HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/13/1996 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1996
RESOLUTION 081396-1 IN SUPPORT OF THE FIFTH PLANNING
DISTRICT COMMISSION'S ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL
STEERING COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING
A REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1996
REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT.
WHEREAS,
Chapter
26.3 of the Title
15.1 of
the
Code
of
Virginia (the
Regional
Competitiveness Act
of 1996)
calls
for
the
creation of regional partnerships; and
WHEREAS, the regional partnerships created by the Regional
Competitiveness Act are to be based on planning district
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, each regional partnership is to develop a regional
strategic economic development plan that identifies the critical
issues of economic competitiveness for its region; and
WHEREAS, each regional partnership shall issue an annual
report describing the region's progress with respect to median
family income and job creation and its progress in addressing the
critical issues of economic competitiveness identified in the
regional strategic economic development plan; and
WHEREAS, each regional partnership shall identify existing and
proposed joint activities between and among the governments of the
region; and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission is an
association of the Cities of Clifton Forge, Covington, Roanoke and
Salem; the Counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke; and
the Town of Vinton; and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has encouraged
local governments to work together for their mutual benefit and the
benefit of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District has carried out a variety
of programs to improve the economic competitiveness of the region
including the preparation of overall economic development plans;
and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission monitors and
reports on major trends and conditions within the region and
maintains a familiarity with existing and proposed joint activities
within the region; and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has expressed
a willingness to coordinate the creation of a regional partnership
in the District, and has allocated staff time for coordination and
administration; and
WHEREAS, the regional partnerships created by the Regional
Competitiveness Act are to be approved by the local governing
bodies of the region.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors expresses its support of the Fifth Planning District
Commission in establishing a regional steering committee to define
the process of developing a regional partnership for the District
and to identify and address key areas of interest to the various
localities.
On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the resolution,
amended by Supervisor Nickens to appoint Supervisor Lee Eddy and
County Administrator Elmer Hodge to the Steering Committee, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
cc: File
Lee Osborne, Chairman, Fifth Planning District Commission
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District
Commission
081396-2
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER E—
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Dixon Contracting, Inc. appeal of denial of request
to withdraw bid for Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main
Street Sub-Main/Glenvar East Sanitary Sewer Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' COMMENTS:
This issue is larger than it may appear at first reading. We value the business relationships with
contractors who do work for us and would never knowingly cause any of them harm. I have reviewed
this in great detail with the staff to be sure that our bid documents were complete and would not cause
any misunderstanding on the part of Dixon Contracting. Based on my review, I believe that Dixon,
during the bid opening, realized that he had substantially underbid his nearest competitor. From a
financial position, Dixon prefers to lose the $16,130 bid bond penalty rather than the difference between
his bid and the next lowest bid.
If 1 were convinced a mistake had been made, I would suggest that we adjust for the mistake. 1 do not
believe that to be the case. To simply allow Dixon to withdraw opens the expectation for every bidder
to be allowed to do the same if they find they make less money than expected.
Recommend denial of Dixon Contracting's request to withdraw
BACKGROUND:
On July 17, 1996, Roanoke County opened bids for sewer line
construction of the Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub -Main,
Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project. This sewer
line project involves 8-10 property owners as well as the County
Utility Department. Dixon Contracting, Inc. of Fincastle,
Virginia, a responsible bidder, submitted the apparent low
responsive bid for this project (Bid No. CP95-71) in the amount of
$326,202.00. This bid was lower than the next lowest bid submitted
by Marshall Construction of Danville, Virginia by $107,852.25. On
July 18, 1996, Dixon Contracting, Inc. delivered a letter to
Procurement Services claiming a mistake in their bid for this
project. Their original work papers were submitted with this
letter. Section 11-54 of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 17-59 of
the Roanoke County Code permit withdrawal of a bid only for a
clerical error which must be either an unintentional arithmetic
error or an unintentional omission of a quantity of work, labor or
material. The law requires that such error or omission "be clearly
shown by objective evidence drawn from inspection of original work
papers, . . ."
------------
Approved (.)
Denied (X)
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph B. Obenshain
Senior Assistant County Attorney
------------------------------------------------------
Motion by: Supervisor Harrison No Yes Abs
to deny a-ppeal to withdraw Eddy — _x
bid Harrison — X _
Johnson — X —
Minnix _ _x
Nickens _ X
CC: File
Elaine Carver, Procurement
Joe Obenshain, County Attorney
Gary Robertson, Utility Department
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION•
In its letter of July 18, 1996, Dixon Contracting, Inc. claims
omission of seven items from its bid calculations. Mr. Wayne Dixon
met with County staff representatives on July 18th and 30th to
review his firm's work papers and to analyze the basis for his
claim of mistake in preparing this bid. It is the conclusion of
County staff that the claim by this bidder does not comply with the
standards for withdrawal of a bid for several reasons. First, the
original work papers do not substantiate that this was merely a
clerical error as opposed to a mistake in judgment in evaluating
and including necessary components in the preparation of the bid.
