HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/25/1994 - Adopted Board RecordsA-12594-1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER �D — I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Enhanced Enforcement of the County Decal Ordinance.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Recommend adding 1 person to the commissioner's office during the
budget process. It is also recommended that the police request be
considered at that time.
1 -TT" 11 •
This item was presented to the Board at its meeting on January 11,
1994. At that time, the staff was requested to provide more
detailed information on Chief Cease's proposed plan. This
information has been provided with a cover letter from Mr. Hodge
containing his comments on the proposal.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Commissioner of the Revenue feels that additional personal
property tax collections could be realized if the County decal
ordinance were enforced more vigorously. Two alternatives for
addressing this matter have been proposed and are summarized below:
Proposal 1 (Exclusively for decal ordinance enforcement)
Add one person to the Commissioner's staff specifically for decal
enforcement. This person would spend full time locating and
identifying both vehicles that are not in compliance with the
ordinance as well as other equipment subject to personal property
tax. The work schedule for this person would be arranged to
maximize the opportunity for locating offenders. A significant
part of the workday would be spent either before 8 AM or after 5 PM
in order to find vehicles in their normal parking place. The
schedule would also include alternate weekends. A quarterly report
on enforcement activity would be provided to the Board of
Supervisors.
ANNUAL PROJECTED NET REVENUE
Estimated annual revenue $147,200
Estimated annual cost - personnel and vehicle 25,000
Net Annual Increase in Revenue $122,200
A brief summary of this proposal is attached.
Proposal 2 (Decal ordinance enforcement is a component of this
proposal, public safety being the primary focus)
Set up a traffic unit in the Police Department. This proposal will
be brought forward formally as a part of the budget process.
Although the primary emphasis is traffic safety, if adopted, it
would offer an excellent means for more intensified decal ordinance
enforcement. The objective of the unit would be targeted
enforcement in the areas of:
1.
Speed laws.
2.
Decal ordinance.
3.
Habitual offenders.
4.
DUI.
5.
Major highways.
6.
Parking violations.
ANNUAL PROJECTED NET REVENUE
Projected:
Gross Revenue
Cost
Net Revenue
1st
year
$190,285.92
$231,706.40
$(41,420.48)
2nd
year
190,285.92
126,643.69
63,642.23
3rd
year
190,285.92
132,975.88
57,310.04
4th
year
190,285.92
139,624.67
50,661.25
Total Projected Net Revenue for 4 Year Period $130,193.04
This estimate does not include projected increases in revenue from
decal enforcement estimated at $147,200.
The actual procedure in both proposals is the same:
1. Locate, identify and record the vehicle suspected of
being in violation.
2. Commissioner's office does the necessary research on the
vehicle to determine if it is, in fact, in violation.
3. If in violation, the Commissioner's office mails a bill.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Add one person to the Commissioner's office.
2. Establish a traffic unit in the Police Department.
3. Consider during the budget process.
STAFF RECONNIMDATION
Since decal ordinance enforcement is primarily the responsibility
of the Commissioner of the Revenue, and since that is the sole
objective of Alternative 1, Alternative 1 is recommended either now
or during the budget process. The proposal for a Traffic Unit can
be considered during budget discussions.
FISCAL IMPACT FOR 1994:
Purchase of vehicle
Enforcement Clerk (4 months)
1994 Impact
Respect ully submitted,
Don Myers
Assistant Administrator
$ 9,000
7,000
$16,000
Approved by,
Elm6r C. odge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: See Below No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred ( ) Kohinke x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens x
Harry C. Nickens motion to authorize the creation of police traffic
unit, consisting of four traffic officers and associated equipment,
with the understanding that they would actually go into service at
beginning of fiscal year July 1st. Prior to that time, Police
Chief authorized to recruit necessary people and get them started
through the academy; plus a part-time clerk for monitoring so Board
can re-evaluate on a quarterly basis.
cc: File
Don Myers, Assistant Administrator
John C. Cease, Police Chief
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
A-12594-2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request for $132,600 for the Purchase of Two Knuckle
Boom Vehicles and associated radio equipment.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COI+MMS :
Recommend approval. This will work well if we adopt rules that limit requests for brush and bulk
pickup to twice monthly and if we keep special requests to a minimum. If we are still unable to recruit
part-time help, we may need to address that in the budget process.
BACKGROUND:
In analyzing the General Services budget and in conversations
with General Services personnel, several issues or factors come to
light. In every instance, these factors contribute to the budget
overrun and to continuing concerns regarding the operation of the
department. These issues are as follows:
1. The need to replace worn out refuse collection equipment.
2. A shortfall of the equivalent of 7 full-time people in
the Solid Waste Division.
3. A continuing question of how to deal with refuse
collectors who are no longer physically able to do their
job.
4. The difficulty of using part-time employees to overcome
the resource shortfall in view of the 32 hour per week
restriction. In the past, when a part-time position was
advertised, 20 or 30 or more applications were usually
received. Once a position was filled, turnover was not
an immediate problem. Today, that is no longer true.
When a position is advertised, we are fortunate to get 5
applications and when people are hired, they leave as
soon as they are able to locate a 40 -hour position. The
32 -hour limitation is a serious problem in the Solid
Waste Division.
5. The need to re-evaluate our method and schedule for
collection of bulk and brush.
�D,
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following proposal relates to the method in which we
collect bulk and brush, and it addresses each and every one of the
concerns identified above. Moreover, in doing so, it will
significantly reduce the budget shortfall in General Services. In
that regard, we are currently requesting an additional $400,000 tc
supplement the 1993-1994 budget and expect that, barring changes,
the same level of funding would be necessary in 1994-1995.
CURRENT METHOD AND COST OF COLLECTING BULK AND BRUSH
Bulk and brush is currently collected once per month using
rear -loader refuse trucks with a driver and two collectors on each
truck. We currently use two trucks with crews of three each for
bulk and brush collection. However, with the implementation of the
remaining automated routes in the Spring of 1994, it is our plan to
add two additional trucks for a total of four trucks and four crews
of three each. The details of this plan were presented to the
Board in August, 1993. Its cost is shown below:
Annual cost of crew (Including benefits at 260)
1 Motor Equipment Operator I ........... $ 23,570
2 Refuse Collectors 42,754
Annual amortization for vehicle (7 years) 14,000
Fuel................................... 4,500
Maintenance ............................ 18,000
Total annual cost per crew $102,824
Annual cost for four crews (12 personnel) $411,296
PROPOSED METHOD AND COST
It is proposed that bulk and brush be collected by the use of
two knuckle boom vehicles, each driven and operated by one Motor
Equipment Operator II. The City of Roanoke has implemented this
approach successfully. There are 38,000 collection points in the
City and the bulk and brush is collected twice monthly on a call-in
basis with two trucks and two people. The City previously
collected weekly on a regularly scheduled basis.
In our own case, there are 25,000 collection points and, as
stated before, we collect only once per month. Under this proposal
we would go to twice per month on a call-in basis. Whereas the
City's change could be perceived as a reduction in service (weekly
to twice monthly), ours should be perceived as an improvement in
service (once monthly to twice monthly).
-2-
Annual cost for this proposal is as follows:
Annual cost of crew (Including benefits at 26%)
1 Motor Equipment Operator II ......... $ 24,748
Annual amortization for 1 vehicle (7 years) 8,750
Fuel................................... 10,500
Maintenance............................ 18,000
Total annual cost per crew $ 61,998
Annual cost for two Driver/Operators 123,996
Annual Cost for Dispatcher 23,570
Total Annual Cost $147,566
One -Time -Cost for Radio Equipment $ 12,600
ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM THE PROPOSED METHODS
Annual Cost for Current Method $411,296
Annual Cost for Proposed Method 147,566
Annual Dollar Savings $263,730
HOW WILL THESE SAVINGS BE REALIZED?
As stated, there is currently a shortfall of 7 full-time
people in Solid Waste. This is being handled with overtime and
part time. We are also making heavy use of part time and overtime
in the custodial area. Estimates for 1993/1994 are as follows:
Part -Time Overtime Total
Refuse Collection $85,000 $100,000 $185,000
Custodial 137,000 25,000 162,500
Total $347,500
If we chose to be more conservative in our projection and add an
additional refuse collector to each knuckle boom, the cost of the
proposed method would be increased by $42,754 and the total savings
would be reduced to $220,976. This is still an excellent proposal
in that it has a less -than -one-year payoff and it solves the other
problems discussed earlier. There is some merit to considering the
use of an additional person on each vehicle in spite of the
additional cost. A two -person crew would be more efficient since
the additional person could pick up small pieces of material that
were missed by the boom operator. Secondly, it would reduce or
eliminate the risk that a person might sustain an injury in a
remote area with no one in attendance to help or to seek help.
