgekit kie~al#hcar~e would like to re4u~~ws=~-#~e a t~ t Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting orb ; ~~~`~ " ~ec~be~`~'i6, 20,~to give a brief report about the services we provided to Roanoke County residents in fiscal year 2003. A board member representing Roanoke County will deliver our report, and our Executive Director, Mr. Jim Sikkema, will also be present to answer questions. We appreciate this annual opportunity to share information about our services and to say `thank you'. Sincerely, ~~ ~,~ R<~ Hunter B. Roberts Executive Office Administrator C: The Honorable Joseph McNamara, Chairman Diane S. Childers, Clerk S. James Sikkema Executive Offices 301 Elm Avenue SW Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4001 (540) 345-9841 Fax (540) 345-6891 The Community Services Board serving the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Counties of Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke S Remarks to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Rita J. Gliniecki, Chairman, BRBH Board of Directors December 16, 2003 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. Good afternoon. My name is Rita Gliniecki, and I serve as one of your appointees to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors. Jim Sikkema, the agency's Executive Director, is here with me today, and we have come to say thank you and to report on services our staff provided to citizens of Roanoke County during our last fiscal year. In fiscal year 2003, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare staff delivered 120,616 units of our various services to 3,163 County residents. The cost to Blue Ridge to provide those services was $3,279,554. The County's local tax contribution to our agency's operations was $117,755. That means that Roanoke County residents received $27.85 worth of services for each tax dollar allocated to their Community Services Board. The following are examples of how Blue Ridge is working for residents of Roanoke County: • Prevention Services provided a variety of resiliency-building student support groups at four County elementary schools. • Project LINK served ten women with a substance use disorder who were pregnant or parenting young children, and provided case management to five of these women's children. An additional three new mothers received education, referral and follow-up services following birth of newborns. • Two staff provided clinical or case management services to Spanish- speaking County residents. • The middle school Day Treatment Program continued to be delivered in partnership with Roanoke County Schools and the Roanoke County Community Policy and Management Team at the Roland E. Cook site in Vinton. These services help to maintain adolescents in this public school site through therapy and case management, thereby avoiding more costly private day school or residential placements. • BRBH certified trainers provided atwo-day Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) for Roanoke County Schools Guidance Counselors. • Our Case Managers worked with 134 Roanoke County consumers who have mental retardation and 233 individuals with a serious mental illness, providing almost 8,500 hours of service through our Adult Resource Management components. Last year we told you about Governor Warner's plans to reconfigure the public system of care for the mentally disabled. All this past year we have been working with senior staff in the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services in Richmond on this restructuring process. At the local level, we have met intensively with senior managers from Catawba Hospital, Carillon Health System, and the Lewis-Gale Medical Center. We are quite hopeful that these healthcare partners, working alongside our advocates -the Mental Health Association, the Alliance for the Mentally III, and the Roanoke Valley Alliance for Children -will in the near future bring about long needed and positive changes in our system of care, statewide and locally. We will keep you apprised of these changes and their impact as they become finalized. As you know, Blue Ridge is experiencing increased demand for services while, at the same time, we are experiencing reductions in funding. When we submit our local request for FY 2005, it will be with the recognition that Virginia's budget crisis has had long-lasting effects. We trust that Roanoke County will continue to support us financially to the best of its ability. And we pledge to continue providing the best services we can to those citizens who need us most. In closing, let me say that the Board of Directors and Staff of Blue Ridge value the good working relationship we have with the officials of Roanoke County and the agencies and county departments we partner with to provide quality services to our citizens. Thank you for your support of our agency and its mission. i i i i EX. 11' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 11 I / / / FUTURE LOTS - EXISTING ~ 15' PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT "' -- ._-_P_B. 26 PG. 83 -_._ -_ ~_ _ 1 ~~ ,~ EXISTING 30' PUBLIC WATER & SANITAR~ SEWER EASEMEN \.B. 26 PG 83I ~ I ~ ~ EX. 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 11 I I i W~ U., I ~M ~`~ , o~ Q 00 r- Z W \ - ~ ~ g~ l ~p ___-- - ___- -~~ ____- _ I EXISTING (PUBLIC I ' o~ ~ I I WATER & SANITARY ~:~ ( I SEWER EASEMENT r P.B. 26 PG 83 ~ ~ „T , , o ~ 3~ LOT 119 ~ LOT 120 n ~ `Q Z ~ ~ w //~~~~ ~.i (~!~ M v ,_ - ...~ EXISTING PUBLIC WATER & SANITA Y SEWER EASEMEN P.B. 26 PG: 83 f ti"'., , AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF DONALD R. WITT, PLANNING COMMISSIONER, AFTER NINETEEN YEARS AND TWO MONTHS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Don Witt was first appointed to the Roanoke County Planning Commission in October 1984 to complete Joe Bateman's unexpired term and was reappointed in 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1999; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Planning Commission in 1986, 1989, 1993, 1998 and 2003; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt has been recognized by his peers across the State of Virginia with the1997 Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association "Local Planning Official Award" presented to him as a strong leader who has made extraordinary contributions to local government planning; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt has contributed significantly to many regional projects such as the Smith Gap Landfill, Roanoke River Corridor Study, Open Space Steering Committee and the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt has provided leadership and been instrumental in the development and implementation of many Roanoke County initiatives such as the Comprehensive Development Plan Historic Resources Advisory Committee Blue Ridge Parkway Viewshed Protection Study, Manufactured Home Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, Screening and Buffering V. ~--_ Ordinance, 992 Zoning Ordinance, Clearbrook Overlay District, Visioning Steering Committee, 419 Development Plan and the 1998 Community Plan; and ~~ ., 4 WHEREAS, Mr. Witt has served the citizens of the Cave Spring Magisterial District with honor and has provided them the highest level of representation with his knowledge, creativity, innovation and fairness; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt will always be remembered and missed for his fastidious review of Planning Commission minutes; and WHEREAS, in his honor it is hereby deemed illegal to erect a billboard or a back-lit sign in Roanoke County and all new signs must be monument style; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt is considered by members of the Planning Commission and the planning staff to be professional, courteous, knowledgeable, fair and "witty"; and WHEREAS, Mr. Witt, as a Roanoke County planning commissioner, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for county citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to DONALD R. WITT for over nineteen years of loyal service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Planning Commission will miss his leadership, camaraderie and wisdom and does express its' best wishes in all future endeavors. AI G. Thomason, Sr. Windsor Hills Magisterial District G. Steve Azar Vinton Magisterial District Martha Hooker Catawba Magisterial District AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION UPON THE RETIREMENT OF WILLIAM TODD ROSS, PLANNING COMMISSIONER, AFTER TEN YEARS AND TWO MONTHS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Todd Ross was first appointed to the Roanoke County Planning Commission in October 1993 to complete Ron Massey's unexpired term and was reappointed in 1995 and 2000; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ross served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Planning Commission in 1997 and 2002; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ross has contributed significantly to many Roanoke County initiatives such as the 1998 Community Plan, the Roanoke County Cluster Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance and the 2004 Community Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ross has served the citizens of the Hollins Magisterial District with honor and has provided them the highest level of representation with his knowledge, innovation and fairness; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ross was also considered by members of the Planning Commission and the planning staff to be professional, courteous, knowledgeable and fair; and WHEREAS, Mr. Ross, as a Roanoke County planning commissioner, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for county citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to William Todd Ross for over ten years of loyal service to Roanoke County. .,• FURTHER, the Planning Commission will miss his leadership, camaraderie and sense of humor and does express its' best wishes in all future endeavors. AI G. Thomason, Sr. Windsor Hills Magisterial District Martha Hooker Catawba Magisterial District G. Steve Azar Vinton Magisterial District Braenda Holton - Re: Witt and Ross ._........_.__.._..........._.... Page 1 From: Janet Scheid To: Brenda Holton Date: 1 /8/04 12:29PM Subject: Re: Witt and Ross Brenda: I will plan on being there for the Jan. 13 meeting. I'm not sure about Arnold but he probably will be. I have attached the 2 reso. we did for Todd and Don. Todd, to the best of my knowledge, was really not involved in the landfill or Explore Park. Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2094 »> Brenda Holton 01/08/04 11:54AM »> Janet, I have emailed the certificates that we prepared for Mr. Witt and Mr. Ross to Susan for your review. I am writing the Board report for this item now. Do you plan to attend the meeting? and will Arnold be attending? 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 ~our~tp of ~o~r~o~e Capital Improvement Program Review Committee Evaluation and Recommendations January 2004 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Table of Contents I. Committee Appointments .............................................................................. 1 II. Executive Summarv ....................................................................................... 2 III. Capital Project Recommendations Capital Project Prioritization .............................................................. 4 Recommendations .............................................................................. 6 Footnotes on Specific Projects ........................................................... 9 N. Appendix Committee Goals &Objectives .........................................................A1 Project Evaluation Criteria .................................................................A2 Evaluation Scoring Factors ................................................................A3 Project Score Surmnary -All Projects ...............................................A4 Project Score Summary - By Category .............................................AS General Committee Comments ..........................................................A6 Project Specific Comments ................................................................A7 G 0 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Committee Appointments In developing the FY2005-2009 Roanoke County CIP, the Board of Supervisors approved a CIP Review Committee comprised ofBoard-appointed representatives for each magisterial district and members ofCounty-appointed commissions and boards. This unique approach allows a diverse perspective in reviewing and prioritizing capital needs that exist throughout the county. The CIP Committee is comprised of the following appointed members: Appointment: Representing: Ms. Barbara Fasnacht Catawba Magisterial District Ms. Dawn Erdman Cave Spring Magisterial District Mr. Jason Perdue Hollins Magisterial District Mr. Michael Roop Vinton Magisterial District Mr. Lee Eddy Windsor Hills Magisterial District Mr. Craig Sharp Industrial Development Authority Ms. Connie Goodman Library Board Mr. Don Witt Planning Commission Mr. Chris Georgoulis Public Safety Mr. Jack Griffith Recreation Commission Facilitated by Roanoke County Staff: Mr. W. Brent Robertson Director, Management and Budget Mr. Chad Sweeney Budget Administrator Ms. Cathy Weaver Budget Analyst i Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Executive Summary January, 2004 Background A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a significant tool to assist in long-range planning for municipal capital needs. In October, 2003 the Board of Supervisors selected a committee of citizens to evaluate and prioritize submitted capital projects for the Board to consider in developing current and future years capital budgets. The Committee established guiding goals and objectives (listed in Appendix); then interviewed departmental staff to understand specific projects and conducted site visits to view capital needs firsthand. Members committed approximately 35 hours to the evaluation and prioritization process. ~~ It is important to note that the scope of the CIP Review Committee's evaluation did not include School capital needs or Enterprise (Utility) Fund needs. f ' I 1..7 ~.~"Cu~ed Results of Evaluation The Committee prioritized capital project requests by applying a set of evaluation criteria to each individual project. The Committee developed 12 separate criterion to score projects using values important to the community that were derived from previously adopted plans, policies (i.e. Community Plan), and statements previously articulated by the Board of Supervisors. While a topic of considerable discussion by the Committee, cost was not an element of the scoring criterion in the evaluation of individual projects. ~ uzi5 .~x'~rna.rt~ Cr~{~ria-• After scoring was completed be each committee member, each project's average score was calculated and listed in numerical order with the highest score representing the greatest priority. This listing was then grouped into Priority Levels (Levels 1-4), where Level 1 Priority projects represent needs that have the highest perceived community value. The Committee has identified Level 1 Priority capital projects as follows: • Fire & Rescue -Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities • liiformation Technology - HP Migration • Fire & Rescue -EMS Data Reporting System • Information Technology - Network Infrastructure Upgrade • Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade • Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine • Public Safety Center; Option 2 (excludes administration offices) • Community Development -Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control Committee Recommendations While charged with developing acitizen-based evaluation of existing capital needs, the Committee also discussed and reached consensus on a number of capital programming recommendations for the Board to consider: Capital Financing. In order to meet on-going major equipment, facility, and infrastructure needs a significant, recumng funding stream is essential. -Ep -Fur>d fCUU~i ~ ~~~ ~~5 o Debt Financing--Consider the possibility of a future General Obligation Bond issue to meet critical capital needs. o Sinking Funds-Set aside funds for (known) future capital asset purchases. Capital Maintenance. Increase the funding of capital maintenance at a level that will not only protect the County's capital investments, but also will mitigate potential safety concerns at public use facilities (Parks and Recreation facilities noted). ca~J ma-.