Second, the items claimed to have been omitted do not "clearly"
appear not to be included in the itemized segments of the bidder's
work sheets. Some of these claimed omitted items, such as paving
and rock excavation costs, are itemized on the formal bid sheet
itself. Finally, even accepting Dixon's claim of unintentional
omission of the seven items listed only accounts for approximately
$22,000 or about one-fifth of the total discrepancy between their
bid and the next low bidder. County staff involved in this
evaluation unanimously feels that the bidder has not carried his
burden of establishing that the mistake in his bid was a clerical
error based upon an unintentional omission of work, labor or
materials. Therefore, permitting a bidder to withdraw his bid
under these circumstances would significantly impair the County's
ability to require strict compliance with competitive bidding
procedures in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT•
Granting permission to Dixon Contracting, Inc. to withdraw its
bid due to clerical error would deprive the County of the bid bond
penalty amount of $16,130.10 (5% of $326,202.00).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Permit Dixon Contracting, Inc. to withdraw its bid on
Project No. CP95-71 on the basis of a clerical error due
to an unintentional omission of a quantity of work, labor
or material.
2. Deny the request of Dixon Contracting, Inc. to withdraw
its bid on Project No. CP95-71 and authorize County staff
to proceed with action to forfeit Dixon's bid bond in the
amount of 5 percent of the bid amount in the event that
this bidder refuses to execute the Contract or furnish
the required bond within ten (10) days.
Staff recommends Alternative # 2.
DIXON CONTRACTING, INC.
General Contractor . Specializing in utility and beat y construction
P. O. BOX 108 . FINCASTLE, VA. 24090
August 6, 1996
Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Re: Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub -Main
Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project
Bid No. CP 95-71
Dear Ms. Allen:
Phone: (703) 473-3170
Fax: (703) 473-2390
We wish to appeal the attached decision by the Roanoke County Department of Procurement
Services.
Please allow some time for this matter on the agenda for your August 13, 1996, meeting.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
gayne A. ix , P.E.
resident
WAD/src
Enclosure
cc: Don Karnes, Roanoke County
Robert C. Fronk, P.E., Roanoke County
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ELAINE CARVER
DIRECTOR
DONALD R. KARNES
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
FILE CDP:
Tauutij of 'Evaurike
PROCUREMENT SERVICES
Mr. Wayne A. Dixon, P.E.
Dixon Contracting, Inc.
P. O. Box 108
Fincastle, VA 24090
July 31, 1996
REF: Fort Lewis Sub-Main/West Main Street Sub -Main
Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project
Bid No. CP95-71
Dear Mr. Dixon:
KAY S. JOHNSTON, CPPB
BUYER
EVE F. WIRT
BUYER
The Roanoke County Utility Department received bids on July 17, 1996, for the subject sanitary
sewer project. Dixon Contracting, Inc. submitted the apparent low bid in the amount of
$326,202.00, which was $107,852.25 less than the next lowest bid submitted by Marshall
Construction of Danville, VA.
Roanoke County has received a letter dated July 18, 1996, from Dixon Contracting, Inc.
requesting that its bid be withdrawn under the applicable provisions of Code of Virginia, § 11-54
and Roanoke County Code §17-59. Enclosed with the letter were original work papers utilized
in preparation of the Dixon Contracting, Inc. bid. Your letter claims a mistake in the bid due to
omissions in the bid calculations. Specific omissions cited include the following:
1. Special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project.
2. Special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required.
3. Additional labor and mark-up associated with Items 1 and 2 above.
4.. Additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project.
5. Survey construction stake -out.
6. Paving subcontractor cost.
7. Rock excavation material costs.
Roanoke County staff representatives from Procurement Services, Utility Department and County
Attorney's office met with you on July 18th, and the Utility Department staff again on July 30th
to review your work papers and to discuss your bid preparation methodology relative to your
mistake in the bidding claim.
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (540) 772-2061 • FAX: (540) 772-2074
9 Recycled Paper
e
County staff appreciates your candor and openness during our discussions. However, it is felt
that insufficient justification exists to allow withdrawal of your bid. Consequently, it is the
intention of Roanoke County to award the contract for bid No. CP95-71 to Dixon Contracting,
Inc. in the amount of $326,202.00.