Finally, areas where bulk and brush were collected would probably
be left more tidy with the additional person to help with clean up.
-3-
The proposal being made reduces the need for nine current
positions, since twelve are required under the current method and
only three under the one being proposed. As can be seen from the
analysis above, there is a clear potential for realizing the full
savings of $263,730 (or $220,976 if 2 -person crews are used)
through the reassignment of personnel and the reduction of part
time and overtime expense now estimated to be $347,500.
OTHER BENEFITS TO BE REALIZED
As shown above, there is a solid dollar savings in the
proposal. However, the other benefits to be derived are just as
important.
1. The immediate need for 7 personnel in Solid Waste is
eliminated. Two additional personnel are freed up to
help with resource problems in the custodial area.
2. The on-going problem of what to do with disabled refuse
collectors is solved because those positions are
essentially done away with.
3. The problem of trying to supplement the permanent work
force with part-time personnel in view of the 32 -hour
restriction is eliminated.
4. The fleet is upgraded since four worn rear -loaders are
replaced with new equipment.
5. Improved service for the collection of bulk and brush is
provided.
PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
In order for this collection method to work properly,
operating guidelines or rules will be necessary. These rules will
apply to the size of piles of brush, the number of items of bulk
and the schedule of pickups after a call is received. The rules
will be similar to those used in the City of Roanoke and we do not
anticipate that they would be any more restrictive. (See attached
copy of Roanoke City Rules)
WHY ORDER NOW?
Considering vendor lead time, it will be necessary to order
the vehicles quickly in order to realize the full benefit of this
proposal during FY 94/95. It is also our strong desire to
implement this proposal concurrent with the implementation of
automated pickup on the remaining manual routes. This will avoid
the need for those citizens to acclimate to two changes in service
delivery in a short period of time.
-4-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that $132,600 be appropriated
two Knuckle Boom vehicles and associated radio
further recommended that crews of two be used.
fully submitted,
rdner Smith
Director, General Services
for the purchase of
equipment. It is
Approve by,
E mer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix
Denied ( ) Motion to approve appropriatioHddy
Received ( ) of $132,600 from Gen. Fund Johnson
Referred ( ) Balance Kohinke
To ( ) Minnix
Nickens
cc: File
Gardner Smith, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Don Myers, Assistant Administrator
'2i
VOTE
No Yes Abs
X
X
X
x
x
ROANOKE CITY POLICY
BUT X BRUSH
AND
BULK ITEM COI J CTION
This is a summary of existing policies for bulk brush and bulk
item collection.
1. Bulk items and large amocints of brush (balk brush) must be
sclieduled by calling the Public Works dispatr..her at 981-2225.
These materials should be set out Only after scheduling and need
to be placed at the Arpet for collection. The bulk trucks do not
service alleys. ~
2. Please place bulk brush <lnd hulk items at the street away from
parked vehicles, rences, or overhead wireeVbranches no earlier
than 6:06 p.m. the clay before scheduled collectiun .
3. Residents will be assigned it collection elate on the same day as
refuse collection, although the date can range from two days to
two weeks from the tirric of their call.
4. Six (6) bulk items, are allowed to l)e set out at one time.
5. Large or small brush amounts must be cut into 4 foot lengths
with branch diarnetc:rs no larger than 3 inches. Small piles of
brush can be set, out with tlw trash.
Fi. Please separate hulk brush, bulk items, trash, and recyclables
when they are placed at the street for collection.
7. Evictions and largo strop tick -up will continue to be handled by
lZefufie C oll.e.r.t,ion.
t�
A-12594-3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER -->3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request for Supplemental Funding for the General
Services Department.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Recommend approval. In next year's budget, we will still need to address the expense of collecting
recyclable materials. We may also incur additional expenses this year related to the extreme weather
conditions.
BACKGROUND•
At its meeting on January 11, 1994, the Board of Supervisors
postponed a decision on this item. A proposal for reducing
expenditures in the General Services department is being presented
to the Board at this meeting as separate agenda item. However, the
benefits to be gained by that proposal will not be timely enough to
reduce the need for the $400K supplemental appropriation at this
time.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
A detailed analysis of the General Services budget has revealed the
need for additional funding for that operation for the 1993-94
fiscal year. The scope of the analysis included a review of the
operation for the last three fiscal years, a review of each line
item in the current year budget, and a discussion of changes that
have taken place or that will take place during the current year
that will impact the budget. Based on the analysis, it is our
belief that an additional $400,000 will be required to adequately
fund the operation.
This item was brought to the Board at its meeting on November 30,
1993. After discussion, a majority of the members preferred to
have a more detailed explanation of the shortfall before taking
action. Meetings for this purpose have now been held with all the
members who requested them.
As discussed in the meetings, the major items contributing to the
shortfall are: an increase in the estimate of tonnage disposed of
at the landfill, additional building maintenance and custodial cost
resulting from the retention of the former administration building
and the Senior Citizens Center and the retention of 5 refuse
collectors who are no longer able to perform their duties because
of physical limitations. A shortfall of approximately 7 positions
in the refuse collection area contributes to the high overtime and
part time expense. Moreover, the age of the refuse collection
fleet continues to result in high maintenance cost as well as
contributing to overtime expense related to breakdowns.
As discussed in our meetings, we are exploring possibilities for
reducing expenses in the operation. Some of the areas to be
reviewed are the assignment of personnel, route structure and
assignment for refuse collection, maintenance of vehicles, services
provided and overall service levels. One proposal for reducing
expenses in the collection of bulk and brush has been identified,
however, it will not have a significant effect on this year's
operations. Barring other significant changes, we feel that the
cost of operating the department this year will exceed the budget
by $400,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that $400,000 be appropriated to supplement the
General Services Operating Budget for the current year.
Respect ul y submitted, Approved by,
Don Myers Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Edward G. Kohinke, No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Sr.Motion to Approve Staff Eddy _X
Received ( ) Recommendation Johnson _x
Referred ( ) Kohinke ,x
To ( ) Minnix
Nickens _ x
cc: File
Don Myers, Assistant Administrator
Gardner Smith, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
DENIAL
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
A-12594-4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Claim by the City of Roanoke for Unapproved Charges
for Surplus Water
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
! recommend denial of the claim.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By letter dated January 11, 1994, the City Attorney submitted
a claim on behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of
$224,417.21 for unpaid charges from the purchase by the County of
bulk water from the City for fiscal year 1992-93 and the first
three months of fiscal year 1993-94 pursuant to the contract dated
August 13, 1979.
By copy of the same letter, a claim was also submitted on
behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of $213,876.72 for
unpaid charges for the purchase by the County of bulk water from
the City for fiscal year 1991-92 and the first three months of
fiscal year 1992-93 pursuant to the contract dated August 13, 1979.
By copy of the same letter, a claim was also submitted on
behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of $320,353.39 for
unpaid charges for the purchase by the County of bulk water from
the City for fiscal year 1990-91 and the first three months of
fiscal year 1991-92 pursuant to the contract dated August 13, 1979.
BACKGROUND:
Sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia
describe the procedure for submitting claims to boards of supervi-
sors. No legal action against the county upon any claim or demand
may be maintained unless and until such claim has been presented to
the board of supervisors.
A determination by the board disallowing a claim shall be
final and a perpetual bar to any action in any court on such claim,
unless the decision of the board is appealed to the circuit court
within 30 days from the date of decision.
The Board previously considered and denied the claim for FY
1990-91 charges on July 14, 1992. The City commenced litigation on
this denied claim on August 11, 1992, in the Circuit Court for the
City of Roanoke. Various legal and procedural maneuvers have
resulted in the City's finally filing this litigation in the
correct court, the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, on
January 19, 1993. The Board previously considered and denied the
claim for FY 1991-92 charges on March 9, 1993. The City has
amended its pending litigation to incorporate this claim. Numerous
attempts by the County to negotiate a settlement to these erroneous
claims have been rejected by the City.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This claim is for not only the fiscal year 1992-93 charges but
also for the fiscal year 1990-91 charges, and fiscal year 1991-92,
which are currently in litigation.