-rt1. r+~aks, when ~9rared, 1o~.6rne ~P--k~- P'~~ r~ Master Planning. Roanoke County has undergone significant demographic and service demand changes over the last decade, and these changes are anticipated to continue into the future. As a result, the Committee felt that several departments would benefit from preparing or updating a facilities master plan in order to continue to define the evolving needs of our citizens. ~t t~ , F~~ • Land Banking. This idea would involve projecting capital needs into the future and then acquiring sites that would be used to locate future capital facilities. Footnotes on Specific Capital Proiects Requests There were two projects that generated some disagreement as to whether or not these projects should be evaluated differently than other requests-The Public Safety Center and the Jail Renovation. Points of discussion in regards to the Public Safety Center included concerns about unknown scope and cost estimates (due to the early planning stages) and Jail Renovation discussions centered on the need for updated and additional information (See Footnotes). Individual Committee Member Comments Information presented in the Capital Project Prioritization report represents the general consensus of the members of the CIP Review Committee. While consensus information related to the Committee's task is presented, Committee members' individual comments about specific projects and capital planning in general are included in the Appendix. ~ro~«~ ~u~:+l ~uua,rt~ ~ubl i c s ~e~l i X 9, ~ro~ed~ ~{ 3 ~e~ ~, p~~,~ ~ • ~T • (~ual~ij ~ I~~~e Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Capital Project Prioritization January, 2004 Using the Committee's adopted evaluation criteria, total project scores were averaged and listed in descending order. The projects were then grouped in four priority levels, with Level 1 Priority representing projects that have the greatest community value, as determined by applying the established criteria to each project. Succeeding priority levels were determined by grouping projects together that had successively lower scores; thus the project represents a need that is perceived to have less community value than projects with higher scores. The Committee's recommendations on capital priorities are as follows: Level 1 Priority: • Fire & Rescue - Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities • Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade • Information Technology - HP Migration • Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine • Fire & Rescue -EMS Data Reporting System • Public Safety -Public Safety Center; Option 2 (See expla~Zation in Footnotes) • Information Teclulology -Network Infrastructure Upgrade • Community Development -Regional Storni Water Mgt/Flood Control Level 2 Priority: • Community Development - GIS Phase II -Integration • Public Safety -Public Safety Center; Option 3 (See explanation in Footnotes) • Public Safety -Public Safety Center; Option 1 (See explanation in Footnotes) • General Services -Garage at Kessler Mill Road • Library - HQ Library Replacement • Economic Development -Center for Research & Technology • Sheriff -Jail Renovations (See explanation in Footnotes) • Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Leve13 Priority: • Fire & Rescue -Vinton Rescue -New Building • Police -Evidence Vault Addition • Fire & Rescue -Back Creek Station Addition • Fire & Rescue -Hanging Roclc New Station • Police -South County Police Precinct • Fire & Rescue -Hollins Road New Station • Library - Mt. Pleasant Library Replacement • Library - Glenvar Library Expansion • Library -Vinton Library Renovation • Parks & Recreation -Playgrounds Leve14 Priority: • Community Development -GIS -New Server • Real Estate Valuation -Field Data Collection System • Parks & Recreation - Garst Mill Park Improvements • Library -Bent Mountain Library Expansion • Parks & Recreation -Camp Roanoke • Parks & Recreation - Brambleton Center • Parks & Recreation -Spring Hollow Park • Parks & Recreation -Starkey Park • Parks & Recreation -Family Water Park • Fire & Rescue -Bay Heater Upgrades • Parks & Recreation -Green Hill Park Phase III • Parks & Recreation -Parks & Recreation Land Bank • Parks & Recreation -Vinyard Park Phase III • Community Development -GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer • Greenway Development -Roanoke River Greenway -East • Parks & Recreation -Burton Complex • Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway • Information Technology - In-Building Radio Frequency (RF) Coverage • Fire & Rescue -Bunk Room Additions • Parks & Recreation -Picnic Shelters • Parks & Recreation -Hollins Park • Police -Bomb Disposal Unit • Fire & Rescue -Station Security System • Greenway Development -Tinker Creek Greenway • Parks & Recreation -Improvements for Parking Areas • Parks & Recreation - Walrond Park Phase III • General Services -Recycling Trailers • Parks & Recreation -Whispering Pines • Parks & Recreation -Tennis Court Resurfacing • Fire & Rescue -Station Fuel Control System 5 CIP Review Committee Recommendations Capital Proiect Financing The Committee recognizes the value of long-term capital planning and the need to fund critical capital assets that will benefit the citizens of Roanoke County (and of the Roanoke Valley). In order to accomplish this task, several options should be considered: Dedicated Funding -The Committee feels strongly that to meet on-going major equipment, facility, and infrastructure needs a sizeable, recurring funding stream is essential. There should be a commitment to this annual source of funding before specific capital projects are identified. While the need for capital replacement will always be greater than the resources available to fund those needs, this approach will ensure the most important capital needs will be addressed and funded. Examples of potential sources for this funding stream would be current new revenue, existing debt drop-off (or other expenditure savings), user fees, taxes on new private sector development (impact fees), special assessments, public/private partnerships, etc. Other Funding Considerations Debt Financing. While borrowing increases the overall cost of a capital project, it is at times desirable to incur debt to satisfy an important capital need by spreading the cost over a longer period of time. This method allows more flexibility to fund other current operational or capital needs. Typical debt financing instruments include general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and lease/purchase agreements. Considering the extensive capital needs observed throughout the county, the Co~nntittee believes serious consideration should be given to the possibility of a General Obligation Bond issue sometime in the near future, coupled with the appropriate master planning. The last GO Bond Issue in Roanoke County was 1992 and totaled approximately $10 million. Capital Program Sinking Fund. Capital project proposals tend to be "all-or-nothing" requests that require an allocation of funds for the total cost of the project; and therefore do not get approved because of the lack of available monies. If a capital project request has merit, then strategies should be developed to initiate the project. Funds could be initially allocated to purchase needed land, fund a feasibility study (or A&E work), or to simply set aside money in a holding fund until enough funds are accumulated to complete the project. In addition, this methodology can also be used to fund replacement and upgrade requirements for known obsolescence for various operational areas throughout the county such as Information Technology (computer equipment and infrastructure), Treasurer (remittance processor), Community Development (GIS development/upgrades), Libraries (minor renovations and equipment), and Fire & Rescue (pager replacement). Operating departments can have the opportunity to contribute operational funds for these projects by incorporating the rollover process with this funding methodology. This funding mechanism would allow proactive replacement and upgrade of departmental capital needs and will significantly reduce the need for large (new) budget allocations in any single year. Capital Maintenance In reviewing capital requests it was noted that certain projects, on face value, did not look to be suitable for inclusion in a capital program. These projects had the character of repair and maintenance requests that are normally provided for in operational budgets, and were mainly found in the Parks and Recreation area. Over time, these maintenance requests (such as tennis court replacement/resurfacing, picnic shelter renovation, parking lot repair, playground upgrades, lighting replacement, etc.) have received limited funding and, as a result, the maintenance need has grown to a capital need. Based upon the significant investment by the County in parks and other public facilities, the Committee strongly suggests increasing the funding of capital maintenance at a level that will not only protect the County's capital investments, but also will mitigate potential safety concerns at public use facilities. Parks and Recreation's capital program included a significant number of requests that addressed maintenance needs at facilities throughout the county. While acknowledging there was a significant need, several members of the Committee reported that these projects were scored lower in the evaluation in relation to other projects that represented a true "capital" investment. Master Planning Over the last decade Roanoke County has undergone significant demographic and service demand changes, and these changes are anticipated to continue into the future. These changes will most likely alter the type and level of services provided-including the placement and design of County facilities. In addition, the Committee noted that some capital project requests had a direct or indirect relationship with other capital (and operating) needs and felt that several departments would benefit from preparing or updating a facilities master plan. The departments identified that would most benefit are as follows: • Libraries • Parlcs and Recreation • Fire and Rescue This process would include a needs assessment that would factor in current and projected demographic data and capital asset requirements, with the intent to update the master plan on a periodic basis. In addition, the Committee is of the opinion that any master planning process should consider all alternative scenarios that would include schools, public/private partnerships, regional initiatives, etc. Land Banking The Committee discussed and endorsed the concept of "land banking." This idea would involve projecting capital needs into the future and then acquiring sites that would be used to locate future capital facilities. As the County develops, available real estate for future use is becoming a scarce commodity (and less affordable). This concept supports one of the Committee's adopted Guiding Principles-to anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital resources of the community. CIP Review Committee -What Next? The relative value of any process is subjective and is dependant upon one's individual perspective. At this point, the value the CIP Review Committee's prioritization and evaluation process contributes to the Board of Supervisors operating and capital budgeting process is yet to be determined. If the Board considers this process to provide value, the Committee will meet shortly after this year's budget process has been completed to critique the process and suggest modifications to improve procedures for the future. Footnotes on Specific Capital Projects Public Safety Building The project request for a new Public Safety/Emergency Communications Center was a difficult project for the Committee to evaluate. The project is in the conceptual stages of planning and utilizes a (relatively) new state Iaw, the Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act, and the scope, location, and cost estimates of the project have not yet been determined. While the Committee considered the overall need for a new Safety Center, the unknown aspects of the project made it very difficult to evaluate based on the adopted project evaluation criteria. Even though the scope of the proposal is still conceptual, County staff presented three possible alternatives for developing a new facility that would contain the following: • Option l: Dispatch Center, IT Department, Emergency Operations Center, Police and Fire Administrative offices, and include the upgrade to the radio system. • Option 2: Same as Option 1, but would not include Police and Fire Administration offices. • Option 3: Same as Option 2, but would not include upgrade of the radio system. While not unanimous, the consensus of the Committee was to apply the evaluation criteria to each alternative to allow a comparison of the relative importance of different aspects of the project. An evaluation of the alternatives would also allow assessment of the importance of the project relative to other submitted projects county-wide. Roanoke County Jail While not unique to Roanoke County, overcrowding at the jail raised concerns of Committee members. Crowded conditions raise the potential for safety concerns of both employees of the jail and inmates. The capital project presented by the Sheriff's office requested renovations that added additional space to the current facility; however, the Sheriff's staff also discussed the option of constricting a new facility. There are additional considerations that can be explored, such as a regional jail facility with other localities or outsourcing inmates to other facilities that have unused capacity (such as Roanoke City). Based upon the fact that the existing study ofrenovation/space needs at the Roanoke County Jail is outdated, the Committee felt the capital project, as submitted, is not a viable project for consideration. While the need to address overcrowding in the jail was acknowledged, the Conunittee did not feel enough information was available with which to make a reasonable evaluation of capital requirements. The ranking of jail renovations as a Leve12 Priority was based upon the recognition of a need that calls for remediation-not an endorsement of the submitted project. The Committee recommends a comprehensive professional study of this issue that would clearly outline various alternatives and provide a more detailed cost estimate for each scenario. The study should be funded in FY2005 with possible construction/renovation scheduled for subsequent years. Appendix County of Roanoke CIP Review Committee Goal & Ob j ectives Committee Goal The CIP Review Committee is a collaborative group established to evaluate and prioritize identified capital projects from a community perspective based upon countywide priorities articulated by the Board of Supervisors. Committee Objectives 1. To be acquainted with the history of the County of Roanolce's Capital Improvement Program and the proposed process for the development of the FY2005-2009 CIP. 2. To become familiar with countywide capital needs identified by department heads through the review of proposals, participation in site visits, and interviews as needed. 3. To evaluate submitted capital projects based on criteria that support the County's mission and guiding principals. 4. To make recommendations on capital priorities for the Board of Supervisor's consideration by January 2004. 6 0 Al-1 Capital Improvement Program Project Evaluation Criteria Providing effective and efficient services and improving the quality of life of its citizens is the County of Roanoke's mission and the foundation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Capital Improvement Review Committee has identified the following Guiding Principles for evaluating and prioritizing capital project requests in making recommendations to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. These principles are based on the stated priorities and approved plans of the Board of Supervisors. These principles are presented in no particular order of importance, as individual perspective will influence the relative value of each principle when compared to one another. The Guiding Principles are as follows: • Provide effective and efficient governmental services to the citizens. • Enhance public health, safety, and/or welfare issue(s). • Promote the safety and security of our citizens while at home, at work, and at play. • Consider solutions that extend beyond the County's boundaries in meeting future challenges. • Use public investment as a catalyst for economic growth in a manner consistent with the Community Plan. • Safeguard the environment and natural beauty for present and future generations. • Maintain and sustain effective land use planning. • Maintain or enhance cultural, recreational, educational, and social opportunities for all citizens. • Protect existing investment in facilities and infrastructure that are vital in delivering fundamental services to our citizens. • Anticipate future facility and infrastructure needs to best leverage capital resources of the community. • Comply with applicable state and federal mandates. 6 0 A2-1 Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Evaluation Scoring Factors Committee members scored each capital project using a point range of 1-10 for each of the following factors: Improve Public Safety or Public Health: Does the project address public safety, life protection, health, and welfare issues that benefit our citizens? Does the project mitigate an existing or potential liability issue. Improve Public Quality of Life: Does the project directly address a major demand or meet a community obligation for cultural, social, educational or leisure services? Legal Requirements: Is the project required by law, regulation or mandate from local, state, or federal government? Economic Development Impact: Does the project directly or indirectly increase net community wealth/resources? Licreases Tax or Fee Revenue: Does the project directly increase County's recurring revenues? Enhances Existi~zg Services: Does the project maintain or enhance existing service levels that are at risk without the project? Benefit/Cost Factor: Does project implementation produce a community benefit that exceeds investment of resources or will the project generate resources/investments from outside sources (grants, donations, etc.)? Address Obsolescence: Does the project address requirements for asset replacement, due to age and wear, that supports essential services or addresses the need for a new or changing service demand? Investment to Reduce Future Costs: Will investment in the project reduce/contain increased expenditures at a future date. Extent of Service Area: Does the project benefit a large population (i.e. a project that benefits a larger population/area will have greater value than a project that benefits a smaller population/area)? Project Supports Existifzg County Plans or Policies: Is the project directly referenced in existing county plans or policies as a priority? Urgency of Need: Does the project meet an urgent need? A3-1 W Q Q ~ O ~ ~ O O '1 i ' M M M O~ O\ ~ V1 r M r .-1 c, ~ Q~ ~o l ~o l ~o ~ ~o ~ ~o 11 ~o v ~o d ~o ~o ~o ~0 1n W O V Q F- fn ' O i u'i C oo ~o c~ oo ~n ~O vi ~n vi ~D ~ 1n 1n d ~ Sr L ~ c} ~{ ~ O oo O ^-~ M vl O O t~ ~D vi ~ N O ~ N N N ~O ~p ~O ~O vi t~ ~D i0 ~D l~ t~ d' vi [ vi 7 C ~U (4 ~ O d ~ ~t 1n ~n o t~ M t~ M v o -- o` 7 0o t~ v, rn i U C6 00 0o t~ t~ ~o t~ ~o ~a t~ t~ t~ vi t~ vi v-i ~o v '~ ~ Q N U ~ N O\ Q1 M l0 ~--~ ~T •-~ 00 V1 00 .-. ~ M ~-! O h DO ' r .. ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d' ~ t` 7 1n ~ 'ct v i ~ ~ O ~U ~ ~ V V W 00 M N ~ m V 00 ~ M O\ 7 00 ~, M 00 y ~ U o0 00 00 [~ I~ 00 Vl ~D l~ t` ~ ~ cV [~ ~D l~ ~ .~ ~ O +~ ' N ~D D\ oo ~O d; N V: ~O N O '--~ Q~ O v1 O ~ ~D ' 0 ~ V=- ~- ~ O [~ ~ d' 'd' ~D Vl Vl ~O V7 V1 Vl vj V1 r vi [ V 1 ~~+ '~ m U O ~" + ~ '1 ' ' ~ •nl V o0 00 00 [~ ~ DD \O v1 ~ ~ [` V' V V ~ ul ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ) • • l ~ G~ , O O V 01 Q\ ~ N O tV N d' V M I~ M O [V O N M '~ M N oo l~ ~ (V d' N M N i ~ M ~ ~ j N N c d n v~ Q ~ C ~ V ~ ~ O > 0o ri M ri N ~O M ~G M V O\ M ~ vi M ~n N d' ~ cn ~-' 7 N ~n O ~n ~ oo ~ cV O ~O ~ M U ~ W ~ • r• w ~ ~ ~ ~ D1 O O V ~O ~n ~--~ 7 ~-" d' ~ N .