Upon receipt of the written "Notice of Award" from the Roanoke County Procurement Office,
it is required that the contract be executed and the required bonds be furnished to the County of
Roanoke within ten days. As stipulated in the "Instructions to Bidders", should you, as the
successful bidder, fail or refuse to execute the Contract or furnish the required bonds within the
stipulated time (ten days), the Bid Security shall be forfeited to the County of Roanoke as
liquidated damages.
Should you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact me at 772-2063.
Sincerely,
Don Karnes
Assistant Director of Procurement Services
drk
cc: E.Carver, Procurement
B. Fronk, Utility
B. Benninger, Utility
P. Mahoney, County Attorney
ROANOKE COUNTY
BID FORM
PROJECT: Fort Lewis Sub -Main, West Main Street Sub -Main, Glenvar
East Reconstruction Sanitary Sewer Project
Bid No. CP95-71
In Compliance with your Invitation to Bid dated June 23, 1996, inviting bids to be received until July 17, 1996, the undersigned
hereby proposes to furnish the plant, labor, materials, and equipment and perform all work for the above described project in strict
accordance with the Contract Documents, including all addenda thereto, and the Drawings, in consideration of the prices set forth
in the Schedule of Prices, and agrees, upon receipt of written notice of an award of the Contract that he will execute the Contract
in the form stipulated, in accordance with this bid as accepted, and will furnish to the OWNER a performance bond and a payment
bond with good and sufficient surety or sureties, as required by the Contract Documents, at the time the Contract is executed.
SCHEDULE OF PRICES
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
APPROXIMATE
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
I.
12 -Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line*
3,530 L.F.
30.00
105,900.00
2.
10 -Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line*
10 L.F.
28.00
280.00
3.
8 -Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line*
1,263 L.F.
26.00
32 838.00
4.
8 -Inch PVC Sanitary Sewer Line
Replacement*
2,257 L.F.
32.00
72 224.00
5.
7.25 -Inch HDPE Sewer Slipline*
346 L.F.
30.00
10 380.00
6.
6 -Inch PVC Service Lateral with Cleanout *
14 EA.
650.00
9,100.00
7.
24 -Inch Diameter Sampling Structure
4 EA.
700.00
2,800.00
S.
4 -Foot Diameter Manhole *
266.5 V.F.
150.00
39 975.00
9.
Watertight Manhole Frame & Cover
29 EA.
290.00
8,410.00
10.
Type 2 Manhole Vent
8 EA.
450.00
3,600.00
11.
24 -Inch Steel Casing - Bore & Jack
71 L.F.
125.00
8,875.00
12.
16 -Inch Steel Casing - Bore & Jack
80 L.F.
105.00
8,400.00
13.
Stream Crossings
1 EA.
1,500.00
1,500.00
14.
Pavement Replacement
680 S.Y.
19.00
12,920.00
15.
Rock Excavation
200 C.Y.
2 5.00
5,000.00
16.
Select Backfill Material
500 C.Y.
* Unit prices for sanitary sewer line and manhole installation shall include required costs for testing and
temporary by-pass pumping between manholes.
BID FORM
BF - 1
BASE BID PRICE S 326,202.00
BASE BID IN WRITTEN FORM: THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
TWO AND N0/100 ------------------------------------------------------DOLLARS
1. The Bidder agrees that all unit prices include installation complete.
2. The Bidder further agrees that if awarded the Contract, Bidder will commence the work within ten (10)
calendar days after receipt of written Notice to Proceed, and that Bidder will complete the work within
a total contract completion time of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days. Bidder agrees that contract
time shall commence on the date of receipt of the Notice to Proceed stipulated in the Contract
Documents.
3. The Bidder fully understands that if this bid is accepted, the failure or refusal to execute the Contract
with and furnish to the County of Roanoke the required Bonds, within ten (10) consecutive calendar
days from the receipt of written notice from the Office of the Department of Procurement Services, the
Bid Security shall be forfeited to the County of Roanoke as liquidated damages.
4. The undersigned agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to pay as liquidated damages the sum of One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00) per day to the County of Roanoke for each consecutive calendar day in excess of the
stated time required for substantial completion of the work.
ADDENDA: Receipt of the following addenda to the Contract Documents are hereby acknowledged:
Addendum No. One (1) Dated 7-15-96
Addendum No. Dated
Addendum No. Dated
Registered Virginia Contractor's Number 17883
A
Fi N ONT CT NG, INC.