Upon the recommendation of Clifford D. Craig, Utility
Director, the County will continue to pay the City for bulk water
at the rate of $.73 per 100 cubic feet for the portion of the water
bill not in dispute. This rate reflects the last agreed rate for
bulk water before the City "adjusted" the charges for the disputed
capital expenditures. The City calculated a rate of $.88 per 100
cubic feet for FY 1992-93, and estimates a rate of $.98 per 100
cubic feet for FY 1993-94. The County's objections to this claim
are the same as the objections summarized in the July 14, 1992, and
March 9, 1993, Board Reports. These objections are as follows:
1) the inclusion of capital costs that are of a specific
benefit only to particular City neighborhoods, that neither serve
nor benefit the County, and that are not necessary to meet the
City's obligations under the contract or to meet water quality or
treatment standards;
2) the inclusion of capital costs to expand the City system
to serve new customers in the City;
3) the inclusion of capital costs for significant long term
expansions or upgrades of the City water system, (since the City
unilaterally defined "surplus water" and the City retains the
opportunity to cancel the contract);
4) the inclusion of capital costs for new services already
paid for by new users (charging the County for expenditures for
expansions or extensions previously paid by new users); and
5) charging the County for "capital outlay from revenue"
from current or prior years' retained earnings, since a portion of
these retained earnings were previously provided by the County
(City expends funds from retained earnings for "capital outlay from
revenue," then adds this expenditure to other costs to calculate
the actual bulk water rate: in effect charging the County twice).
In addition, the County has questioned the validity of the
1979 water contract:
1) the contract is unconstitutional in whole or in part on
the grounds that the County, by entering into the contract,
incurred debt in violation of its constitutional limitations; and
2) the contract constitutes an impermissible delegation of
the Board of Supervisors' legislative powers.
FISCAL IMPACTS•
If the Board allows the claim, the County would be required to
pay an additional $320,353.39 for FY 1990-91, $213,876.72 for FY
1991-92 and $224,417.21 for FY 1992-93 for a total of $758,647.32.
ALTERNATIVES•
1) Disallow the claim based upon the objections set forth
above.
2) Allow the claim and pay the additional, adjusted amount
billed by the City for FY 1991 and FY 1992.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board disallow the claim, and
thereby permit the City to pursue a judicial remedy.
Approved ( )
Denied M
Received ( )
Referred
to
cAwps 1\agmdaVihwater.ehn
Respectfully submitted,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Vote
No Yes Abs
Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x
Motion tn d ny claim Johnson x
Kohinke x
Nickens x
Minnix x
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utility
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council, Certified Copy
A-12594-5
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER _'�)' S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Report on Phase I of the Structural Investigation of
the Roanoke County Courthouse
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Recommend approval. In addition to the repairs made by this
action, we know of additional work that must be done in the court
room area due to pipes that froze and burst last week. We expect
that to cost as much as $75,000 or more and will bring that request
to you after the weather improves and we are able to assess the
damage.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is a copy of the Phase I report as prepared by
Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner, Inc. for their structural
investigation of the Roanoke County Courthouse. This study was
conducted as a result of the cracking noticed in various walls
inside the courthouse building and also the separation of some of
the internal partitions from the exterior walls. You will note in
the Executive Summary of the consultant's report (beginning on page
2) that it is the opinion of Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner
that the structure is safe at this time and that the structure can
continue to be occupied with no danger to public safety. Specific
concerns that do remain, however, include the condition of brick
soffits which need further review and possible correction as an
immediate maintenance item.
The "ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURE" section of the report
(beginning on page 10) denotes the preliminary findings of the
study. From a long-term perspective, the lack of control joints or
inadequate control joints may well be contributing to the cracking
we have experienced thus far and should be considered for possible
structural repair.
Other repair concerns include interior masonry walls which
have exposed cracks. While these cracks may not pose structural
problems, they do present cosmetic concerns. Efforts to paint,
patch or plaster these cracks are short-lived and then the cracks
reappear. As a permanent solution, we may wish to consider dry-
wall or panel covering of the key rooms so that these cracks will
become "out of sight, out of mind", particularly to staff and
visitors.
The consultant has reviewed many of the original documents
used for the construction of the facility and also sought the
services of an independent geo-technical engineering consultant to
assist in the Phase I study. The consultants have also discussed
the condition of this facility with County staff to share any
related information and experiences in the ongoing maintenance in
the facility.
A committee of County staff including George Simpson, Ken
Hardesty, Bonnie Preas and I met to review this report with the
consultant and recommend the following corrective measures for this
facility.
1. Immediately authorize the test of the brick soffits and
repair/remove questionable bricks and/or the surface in
these areas. It has been estimated that this project
costs $8,000.00 for the rental of equipment and
corrective actions.
2. To meet with the manufacturing company for the window
wall to determine what corrective actions should be taken
to relieve the thermal expansion problems currently
experienced along this window wall. This type of repair
should be included in the upcoming budget for the
Department of General Services.
3. Consider placing a cover material (dry wall, paneling,
etc.) over the cracks in the interior cinderblock walls,
particularly in high visibility public areas, such as
courtrooms. While these walls are not structurally
unstable, they do present a cosmetic concern and are much
more difficult to systematically maintain. Estimated
costs for these repairs is $8,000.00 which could be
included in the 1994-95 budget.
4. To continue to monitor the cracks previously identified
to determine if further thermal expansion causes
additional cracking or shifting and to consider
appropriate maintenance after the next warm season. This
would also provide time for the adjustments, if any, to
be made to the window wall before removing or repairing
the internal partitions which are attached to exterior
walls. As a further maintenance item, it has been
suggested to consider latex caulking with a paint -over
for the concrete block walls, particularly in stairwells
to cover exposed cracks in those areas.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff requests that $14,000 be appropriated from the
Courthouse Capital Reserve, ($6,000 to cover the cost of the study
recently completed and $8,000 to correct the brick soffit problems
at the Courthouse Complex including the front of the jail). Monies
for the corrections to the window wall and modifications to the
wall coverings in the courtroom and other public areas should be
considered in the 1994-95 fiscal year budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the brick soffits be immediately
corrected ($8,000), that the study be paid for ($6,000) and that
further consideration be given to correcting any expansion problems
in the window wall and wall coverings. Staff does not feel that a
Phase II study by the consultant is needed at this time.
Respectfully submitted, App r ed b ,
/Assistant
M. Chambliss-*,- Jr. Elmer C. Ho e
Assistant County Administrator County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved Motion by: Harry C. Nickens No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) to approve staff Eddy x
Received ( ) recommendation Johnson x
Referred ( ) Kohinke x
To Minnix x
Nickens x
Attachment
cc: George Simpson
Ken Hardesty
Bonnie Preas
File
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
M
AN ofttna �5
a
2
2
18 88
u1cm TAN�'�
A
STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION
OF
ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
FOR
The County of Roanoke
November 18, 1993
SFCS Commission No. 93326.00
Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner Inc.
305 South Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-2000
1333 Laskin Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451-6005
Architecture
Engineering
Planning
SFCS
Interiors
Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner Inc.
305 South Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-2000
1333 Laskin Road
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451-6005
November 18, 1993
STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION OF
ROANOKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
The County of Roanoke
Commission No. 93326.00
INTRODUCTION
SFCS was commissioned by the County of Roanoke to perform a Structural Investigation of
the existing County Courthouse building on Main Street in Salem, Virginia. The purpose of
this investigation is to provide a written report outlining causes of apparent structural distress
and cracking and to outline recommendations, including cost estimates for the correction of
these problems. This investigation will be performed in two phases.
Phase 1, for which this report is written, includes:
• Site visits
• Identify types and location of structural distress and cracking
• Installation of crack monitors
Review of the original Contract Documents for the structure
• Structural calculations of several typical structural elements
• Schedule for monitoring the cracks and for completion of Phase 2 of the
investigation
• Written report of our findings
Phase 2 (separate report to follow) will include:
• Results of the crack monitoring
• Narrative describing the cause of cracking
Structural Investigation
�\ Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
r Page 2
Recommended repair program
Cost estimates for repairs
By separating this investigation into two phases, it is possible to provide the County with an
immediate assessment as to the safety of the structure, while implementing an appropriate long-
term monitoring and assessment program to clearly define the cause and magnitude of the
problems. This report represents the conclusion of Phase 1.
This report is based on a limited review of the original Contract Drawings for the courthouse,
provided to us by Roanoke County, and our observations at the site. No existing finishes or
other destructive testing were performed for the purpose of this report. SFCS performed very
limited structural calculations on several typical structural members. An exhaustive structural
analysis of all members and components was not performed, and was beyond the scope of this
investigation.