-, 00 N ~ ~ M R M M ~ M cV V' M M M CV M N ~/1 M fV ~ ~ ~ ;_, ~ ' N J ~ ~ ~ ~ a1 00 1n M ~t N M ~ ~ ^' ~ ~ N N O ' N ~ ~ O ~ d' V ~ M M d' V1 M ~F ~h 7 M 00 Vl d ~h M r l V ^ I••1 ~ ~ J 00 00 [~ 01 M ~O ~D DD N M ~--~ ~ V1 O N DO N U ~ ~ 00 00 d' M [~ [~ ~t [~ ~O [~ l~ V 7 t+1 I~ v1 [~ ~ ~ ~ 0- Cn = M y O "d O .~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~%. ~ .G bq C~ a~ N ^ ~ Y ~ ~ ""' M G ^"' ^ O f~ U '~' ~ b b4 R. .~ C ~„. 'ti ~ ~ O '~ ti ~ O ,^. ~ O O ~ ~ N y > ~ ~ ~ U bA ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a+ a3i p C C ~ y ~ V] Q w. i p ~ ~ Z ~ i y ~ ~ U ~ y CY „ ~ ~ " ~ cd N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ C ~ R~. T ~ Q ~ ~W? !! ~ CC W O O b ~ .D O " O O ~ ~ +-. ~ > O ~ [ 7 d '~ 000 ~ ~ W 41r ~ U > > fS. Pr ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ 1C ~ ~ i >, N F, ~ ~ ~ ~ >, 6.1 H O (~ O q i >, i >, U '~ ra d ~ ~ Q y ~ Z N ~ p ~ y ~ ° '~ ~' ro ~ ~ x Q ti •~ 6 ai V a i R: ~ ~ ~ ~ Cd ~ ro a ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~, ~ 4. ~ d o2j .,v. ~ o ~ .~ ~ F ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ o ``" C ~ 0~3 O ~ .a o ~ a~ p ° o k ,n .a ~ 7 ~ o W a i ~ U °; a w a .~ H w a , ~ U U a a C a w Q W Q Q ~ O P l~ t~ l~ [~ ~O l~ ~A ~O N ~O .--I ~O O ~D ~ ~f1 .--i In •-I M V 7 M ~!' O M 00 N ~ \D N N O~ `r' 00 v~ ~n w ~ ~ ~ vo N ~ ~ ~ ~ v, ~ W O () Q I- y u ~!1 d' V ~ d' ~ d' M M V ~ ~O v1 d' V1 ~ Vl l Q~ t _ N fn ~ o0 vi ~ ~ d M 'n v1 d' O~ ~ O~ d' M ~n t~ v O ~ vl ~ I~ d' oo ~ O In v1 d I~ V N '~ ~ ~U t6 ~ O 0.. ~ ~ oo ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' ch v oo ~o rn In o ~ M ~n t~ v ,--~ ~o M vi o t~ ~ ~ U (II vi ~n vi ~o v ~n v , , N ~ Q U N +~. ~ vi <t D\ ~ ~ V vl ~i" N V' vl M ~t M vl M O d' O [~ V vl oo d' l~ M •-• V ~ I!1 ^' ~ N d' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~U ~ ~ U O ~ U V1 O: O~ I~ ~O M O O~ O 01 4' N ~ O ~O ~D d' l~ ~ ~ C l~ ~D ~!1 Vl V1 V1 h V'1 ~O o0 N ~ 1 ~ O +1- 4= ~ O O O o0 --~ M v~ O~ ~ 00 ~ ~D ~ ~O U1 v~ ~ O~ V N vl O\ d' v1 ~D v1 Ct O ~D O ~D ~y ~ ~ i ~ (n v~ ~ ~ ~ ~..~ Iy ( I~ I " C 1 ~M I~1 . ~ m ~ ! O N O vl O M N M t+1 ~D d; ' N O~ M v1 V1 ~t V: V' d' ~I' O ~1' N d' ~ • V ~D ~D ~O ~O ~D ~/1 v> vl d ~O V1 r ~ w Q' cn ~ it ~ • J r y ~ V Q~ ~D N N O~ N N cV ~--I M ~ O~ ~t N ~h O M ~O v'I ~ r. N In N .~ N I~ cV O cV _ yi i~ j~ 71.11 ~ Q ~ C Q ~ a O ~D v1 N M O~ ~O ^~ ~D I~ N O ~t O ~n N ~ v'i V' ~~ 7 O '~ U ~ O O ) N V' c ~r ~ d' d' ~T M M vi A ~ ~ W ~ •I•.i ~ ~ M M O M M V'1 O M ,--~ D\ ~ M ~ M ~ V? ' "'444 f6 ~ nj N N N cV N N cV CV cV N ^ h ,~ ~ Q~ ~ ~O ~ -.. ~ O O N W O~ ~O ~ l~ ~ V 00 V V1 M ~ M ~O ~O v1 V1 ~D Vl ~D I ~ ~..' - ~ M m d~ M ~ [~ [~ l ~O c c ~O t r ~ V hh ~~ h~ ~ J U ~. L M ~p ~ l~ V1 ~ O 00 M [~ M d' ~ ~' •-~ a' 00 vi M d' 00 (V ~ v1 O~ M N V ~D 7 ^~ V V1 'ct ~ 4.. ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ >, ~ ~ ~ ~ b Y~ . o ~" ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ . . 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ a o o 3 Z 0 ~ ~ W o ~ U ~ o C °^ " ~ ~ . ~ G ~ N 'O I Rs Pte. ~ O O x ' ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ W ^ a~ ~ I b y a C1 ~ ~ 04 C ~ ,S4 ' U c a a ~ ~ a, C7 Y U Pa cn ~ ~ ~ ~ o '-~ a o ~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~, ~ w x O x ~ ~ C ~y I I U I ~ > O ~ ^ I--i ~ ~ ~ ~ N H 1~-+ ~ Z .b U U O U 6 ~ ~1~~ V ~ ~ ~ / .~ ~ y ~ ~ ~N/ W C) ~ mod/ W ~7/) W W W ~ ~ ~ Qyy~. 4 ~ ~ ~~"" N W _ yy y >I ~ Yn ~ ~ y "G ~] "V ~ y `V • U C~ ~ y "CJ U "SI .yy F V CCS 4 . CO ~ ~ ~i >j _ CC ~ Q L Q) I" N i" O N I" i"' .D . .O ..O ~ O ~ O f., i-y ~ Fy CC iy fC 1..~ CC 1L..~~ fC . . .. . . N Q W JQ ~ N b M M b ~ O) V'1 ~ N ~-+ OA ~ V1 eh O O1 ~ ~O ~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 V ~ 7 ~ 7 d' WOU a~`~ ~'' N ~O O h .-. M Vl ~ W [~ ^~ M M ~D ~ M C M ~Y M 7 M ~ M M M V'1 ~f M M d V M M L ~, fn N O~ \O ~ M ~D rY N O ~' O~ N N oo O O~ •-' (n ~ V M d' M d' M vi V vl d' M ~ d d' ~ '~ M C ~U (Q ~ O ~ 01 V1 ~O O~ ~O N O ~O l~ V1 h M ~D M ,--~ O U N r v ~n ~c vi d' r vi ~o M ri v; ~n vi ri ~ ~c •~ N N <C U N N N O\ O v1 O V1 ~D ~-* [~ N [~ ~ h '7 ~--~ N M l~ ^~ M v1 . .+ ~ ~ N M ~ ~ ~ V Vl N '~ M d' t+ ~t Vl M ~ ~ O ~U ~ ~ U o ~ rn rn oo h ~o d~ oo v ~n h v; o0 00 0o v O C V' ~ ~ '~ d' h N d' N , ~D ~D ci' ~ ~t V1 N \O ~ ~ ~ U 0 N ~ ~-- h [`~ ~t ~t O~ \D O~ ~O l~ N O~ O '~ M ~-+ v~ rt O ~ ~ O v1 d' Ul C N d' V1 'V' V1 7 M h V1 ~ CF Vl M ~ ~ mU ~ •~ ~ ' N d ~ ~ V h oo ' -~ ' M ' o~ O ~ N ' M M 7 V7 [~ d' v i M N M ~ Vl d; '~ M ; M • N d d V M ~D M d ~ TT V1 ~~ O ~ , C~ i v~ M ~O O~ rl' N ~ d O O O~ N O '7 ~ O V ~O i}~•il " ; ~ d~ cV N N ri ri N N cV N c ~i' p ~ c O ~ !~ a ~ V ~ O M N oo -~ ~o' ri vi ' oo ' ^~ ' N N oo N ~ V' ~ M O~ ~--' N N O~ M N M O~ ~ M ~ ~ M V d V d N w ~~ ~ ~ M h ~!1 00 d' h O\ ~J O M Vl M d' ~O ~ O~ ~D Q} .j..i ~,,,~ ^ ~I ~ ~ ^' W ~ '~ ~„~ ~O 7+ 00 [~ N 'd; 7 ^~ N O ~ ~ N ~ N N O h h ' ^ ( ~ '~ N ~ vl CV ~O ~ ~ N h ~D ~U N ~t v1 ~O N N V~ d' r 1 V ^^ ~~ I~ 7 J ~ ~n O O M N oo h t~ O oo --~ M O~ N l~ ~ U j, L M U1 ~ V ~ M M M M ~ ~ 7 ~' ~ ~ M ~t w--. +-' ~ ~ ~ (n = N .C W T cd cd 7 O" ~' b ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ w a ~ ~, o C7 C7 o ~ ~ ~ a .se ~ .~ ~ o y U i ~ ~ ~ ~ , a4 i c}~}a.. per, v x z X CL ~ 'b ... ~ .s4 ~! U ~ j ~' a ~ ~ t1: o ~ •~ c ~ ~ ' ~ ~ H o ~ ~ ~ ~ Lx. ~ C7 Ri ~ ~ y 0.1 y o ' Q. ~+" oi p a~i o c° 0 0 0 ~ °' o o ~ ~ o o a' ~ o ~° y ' fY1 .. ~ o ,~ G1a ~ A v) . , ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ a`~i a~i > °~ Q a~ ~ `~ ~ a~ a> ~ v H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ Z v a~ ~ ~ v a~ ~ a~ ~ a~ Y Q y A G y ~ a~ o v Q ~ y ~ ~i ~ X23 ~ ~2t ~ 3 ~3 3 cd ~ X23 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~3 p .~e ~y .~ .x ,~ ~ ~ se ~ ~ ~ ,~ x ' ~ ~ .~ 0 a. w a a off. U C7 a~. C7 S u, a~. a, a°. w c7 a. M Q ~'q ~„~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~.r V ~ Y~ ~ •~ ~ Q~ • ^_ ^y ~a W ~' N .-y N .-ti O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V W Q F- cn U ~ V'1 01 N ~ M M M M M Q~ L fq ` ,-, •~ d' a1 O ( !~ ~ O ~U d' M d' M M N a O 0.. O a\ ~ ~ ~ U (0 V' ~C d' ~ M '~ ~ O Q U N ~ o0 0; ~o ~n r ~ _ ~ M M M ~ V'1 ~ ~ O ~U ~ ~ U v'~ a1 V~ D\ ~ O C V cV ~t ~ vi ~ O ~ U ~ d' ' ~n ~n ~n O ~ N ~! ~t rF cr'~ rl' O V m N a` ~ ~ ~ U . M M M M V' ~ N ~ --~ N ~o N t~ ^-~ v~ ^~ o~ N ~ ~ C I~ O O C~ V O ~ M cY M M rl' U 0 W V1 M ~ O M ~ --~ N ^-~ ^. tV J ,~~+, O ~O oo O O = N (0 ~D d' v'i V1 fV ~ J M N N U >+ L - +~ d' ~ ~ d' M .,,, ~ ~ ~ 0- (/~ _ bq C ~r , w d ,~ ~ a ~ ~ y ~ oo ~ y ~ ~ ~ a y f~ O ~ C7 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~c 5 ~ ~ F" w ~ o . i ~ i i ~ ~ O N O O ~ C G ~ Z d d N U ~i ~ a.. ~ V ~ fn w C7 ~ U ~i ~ a~, N U (yi ~ a. i O U 6 ^L~~i ~ w V Roanoke County CIP Review Committee Project Average Score Summary By Category The capital projects are grouped into three broad categories: Public Safety, Technology, and Quality of Life. This grouping may help determine priorities in a way different from using the overall project score summary. The following displays projects from highest to lowest priority within each category: Department & Project Name Category. A: Public Safety Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 2 Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 3 Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 1 Sheriff -Jail Renovations Fire & Rescue -Vinton Rescue -New Building Police -Evidence Vault Addition Fire & Rescue -Back Creek Station Addition Police -South County Police Precinct Fire & Rescue -Hanging Rock New Station Fire & Rescue -Hollins Road New Station. Fire & Rescue -Bay Heater Upgrades Fire & Rescue -Bunk Room Additions Police -Bomb Disposal Unit Category B: Technolo~y Fire & Rescue -Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities Public Safety - 800 MHz Radio System Upgrade Information Technology - HP Migration Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine Fire & Rescue -EMS Data Reporting System Information Technology -Network Infrastructure Upgrade Community Development - GIS Phase II -Integration Community Development -GIS -New Server Real Estate Valuation -Field Data Collection System Community Development -GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer Information Technology - In-Building Radio Frequency Coverage System. Fire & Rescue -Station Security System Fire & Rescue -Station Fuel Control System Average Total Score 69.0 66.0 65.9 63.5 59.4 59.0 58.7 57.7 57.7 57.6 51.6 49.1 47.4 79.4 75.6 73.6 71.7 70.3 67.7 66.0 55.6 55.1 50.6 49.2 47.0 44.1 I ~ AS-1 CIP Review Committee FY05-09 General Committee Comments In the process of evaluating proposals and subsequent discussions, the members of the CIP Review Committee commented on several ways to enhance the capital programming process. The following comments are not necessarily the consensus of the entire committee, but are important to be noted: The staff established a $50,000 minimum for capital projects. These projects, if lower on the priority list, may not get funded, yet they are relatively easy projects to accomplish and would probably be higher on the priority list if cost were a factor in developing the priority. Another alternative is to allow the departments to fund these projects within their own budget. • Conditions may arise under which grants are available to fund projects that would influence their importance and comprise additional factors to be considered. Federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security are a good example of this type of external funding. • Opportunities for regional projects, such as joint fire alid rescue facilities with neighboring localities, may develop that would change priority ranking for these projects. Such changes would depend greatly on the level of interest by another locality. • Projects for which the commiuzity has raised money should be given special consideration. A good example is the proposed Bent Mountain Library addition, for which the community has privately raised $10,000. • Amend the debt policy resolution 051496-9.a to increase the allowable debt per capita from $1,500 to a higher number ($2,000) to account for inflation since 1996. Consider applying an inflation factor so that the value would automatically be adjusted. • Establish a storm water utility, preferably on a regional basis. • Establish a dedicated annual funding source for Greenway Development, similar to the existing concept that uses a designated revenue source for storm water improvements. • Terminate the VDOT Revenue Sharing program for a few years, until other capital needs are addressed. • Develop the new public safety center in phases, as follows: a. Select a site large enough for the ultimate installation. b. Construct new facilities for IT, Dispatch, and radio equipment. c. Add radio equipment. d. Add facilities for EOC and administrative offices for police, fire and rescue. Continue to use existing facilities for these functions for a number of years in the future and upgrade as needed. A6 CIP Review Committee FY05-09 Committee Comments by Department/Project Community Development -GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer Average Total Score: 51.0, Leve14 • This could be part of an ongoing fund to address technology. • This item could have been included in the "GIS Phase II Integration". However, as a separate project it scores higher, mostly due to the obsolescence and potential cost reduction factors. Community Development -GIS -New Server Average Total Score: 56.0, Leve14 • This item could have been included in the "GIS Phase II Integration". However, as a separate project it scored higher, which maybe misleading as it's a component of the "GIS Phase II" project. Community Development -GIS Phase II -Integration Average Total Score: 66.0, Leve12 • I personally believe that a GIS system can greatly benefit the citizens of Roanoke county far, far beyond the cost of implementation. However, it is dependent upon the user as to how effective it will be... and that human factor is always an unknown. Finally, most citizens won't recognize the importance of a system like this when compared to, say, fixing the road in front of their house. Little do they realize that the proper implementation of a GIS system will help insure that their road gets fixed on time and with money available to do so. • This project, through its applicability to a variety of essential services, benefits all Roanoke County residents. • I think this is a worthwhile ongoing program at a reasonable cost. It maybe preferable to make this continuing expenditure a 1uie item in a2mual budgets. Community Development -Regional Storm Water MgtlFlood Control Average Total Score: 67.0, Level 1 • Need a regional stormwater authority. • This is an important subject that should have a dedicated funding source such as fees from a storm water utility, preferably on a regional basis. • With developers buying multiple land parcels that are considered a "Phase II" or "Phase III" of an originaUexisting development, and this expansion is obvious, why doesn't the planning commission require developers to construct regional detention ponds? Purchasing of flood prone properties needs to be limited. Community Development - VDOT Revenue Sharing Average Total Score: 63.0, Level 2 • The County has participated in this program for many years. It may be time to devote those local resources to other capital needs. Economic Development -Center for Research & Technology Average Total Score: 64.0, Leve12 • Once started we should continue with development of the CRT. However, I believe there are other CIP projects with a more urgent need. • CRT is important to developing future county growth and stability and needs to be supported. However, the level of support and amount of financing may need to be reviewed and prioritized in relation to other CIP projects. Fire 8c Rescue -Back Creek Station Addition Average Total Score: 59.0, Leve13 • All of these building projects should be done as a single project to save money and insure the benefit to all residents. • If the request is for only one bay, $330,000 seems to be an excessive cost. A7-1 Greenway Development - Mudlick Creek Greenway Average Total Score: 49.0, Level 4 • This is a personal priority project that needs a multiplier to balance out the cost/benefit ratio of these projects. I believe that the hidden benefits to this community for these projects can't be • The County needs a dedicated continuing source of revenue for greenway development. Greenway Development -Roanoke River Greenway -East Average Total Score: 50.0, Level 4 • This is a personal priority project that needs a multiplier to balance out the cost/benefit ratio of these projects. I believe that the hidden benefits to this community for these projects can't be • The County needs a dedicated continuing source of revenue for greenway development. Greenway Development -Tinker Creek Greenway Average Total Score: 47.0, Leve14 • This is a personal priority project that needs a multiplier to balance out the cost/benefit ratio of these projects. I believe that the hidden benefits to this community for these projects can't be • The County needs a dedicated continuing source of revenue for greenway development. • This project contradicts efforts by local municipalities to keep people out of Carvins Cove. Information Technology - HP Migration Average Total Score: 74.0, Level 1 • I believe the county should be leasing this equipment to insure that it is updated when it is obsolete, instead of purchasing them. I believe this firmly enough that I almost ranked this request very low, but I felt that there would be no purpose served by doing so. • This might be incorporated into an overall fund for technology upgrades. Information Technology - In-Building Radio Frequency (RF) Coverage System Average Total Score: 49.0, Leve14 • I believe the county should be leasing this equipment to insure that it is updated when it is obsolete, instead of purchasing them. I believe this firmly enough that I almost ranked this request very low, but I felt that there would be no purpose served by doing so. • There maybe less expensive ways to address this problem such as closed circuit TV and intercom. Information Technology -Network Infrastructure Upgrade Average Total Score: 68.0, Level 1 • I believe the county should be leasing this equipment to insure that it is updated when it is obsolete, instead of purchasing them. I believe this firmly enough that I almost ranked this request very low, but I felt that there would be no purpose served by doing so. • This might be incorporated into an overall fund for technology upgrades. Will improved efficiency result in lower personnel costs? Library -Bent Mountain Library Expansion Average Total Score: 54.0, Leve14 • Libraries delivered through the school system should be designed with the future in mind and coordinated with the school system site development plans. Technology should also be a major form of service delivery instead of built space. This is the wrong focus for the future. A master plan establishing the direction for the libraries of the future should first be developed. • A cost of over $300 per square foot seems excessive. I would add some weight to the scoring because the community is helping to raise money for the project. Library - Glenvar Library Expansion Average Total Score: 56.0, Level 3 • Libraries should be delivered through the school system so that resources are shared. Designs can be achieved that will accomplish this as proven by many communities. Technology should also be a major form of service delivery instead of built space. This is the wrong focus for the future. A master plan establishing the direction for the libraries of the future should first be developed. • A cost of over $300 per square foot seems excessive. 6 A7-3 Parks & Recreation -Green Hill Park Phase III Average Total Score: 51.0, Level 4 • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This continent applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Hollins Park Average Total Score: 48.0, Leve14 • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff deternne the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Improvements for Parking Areas Average Total Score: 47.0, Level 4 • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) • Would like to have seen this divided into individual projects. Parks & Recreation -Parks & Recreation Land Bank Average Total Score: 51.0, Level 4 • Developers (housing) should be required to put aside a designated amount of recreation area proportionate to the rise of development for the use of that development. Several adjacent developments may combine for larger area with reduced costs to each. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Picnic Shelters Average Total Score: 48.0, Leve14 • One or two per year. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This continent applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Playgrounds Average Total Score: 56.0, Level 3 • Perhaps one per year. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) Parks & Recreation -Spring Hollow Park Average Total Score: 53.0, Leve14 • Recent concerns raised by the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security pertaining to protection of water resources owned by municipalities suggest this project should be re-considered. Parks & Recreation -Tennis Court Resurfacing Average Total Score: 44.0, Leve14 • Like many of the P&R projects, this project is capital maintenance. P&R's yearly capital maintenance budget should be increased from the current $SOK to approx. $200K. This would alleviate maintenance projects from the CIP and give the department the flexibility make repairs on a timely basis instead of depending on a CIP grant. • I believe an annual amount should be allocated for park & recreation facility improvements and let the staff determine the priorities. Pete Haislip said $250,000 per year would be a reasonable amount. (This comment applies to all Parks &Rec projects.) A7-5 Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 2 Average Total Score: 69.0, Level 1 • Rank this project as a need first -then decide what option to do. • The police, sheriff, public safety and other related projects need to be master planned before any money is spent on physical plants. Public Safety -Public Safety Center Option 3 Average Total Score: 66.0, Leve12 • Rank this project as a need first -then decide what option to do. • The police, sheriff, public safety and other related projects need to be master planned before any money is spent on physical plants. • One additional option should be considered that would address the greatest current needs, but linut the initial cost. Provide a new facility for IT and the dispatch center, and provide building space for the radio equipment. Leave police, fire and rescue administration and the EOC at the current location until such future time that other important capital needs have been satisfied. Functionally, the EOC should be in the same location as the administration offices. Real Estate Valuation -Field Data Collection System Average Total Score: 55.0, Leve14 • Could reduce personnel costs. • Is the County paying overtime to have these reports entered into the system? Sheriff -Jail Renovations Avera e Total Score: 64.0, Level 2 • The police, sheriff, public safety and other related projects need to be master planned before any money is spent on physical plants. The jail, in particular, should have a study funded instead of a specific project before plans are made. • A&E needs to be authorized immediately for the 6th and 7th floor additions to the existing jail. Also a study should be enacted to determine the long term resolution for the overcrowded jail. • It is time for the governments in the Roanoke Valley to explore the establishment of a regional detention center to serve the region. • Suggest an updated study in FY05 with construction funds in FY06. Seek maximum financial participation from Salem and the State. • We need to bring this proposal up-to-date, and develop a plan should a judicial mandate be imposed on the County. Treasurer -Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine Averse Total Score: 72,0, Level 1 • Scoring does not accurately describe the need for this project. This should be an asset replacement and not a CIP item. A7-7 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o ~- ~Q m ov C -~ ~. 0 C~D P~ ,--~ O b O ~d 7~ 0 0 x c~ C~ 0 Cn as n N z V1 n e-~- 0 F-+ • I~ • ~0 M-Z n e^ 1 0 ^~ i--~~+ 1--+ • 0 ~"; h-+ • 1 ~--~+ e~ M-+ • M--+ • F-+ • M--+ • e-~ ^~ ~--~+ a a B M--+ • M--+ • ~--~-+ ~. V ~ ~ C/1 n 0 0 0 I~ ~.+ . F~+ • CD C/1 ~+. C. ~~-+ . ^~ 0 ~++ M--t M-~+ ~ 0 ~^~ 1 o~ ~~ ~o ~ ~ ~--~-+ h-+ • 1---~ W C'D U4 CD C7 CD .--. n CD P~ d ~-+ P~ CD r O O (D ~-- ~S' 0 ~+ N N 0 ~. c~ c~ 0 ~. ~. 0 ~ ~ ~ o ,~ . ~ c~ ~ ~ `-' ~ o C •~'~ c~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~o ~~ ,~ ~~ _~ ~~. ~~ ~~ 0 c~ 0 ~. 0 0 ~...r • t~ O b •J w ~, ~ r ~~ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f"r ' til CJ1 ~ F~ M--+ • r c~ x ~~-+ • C/1 F~-+ °~ c ~ ~ c~ ~ '~ o ~ o ~' o~ c~ F-~ • n c~ i--+ CD O (D ~. ~--+ ~ ~ ~--+ ~,+ ~.~~..{ W ~. 0 ~ ~ e--r 0 0 r..+ C!] V1 x 0 i--~~+ n ~+ n c~ c~ cv n l 1 C/1 ~~' ~. ~ ~ ~-+ e~-r O ~..+ . ~ CD V1 CD CD r-~- C/~ M--; O C .-. i--+ C7 r--+ ~. 0 c~ ~. 0 0 ~. ~. ~- ~. 0 0 c~ c~ c~ ~. c. P-~ c~ ~. ~. ~- ~. 0 0 0 c~ ~. c~ c~ 0 CD CD V ~--+-+ ^~ ~--~+ C!1 I--+ • F--+ n r~ n n ~--r V1 e~ n _ h-+ ~"~ ~+ ~.-+ • e~ v 0 F-+ • h--+ • 0 ~~ V1 n F-+ •• M..+ t n y n i--+ • v c~ ~~ V 1 !~+ • M~ h~ r~ F~+ • M~+ ~+• r~ i~+• F~+ O H O ~~ M~+ • `r hO M~+ ^~ `r M-~ I~ V F~ /7 ~^ ~--~+ rr M~+ • C 0 ~~ M~+ • ~-~+ ~-~+ I--+ • 1~-+ • 0 0 C ~~ M~ ~+ C~ ac ~--+ n CD V r Y ~+ E--+ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ ~ ~ ~. o r~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ O . ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ o c~ ... 000 ~~~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~.~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ oo~ ~~~ ~~ ~' ~-3 ~ ~ C c~ ~ ---~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~c~r ~~c~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 0 0 ~. ~. ~. ~. 0 ~• ~. c~ ~ o ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD CD ~-r~ ~y~ V ~( M~+ • Fr • rr M~ M O n ~ ~"'- ~+ v ^rr M..a . O ~~ ~- ~V C ~~ 1 O\ ~~~ M~ . rr ~ ^ ~~ ^~ ~--~+ O ~~ 0 ~r~ M~+ 1~+• C M~+ • 0 M~+ • i~+ • rr M--+ • r) V 1 F~+ • r~ F~+ I~+ • r'r r+ ^~ `r C rf ^~ `^r r t~ O n e--f ~~ 0 ^ ^ ^ ~• ~ F ~ Q ~~ ~ e~ E"f') 0 ?~ ~ V1 C/1 ~ C/~ CD e -r ~ V1 ~ h--+ . ~ ~ N ~ O • ~ ~ r--+ ~--+ ~--+ ^~ ~~ ^~~ • C7 CD ~• O J y x ~C 0 e--r i--+ C/1 N TAB 2 -- MATRIX OF RESPONSIBILITIES =Primary Responsibility ®=Secondary or Support Responsibility ~ ~ a~i ~ w o p U ~ o ~ a~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ O 'd O o c.> C ~ U ~ C O ° ~ ~ v i; N o) N E w ~ O U ~ c ~ E ° .U .a ~ a O U o a ~ ~ ~ ~ O N i,= ~ `` ~ a~ ~ C f0 E ~ = ~ O O ~ .~ ~ ~ c ~ .O ~ a. ~ cn ~ °~' i a~ ~ ~ U o cn c ~ ~ a a~ ~ ~ (0 a~ = ~ ~ o cA C6 ~ c o C~ N N = •- ~ g ~ ~ > °i ~ ~ w (9 a~ o! C N o. o ; o ~ •E O E E o U ~ ~ t9 L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ O ~ w m ~ O O C ~ ~ ii ~ o Q T C 7 o c~ ~ N C ~ ~ ~ ~ N t cA ~ ° ~ x w ~ ~ ~ a > ~ 0 .Q y o = y o U ~ ~ V O E Q ~ v > ~ fn ~ ~ = =° ~ m 'O R' ~ ~ m , ~ Q ~ O N ~ ca cn C O U ~ N ~~ _~ ~ ~ ~ > a~ Y ~ (0 o o! ~ N •~ o o ~ ~ ~ 7 N O E Q o ~ ~ ~ - ~ > o •ia ~ ~ (9 to "~ m w Direction and Control O Emer enc Public Info © ® O O Law Enforcement O Traffic Control O Communications 4 O © © z O Warnin and Alert O D O Fire Res onse Haz-Mat Res onse Search and Rescue Evacuation ® © O z Radiolo ical Res onse Shelters Emer enc Med Trans ort Mass Feedin Welfare Services Health Services z Utilities Services Street Maintenance Debris Removal O Dama a Assessment © © © ~ z Resource and Su I Economic Stabilization z Medical Services Mortua Services ~ © z Water and Sewer O Donations Public Assistance Re ortin z U Vital Records Protection O EOC Security and Feeding O Transportation Crisis Counseling Services a z Tornado /Weather Spotters O Animal Control O U ~ ~ O ~ m f,~ ~ ~ w ,~ • r+ ~ °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ z ~ N ~~ O ~ U' U •° O ~ ~, i ~ «l ~_ • • ~~ • ~J O Y 3 0 0 U 3 a N ~--~ C~ C/~ .~ F-~-1 '~ C~ N U . ,..., N U 4~ b,A N w M .~ 't~ O W ~L~/ O • O • r~ c~ .~ . ~, 0 4~ a~ 4J .~ N '~..~ ~O V ~~ ^~^l ~'~/ U N a~ W O O U . ,__, Q c~ c~ O .~ .~ .~ b '+..,~ • r~ • p..~ c~3 .~ .o U O c~ • ~~ ~~ O O O bA c~ c~ U N b1J N W .O 0 a~ a~ 4J 4~ N c~ -1--~ ~ C~ U O O ,~', ~ ~ ~'' 4~ U 4~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA cc3 ~ , ~ N r--~ . ~ ~ O ~ C`• O ~ U ~' ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4J ~ ~ O ~~ ° W ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~3 N ~ o ~ ~ U C~ , ~, U j ~ ~ ?' O ~ v~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ''~ .~ ~ O ~~., O ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ 4~ O ~/] N .---~ c~ w c~ N 4~ 4~ U . r, x C~ -~-~ C/~ '~ 4J N 4~ . r...., 4~ c~ t~Q .~ ,-~ bA . ,-.~ O O N W 4~ c~ 4.) 4~ W V~ U . ,__, N 4~ ~/1 c~3 O .O .~ Q e .~ O 4~ E--+ C~ r--+ U . ,__, c~ 3 d~ .~ 4J a~ ., 0 .~ -~ O C/~ -I-~ N 3--+ CC3 4J O O 4J .~ O . r, ^ ^ U ~," N bA a~ C~ U O c~ c~ '.~ 0 0 x O .~ .~ .~ O . r..~ O O O ^ ^ c~ C/] 0 ~--~ r---I CC3 .~ -i--~ C~ 0 C~ 0 .~ CCj 4--I .~ y~ y a~ c~ '~ C~ . r..r .~ ~--~ .~ CCj CC3 CC3 C~ ~--~ 0 .~ C~ 4-~ .~ .~ ~I--I ~ ^ ^ C/~ C~ 0 ~--I V1 .~ C/~ C~ .~ CC3 ti C~ C~ O U ~ • ~--a ~ U O ~ • r--~ ~ ~ O c~ .~ ~lik ',; O ~ O O ~ U U ~ ~--~ ~ N ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ 4~ ~ O ~ -~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ U ~ O U ~ W ~, ~ ^ ^ 0 .y i~1 d r--~ N U .~ a~ on U ~C 4~ r--~ a a~ 0 .o 'L~ d .~ ~I--~I C/~ C~ C~ 0 '~ 4~ O . ,_.,, .~ a~ a~ a~ 0 0 C~ ~ C/~ ~ ~-I C~ • r-+ F-~ ., . ~ y,~ ~ WJ 0 U ~ -~ . ~ ~ ~ O ~ 4~ ~ U ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ a~ o ~ a~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ .. U ~ 4~ ~--~ 4J N bA c~ U N b!J W 4J r--~ O t/] N 4J . ,~ 4J .~ ~--~ .~ ~--~ . 0 C~ .~ U .~ C~ C/~ N U .~ O 4~ b.Q Isl E--I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~T ~ 1 ~ ~ r~ ~ M--~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ N U -~ 4J ~ 4J E--~ '. r, ~'~ ~"~ ~ ~ 4% ~ ~ O 0 ~ V] C/~ C!1 C/~ Q~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ U • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4J U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ C~ 4J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 U U C~ ~, ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 d--~ ~~ • ~ 0 ~I--I C~ ~.,--~ ~ • ~--~ Q~ ~--I ~.,r 4~ ~ ~ C~ ~ O 0 0 ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~/] C~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 . U ^ ^ rn U U O c~ 4~ 4~ U 4J blJ N '~ O ~ p.~ T~ ~ V 1 ~ O ~ W ^ N ~ U ~ .~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O '_' '~ ~ ~ O ~' 4~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ' ^~ r--~ ~/1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N 4,) • ~ ~ 4~ CC3 ~--~ ~ ~ ',~ c~ „~' • ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ c~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~~ ~ O N ' '-' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ '-' U ~ O '.~ U .~ N b.Q C~ 0 i"~ 0 .~ C~ 4.> U U . r.., r--~ U C~ ~--~ ~-~I ~~ • ,~ I~ ~ C~ ° . o ~ ~ N _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ U o ~ ~ U `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ P ~ v ~ ~ -~ , ^ ^ ^ N 0 .y a 0 x H ~~ 2Q4~-2QA C~Ip~a~~ ~mprov~rn~nt P~rrarr~ County of Roanoke Board of Supervisors Richard C. Flora, Chairman Hollins Magisterial District Michael W. Altizer, Vice Chairman Vinton Magisterial District Joseph "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District Joseph P. McNamara Windsor Hills Magisterial District Michael A. Wray Cave Spring Magisterial District Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator 6 r- I~ County of Roanoke Projects Submitted for FY2005-2009 CIP Table of Contents Summary of Projects ' Summary of Projects ................................................................................................... Project Details by Department 1 Community Development ............................................................................................. 4 VDOT Revenue Sharing ...................................................................................................... 4 GIS Phase II -Integration ..................................................................................................... 5 GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer ............................................................................................ 7 GIS -New Server ............................................................................................................... 9 Regional Storm Water Mgt/Flood Control ................................................................................. 11 Economic Development ................................................................................................ 12 Center for Research &Technology .......................................................................................... 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fire &Rescue ........................................................................................................... 1 S Upgrade/Replace Paging Capabilities ....................................................................................... 15 EMS Data Reporting System ................................................................................................. 16 Station Security System ....................................................................................................... 18 Station Fuel Control System .................................................................................................. 20 Bay Heater Upgrades .......................................................................................................... 21 Vinton Rescue -New Building ............................................................................................... 22 Back Creek Station Addition ................................................................................................. 24 Hanging Rock New Station ................................................................................................... 25 Hollins Road New Station .................................................................................................... 26 Bunk Room Additions ......................................................................................................... 27 General Services ........................................................................................................ 28 Garage at Kessler Mill Road ................................................................................................. 28 Recycling Trailers ............................................................................................................. 30 Greenway Development ................................................................................................ 3I Roanoke River Greenway -East ............................................................................................. 31 Mudlick Creek Greenway ..................................................................................................... 33 Tinker Creek Greenway ....................................................................................................... 35 Information Technology ............................................................................................... 37 HP Migration ................................................. . ................................................................. 37 Network Infrastructure Upgrade ............................................................................................. 39 In-Building Radio Frequency (RF) Coverage .............................................................................. 41 a O •~ a` o ~U .. O J ~ Q o F- ~ } ~ LL O 0 ~ N O ~ ~ N O O N ~ ~ ~ o iA.,~ y N W 7 0 ~O ~ N ~"' a a ~j o C~.y o 0 ~ N ' •a co N ~ U ~ O o W ~n O O N a 0 V ° CV ~ ~ O O N N ^i V / (Q ~ C 0 N ~ c ~ LL ~ a R Z v O a` O. O o 0 O O o O O O O O o O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O M 0 O M 0 O O o O O O O O o O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O o O O c C C ~O V 1~ rv~ r O M ~ O ~n 69 O ~n 69 O O v1 rEH M vi ~ .~. v3 r ~D W O ss r ~D 00 O » O vi 00 69 ~n M .•-~ 69 O vi ,--~ 69 O N ... 69 O CT 69 O O V1 fA O M M 69 O O O N ss O O N N ss C r f 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o < c c 0 O v1 N 69 0 ~n --~ ~ 0 ~n 69 0 v~ 5A 0 O v'i r 69 0 ~n N O ..• 69 0 O O Vl fA 0 O O Vl 69 o vl oD 69 vi M .--~ 69 o v~ -. 69 0 N .--~ 69 0 CT Vi 0 O v'i 69 0 M M b9 0 O O N 69 o O N N 69 c r r b O O O ~ O ~ O ~ O O O O O O O O O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O 69 O O o C C c O 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 O o ~ c n s9 ss3 ~ vj ~ 0 o 0 `'~' 0 by 0 o 0 °0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 "3 0 ~ 0 e» 0 "' 0 "`3 0 ~ 0 o 0 o o o c e c s'^v o N ~ N o .--~ o ~ o° ~ ,_., o° ~ ~ r ~ 69 b9 69 69 5q 0 0 0 0 0 ds 0 es 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 °o_ 0 "v 0 `yv 0 ``~ 0 Fs, 0 cs' 0 cA 0 o 0 0 o 0 o cs c ~ ° 0 N 0 0 °o M ~ o° vi 69 ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O ~ O O o O O O O O O O o ~ O ~ o ~ O ~ O ~ O O 0 O 69 o ~ C o° ~ ° fiA ° 69 °o O °o ~O °o O °o O ° r ° M bq v3 ss s9 sv 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 vj 0 v~ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 a 0 o o 0 sv 0 ~a o va c es 0 ~ ~ 0 69 0 O 0 Vl 0 O 0 O o ~ 69 v, ,Mr b9 o ~ 69 0 .Ny 69 0 CT 69 0 O N 69 b9 69 69 69 0 O 0 O 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 OO 0 O 0 O 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 A ~ r M r r N V ono oho ~, 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O ~ ~ 1 ~ r 3 ~ 64 ~ 69 69 6 69 69 69 0 o c o °o c r o ~ ~ ~ N3 69 b9 O O O O ~ ~ o O o° v°5 ~°s 0 0 M N b9 o `~ `» 0 0 0 0 o c °o r ono ~ ~ ~ d b9 6~A O O C 0 o cC v-~ vi O r r ss v9 d v°s °o °o c 0 o c vi vi C r r o 69 69 Y °va °o °o c 0 o c ~ ~ o sA v3 cs O O o `~' 0 69 0 0 0 o ao o0 rn o ~ O O 69 69 69 0 0 0 69 69 b9 O O O C °o 0 69 G' ss F» 0 0 o c 0 0 o c 0 00~ ~ N b ~ O -~ 69 Ef bA 69 69 69 N bC9 M N 69 > N M O~ N ..-~ vv 0 0 0 r N r 6Fi O 0 o sNs 0 0 0 0 V N 69 0 0 °v O 0 0 6M9 ~ 0 0 M N M N =~ ~ ~ ~ a ° c^ 0 c ~ o ~ ~ eu ro ~ U °' v C U ~ ~ ? ~ G ro ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ v o ro oA y ~ 3 d c a ^ 3 0 d c 5 c ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ q ~ °a. 1.'' o Q ~ ~ z z ~ 'r '~ ~ ~ ~ C7 Q d > = U cn 3 ~ c u r1 aRi x ~ U ~ v ~ ~ 'fl d ~ v ~ ~ u ~ ` x >, o ~ ~ 3 3 ~ o ~ ~ ;a v ~ a`'i v ~ R' o p ~ x ~ is E fx U ~ 3 v ~ `~ °' °' ro ~ c w ~ ~ ro ~ w is cG ,°. on ~ o °~ ~ c a`i o ~ x U G ~ F, as Z z c o u ~ ° ~ q o o x o U ~ c ~ `~' v awn ~ aCi ~' o ~ °_' A Q cn rn ~ ~ U u aci W ~ a `~ _;~ >' ~ v c ~ c w ~ ~° v ~ A o ~ c C7 .C ~ C.7 C7 C7 CL A U ~ q W ~ ~ ~ , 0.l x x W ~ C7 ~ >, w' ~ F- o 'c ~ ~ c O y, U W w C7 C7 e O a` o !0 V J O) H ~ O ~ ~ ~ LL O ~ N O ~ O ~ N O O N ~ ~ ~ O Aim y N W ~ 0 ~O ~ N 1 ~ a a W !