Any conclusions drawn or actions taken as a result of this repbrt should be qualified by the
limitations of the investigation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our observations during Phase 1 of this structural investigation, it is apparent that
widespread cracking of interior gypsum partitions and concrete masonry partitions
has occurred at the facility. Minor cracking of the exterior brick veneer is also apparent, as is
settlement of the first floor slab at several locations.
+' We did not observe significant settlement of the main structural elements such as columns and
column footings, nor did we observe any failure of any structural element. There is no evidence
that any component of the supported floor structural systems or the roof structure is in danger
of failure, or that any component is not adequately designed for the intended use of the
structure. However, the condition of brick soffits does present an immediate concern, and
we recommend that a thorough, close - up review of brick soffits be performed as soon as
possible. This can be done as an early part of phase 2 of this investigation.
In an attempt to determine the cause of the widespread cracking and first floor slab settlement,
we have initiated a monitoring program to determine if structural movement continues and the
rate of any such movement. Phase 2 of this investigation will summarize these findings, and
will recommend solutions for repairs and corrective measures to prevent future distress.
dIt is our opinion that the structure is safe at this time, and that the structure can continue to be
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
r Page 3
occupied with no danger to public safety. During the course of the monitoring program, should
we observe rapid settlement or other conditions which might endanger the building occupants,
we will notify you immediately.
Cracking was observed at many locations, including:
• Masonry walls separating courtrooms on the second floor
• Masonry walls at the mechanical penthouse on the roof, interior and exterior
• Drywall partitions along the South wall, parallelling Main Street. Specifically,
where drywall partitions intersect the exterior wall. Drywall partitions run
perpendicular the exterior wall. Similar cracking was observed on the North
wall, but to a much lesser extent
• Drywall bulkheads along the South wall and North wall
• Masonry walls at stair towers
• Brick veneer at corners of the structure
• Brick at soffits
Observed cracking has several potential causes, and we believe that the cracking and structural
movements observed have different causes, depending on the type of distress and the location
of the distress. No single phenomenon can explain all of the observed distress. Through our
investigative process, we will isolate causes for each type and location of the cracking, and
outline the options available for necessary repairs. In some cases, repairs may not be required
unless the County is interested in performing repairs for cosmetic or aesthetic reasons.
In summary, the building is safe, although it does exhibit structural distress at several
locations. We are most concerned about the condition of brick soffits and recommend
that an early part of Phase 2 of this investigation be a detailed inspection of brick soffits
(see "Phase 2 of the Investigation" section of this report).
EXISTING CONDITIONS/SITE OBSERVATIONS
Existing Construction:
The existing Courthouse is a two story structure with brick veneer exterior walls. The brick
veneer walls are backed up by light gauge metal stud framing with gypsum sheathing, and a
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 4
gypsum board finish on the interior. Interior partitions are predominately gypsum board
construction on metal studs, with concrete masonry unit partitions occurring at high traffic
locations such as corridors, public spaces, courtrooms, and mechanical service spaces. Interior
partitions are non-loadbearing, and therefore are not part of the structural system.
The existing structure is conventional structural steel construction consisting of structural steel
columns, steel girders and beams, and composite metal floor deck with concrete fill. The roof
is also conventional steel construction with metal roof deck. The first floor is slab on grade
construction on original grade and slab on grade construction on compacted fill. The Southern
and Eastern portion of the first floor slab was placed on one to five feet of compacted fill,
while the Northern and Western portion was placed on existing soils. Footings are
conventional spread footings resting on existing natural foils or on improved natural soils,
based on our review of the original documents and on - site testing reports.
Along the north, south and west exterior walls of the structure, a continuous glazing system
interrupts the brick veneer with the brick veneer above the glazing supported from the floor
and roof structure by structural steel hangers and shelf angles. At the first floor level along the
South wall, an earth berm extends approximately three feet above the first floor level. The berm
is placed against a masonry foundation wall with sheet waterproofing applied to the exterior of
the wall.
Lateral loads (wind and seismic loads) are apparently resisted by masonry walls at stair towers
and elevator shafts. No specific information regarding the lateral load resisting elements of the
structure was obtained from the original contact documents or from our field observations.
Site Observations of Exterior:
The exterior envelope of the building is generally in good condition with few signs of distress or
cracking. Cracking of the existing brick veneer was observed at several locations, however,
they did not appear to be directly related to cracking observed on the interior of the building.
Cracks in the brick veneer were observed at the following locations:
• Southwest corners of the structure adjacent to the exit at Storage Room A165
and outside Conference Room 155.
• Continuous hairline crack two brick courses below the glazing on the South and
West walls.
• Brick soffit on the North face directly above the Northwest corner of the
womens toilet (room 10 1)
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 5
• Brick soffits on the North side of the passage to the jail
• Northwest face of the main mechanical penthouse
• Brick soffit above Room 119 (northeast corner of the building)
• At the upper corners of the window at Room 119
• Above brick soffit at Stair 123 (northeast corner of the building)
• Brick soffit above the main entrance
Windows and glazing systems appeared to be in good condition with no signs of stress and no
visible cracks. It was reported to us by Mr. Phillip Boblett of Roanoke County that several
sections of glazing on the South Wall were replaced during the Summer of 1993 after they
cracked; however, the actual cause of the cracking was not determined. There is evidence that
the glazing has leaked at numerous locations. However, it is not known at this time if leaks still
persist. Mr. Boblett indicated that the glazing system was re -flashed since the original
installation.
No evidence of significant settlement of the exterior walls was evident from the exterior of the
building. Cracks in the brick veneer appear to be related to expansion and contraction of the
brick; refer to the "Assessment of the Structure" section of this report for a more detailed
discussion of the possible causes of the cracks in the exterior wall system.
Site Observations of Interior - First Floor:
Cracking of gypsum board finishes was widespread along the south wall of the building,
especially where partitions dividing individual offices along this wall abut the exterior wall.
Cracks were observed in each office along the south wall, ranging in width from hairline
cracks to 1/4 inch wide. Typically, these cracks are wider at the window sill height than at the
floor line or at the ceiling. This cracking is most pronounced in the offices in the east sector of
the building, room numbers 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 209, 226, 227 and 228. It is
apparent that the exterior wall, at the window will height, has moved outward, pulling the
window system away from interior partitions. Only limited and isolated cracking of the interior
partitions was observed away from the exterior wall. Similar cracking and movement was
observed on the north wall, but cracking is much less severe.
At the stair tower adjacent to office number 137, cracking was observed behind the stair
Structural Investigation
-5
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 6
entrance door. This cracking was significant, with cracks ranging in width from hairline to over
1/4 inch in width. These same cracks appear on the drywall rywall finish on this same wall at the
secretarial space immediately north of the stair tower. Settlement of the floor slab is evident
adjacent to the column in the secretarial space, evidenced by a depression in the floor finish.
Floor slab settlement appears to be isolated to this area, and does not appear to threaten the
safety of the structure.
Along the southwest wall, in the Judge's chambers area, several minor drywall cracks were
noted adjacent to the exterior wall. Observed cracking was generally minor and appears where
interior gypsum board partitions meet the exterior wall. Cracks were observed adjacent to the
window sill and at gypsum board bulkheads above the exterior window system. No evidence
of significant floor slab settlement or foundation settlement was observed. At Storage Room
165, located between the offices along the South wall and the Judges's chambers, cracking was
observed in masonry walls at the exterior of the structure, but cracking is minor.
Other areas of the first floor appeared to be free of significant structural distress and free of
evidence of foundation settlement.
0 Site Observations of Interior - Second Floor:
Dividing walls between individual courtrooms on the second floor exhibit cracking of the
masonry walls, with the cracks reflecting through the plaster finish. Masonry partitions are
supported on the second floor steel framing system, and do not rest directly on the foundation
system. Cracking is minor; however, previous attempts to repair the cracks in the plaster have
not succeeded.
Along corridors, continuous hairline cracks were observed approximately two feet above the
floor level. These cracks are less than 1/8 -inch wide, and appear to be non-moving cracks.
Along corridors, masonry partition walls are supported from the structural steel framing system,
and are not supported directly on the foundation system.
Along the south wall, cracking of drywall partitions, bulkheads and exterior wall finishes,
similar to cracking notes on the first floor was observed. This cracking was most severe in and
adjacent to the Clerks Office (Room No. 209).
No other significant structural distress was observed on the second floor, nor was any other
distress reported by Roanoke County personnel.
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 7
Site Observations of Interior - Stair Towers:
Stair Towers 7, 6 and 4 have cracking of masonry walls. The most visible crack occurs in Stair
Number 6, at the southeast corner of the facility. This crack appears to be related to foundation
Msettlement and will be closely monitored. Other cracks in stair tower walls appear to be non-
moving cracks associated with movements of the structure (deflection and thermal).
Site Observations of Exterior of Roof:
The roof membrane is a loose laid and ballasted EPDM (rubber) roof terminated at the edges at
parapet walls capped with a continuous metal coping. Mr. Boblett indicated that several roof
leaks have been persistent, but that all leaks are now apparently repaired. The roof membrane
and parapet was did not show signs of structural distress and appeared to be in good
condition.
The walls of the penthouse do not extend to the foundation, rather, they rest on structural steel
supports at the main roof level. One crack was observed in the brick veneer on the northeast
side of the main mechanical penthouse. Expansion of the walls during hot summer months is
the apparent cause of this cracking.
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS REVIEW
SFCS obtained file copies of the original contract documents for the Courthouse as prepared by
VVKR, Inc. dated September 28,1982, from the Roanoke County Engineering Department.
Some documentation of field modifications, change orders, addenda, specifications, and on site
testing of soils was available. SFCS was also able to obtain documentation related to the
original Geotechnical Investigation performed by Law Engineering of Greensboro, N.C. This
report documents the Geotechnical Evaluation performed at the site prior to any development
of the site, and outlines recommended foundation design parameters for the proposed
courthouse.
We were also able to obtain written reports documenting the testing and inspection of the
footing subgrades, compacted fill and earthwork operations during construction. These reports
were prepared by Schnabel Engineering Company of Richmond, Virginia on behalf of the
County of Roanoke. During construction, Schnabel was hired as an independent testing and
inspection agency by the County to observe and inspect the earthwork and foundation
installation. Schnabel also made recommendations for the improvement of unsuitable soils
discovered during the construction of the facility. The reports of the on-site observations were
made available to SFCS by Schnabel Engineering.
Structural Investigation -_D S
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 8
For the purpose of this structural investigation, the following drawings from the original
Contract Documents prepared by VVKR, Inc. of Roanoke, Virginia, dated 28 Sept 1982, were
reviewed:
S1- Typical Details and Structural Notes
S2- Column Schedule
S3- Tunnel Foundation Plans
S4- Level 1 Foundation Plan West
S5- Level 1 Foundation Plan East
S6- Level 2 Framing Plan West
S7- Level 2 Framing Plan East
S8- Level 3 Main Roof & Penthouse Floor Framing Plan West
S9- Level 3 Main Roof & Penthouse Floor Framing Plan East
S 10 -Level 4 Penthouse Roof Plans & Sections
S 11 -Sections
S 12 -Sections
SU -Sections
S 14 -Sections
C2- Grading and Drainage
C3- Demolition and Erosion Control
Al- Architectural Site Plan
A5- Floor Plan - Level One West
A6- Floor Plan - Level One East
A7- Floor Plan - Level Two West
A8- Floor Plan - Level Two East
A9- Roof and Penthouse Plan
A17- Wall Sections
Alb- Wall Sections
A19- Wall Sections
A20- Wall Sections
A21- Wall Sections
The review of the documents listed above was to assist us in understanding the existing
construction and to retrace the development of the site, particularly the earthwork and
foundations, to determine the type of construction and foundations and to determine possible
causes of the distress.
A review of the original Contract Drawings for the structure revealed that the structure is of
conventional steel construction founded on conventional spread footings. Spread footings were
specified to rest on existing, undisturbed soils, with an allowable bearing capacity of 3000
pounds per square foot. The first floor is slab -on -grade construction, with the slab founded on
naturally occurring soils to the North and to the West of the site, with the slab on the South and
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 9
�-5
East portion of the site resting on new compacted fill soils. The original site was predominately
paved for parking. No unusual site conditions prior to development are apparent from the
documents. An existing creek runs North and South on the Eastern portion of the site, but
does not pass under the structure. The creek is contained in a box culvert as it passes under the
parking lot to the east of the Courthouse. It has been reported to us that the City of Salem
maintains the creek structure although it passes through the Courthouse property.
Our review of the on-site Geotechnical testing and inspection reports revealed that .
improvement to existing soils under many of the spread footings for the structure was required
due to the discovery of soft soils and unsuitable fill soils. The Geotechnical reports document
the improvements to most footings; however, not all footings were inspected by the on-site
Geotechnical Engineers. Footings which were not inspected were apparently placed on existing
soils with no improvements.
Testing of new compacted fill soils was also documented by the Geotechnical Engineer;
however, it appears from the documentation that not all new fill was tested for proper
compaction. Fill soils that were tested appeared to meet the requirements set forth by the
Geotechnical Engineer on site.
SFCS performed structural calculations on one typical bay of structural framing along the South
wall to determine if the member sizes and footing sizes are adequate to support the imposed
loadings. Based on our calculations, the structure appears to have been designed to meet
building codes in effect at the time of construction, and the footings sized for the specified
allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. This conclusion is based on a very limited review
of the structure. An exhaustive structural analysis of all components would be necessary to
verify that the entire structure was designed in accordance with applicable building codes, but
this exhaustive analysis is beyond the scope of this investigation.
CRACK MONITORING PROGRAM
In order to assist in the determination of the cause of observed cracking and distress, and as a
part of this phase of our investigation, we have instituted a program to monitor several cracks
to determine if they are dormant, or if they continue to move. This is important to understand
the nature of the problem, and to implement a repair program in the future. It was determined
that the cracking along the south wall, parallel to Main Street, was the most severe and
l widespread. Therefore, crack monitors were placed in four locations along this wall:
• Office No. 138, Window Sill
• Office No. 138, Partition Wall
• Office No. 139, Window Sill
• Office No. 139, Partition Wall
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 10
-:>-5
A wide crack was observed in the stair tower adjacent to Office Number 137. A crack monitor
was placed at approximately 12 feet above the first floor, in the northwest corner of the stair
tower.
Roanoke County personnel placed crack monitors at the following locations on Sept. 9, 1993,
soon after the cracking along the south wall was first observed by County employees:
Office No. 138
Office No. 141
These monitors have been left in place to assist in the monitoring program.
We recommend that the crack monitors be left in place for the next 8 to 10 weeks, and at the
end of this time, the monitors be observed. Monitors should also be observed on intermediate
dates to confirm that conditions are not changing which might endanger building occupants.
Based on this observation, we believe we will be able to document the probable causes of
distress and to recommend a repair program, which will be incorporated into Phase 2 of this
investigation.
ASSESSMEN T OF THE STRUCTURE
Based on our observations at the site and on our review the original Contract Drawings for this
structure, it is our opinion that the structure is safe and that the structure is generally in good
condition. Cracking observed at several locations cannot be attributed to one factor. Some of
the cracking observed on the exterior of the structure is most likely caused by thermal
movements of the brick veneer and an inadequate amount of movement or control joints in the
brick, especially at corners of the structure. Cracking at the stair towers may be attributable to
foundation settlement and to thermal movements. Cracking of the south wall along the window
sill is most likely caused by thermal expansion of the continuous window system. The window
system is over 80 feet in length, with solid restraint on each end by direct attachment to the
brick exterior wall. As the temperature of the window system increases, the system expands.
Since the system has little to no provision for expansion, the thermal stresses may have been
relieved by the system moving outward. This outward movement is very obvious in Office Nos.
137, 138, and 139.
Cracking of interior, non-loadbearing masonry walls at corridors, mechanical spaces,
courtrooms, etc. is most likely caused by a lack of control joints or slight movements or
deflection of the supporting structure. These cracks are not endangering the safety of the
structure, but are an aesthetic concern.
Structural Investigation
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
Page 11
Cracking observed at the brick soffits poses the most immediate safety concern. We have been
made aware, by County personnel, that on at least one occasion, soffit bricks have fallen off.
This is a serious concern, and the only immediate safety concern. We recommend that further
investigation of the brick soffits be undertaken immediately to determine if any of the bricks are
loose or in danger of falling. See the "Phase 2 of the Investigation" section of this report for
further recommendation for review of the brick soffits.
None of the observed cracks appear to pose an immediate danger to public safety. Through the
instituted crack monitoring program, we will be able to better understand the cause of the
distress, and develop appropriate solutions for each area. This will be accomplished during
Phase 2 of this investigation.