~ p 0 ~p N 'Q <O ~ U °o N co ~ J E o ~i O ~.~I W lA r~ O V1 O N ~ O O N p 0 N N } C N Oc O ~ a E Z V O a LL E 1 ~ C. 00 N Oo N '~" ~ ~' t~ r l~ N v'1 v'~ N N <1 ~i ~D h !~ V O ~O M ~p '~ vi ~ '~ M o o ~ o O ~ D\ ~--~ a, •-" a\ M ~ :. ~:.. ... H GA N 69 V 69 69 h .-.n Vl ~ 69 69 ~O N 69 ~O N 69 . -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1 N ~ N ~ ~ O~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~-' M ~ '~-~ n ~ r r h v~ N N ~. 1 !-~ vii l~ V O ~ M b N R ~ ~~' ~ o oVV a~~ oFF ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ O~ O~ In ~ uv sNS ~ ~ s5 ~ , ,~ ~D t» O ~sv ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ^-~ ass ~G N yj N ~ N 69 Sfj 0 s~5 0 sA 0 sv 0 ~v 0 sn 0 ss 0 ts3 0 sA o of O s5 o sa 0 ss 0 v~ p ; p ' O O a ~O V'1 d9 O sn O ds O s9 O v~ O ea M ~ M ~ O vs O ~ O vs O s9 O bs O va ~ ~ - 0 M 0 M ~" ~ M M ~ 69 69 N 69 0 69 0 69 o C O p o 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 69 0 b9 0 69 0 69 0 b9 ~ N O r~r ~n N ss v~ N ss h ~D 0 6A 0 b9 0 69 0 6i3 0 69 0 O 0 O ~ W c~ ~ o 69 0 b9 0 fA o 69 r N 0 0 ~ O N O N V ~ ~ oo" 6 9 V 9 N r 69 O ~ N O 69 ~ ~ O 69 ~ O 69 O 69 ~n 00 ~n 00 N V1 N VI a 1~ Nl V1 N ~ N O^ r" D\ a\ ~" O~ "' r v i ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ r M ~ vs cs~ v~ N N ~ ~ ~ v3 Fa ~ N Yi O sv O ~ O sv O ~v O s9 O v3 O ds O v9 O vv O v9 O vi O rsj O sv N - N .w M V .ty ~° O oA ~ n. ~ ~ ~ o q . ° y a a~i ~ ° >. ~ C ~ U O a w d '~D Q C ~ U a c .0+ ~ T cn O ~ O ~ O ro ~ U a ,~ ~ ~O a c. j ro a c ~ U ~, ~ n o o U ~ ~ G ~~ a ~ E ~ d U v N ~^ O O v ~ N c ~ ~ ~ W p w a i ~" ti O O A L O ~ O td . N p; L ~ ~• . b ~ . . G h V ~ ~ yCy a° n'. C4 ~ H 6 C7 ~ Q M Community Development ~ R,I~FT VDOT Revenue Sharing Description: The Virginia Department of Transportation annually provides localities the opportunity to receive state matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to primary and secondary roads in the state's highway system. Justification: The Revenue Sharing Program allows Roanoke County working with VDOT to expedite needed safety and road enhancements and improvements that normally take many years to accomplish. Funding Source: County's general operating revenues. Operating Budget Impact: Considerable staff time is needed to administer this program. Cost and Efficiency Impact: This program allows Roanoke County to utilize additional State funds to improve Roanoke County's transportation system. Conformance with County Obligations: The Revenue Sharing Program is identified in Charter 4 of the 1998 Community Plan. One of the objectives of the Plan is to continue to maintain and update Secondary and Primary road improvement plans base on consistent policies and criteria. _. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $5,246,000 Future Costs Beyond 2009 Annual Associated Operating Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $23,750 $23,750 $23,750 $23,750 $23,750 $118,750 6 4 ~_ i Community Development ~R~~.~. GIS Phase II -Integration mobile GPS receiver's location. Currently, the County of Roanoke uses a site in West Virginia to post/process our information. Acquisition of a GPS Base Station will allow for instant processing of GPS location information. The Public Safety Team is working to provide mobile data terminals for our emergency service personnel. These data terminals will use GPS to help track the location of emergency service personnel at all times. The GPS Base Station will also assist Community Development with day to day surveying work. Fundi~zg Source: General operating revenue or unallocated capital. Operating Budget Impact: Historically, the County of Roanoke's Geographic Information System impacts the Community Development Department's operating budget. The Public Safety Team has funding sources from the Telecommunication Act. Cost and Efficiency Impact: This project has already improved efficiencies in the Community Development, Utility, and Real Estate Valuation Departments. While the project will require funds to purchase hardware and software to integrate existing mapping components to the E-911 center it will provide more than enough safety and productivity gains to offset the funds spent. Conformance with County Obligations: Conforms to policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. See Chapter 2 Vision Statements, Technology and Communications section: The GIS is part of our goal to use the latest technologies to enhance the quality of life in the Roanoke Valley. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $150,000. Notes: Appropriations to Date $157,000 Future Costs Beyond 2009 Annual Operating Costs 4ssociated Operating Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $17,500 $17,500 $.17,500 $17,500. $17,500. $87,500 6 6 _ _ _ _ _. Community Development ~~AFT GIS -New Color Scanner/Printer _ _ _ __. '' FY2045 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $50,000 $0 $0 ; $0 „ $50,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating. Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 Community Development ~ ~~~.~., GIS -New Server FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $50,000,. $0 $50;000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $Q $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 e 10 __ Description: ' The Center for Research & Technology (CRT) is in the sixth year of ownership. Years One and Two were used to conduct community meetings, engineering tests, and extensive planning. Year Three realized the actual construction and dedication of the initial 77 acres of the Center. A 24-inch water line was installed along Glenmary Drive into the park, and a 12-inch sewer line was extended along Glenvar Heights Boulevard into the lower perimeter of the park. The entrance road and connecting road cul-de-sac were graded, and paved with 1,500 linear feet of pavement enhanced by curb and ' guttering. A building pad was graded, a temporary front entrance sign was erected and landscaped, and a grand opening ceremony was completed. A designated road right-of--way to extend Dow Hollow Road into CRT as the main entrance to the park was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Further, a natural gas line extension was completed, and three phase power was extended into the Center based upon the location of Novozymes Biologicals. A storm water drainage engineering plan ' was initiated, and water and sewer lines were extended to the Novozymes site. The Paving of Corporate Circle was also completed based upon the location of Novozymes. During the past year (Year 5), the reconstruction and paving of Glenmary Drive from Dow Hollow ' Road to the main entrance of CRT was completed. Construction of the Glenmary Drive Visual Enhancement Landscaping Project is nearing completion, and street lights and permanent signage along the main entrance road and Corporate Circle will be completed by year end. ' Since the primary construction management function has been moved from Economic Development to the Department of Community Development, Economic Development's primary focus has become ' marketing with a portion of the capital budget designated for business recruitment and development related activities. It should be noted that Economic Development participates in the construction management function and plays a vital role in oversight, planning and implementation of the Center's ' development. Future construction and improvement plans include: ' -Rights of way acquisition for the Dow Hollow Road extension -Preliminary design for the Dow Hollow Road extension -Design and construction of regional storm water management facilities -Grading of individual sites within Phase I of the Project (along Corporate Circle) -Ongoing maintenance of roadway and grounds including snow removal, mowing and care of vegetation ' -Additional landscaping enhancements along entrances and roadways -Utility extensions and additional street light installations as Glenmary Drive and Corporate Circle are extended -Preliminary design and construction of roadway extensions into future phases of CRT Marketing plans include: -Concentrated staff participation in regional organizations and programs such as the New Century Technology Council, the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission and the New Century Venture Center -Building more strategic relationships with developmental partners such as the RVEDP and VEDP. ' -Staff participation in marketing missions/trade shows for specific targeted industries -Emphasis on the existing business and retention program for expansion into CRT ' e 12 Economic Development ~ R~F.r Center for Research & Technology __ _ _ __ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary .Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OS FY2008-09 TOTAL: $1,000,000.. $1,000,000. $1,000,000 $1,000,000, ' $1;000,000 $5,000,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $5,867,300 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operatifig Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 I Description: The project would provide for a data reporting system that would enable the electronic transfer of EMS reports for statistical analysis to meet state reporting mandates, and to improve the billing process for ambulance transports. This includes the purchase of software, hardware, training, and installation costs. Justification: Currently, information regarding EMS calls is completed by a written method and couriered to the fire administration office on a daily basis. Data entry is done twice for each form and then forwarded to the Virginia Office of EMS to meet reporting requirements mandated by the State of Virginia. The same form is photocopied and the original form is couriered to the third party billing agency to generate the appropriate insurance claims for ambulance transport fees. Once this process is completed, the original form has to be returned to it's originating agency. By implementing this system, data could be entered by the responders and transmitted electronically from the originating agency to the fire administration office for Medicare compliance, HIPPA compliance, and quality assurance issues. In addition, this information would be electronically transmitted to the third party billing agency resulting in a more accurate bill for the citizens and to the Virginia State Office of EMS to meet their requirements. Funding Source: ' Fee for Transport Revenues (000100-0335) Operating Budget Impact: ' Since this system is proposed to utilize the current County network in place, there should be minimal impact on the budget. The only additional cost would be for routine software upgrades and/or computer replacements. Cost and Efficiency Impact: This system would greatly reduce the staff time currently expended manually transporting the original reports throughout the County and to the third party agency. Accuracy in both the statistics and billing areas would be improved. In addition, this capability would result in a reduction in the percentage charged by the billing agency for processing the bills. Conformance with CountJ~ Obligations: This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed on page 70, Strategy 1 and 3, Objective D in Chapter 4: Community Facilites. Fire & Rescue EMS Data Reporting System DRAFT ' e 16 Fire & Rescue Station Security System C~RAF1' __ Description: ' Due to the heightened level of security, it is imperative to enhance the security systems at each fire and rescue station. We will need to have a better locking mechanism, as well as new keys for the buildings. Justification: The security of the county buildings is of the utmost importance due to national security events. Station security is imperative for the safety of our responders and apparatus. This project will provide a better means for securing the stations. Over the years, many volunteers and career personnel have had station access and access to building keys. Throughout this process many keys have been lost, stolen, or need replacement. The need for an overhaul of the station security mechanism has arisen. The system will be centrally monitored and controlled to secure all stations. If a key is lost or stolen, the administrator of the system could revoke the missing key's access rights, thus maintaining the security of the station. This project will provide an enhanced security system for the system wide ' station coverage. Funding Source: ' General Operating Budget Revenue Operating Budget Impact: ' Once in place, this project should have little or no impact on the operating budget. The only cost would be for the replacement or addition of keys, and software upgrades to be covered under operating budget. Cost arr.d Efficiency Impact: Revoking the access to an individual key would have no financial impact versus having to change the ' locks on all doors that a missing key had access to and issuing new keys for personnel that needed access to the same areas. Conformance with County Obligations: This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed on page 70, Strategy 1 in Chapter 4: Community Facilites. ' 18 C~ n it _ __ Fire & Rescue ~~.~. Station Fuel Control System Description: This project would provide for the installation of an automated fuel technology at all fire and rescue stations. Justification: Currently, the fire and rescue stations do not have fuel security/control/accountability technology on the station fuel pumps. Fuel is manually tracked and monitored by an individual usage honor system. The use of pen and paper is utilized to track the usage of fuel. This facilitates the loss of accountability due to incomplete documentation on the fuel tracking sheets. By implementing this project, the fuel will be tracked via a computer technology system and accountability will be maintained by individual apparatus. In addition, there will be the added benefit of tracking odometer readings for each apparatus to schedule preventive maintenance. This would also perpetuate the possibility of generating reports from the system for projections and future planning. The main goal is to help control and monitor fuel usage and equipment maintenance. Funding Source: General Operating Budget Revenues Operating Budget Impact: The impact would be for monthly networking costs for each station. These annual projections are shown. Cost and Efficiency Impact: The implementation of this system would improve overall efficiency by offering more monitoring capabilities for fuel consumption and increased performance of the apparatus due to performance of preventative maintenance on schedule. ~~ ~~~ I'~ Conformance with County Obligations: This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed on page 70, Strategy 4 in Chapter 4: Community Facilities. __ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $120,000. $0 $0 $0 $~ 5120,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operati~ig Costs: FY2004-Q5 FY20~5-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OS FY2008-09 TOTAL: $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 20 Fire & Rescue ~ ~~~.~- Vinton Rescue -New .Building Description: ' This project would provide for the construction of a new building that would house rescue apparatus and personnel. Justification: Since 1992, the call volume for the rescue squad has consistently increased. The call volume has necessitated the placement of 24-hour career personnel at the station to support the volunteer contingency. The current facility does not support adequate sleeping quarters for male and female ' personnel, nor does the current structure provide adequate bathroom shower facilities for the on-duty personnel. These volunteer and career personnel are of vital importance to ensure that the station functions at a level that would enable prompt reaction and response times to the citizens. In addition, ' this facility has an inadequate meeting room and small offices. As the trend shows, a further increase in call volume is expected which heightens the need for a new facility to maintain and meet the needs of the citizens. This would be a joint funding venture with Vinton. ' Funding Source: General Operating Budget Revenue Operating Brcdget Impact: Currently, Roanoke County does not fund any building expenses for Fire and Rescue facilities in ' Vinton. It is unknown at this time what future arrangements and/or agreements could develop. Note: The numbers provided are for the replacement of the current Vinton Rescue Building. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: This project would ensure that responding personnel, both career and volunteer, had adequate facilities from which to operate and respond to emergencies in an efficient and timely manner. Conformance with Courzry Obligations: This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed on page 70, Stategy 1, Objective B and C in Chapter 4: Community Facilities. 'J 22 1 i~ i~ L fl C __ __ _ , __ Fire & Rescue ~ 'AFT Back Creek Station Addition Description: This project would provide an addition of apparatus bays to the Back Creek station. Justification: At the time this station was constructed, the station's scale was sufficient for effective operations. Due to increased service demands and development of the area, additional facilities for the stations are required. Projected call volume indicates by the year 2005, response requests will be at a level to warrant this expansion. Expanding the station will position the department to meet these increased citizen needs. Back Creek covers a growing area and provides assistance to Bent Mountain and Cave Spring stations. Funding Source: General Operating Budget Revenue Operating Budget Impact: We estimate a small increase in utility expenses. Cost and Efficiency Impact: Completion of this project will improve the reaction/response times to the citizens in the Back Creek area by allowing volunteer members to remain at the station at night. Conformance with County Obligations: This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as listed on page 70, Strategy 1 and 3 in Chapter 4: Community Facilities. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $30,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $330,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating Costs: ~0 2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: FY200d-05 FY $p' ~p SO ~0 $0 24 Fire & Rescue p RAFT Hollins Road New Station Description: ' This project would provide for the construction of a new fire and rescue public safety building, including land purchase, in the area of Hollins Road near Plantation Road. This facility would house apparatus and enable the department to provide adequate fire and rescue coverage to the area citizens. Initial costs are for architectural/engineering work and land acquisition. Justification: ' This new building would serve the Hollins Road corridor, Friendship Manor area, and be near Hanover Direct. This area is rapidly developing in both the residential and commercial venues. Currently, this area is served from the Hollins station with response times higher than the goal of six ' minutes. The average response time from that station is over 8 minutes. At times, responding units from Roanoke City experience lengthened response times to the same area. This could be considered for a future joint-staffing station based on regional cooperation throughout the area. ' Funding Source: Bond Referendum ' Operating Budget Impact: The operating budget would still have to be addressed; staffing considerations w addressed in order to finalize. The approximate utility costs are shown. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: Completion of this project would result in the reduction of reaction/response tim ' Conformance with County Obligations: This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive P ' 70, Strategy 1 and 3, Objective A and B in Chapter 4:Community Facilities. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary ill have to be es to the citizens. lan as listed on page 1 1 Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $1,600,000 $2,200,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating Costs: ; FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007 08 FY2008 09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 ' $13,500 $14,175 $27,675 0 2'• Description: The County Garage is currently located in Salem, across from the School Bus Garage. It has four bays, two offices and a customer waiting area. The size is inadequate for servicing the County fleet, particularly large trucks. Anew facility can be built at Kessler Mill Road, which is where most ' County vehicles are located. Justification: ' The bays at the Garage are not large enough for the appropriate equipment for repair of solid waste, utility, parks and recreation and fire/rescue vehicles. Consequently, repairs on these vehicles are outsourced to private repair shops, at a high cost to the County. During the past year, over $400,000 was spent on repairing solid waste vehicles alone, most of that outside the County Garage. Additionally, the parking at the Garage facility is limited, which also limits the number of vehicles that can be scheduled for service on a particular day. Four years ago, RW Beck, a consultant, provided the County with a study of the garage operations, which included recommendations for the future. The consultant recommended that the County service as many vehicles in-house as possible to save money and provide the most efficient service. Space exists at the Service Center on Kessler Mill Road for construction of a new garage facility. Most of the departments with vehicles are also located at Kessler Mill Road, which would greatly reduce travel time, while increasing oversight and management of the garage facility. Fundi~ag Source: t While there is no funding source prior to construction, it is anticipated that the County would save at least $50,000/year in repair bills to outside vendors. Additionally, the existing facility could be sold - the real estate assessment is $172,700 and staff estimates that its current market value is at least ' $200,000. Operating Budget Impact: Assuming that the current building is sold, the operating expenses should not be significantly different, unless the amount of work indicates that another mechanic is necessary. If so, that position should pay for itself through billings to the departments. Cost and Efficiency Impact: Having the Garage located at the same physical location as the majority of vehicles will save travel ' time and occasionally towing bills. A larger facility will allow the garage to service the vast majority of the County fleet, decreasing costs and improving turn around time. Conformance with County Obligations: Conforms with County policy to provide the best possible service at lowest possible price. 1 28 _J General Services CRAFT Recycling Trailers Description: ' Recycling trailers, which are divided into covered bin storage, can be pulled by a small dump truck and left at a facility to provide recycling service for the neighborhood. The bins are then retrieved by the truck and emptied at a recycling facility. General Services proposed to purchase two bins in ' FY2004-OS and two bins in FY2005-06 to provide coverage in each of the four quadrants of the County. The School System and the County Libraries have both indicated interest in hosting the trailer. Justification: Citizens have repeatedly asked for recycling collection service. Curbside recycling is expensive, but ' this allows the County to offer drop off service on a rotating basis at first, and on a permanent basis in the long term. The County currently uses a dump truck to deliver the freeloader, and the same staff and equipment could be used to empty and move the trailer. ' Funding Source: CIP/General Fund ' Operating Budget Impact: By utilizing existing staff and vehicles, we will be able to provide this service without additional operating cost. The cost of disposal should be lower than at the transfer station, and there may be ' occasions when the County will see some revenue from this program. Cost and Efficieircy Impact: ' This project will improve the environment and extend the life of the landfill. Conformance with County Obligations: ' This policy is in accordance with the Roanoke County Environmental Policy Statement, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 14, 2001. 1 __ _. FY200S - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0` $100,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operati~zg Costs; FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $0 $p $0 1 30 6 __ . Greenway Development Roanoke River Greenway -East _..._ Q ~.~4FT _ _. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $125,000. $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $475,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 $5,000/year per mile for maintenance Associated Operating Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $10;000 $20,000 e 32 by the citizens in the Roanoke County Vision - 2010 document completed in 1995. Roanoke County adopted the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan in 1997 and incorporated it in the 1998 Community Plan. Greenways are endorsed in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan (p.97) and in the Virginia Outdoors Plan (p. 188). Improvements on McVitty Road are included in the 6-Year Plan and bike facilities along McVitty are in the 1997 Regional Bike Plan. The trail in Garst Mill Park was the first geenway to open in the Roanoke Valley and continues to receive heavy use from neighboring residents as well as groups of school and pre-school children, elderly citizens, and those groups requiring special assistance. Mudlick Creek Greenway was one of the top eve priorities in the County's prioritization of greenways completed in spring 2000. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $60,000 $100,000 $75,000 $75,000, $75,000. $385,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $28,322 Future Costs Beyond 2009 $5,000/year per mile for maintenance 9ssociatedOperatin~gCosts: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 34 __ _ _ Greenway Development ~RA~.t. Tinker Creek Greenway FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $50,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000. $90,000 $410,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 $5,000/year per mile for maintenance Associated°Operati~ig Casts: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 3C Information Technology HP Migration DRAFT Corrformaftce with Cou~zry Obligations: This project conforms with the County Administrator's stated mission of being excellent stewards of the resources of our citizens and adding value to those resources through the delivery of a broad spectrum of efficient, quality services. Furthermore this project has the support of the Board of Supervisors, as evidenced by funding in prior years. __ _ _ _ _ _. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary ~ Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $650,000 $900,000 $750,000 $800,000. $0 $3,100,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $1,450,000 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operati~ig Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $31,200 $208,100 $201,100 $198,000 ` $0 $638`,400 6 38 Information Technology ~ ~~.~. Network Infrastructure Upgrade __ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000. $50,000. $350,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 $250,000 Associated Operating Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OS FY200S-09 TOTAL: $0 $103,100 $53,100 $0 $0 $156,200 6 40 Library HQ Library Replacement DRAFT Description: This project would replace the existing Headquarters/419 Library with a 56,000 sq. ft. building constructed to meet both current and anticipated needs for size, lighting, design, handicapped accessibility, and telecommunication infrastructure. It would include expanded stacks, children's programming areas, young adult collections, a browsing area, additional Internet stations, a computer training lab, display space, auditorium and conference rooms, and a coffee shop. The design would also consolidate service desks, incorporate logical traffic patterns, redesign support work spaces, and add a security system to protect valuable materials and allow the introduction ofself-checkout modules. Externally, the building would have safe parking lot entrances and exits, improved traffic flow and longer turning lanes, and an additional 96 parking spaces. Justification: With a public area of approximately 18,500 sq. ft., the present Headquarters library is less than 40% of the size specified by state standards for its current population base. It is the only library that serves two magisterial districts, Cave Spring and Windsor Hills. Designed for a service level of 600 visitors per day, it now averages more than 1,100 citizen visits daily [333,000 in FY02-03, with annual circulation in excess of 456,000 items]. The majority of the furnishings and fixtures date from the original construction of thirty years ago and are heavily-worn. It is overcrowded, with a disjointed layout that forces inefficiencies and compounds congestion during peak periods. Shelves are at 120% of capacity. There is no archival or storage space for the collection, so the acquisition of any new materials requires that less-used books be discarded. The building was designed for library services as they existed in the 1970's. New formats, including Internet access, instructional labs, and media products require more space, a robust technological infrastructure, and greater flexibility than the building can accommodate. Remodeling the existing structure would be difficult and expensive. The building is landlocked on a 2.5 acre lot, with the maximum allowable number of parking spaces. Funding Source: Bond issue or TBD Operating Budget Impact: Additional staff would be needed to provide service in the larger public work area and for support functions in technical services. Although this represents a much larger building size, maintenance and utilities in a more efficient structure should not increase by more than 30% annually. ' Cost a~zd Efficiency Impact: ' e 42 When completed, the department's operational costs would rise but overall efficiency will be improved by combining three public service desks to maximize staffing resources and eliminate poor ' traffic patterns. The installation of a security system would reduce collection theft rates. A coffee shop and FOL gift shop could become revenue streams to help support children's programming expenses. Some of the cost of acquiring a different site could be offset by the later sale of the current ' property. Construction of a new library would be the most efficient and cost-effective solution and will delay the need to create, staff, and maintain a second branch elsewhere in Southwest County. ' Conformance with County Obligatioirs: This project has been identified as the highest priority by the Library Citizens' Review Tearn and the ' Library DR,~-FT Glenvar Library Expansion Description: ' This project would add 6,200 sq ft to the Glenvar Branch Library for increased public space and readers' seating, twice the number of book stacks, an improved children's area with appropriately- scaled shelving, a more functional meeting room, and high speed access to electronic resources, including Internet work stations and a computer instructional lab. The existing library would be renovated with new fittings and fixtures. Space would be allotted to system support functions, including archival storage. The parking lot would be expanded and redesigned to better accommodate ' through traffic from the nursing home located behind the building. Justification: This project would add 6,200 sq ft to the Glenvar Branch Library for increased public space and readers' seating, twice the number of book stacks, an improved children's area with appropriately- scaled shelving, a more functional meeting room, and high speed access to electronic resources, including Internet work stations and a computer instructional lab. The existing library would be ' renovated with new fittings and fixtures. Space would be allotted to system support functions, including archival storage. The parking lot would be expanded and redesigned to better accommodate through traffic from the nursing home located behind the building. Funding Source: Bond issue or TBD. ' Operating Budget Impact: Departmental costs for staffing, maintenance, and utility expenses would increase, proportionate to ' the size of the building and the change in service level more patron traffic would require. Cost and Efficiency Impact: Expansion would require adding staff hours, which would increase operating costs. The library itself will operate more efficiently if it has better design, logical traffic patterns, improved lighting, and stable access to technology. No funds have to be allocated for the purchase of additional land because ' the current site has room for expansion. Conforma~zce with County Obligations: The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is supported by standards published by the Library of Virginia; it is a primary capital priority of both the Library Citizen's Review committee and the Library Board of Trustees. J ' 44 J ' ~ Library ®R,t~~T Mt. Pleasant Library Replacement Description: ' This project would relocate the one-room, 529 sq ft Mt. Pleasant Branch Library to a separate structure outside the elementary school. The new 3,500 sq ft library would include stack space to accommodate general reading, adult nonfiction, and juvenile collections. It would have ' approximately 12 to 15 work/study seats, appropriate furnishings for children, new shelving, an area for six pc/Internet stations, and aprogramming/meeting area for small groups. It would include handicapped accessible parking and entries. ' Justification: The current library is housed in a classroom inside the Mt. Pleasant Elementary School. It is too ' restricted, both in size and by school operations, to support a standard collection and appropriate library services. The surrounding area is experiencing substantial residential growth, so library services and facilities should be upgraded to meet the needs of this population. State standards ' indicate the branch should have a minimum of 1,845 sq ft, as of 2003. The projected population growth indicates a need for 3,500 sq. ft. by the year 2010. . Selection of a site for a new and enlarged facility will be an issue. A location on Rte. 116 would ' improve access and visibility; promote increased use of the branch; and could make the library a possible candidate for a joint project with Franklin County. Anew site would also avoid some of the security and control issues that arise when public library operations are located on school grounds. Funding Source: Bond issue, general operating revenues, or TBD. Operating Budget Impact: Annual operational, maintenance, and utilities costs would increase by approximately 60%, primarily ' related to the larger space and the need for more part-time staff hours. Cost and Efficiency Impact: ' This project will increase operational costs but would exponentially enhance services to the Mt. Pleasant community. The classroom currently occupied by the library would be vacated, which would free the space to be used for school operations. ' Conformance with County Obligations: The current space fails to meet state standards for a public library facility. Expansion and ' replacement of the Mt. Pleasant Branch was a high priority of the Citizen's Review committee and the Library Board of Trustees. The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. ' 46 ' Library Vinton Library Renovation DRAFT Description: ' This project would refurbish the interior of the Vinton library. New chairs and tables would replace furnishings and provide comfortable seating for casual reading or studying. It would make shelving areas fully-accessible and upgrade lighting fixtures to meet current standards. The entire adult section would be reconfigured to improve traffic patterns and allow space for the computer lab. The layout for telecommunication lines and electrical outlets would be upgraded. Twenty-three public workstations would be replaced. The project would also include a reoriented circulation desk and ' central corridor work area for more efficient workflow, improved line-of-sight, appropriate media shelving, and added storage. Public restrooms would be redesigned to allow handicapped accessibility. When finished, this would be the first complete renovation of the interior since the ' building's construction in 1969. The parking lot would be expanded by 16 spaces. JicstificatioiZ: ' Most fittings and furnishings are original to the building and show more than three decades of wear. Upgraded lighting fixtures are necessary to meet state standards. Space for the existing computer lab was cut out of the magazine display area; the resulting configuration has partially blocked ambient light in the reference area. The lab needs to be resited for better staff oversight and resized to allow ' more room for computer workstations. The wiring and telecommunications infrastructure for a large computer network has been grafted onto old lines. Handicapped accessibility is compromised; public restrooms are narrow and inaccessible for wheelchairs. In fact, the only restroom that is available to the handicapped is in the meeting room. Wheelchair-bound patrons who need to use it must intrude on groups in the meeting room, which is ' embarrassing and inconvenient. Expansion of the parking lot is long overdue. There are only 14 spaces for the whole library, less than 47% of the minimum standard of 1/300 sq. ft.; any program, meeting, or event overwhelms the lot capacity. ' Funding Source: Bond issue or TBD. A cooperative arrangement with the Town of Vinton maybe possible to share ' some of the costs associated with building the parking lot. Operating Budget Impact: There would be a minimal impact on the department's operating budget for utilities. Renovations draw more patrons into the library, which would increase circulation and reference requests and therefore, the need for part-time staff. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: Although ongoing operating costs would increase, functionality, building supervision, and workflow would be improved. Construction costs could be reduced if acost-sharing arrangement with the ' Town of Vinton to improve the parking lot is implemented. Conformance with County Obligations: ' This project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is supported by the Citizen's Review Team, the Library Board or Trustees, and by building construction standards from the Library of Virginia. ' 48 Library Bent Mountain Library Expansion d~,~FT Description: ' This project would add 550 sq. ft. to the Bent Mountain Library to provide additional readers' seating, more open space for the children's collection and programs, and sufficient wall surface for shelving. ' Justification: The Bent Mountain Branch Library is a 700 sq. ft. facility, which was built in 1985. It is adjacent to the Bent Mountain Elementary School and is situated on school property. A small area around the ' building could be used for a second expansion. The children's area is very small so popular afterschool programs have to be conducted in a narrow corridor near the circulation desk or at a picnic table outside. An expanded building would create a more suitable environment for storytimes ' and other children's services, including juvenile-height shelving and furniture. This library serves as a focal point for its community, as demonstrated by a recent citizens' fund raising campaign. The planned addition from their initiative will have little effect on either seating capacity or programming ' space. Funding Source: ' Bond issue, general operating revenues or TBD Operating Budget Impact: Increased collection development, part-time staffing, maintenance and utility costs should average approximately $22,000 per year. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: The project would upgrade the level of service offered at this branch, particularly in children's programs and materials. ~I ~~ Conformance with County Obligations: The project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and has been approved by the Library Board of Trustees. __ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $171,625 $0 SO $171,625 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operati~zg Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 w0 $21,5%'0 $22,200 $2,900 $66,600 6 50 1 1 Parks & Recreation Brambleton Center ~~~.FT Description: This project continues the renovation of the former RCAC facility on Brambleton Avenue into a Community Recreation Center with a focus on programming for senior adults, citizens with disabilities, teens, and youth. Recent improvements include a partial roof replacement, HVAC upgrades, replacing the four boilers, seal coating the parking lot, and 50% of the carpet. Current work includes painting the exterior and interior of the building, replacing the exterior building trim, and building a dumpster enclosure. This project request would complete the remaining roof replacement over the community room, repair the building foundation and underground drainage, replace the failing floor foundation in the main wooden hallway and flooring, replace the remaining carpet in the building, replace the floor the in the ceramic rooms, upgrade the restroom plumbing and fixtures, and encapsulate the asbestos in the boiler room. Justification: This building is the main Community Recreation Center for Roanoke County and serves over 84,000 ' visits annually and now offers 437 programs. The center also serves as the regional home for ,Therapeutic Recreation programs and the Teen Center. Many of the past repairs have been funded through emergency purchases to keep the building open such as the leaking roof and failed boilers. ' This project will complete the building's main structural problems as well as maintain a presentable appearance for its high use. ' Funding Source: Recommended funding source would be General Operating Fund and/or General Obligation Bond. ' Operating Budget Impact: None. Cost and Efficiency Impact: None. ' Conformance with County Obligations: This project type is consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. 0 ' S2 Description: t This facility is located adjacent to the Arnold R. Burton Vocational School and serves as the site for adult softball league and tournament play. It contains three regulation softball fields that supplement the state and regional tournaments held at the Moyer Athletic Complex, and often is the only site for ' USSSA and NSA Softball Tournaments. This facility needs landscaping, general security lighting, athletic field lighting improvements, major fence replacement, and a playground. Fencing, concrete aprons, and enclosed dugouts estimated in 2004-2005. ii u ~I ~J Justification: The project will provide much needed basic level amenities for the citizens who use the park on a daily basis. It will also provide facilities for tournament participants, which contributes to the economic development of the community through tourism. In FY 2002, over 20,000 people visited the Roanoke Valley to participate in tournaments jointly sponsored by Salem and Roanoke County. These out of town guests spent approximately $7.0 million while in the Valley. Funding Source: Recommended funding source would be general operating revenues. Operating Bccdget Impact: Requires additional part-time staff, utilities, maintenance materials, and supplies. Cost aizd Efficiency Impact: No. Conformance with Cou~zry Obligations: This project is consistent with general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital .Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OS FY2008-09 TOTAL: $140,000 $169,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $359,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operatitg Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $9,718 $9,718. $9,718 $9,718 $0 $38;872 ' S4 6 ' i Parks & Recreation [~RAF.i. ~ Camp Roanoke Description: ' This project completes the renovation of Camp Roanoke as a residential camp and retreat center. Renovations have included the upgrading of the dining hall, restrooms, and grounds. Current donations will provide for the renovation of the 8 residential cabins, the lodge, ropes course, log cabin shell, three bathroom shower facilities, a water system, trail upgrades, and a parking lot. The remaining items to complete the renovation will be the construction of a new pool and a lake marina with a 10 slip dock to access the Spring Hollow Reservoir for canoe and kayak programs. Justification: This site could potentially become a premier park facility within the system as a major regional park with the potential to generate tourist as well as local interest. Camp Roanoke will provide an exceptional site for youth programs and a revenue producing opportunity to cover partial operating cost of the program. The camp has cabins, shelter, dining hall, a lodge, initiatives course, and trails which need improvement. This provides a unique opportunity to develop a one of a kind facility in the region. Fu~zding Source: Private donations. Operating Budget Impact: The camp is operating with general fund for full-time staff and revenue from fees for direct expenses. Cost and Efficiency Impact: No. Conformance with County Obligations: This project is identified as a priority project of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. __ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OS FY2008-09 TOTAL: $45,000 $158,500 $0 $0 $0 $203,500 Notes: Appropriations to Date $50,000 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated..Operating Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 e 56 Parks & Recreation Starkey Park D R.AF1' __. __ _ _ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $1,001,000 $205,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,206,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operatiizg Costs:. FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OB FY2008-09 TOTAL: $20,000 $39;000 $39,000 $39,000 $39,000 $176,000 6 58 I`J -Parks & Recreation ®~~~,~. Green Hill Park Phase III Descriptio~z: ' This project will continue development of Green Hill Park by providing an amphitheater and restroom building, additional large picnic shelter, security lights and electricity for special events, parking, accessible playground, fencing, landscaping, two lighted soccer fields, football field, relocating softball field #5, walking trails, additional barrier system, and a maintenance yard with outbuildings. An update of the Green Hill Park master plan is required to ensure optimum use of the available space. ' Justification: These enhancements will continue to develop this park as the Roanoke County's Parks, Recreation and Tourism's mayor event site. Also, this project will complete the facilities for the home of the ' Glenvar Youth Boosters. It will provide for a medium to stimulate and encourage growth in tourism and sports marketing. Funding Source: Recommended funding source would be general obligation bonds. Operating Budget Impact: ' Requires additional part time staff, utilities, maintenance materials, and supplies. Estimated annual operating cost is $26,250. Opportunities exist to generate revenues through programming of special events. These revenues could offset operating cost. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: ' Conformance with County Obligations: This project is consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the 1998 Roanoke County ' Community Plan. 0 1 FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $483,500 $109,000 $0 „ $0 $0 $592,500 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating Costs: FY2004 05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $11,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $0 $65,000 ' e 60 Description: This project will construct appropriate sized playgrounds at Brookside, Stonebridge, Sadler, Mount Pleasant, and Craig Center Parks. Justification: It will meet the public demand for playground at regional and neighborhood parks. Playgrounds at these sites are obsolete or non-existent and the need for play structures throughout the county are voiced heavily by the citizens. Funding Source: General Operating Funds and/or General Obligation Bond. Operating Budget Impact: Revenues generated will offset salary and utility expenses Cost and Efficiency Impact: Conformance with County Obligations: This project type is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. __ __ _ _ _ FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $125,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operati~ig Costs:. FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $350 $700 $875 $875 X875 $3,675 62 Parks & Recreation Picnic Shelters __ ~-~ FT Description: This project will construct and install medium size accessible picnic shelters at Mt. Pleasant, Brookside, Stonebridge, and Sadler Parks. .Iustification: It will meet the public demand for shelter reservations and provide arevenue-producing source that supports the maintenance of the facility. This project will improve the recreational opportunities within the county. Funding Source: General Operating Funds and/or General Obligation Bond. Operating Budget Impact: Revenues generated will offset salary and utility expenses. Cost and Efficiency Impact: Conformance with County Obligations: This project type is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. __ _ - _ _ . FY2045 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital, Costs; FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-OS FY2008-09 TOTAL: $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25000 $0 $100,000 - Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-Oo FY200b-07 FY2G07-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $u 6 fi4 '~ , _ _.. Parks & Recreation ~~~.,~. Vinyard Park Phase III Description: This project requests funding for expanding the playground, traffic barriers, fencing improvements, ballfield lighting (baseball #3), picnic shelters, and basketball courts to complete the master plan. Funding from the new Roanoke Catholic partnership has provided expanded parking and field lighting for large basebalUfootball combination field. Construction has started on the new park restroom/concession building. Also included are parking improvements, a greenway bridge and trails, handicap trout fishing area, and other park amenities and the passive development of the Vinyard II tract. Justification: This will complete the master plan, and provide a comprehensive regional park in the easy county area. New facilities will improve access and recreational opportunities to a broader segment of the population. Funding Source: Recommended funding source would be general obligation bonds. Operating Bzzdget Impact: Requires additional part-time staff, utilities and maintenance materials and supplies. Cost azrd Efficiency Impact: Conformance with County Obligations: This project is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. _ __. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs:. FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $44,000 $308,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $532,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating Costs: FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $14,350 $14,350 $28,350 $28,350 $0 $85,400 6 66 ~i~ i~ u i~ i~ Parks & Recreation ®~AFT Parks & Recreation Land Bank Description: The Parks and Recreation Department needs to acquire parkland for reported deficits in Roanoke County. Emphasis placed on land in areas of Southwest and North County. Current outdoor recreation needs are at or near capacity in the Southwest area, while reports show program needs are growing. Justification: There continues to be deficits in almost all areas and at all levels, i.e. neighborhood, community, and district parks. In anticipation of the results of the on-going visioning and comprehensive planning process, resources need to be identified for acquiring needed parkland. Funding Source: General Obligation Bond Operating Budget Impact: None Cost and Efficiency Impact: ' Conformance with County Obligations: This project meets the goals as established in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. ' FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary fl ~~ Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $100,000 $250,000 ' $0 $250,000 $0 $600,000 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operating Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $0 $0 $0 _ SG SO $0 ' 68 ' Police ~~~.~. Evidence Vault Addition Description: This project will provide for the building of an addition to the Department's Evidence Technician building and garage. The addition will provide a new evidence vault. The addition will be attached to the Evidence Technician garage at the north end of the existing building. The building addition ' will include all walls, doors, roofing, etc. necessary to complete the structure. The total area of the addition will be 546 square feet. This project will provide the space necessary to meet the Department 's legal obligations. ' Justification: The project is needed to provide storage of evidence to be used in criminal proceedings and maintain the legal chain of custody according to state and federal statutes. The advent of new forensic technology has lead to the increase in the types and numbers of items collected as evidence of crimes. The Department's evidence vault is presently being used to house the Department's archive files in addition to evidence storage. Due to the ever-increasing volume of documents that are required to be maintained pursuant to the Code of Virginia, and the increase in submitted evidence, the present evidence vault has inadequate space to house the volume of evidence submitted to the vault on a daily basis. The project will provide the necessary storage space for Department documents, as well as ' provide overflow space for evidence. Funding Source: GOR Operating Budget Impact: ' Routine minor maintenance and electricity. Cost and Efficiency Impact: ' This project will improve overall efficiency by providing the space needed to store evidence and documents pursuant to the Code of Virginia. The building addition has been designed to minimize building costs while increasing the security of the addition. ' Conformance with County Obligations: The Department is required, pursuant to the Virginia Retention Act, to maintain physical and ' documentary evidence. The County of Roanoke's Community Plan supports this project. The Community Plan recognizes that the level of service provided by the Police Department is a significant factor in the quality of life enjoyed by the County's residents (page 68). The Community Plan endorses the provision of the necessary resources to the Police Department to meet the existing and projected needs of County residents (page 69). 