PHASE 2 OF THE INVESTIGATION
Phase 2 of this investigation, which should begin immediately following Phase 1, will include:
• Monitoring of cracks and movements
• Narratives describing the probable cause of each type of crack
• Recommended repair program with prioritization of necessary repairs
• Cost estimates for repairs
We recommend that cracks be monitored for a period of not less than 8 to 10 weeks.
Intermediate monitoring should occur every three to four weeks to confirm that conditions are
not changing such that building occupants would be in danger.
In order to recommend an appropriate and cost effective repair program, it is necessary to
understand the root cause of distress. In addition to crack monitoring during Phase 2, we may
deem it necessary to perform some observations behind existing finishes or brick veneer. If
necessary, we will have to remove small sections of finishes and/or brick veneer, and we may
require the help and services of a Contractor or qualified County personnel to assist us in
gaining access, to provide necessary tools and to replace finishes once our investigation is
complete.
Structural Investigation S
Commission No. 93326.00
November 18, 1993
i Page 12
The proposed repair program can taken one of two forms. We can outline types of repairs
required and locations, with no detailed documents for use by a qualified Contractor, or, we can
produce a detailed set of contract documents suitable for bidding or negotiating with qualified
Contractors. Further discussion of the repair program will take place during Phase 2 of this
investigation.
Cost estimates will be prepared after the extent and type of repairs are clearly defined.
Of immediate concern is the safety of the brick soffits. We recommend that the brick soffits
be closely inspected as an immediate part of Phase 2 of this investigation. For the purpose of
this inspection, scaffolding or a lift will be required or access to the soffits. Each section of
brick soffit should be visually inspected and should be "sounded" with a small hammer to
determine the condition of the brick and the condition of the adhesive holding the brick to the
supporting structural steel.
As a precaution, we also recommend that the box culvert for the creek to the east of the
13 structure be inspected for signs of leaking during Phase 2 of this investigation. Excessive
leaking of water or leaking of soils into the culvert may cause settlement or softening of the
dexisting soils and may cause building settlements.
-J...,5
ATTACHMENTS
• SITE PLAN
• GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION
v
c
c
W
W
N
w
Fd
f/'J
. < SCHNABEL
E N G I N E E R I N G
A S S O C I A T E S
2601 SOUTH MAIN STREET • SUITE 303 • BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24060-6627
PHONE 703-953-1239 • FAX 703-953-3863
JAMES J SCHNABEL. P E. STEVEN E. CONNER, P.E
RAY E. MARTIN, Ph D., P.E.
December 21, 1993
Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford and Shaffner, Inc.
305 South Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Attn: Tye Campbell, P.E.
Subject: Contract 933584, Geotechnical Engineering Consultation,
Roanoke County Courthouse, Main Street, Salem, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Steve Conner, P.E. of Schnabel Engineering Associates met Tye Campbell, P.E. of SFCS
at the Roanoke County Courthouse on December 6, 1993 to observe evidence of building
distress. The building which was constructed in 1983 and 1984'is founded on shallow spread
footings and has a slab on grade. We understand that cracks in masonry walls, broken
windows and displaced window frames were first noticed by the occupants in September,
1993. Most of the distress is evident along the south wall and southeast corner of the
building, and is noticeable only from the interior of the building.
The majority of the cracks in the masonry block walls, and the displacement of windows
along the south wall, do not appear to be related to differential foundation or floor slab
settlement, or lateral earth pressure induced wall movement. It may be possible that this
building distress is due to factors such as thermal expansion and contraction, and inadequate
expansion joints.
D-5
The only area of building distress that appears to be possibly related to differential
foundation settlement is the cracking of the masonry block walls in the stair tower at the
southeast corner of the building. The stairstepped cracks observed are typical indicators of
differential settlement. However, the cracks appear only on the inside, and not on the
outside of the building. This corner of the building is adjacent to a stream that is channeled
through an underground pipe. Without performing a subsurface exploration, we cannot
assess the possible causes of settlement, or whether settlement is indeed a contributing
factor. Possible settlement mechanisms that could be responsible include compression of
foundation soils, and loss of soil into the adjacent underground pipe through joints and/or
cracks. It is also possible that the cracking is related to an insufficient number of expansion
joints in the structure. RECEIVED BY-
GEOTECHNICAL
ROOM
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
BETHESDA, MD • BALTIMORE, MD • LANDOVER, MD • WEST CHESTER, PA
RICHMOND, VA • HAMPTON, VA • BLACKSBURG, VA
Pnnred on wyc/ed Amey
We have prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the
professional advice included in this report.
We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning
this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven E. Conner, P.E.
Associate
Ray E. Martin, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal
SEC:REM:mkf
Contract 933584 / December 21, 1993 -2- Schnabel Engineering Associates
0
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 251 1994
ORDINANCE 12594-6 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE
NECESSARY EASEMENTS AND PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT
THE SOUTH TRANSMISSION LINE AND THE STARKEY
ROAD WATER PROJECT
WHEREAS, location plans for the South Transmission Line
Project and the Starkey Road Water Line Project have been completed
and the projects will require acquisition of easements across
certain properties; and,
WHEREAS, said easements are to be acquired to facilitate any
future construction of the water line project; and,
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs
that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance;
the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 11, 1994,
and the second reading was held on January 25, 1994.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the acquisition and acceptance of the necessary
easements for the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey
Road Water Project are hereby authorized across the following
properties, referenced by Tax Map Number, from the following
property owners, their successors or assigns:
Tax Map No. Property Owner Acquisition
65.00-02-34
Bohon, Judith & Shirley M.
Easement
66.04-04-06
FFE Development Corp.
Easement
66.04-04-07
FFE Development Corp.
Easement
73.00-02-34
Michael Greene
Easement
73.00-02-35
Michael Greene
Easement
74.00-01-02
George W., Jr. & Carol Drewry
Easement
74.00-02-11
Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman
Easement
74.00-02-12
Steven M. & Sandra B. Huffman
Easement
74.00-02-13
Steven M. Huffman
Easement
74.00-02-14
Steven
M. Huffman
Easement
74.00-02-15
Steven
M. Huffman
Easement
77.00-01-46
Brown,
William E. & Darlene K.
Easement
2. That the consideration for each easement acquisition
shall not exceed a value equal to 40% of the current tax assessment
for the property to be acquired plus the cost of actual damages, if
any; and
3. That the consideration for each easement shall be paid
from the South Transmission Line Project and the Starkey Road Water
Line Project funds; and,
4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to
accomplish this acquisition, all of which shall be on form approved
by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
AJ'4� - Q, 1, �)&I�
Brenda J. H ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utilities
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
AT A'REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1994
RESOLUTION 12594-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM R - 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 25, 1994, designated as Item K - Consent
Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item
separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7,
inclusive, as follows:
1. Request to Appropriate $2,600 for
Environmental Assessment Work at Pinkard Court
Leisure Arts Center.
2. Confirmation of Board of Supervisors Committee
Assignments for 1994.
3. Request to Appropriate $10,000 to the School
Grant Fund as a Supplemental Grant to the Tech
Prep Program.
4. Request to Appropriate $12,500 to the School
Grant Fund for the "High Schools That Work"
Project.
5. Request to Appropriate $750 to the School
Grant Fund for "Understanding United
States/Arab Relations" Project.
6. Approval of Raffle Permit from Bent Mountain
Woman's Club.
7. Request to Appropriate Monies for Computer
System and Installation for the Department of
Social Services.
8. Donation of Right -of -Way to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County in Connection
with Extension of Spring Grove Drive.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and
directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items
the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this
resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent
Resolution with Item 8 removed, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt Item 8 on the
Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson
A COPY TESTE:
1&2,V4�Q 1�1d�
Brenda J. Holton,' Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services
A -12594-7.a
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER /4, — 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1993
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation for Environmental Work
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The environmental work has been performed at the Pinkard Court
Building in preparation of the donation of this building to TAP. We have received an invoice for
$2,600 related to this work. These funds need to be appropriated from the Capital Fund unappropriated
balance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $2,600 from the Capital Fund
unappropriated balance to pay for the environmental assessment work at Pinkard Court Leisure Arts
Center.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane D. Hyatt �—
Director of Finance
Appro d by,
7z�
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved Motion by: H. odell Minnix No Yes Abs
Denied (j to approve Eddy _ x _
Received () Johnson _ x _
Referred () Kohinke _ x _
To () Minnix _ x _
Nickens x
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
A -12594-7.b
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Board of Supervisors Committee
Assignments
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At the January 11, 1994 meeting, the Board of Supervisors made the
following committee assignments:
Virginia Association of Counties Liaison
Chairman Lee Eddy will serve as the County's liaison.
Economic Development Partnership
Chairman Eddy automatically serves on this organization as the
chairman.
Clean Valley Committee
Supervisor Minnix will fill the unexpired two-year term. This term
will expire June 30, 1995.
Additionally, the Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee was
omitted from the 1993 list. Supervisors Nickens and Kohinke were
appointed to serve on the Negotiating Committee on October 12,
1994.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the attached list of 1994 Committee
Assignments for the Board of Supervisors be confirmed
Submitted by:
Mary H. Allen
Clerk to the Board
Approved by
�k
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
ACTION
Motion by: H_ n(iPil Minnix
to Ap rnvP
K-�
VOTE
No
Yes Abs
Eddy
x
Johnson
x
Kohinke
x
Minnix
x
Nickens
x
cc: File
Committee Book
Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee File
r
K-d,I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
1994
LEE B. EDDY
-- Fifth Planning District Commission (3 -year term expires
6/30/96)
-- Recycling Advisory Committee
-- Virginia Association of Counties Liaison (As Chairman)
-- Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (As Chairman)
EDWARD G. ROHINRE
-- Audit Committee
-- Fifth Planning District Commission (3 -year term expires
6/30/95)
-- Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee
BOB L. JOHNSON
-- Audit Committee
-- Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (4 -year term expires
2/10/94)
-- Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2 -year term
expires 5/5/94. BLJ appointed Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes as his
designee.)
H. ODELL MINNI%
-- Clean Valley Council (2 -year term expires 6/30/95)
-- Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (4 -year term expires
2/10/95)
HARRY C. NICRENS
-- Cablevision Committee
-- Court Community Corrections Policy Board (3 -year term expires
12/31/94)
-- Social Services Advisory Board (4 -year term expires 8/1/94)
-- Salem Cablevision Negotiating Committee
0
A -12594-7.c
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER"
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation to the School Grant Fund
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: A $10,000 supplemental grant has been awarded to the
Roanoke area Tech Prep Consortium for which the Roanoke County
School System is the fiscal agent. This grant will be used to
place teachers from the seven school divisions comprising the
consortium in a business for three to five days to gain some real-
world experiences in their instructional area. The grant money
will be used to pay for substitute teachers.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the
$10,000 to the School Grant Fund.
Garland J. i d, Director
Vocational & Adult Education
1/� A
Elmer C. Hodg
County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( x) Motion by: H. Odell Eddy x
Denied ( ) Minnix motion to approve Johnson x
Received ( ) Kohinke x
Referred ( ) Minnix x
To Nickens x
cc:
cc: File
Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
k ./
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY
MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON JANUARY 13, 1994 IN THE
BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING A $10,000 APPROPRIATION
TO THE SCHOOL GRANT FUND AS A SUPPLEMENTAL
GRANT TO THE TECH PREP PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, a $10,000 supplemental grant has been awarded
for use with the Education in the Work Force phase of the Tech Prep
program whereby substitutes are engaged to allow teachers to go
into the business community;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County School Board of
Roanoke County on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and duly seconded,
requests the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to appropriate
$10,000 to the School Grant Fund for the Tech Prep Program.
Adopted on the following recorded vote:
AYES: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Charlsie
S. Pafford, Maurice L. Mitchell, Frank E.
Thomas
NAYS: None
:7L
Clerk
A -12594-7.d
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER 1\
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request for an Appropriation to the School Grant
Fund
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
William Byrd High School in cooperation with Arnold R. Burton
Technology Center applied for a grant to integrate academic and
vocational education through a school site-based team approach.
Begun under a Roanoke Area Tech Prep Consortium initiative, school
based teams at both sites will work together along with parents,
business/industry representatives, postsecondary institutions,
William Byrd Middle School, and the Tech Prep Consortium to
restructure course offerings and delivery strategies to create
"High Schools that Work" at both sites. Restructuring of general
education offerings, joint planning time, cooperative learning, the
addition of Principles of Technology at William Byrd High School,
staff development, interdepartmental teaming, educators in the
workforce, quality learning, student involvement, integrated
learning, building partnerships, and program awareness are some
examples of initiatives expected to deliver positive student
outcomes from this project.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
For the period January 1, 1994 - June 30, 1994, Roanoke County
Schools has received from the Virginia Department of Education a
$12,500 grant for the High Schools That Work Project. The grant
project is for a five-year period, and a grant award will be issued
each year.
FISCAL IMPACT: 50% match required. Funds are available in the
school operating budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends an appropriation of $12,500
to the School Grant Fund for the period January 1, 1994 - June 30,
1994.
4"J""o
Garland J.dd, Director Elmer C. Hodge
Vocational Adult Education County Administrator
-2-
K -i
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( x) 'Motion by: H. Odell Minnix Eddy x
Denied ( ) motion to approve Johnson
Received ( ) Kohinke x_
Referred ( ) Minnix x_
To Nickens
cc:
cc: File
Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
K-1
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY
MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON JANUARY 13, 1994 IN THE
BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION OF
$12,500 TO THE SCHOOL GRANT FUND FOR THE HIGH
SCHOOLS THAT VORK PROJECT.
WHEREAS, a $12,500 grant, known as High Schools That
Work, has been received from the Virginia Department of Education
for William Byrd High School and Arnold R. Burton Technology Center
to integrate academic and vocational education through a school
site-based team approach;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County School Board of Roanoke
County on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and duly seconded, requests
an appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in
the amount of $12,500 to the School Grant Fund for the High Schools
That Work project.
Adopted on the following recorded vote:
AYES: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Charlsie
S. Pafford, Maurice L. Mitchell, Frank E.
Thomas
NAYS: None
TES L Clerk
A -12594-7.e
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER K-5
MEETING
DATE:
January
25,
1994
AGENDA
ITEM:
Request
for
Appropriation to the School Grant Fund
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County School Board has received a grant in
the amount of $750.00 from the Virginia Foundation for the
Humanities and Public Policy for the project "Understanding United
States - Arab Relations." The purpose of the grant is to support
the teacher training workshop on April 13, 1994 entitled Changing
Times and Attitudes Toward the Middle East: Teaching the Arab World
in Secondary Schools. The accessibility of Roanoke County teachers
to the workshop will enhance the international studies program.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. Revenue received in addition to funds
budgeted in the school operating budget will offset expenditures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the
$750.00 to the School Grant Fund.
4
David M. Wyme Elmer C. Hodge
Supervisor of ocial Studies County Administrator
--------------- ---------------
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( x) Motion by:H odPll Minnix Eddy X_
Denied ( ) motion to ani rnvP Johnson X_
Received ( ) Kohinke �_
( ) Minnix X
Referred _
Nickens X
To
cc:
cc: File
Dr. Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
K-5
FROM THE MINUTES OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY
MEETING IN REGULAR SESSION AT 7 P.M. ON JANUARY 13, 1994 IN THE
BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA.
REQUEST FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF
$750.00 TO THE SCHOOL GRANT FUND FOR
UNDERSTANDING UNITED STATES/ARAB
RELATIONS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County has
been granted $750.00 by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities
and Public Policy for the project "Understanding United States -
Arab Relations," and
WHEREAS, the grant money will be used to support the
teacher training workshop on April 13, 1994 entitled Changing Times
and Attitudes Toward the Middle East: Teaching the Arab World in
Secondary Schools;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County School Board of Roanoke
County on motion of Barbara B. Chewning and duly seconded, requests
an appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in
the amount of $750 to the School Grant Fund.
Adopted on the following recorded vote:
AYES: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Charlsie
S. Pafford, Maurice L. Mitchell, Frank E.
Thomas
NAYS: None
TEST
___. Clerk
A-12594-71
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request for Approval of a Raffle Permit from the
Bent Mountain Woman's Club
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Bent Mountain Woman's Club has requested a permit to hold a
raffle in Roanoke County on April 12, 1994. This application has
been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue and he recommends
that it be approved. The application is on file in the Clerk's
Office.
The organization has paid the $25.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit from the
Bent Mountain Woman's Club be approved.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
Mary ff. Allen Elmer C. Hodge
Clerk to the Board County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: H_ nr3P11 Minnix No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) nti nn to ap rnlra Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred ( ) Kohinke x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Bingo/Raffle File
RAFFLE PERMIT APPLICATION K_�
Application is hereby made for a raffle game permit. This
application is made subject to all County and State laws, rules,
ordinances, and regulations now in force, or that may be enacted
hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the undersigned
applicant and officers of the organization and which shall be
deemed a condition under which this permit is issued.