0 ' ~ 70 ~ - 1 1 Police Bomb Disposal Unit DRAFT Description: The creation of a bomb squad will both enhance and expand the Department's ability to provide services and increased safety to the citizens of Roanoke County. The establishment of the bomb squad requires the purchase of equipment necessary for officer protection, bomb detection equipment, bomb disposal equipment, and an explosives storage facility. Officer protection involves bomb suits, shields, helmets and other associated equipment. Bomb detection equipment includes a portable x-ray machine and a bomb robot. Bomb disposal is accomplished through a containment trailer. The Federal Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulates the storage of explosives required in the disposal of bombs and suspected suspicious objects. Jtcstification: ' The recent tragedies of September 1 lth, Columbine and others heightened awareness of the need for police to be able to respond quickly, efficiently, and effectively to all bomb threats. The Department has responded to 8 residential, 55 commercial, 9 governmental, and 40 school bomb threats since ' November 1991. The average number of calls per year is 9.5. After providing an initial response, the Department is presently dependent on the Virginia State Police should any suspicious object be located. The Virginia State Police Division located in Salem is responsible for bomb responses to 13 Counties. Through no fault of their own, their other responsibilities could result in a significant response time to a critical incident. Time is a critical factor in bomb investigations. Delayed response may result in a heightened potential for injury to persons or property. The ability to respond trained County Police officers to the scene of a suspicious object eliminates any waiting period, will eliminate the dangers associated with waiting, and will enhance the overall effectiveness of the Department and the services provided to the citizens of Roanoke County. ' Funding Source: GOR. ' Operating Budget Impact: Routine minor maintenance to equipment. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: This project will improve the safety for Roanoke County schools, sensitive County facilities, sensitive businesses located in the County, and all other County residents. The ability to respond Department ' personnel without being dependant on other agencies will improve the Department's overall efficiency. ' Conformance with County Obligations: The creation of the Bomb Squad requires compliance with Federal Law regulated by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The County of Roanoke's Community Plan supports this project. The Community Plan recognizes that the level of service provided by the Police Department ' is a significant factor in the quality of life enjoyed by the County's residents (page 68). The Community Plan endorses the provision of the necessary resources to the Police Department to meet the existing and projected needs of County residents and the provision of safety for all of Roanoke ' County's citizens, businesses, and visitors (page 69). ' 72 ' ~ Police ~ ~~~.~. South County Police Precinct Description: ' This project will provide for the building of a new Police Precinct building in South Roanoke County. The new building will meet the increasing demands on the Police Department to provide close, available police services to the citizens of south Roanoke County. Presently, all police ' operations are centered at the Public Safety Building on Peters Creek Road. The new building would provide space for patrol officers, criminal investigations personnel, and supervisors. The new building will be connected to all of the County's Information Technology systems, allowing police to ' conduct business from the new building without having to use Peters Creek Road as their origination point. Anew facility built to accommodate a south Roanoke County Police precinct has a projected size of 2000 square feet. ' Justification: The strong growth that Roanoke County is experiencing is paralleled by demand for additional police ' services. Over the past four years the Department has experienced a 41% increase in calls for service in south Roanoke County. This increase is continuing. Calls for service for south Roanoke County through July 2003 already equa161% of all south side calls for service for 2002. The presence of a police precinct building will afford officers the means to be close to the citizens they serve, while allowing them full access to Department information without leaving south County. This will enhance the overall delivery of police services with improved response times and the maximization of personnel resources. The location would provide heightened opportunities for south County ' communities and Police interaction. Funding Source:.. ' Bonds Operating Budget Impact: ' The operating budget impact for the first two years is estimated at $3540 per year, which includes electric, gas, water, and custodial. The operating budget impact for years 3 and 4 is estimated at $4260 per year. Year 5 and years after is estimated at $5320 per year. Maintenance costs are ' included after the first two years. Cost a~:d Efficiency Impact: ' This project will, after initial cost for construction, serve to lower costs to the County due to new construction using resource saving and environmentally sensitive materials and equipment. The County is committed to ISO 14001 compliance. Anew building would be in line with that ' commitment. Overall efficiency will increase with the ability to expand based on recognized building occupancy standards. Overall efficiency would increase with the presence of Police personnel stationed in south Roanoke County. ' Conformance with Cou~zty Obligations: The County of Roanoke's Community Plan supports this project. The Community Plan recognizes that the level of service provided by the Police Department is a significant factor in the quality of life ' enjoyed by the County's residents (page 68). The Community Plan endorses the provision of the necessary resources to the Police Department to meet the existing and projected needs of County residents (page 69). 74 J 1 0 Public Safety ~ ~/01F.1. Public Safety Center Description: The Proposed project is the development of a new 911 Emergency Communications Center including an Emergency Operations Center and space for the Information Technology Department. Options to be considered also include all administrative space for the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments, as well as replacement or relocation of the main equipment for the emergency radio system. Justification: The current Public Safety Center was originally opened in the mid-1980's. It is located in an old school building originally constructed in 1939. The facility is inadequate for modern technology upgrades due to space limitations and electrical system shortcomings. The roof has had recurrent leak problems in the area that houses the emergency radio system and other information technology equipment. The facility has limited parking for current tenants and no room for expansion of existing structure and/or parking lot. Although the facility has served the County well over the past two decades its design prohibits safe and efficient emergency communication operations. The Board of Supervisors has recognized the need for upgrading the facility and has authorized the County Administrator to accept and review proposals to replace the facility under the Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) process. The County expects to receive several preliminary proposals from competing firms and complete reviews of these proposals in the fall of 2003. Ficnding Source: As the cost for this facility is dependent upon the proposals submitted and the options included, the total cost for the project, as well as the specific funding source is to be determined. Proposals submitted to the County under the PPEA will contain preliminary cost information and possible funding scenarios. Early estimates are $15-25 million depending on the final project scope. Operating Budget Impact: As the scope of the project and design is incomplete, the impact on operating budgets is to be determined. Cost and Efficiency Impact: This project will not only improve the efficiency of the Police, Fire and Rescue and Information Technology Departments, but it is vital to ensure that the long range emergency communications and public safety needs of the citizens of Roanoke County are met. The development of a new ' Communications Center and space for the Information Technology Department will advance the counties technological capabilities to current market expectations. 1 ~~ Conformance with Coacnty Obligations: This project was a top priority identified in the FY2004 - 2008 Capital Improvement Program plan and the authority to accept project proposals for review was granted to the County Administrator by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2003. 7( 1 Public Safety ~ ~~~.t. 80D MHz Radio System Upgrade Description: The costs for FY 2007-2008 are for Roanoke County's share (50%) of the total cost of the project totalling $22,660,345. The funds requested for 2005-06 are for an upgrade of the existing Radio System consoles in the Dispatch Center from Centracom Gold to Centracom Gold Elite. The funds requested for 2007-2008 are for a complete upgrade from an analog radio system to a digital system. It includes funds to replace the radio system infrastructure and subscriber field units. Upgrades completed in 2005-06 would continue to be utilized as part of this larger upgrade. ' Use of these funds is contingent upon approval and proportional funding by the City of Roanoke. Justification: ' The funds in 2005-06 will be utilized to replace the existing Dispatch Center Radio Consoles. These units, installed in 1996, operate on older style DOS PCs. The software is not designed to run on newer faster PC's and is not supported on those PCs. The units are no longer available from ' Motorola and expansion of the existing units, if needed, would be unavailable. The latest version available for this upgrade is Windows network based and would vastly improve management of these resources. By 2005-06 there will be further improvements in the technology available for this ' project. Again, this upgrade would prepare the Dispatch Center for the digital radio system migration. In order for public safety to keep up with an ever changing technology, the current analog radio ' system needs to be upgraded to digital. This upgrade will be a coordinated effort with the City of Roanoke to maintain radio coverage levels and to enhance personnel safety. This upgrade will allow for continued inter-operability between the City and the County while positioning us to upgrade outdated communications equipment. Funding Source: ' General Operating Revenues Operating Btcdget Impact: ' Maintenance costs are shared on a 50-50 basis with the City of Roanoke through a contract with Motorola. Those costs have historically increased 2-3% each year. These improvements will not impact the maintenance costs beyond the annual 2-3% cost increase. ' Cost and Efficiency Impact: This project will simply keep our Regional Radio System up to date. It would provide the best radio coverage to our Police, Fire & Rescue, and other emergency/non-public safety agencies. ' Conformance with County Obligations: This project meets the County's overall objective of providing the best Public Safety response ' possible to County Citizens. ' ~ 78 Real Estate Valuation ®~~~.~. ~ Field Data Collection System Description: ' Approval of this request would provide funding for the purchase of tablet PC's, accessories, and the necessary software to allow our staff of 9 appraisers to enter parcel data and create sketches electronically while they conduct their field reviews. ' Justification: There are 43,000 parcels in the County of Roanoke that are reviewed annually by the County ' appraisers. Currently, the appraisers take a hard copy of each property card in the field as they review their neighborhoods. Any change to a parcel is noted, by hand, on the property card and sketches are also hand-drawn on the card. Once the appraiser returns to the office, they must enter the data and ' recreate the sketch into the computer system. Acquisition of the necessary equipment would allow the appraisers to enter parcel data and sketches directly into a tablet PC, which would improve efficiency by eliminating the need to take hard copies of property cards into the field. The data would be downloaded electronically and would provide an immediate update to the database. It would also allow the appraiser to have access to all parcel data while in the field in case of an unexpected inquiry by a citizen, a member of the business community, ' or other county staff. Our current CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal) system will be replaced with a new CAMA ' system by the 2nd quarter of 2005. This Capital Improvement request addresses the hardware and software needs required for field data collection functionality that would coincide with the functionalities of the new CAMA system. ' There is a high demand for the County's parcel data by its citizens, the business community, and other county staff. The approval of this request would benefit all that rely on our data, as it would be available in a more time efficient manner. Funding Source: ' General Operating Revenues Operating Budget Impact: ' Software maintenance fees would be required for subsequent years. Cost a~zd Efficiency Impact: ' By accessing the data electronically, it would dramatically reduce the amount of paper used to create hard copies of our 43,000 property cards. It would improve overall efficiency by eliminating duplicate processes and provide data in a more time efficient manner. ' Conformance with County Obligations: Changes in technology trends are focusing on wireless environments. This project is supported by the IT Network Infrastructure Upgrade. This project is consisent with the Community Plan by supporting the vision for Roanoke County to provide its citizens the capability to access local and global community services through the latest communications technologies. e ' 80 ' Sheriff ~ F.t,. Jail Renovations Description: ' This project will renovate the existing 6th floor of the Roanoke County/Salem jail, located at 401 East Main St. in Salem, VA. It would create a dormitory style area, which would contain 26 beds, with program space. There will also be a seventh floor added to the existing structure, which will add a 54 four bed form for direct supervision of minimum security inmates. The latest plans for a seventh floor would be to have the elevator come to the sixth floor, as is currently operated, and have a flight of steps up to the seventh floor, as in most pods in the facility. ' Justification: The Roanoke County/Salem jail currently has 108 cells. The average daily population for (FY 2002- ' 03) was 240 inmates. The overcrowded conditions create an unsafe environment for both staff and inmates, inflates operational costs and overstresses all supporting resources. Funding Source: The city of Salem has agreed verbally, to contribute 25% of the cost to the addition/renovation. It should be noted that there is currently a moratorium on the building of jails in the state, which would negate any matching funds from the State. It should also be noted that even with the addition of ' another 80 beds, this facility will still be overcrowded. Mike Howerton of the Department of Corrections advised me on 11/01/02, that the State (once the moratorium is lifted) would be very hesitant to grant funds to a jail project that was already overcrowded from the beginning. ' Operating Budget Impact: Most of the salaries that are required are paid by the State. Obviously, since the County supplements ' the pay for deputies, some portion of the cost to the County will be reoccurring. Once the building is built (a one time cost), the maintenance cost for operating the jail should be pro-rated, as compared to the cost of the existing facility. ' Cost acrd Efficiency Impact: This project will not decrease the cost to the County Of Roanoke, in terms of dollar funding. ' However, the prospect of the cost of liability for the County should diminish significantly. Current inmate population is causing serious strains on burnout for employees, stress of overcrowded conditions for inmates (medical problems, sleeping conditions, weekender population growth, etc.), ' which all could lead to injuries or death, which in-turn causes the County serious liability issues. Conforma~zce with County Obligations: ' This project will conform with Roanoke County's objectives in providing a safe and healthy environment for the citizens, jail staff and inmates. The main issues of this project will predominately address the critical problems of jail space needs in the Roanoke County/Salem jail. Conformance should also allow our Department to continue to be accredited by the American ' Correctional Association. ' 82 ~ Treasurer Upgrade Remittance Processing Machine ~ ~'FT ~ __ Description: Upgrade the current Remittance Processing Machine to the NPD 300 Remittance Processing Machine. Justification: The current processing machine will be 11 yrs old and upgrades are not available. The maintenance fees on the existing machine increased because the machine is outdated. The microfilm is not easily read and experts have suggested that we need an updated machine with better quality imaging. Maintenance will expire and not be offered on the existing machine effective December 31, 2003. Fundiizg Source: General Operating or Lease/Purchase Operating Budget Lnpact: Adjustments in the maintenance agreement for converting from the old machine to the new. Cost and Efficiency Impact: The new processing machine will mprove operations and provide for software and hardware upgrades. Currently it is impossible to read the microfilm because it cannot be fixed due to the outdated equipment. Conformance with County Obligations: The machine is part of daily operations assisting to: encode checks from daily check-ups, process water and sewer payments, process real estate taxes and process personal property taxes. FY2005 - 2009 Expenditure Summary Capital Costs: FY2004-05 FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $135,952 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,952 Notes: Appropriations to Date $0 Future Costs Beyond 2009 None Associated Operati~zg Costs:. FY2004-OS FY2005-06 FY2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 TOTAL: $12,510 $16,896 $18,586. $0 $0 $47,992 e 84 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1