Raffle games are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. sea. of
the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section 4-86 et.
sea. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize the County
Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to
granting a raffle permit. The Board has sixty days from the filing
of an application to grant or deny the permit. The Board may deny,
suspend, or revoke the permit of any organization found not to be
in strict compliance with county and state law.
Name of Organization ' ��� ��Yi O� 1 , t/1 W10 MG h S C
Mailing Address Ge-ni NWO ug -,Al
City, state, Zip Code ()e.n� 1 A n(� rA � -q,, LA ',4 0
When was the organization founded? - l 3 I14 9
Purpose and Type of Organization I� r()mo c_ 0-tu tc
C`.j 14ucu_; e"u cJus 1 c, 2_)crc_.«1
Has the organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two
continuous years? YES ✓ NO
Is the organization non-profit? YES ✓ NO
Is the organ'tion exempt under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code? YES V NO
Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption Letter. (If applicable)
Does your organization understand that any organization found in
violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or Section 18.2-
340.10 et. sea. of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is
subject to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder,
agent, member or employee of such organization who violates the
above referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony?
Does your organization understand that it must maintain and file
complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to Raffle
games and that such records are subject to audit by the
Commissioner of the Revenue? �r S
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
CONMMSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
1
Does your organization understand that it is a violation of law to
enter into a contract with any person or firm, association,
organization (other than another qualified organization pursuant to
S 18.2-340.13 of the Code of Virginia), partnership, or corporation /n
of any classification whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing,
managing, or conducting Raffles ? "-Is
DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED, VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES:
Article Description Fair Market Value
erti�� h�C>o
�;�CeKst
DATE OF RAFFLE A � c- � , � � � kc n 1+
If this application is for an ANNUAL RAFFLE PERMIT, list below all
dates raffles will,be•held.
Specific location where rRaffle dr(�awing is to be
be conducted?
0ak ` lre @ �\BSC-L, ,( 0 c V k i n
NOTE: This permit shall be valid only for the above location.
Any organization holding a permit to conduct bingo games or raffles
shall use twelve and one-half percent (12.5%) of its gross receipts
from all bingo games or raffles for those lawful religious,
charitable, community or educational purposes for which the
organization is specifically chartered or organized. (County Code
S4-101) State specifically how the proceeds from Raffle(s) will be
used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds.
Use estimated amounts if necessary.
Scn c)\ car- S� �r C'_ �"
h C,3\ Sent CJ_
cc)' o c)
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COMNIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
2
Officers of the Organization:
President:
_�
OCr_Y)
a Phone:- 3L - '-1 G iL
Address: Ry(,'�
l_U I
1l2 ki LZ11e �� ��� ��`�fn U 0 la`46Sci
Vice President: C,er\Cr k A a -Phone: �J�� - y 1 C_�
Address: P _, ( n X � _� I , e yv1i z� fi. A�2�y
secretary : L 5-t �� r l , Phone: 9 aq - 4 1;
Treasurer : (- [at V) e V' .')cpi JA Phone: Tqq - gin(\
Address:(j� a� C_, -
Member
c"
Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle operations:
Name: C- r4 WC_l K e r
Home Address al -k, LA a 4O S5
Phone (,9� -q ]LI. Bus Phone
Member responsible for filing financial report required by the code
if your organization ceases to exist:
Name: C � n e �c �. c
Home Address l f�4 c, (Zc-! I�e �1� nn -, A
Phone ciaq - `{ If p0 Bus Phone
Does your organization understand that it will be required to
furnish a complete list of its membership upon the request of the
Commissioner of the Revenue? `IP.S
Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit fee in
the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke? v ---
IF ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION.
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
3
NOTARIZATION
THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL APPLICANTS:
I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set
forth in 518.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above
statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
beliefs. All questions have been answered. I further swear that
I have read and understand the attached copies of Sec. 18.2-340.1
et. seq. of the Code of Virginia and section 4-86 et. seq. of the
Roanoke County Code.
Signed by:
('-b(t v f MCO- n
-4$�L Vhe'0'A--%
Title
waa.+ Peo,, wi, R;A 6co,0 w4ii vo a�U) �93
Home
ess
Subscribed and sworn before me, this /3-r.q day of TAiv 19 94 in the
County/e+ty of FI -AD , Virginia.
n My commission expires: J) i y 3/ 1995
M6tAry Publ'
NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED
The above application, having been found in due form, is approved
and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of
this calendar year.
Date ommiss oner of t Revenue
The above application is not approved.
Date Commissioner of the Revenue
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA P.O. BOX 20409
COMIVIISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ROANOKE, VA 24018
4
A -12594-7.g
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER "— I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Appropriate Monies for Computer System
and Installation for the Department of Social
Services
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS •
I
BACKGROUND:
The County of Roanoke's Department of Social Services will be
participating in the ADAPT program which automates many of the data
functions of the Social Services programs. The cost of wiring and
installing the proposed computer equipment is $20,832 which will be
reimbursed 100% by the state.
The State has also recommended that the computer used for the
Food Stamp Employment and Training Program (FSET) needs to be
upgraded at a cost of $4,000 which is also 100% reimbursable.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the
upgrade to proceed for the FSET program and also allow the
installation of the ADAPT system since it requires no additional
County monies.
FISCAL IMPACT•
None. The ADAPT cost of $20,832 and the FSET amount of $4,000
is 100% reimbursable from the State.
ALTERNATIVES•
No. 1 - Authorize staff to proceed with the installation of
the ADAPT system and upgrade the computer of the FSET program.
No. 2 - Do not participate in the upgrade program. In the
case of the ADAPT program, we may have to bear the total cost if
the installation occurs at a different time.
K-7
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends alternative No. 1 to appropriate the above
mentioned amounts of $20,832 and $4,000 which are 100% reimbursable
by the state and authorize the work to be performed.
Respectfully submitted, Approv d by,
ohn M. Chamblisfg, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
ACTION
Motion by: H. Odell Minnix
Tqotion to _ .. -
VOTE
No
Yes Abs
Eddy
x
Johnson
x
Kohinke
x
Minnix
x
Nickens
x
cc: File
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator
Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
ACTION NO. A -12594-7.h
ITEM NO. -f
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of right-of-way to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection with
extension of Spring Grove Drive.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following parcel of land in connection with extension of Spring
Grove Drive for development of Hills of Spring Grove Subdivision in
the Vinton Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke.
a) Donation from C & S Development Corp., a Virginia
corporation, of the fee simple interest in a parcel of
land within the future street extension being shown on
the plat made by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C.,
Certified.Land Surveyors, dated May 7, 1981, of record in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 191, as a cross-
hatched area between Parcel "C" and Parcel "D", a partial
copy of which is attached hereto.
County staff has inspected the location and dimensions of
the property and has approved the same.
FISCAL IMPACT•
No county funding is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the donation of right-of-way
for extension of Spring Grove Drive.
Res e tfully submitted,
Vickie L. Hu ma
Assistant County Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Abstain
Approved ( x) Motion by Harr r- Nl C kPnc Eddy x
Denied ( ) Johnson x
Received ( ) Kohinke x
Referred Nickens x
to Minnix x
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Action No. 12594-7.h for donation of right-of-way to the Board of Super-
visors of Roanoke County in connection with extension of Spring Grove
Drive, adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a
unanimous recorded vote with one abstaining on Tuesday, January 25,
1994.
Brenda J. 1461ton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
~`�t tia ri
;/y )tel •/�! y :; �� �^
rt a
w?
�i
j`
C�2
olz
:z .4
Ll -i
s
4
`
ili
r
q •
�
„ 4 �/�
I
O
I u
s
V
a
•
4
I
2
i
Z
e _ V
w
Noom
�S
C`?
\
. it
Y
/
� V Y
I`
1
�
w?
�i
j`
C�2
olz
:z .4
Ll -i
s
4
GYJ
C�2
olz
:z .4
Ll -i
z =�5
` - yW
ili
x9u> •�e,�d
vie ¢y �
w
mA2Y �t
O
I u
gZ, x _ Q`a
0
CL
o
2
i
i p
:,3V
e _ V
w
Noom
�S
a
. it
•-�
--
1
L\t 2 V
V
-
o t?
aa
off::
Ye
K It
olz
:z .4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1994
RESOLUTION 12594-8 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to
an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions
of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia
requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in
conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to
the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified
in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification
Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Brenda J. Ho on, Deputy Clerk
cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Executive Session