B Wa ne i n Title President
Business Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 108
City Fincastl a State VA Zip Code 24090
Business Street Address:
Route 220 North
City Fincastle State VA Zip Code 24090
Telephone No. (540) 473=3170
FAX No. (540) 473-2390
&ID FORM
BF -2
Phone: (703) 473-3170
Fax: (703) 473-7394
DIXON CONTRACTING. INC.
General Contractor . Speciali_ing in wility and beat y consh•�=ionj ;:. s -
P. O. BOX 108 . FINCASTLE. VA. 24090
July 18, 1996
Ms. Elaine Carver, Director of Procurement Services
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive, S.W.
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Re: Fort Lewis Sub -Main, West Main Street Sub -Main, Glenvar East Reconstruction Sanitary
Sewer Project Bid No. CP95-71 - Bid Dated 7-12-96
Dear Ms. Carver:
Based on the Code of Virginia Mistake in Bid Law, we are claiming a mistake in the above
referenced bid. Due to omissions in our bid calculations, several items of major expense were not
included.
The items omitted are as follows:
1. The special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer replacement portion of the project.
2. The special boring equipment required to complete the two horizontal bores required.
3. The additional labor and mark-up associated with 1. and 2. above.
4. The additional labor and mark-up associated with the sliplining portion of the project.
5. The survey construction stake -out.
6. The paving subcontractor cost.
7. Rock excavation material costs.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Cont. Page Two - Ms. Carver
Due to the above documented omissions in our bid, we are requesting that we be released from
our responsibility associated with the project and that our Bid Bond be returned. We apologize
for any inconvenience this may cause the County, but it is obvious from the bid results, that we
made a gross mistake.
Our original work papers are enclosed as required. If you have any questions, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Wa e . ix E.
President
WAD/src
Enclosures
The following evaluation were made in response to Dixon
Contracting July 18, 1996 letter outlining the omitted items.
This evaluation was performed by reviewing the project bid -form
and work papers submitted by Dixon Contracting. The items are
addressed in the order presented in that letter.
1. "The special by-pass pumping equipment for the sewer
replacement portion of the project."
The bid -form included line items for installation of the new 8"
sanitary sewer pipe(#3) and replacement of the 8" sanitary sewer
pipe(#4). These items were separated in order to allow an
appropriate increase to account for the by-pass pumping equipment
cost since all other aspects of the installation of the two items
are similar. Dixon's bid -form had a $6.00 per linear foot
increase($15,618.00 for 2,603 l.f. of items 4 & 5)between items 4
and 3 which would be attributable to the by-pass pumping cost.
The next lowest bidder (Marshall Construction) actually had an
increase between items 3 and 4 which could be contributed to
owning the by-pass pumping equipment,increased quantity between
items 4 and 3, or other factors.
2. "The special boring equipment required to complete the two
horizontal bores required."
The submitted bid -form from Dixon included line item unit prices
of $125.00 per linear foot for the 24" bore and jack(item #11)
and $105.00 per linear foot for the 16" bore and jack(item #12).
Although these unit prices are lower than that of the next
bidder, both are within the range of industry standards for these
items.
3. "The additional labor and mark-up associated with 1. and 2.
above.',
The increase for labor and mark-up seems to have been addressed
in the unit prices for these items.
4. "The additional labor and mark-up associated with the
sliplining portion of the project 1l
The submitted bid -form from Dixon included a line item total
price of $10,380.00 ($30.00/l.f.) for the slipling work. Again
the total price is lower than that of the next bidder, but within
the range of industry standards.
There is a subcontractor quote in the supplied work papers from
Dixon of $6,700.00 for materials and installation of the slipling
work. There appears to be a sufficient increase between the
subcontactor's quote and the line item total price to cover by-
pass pumping and markup.
5. "The survey construction stake -out."
Since stake -out is not a separate bid item, it is hard to
identify this item in the bid -form. Normally stake -out is
included in the pipe items at a cost of about $0.50 per linear
foot of pipe. For the total amount of pipe involved in this
project this cost would come out to $3,703.00.
6. "The paving subcontractor cost."
The submitted bid -form from Dixon included a line item unit
price of $19.00 per square yard for the pavement replacement.
This unit price is lower than that of the next bidder and only
slightly low compared to the industry standards. However, the
total price difference between Dixon and the next lowest bidder
for this item is only $4,080.00.
7. "Rock excavation material costs 11
The submitted line item unit price from Dixon was $25.00 per
cubic yard for rock excavation. This unit price is lower than
that of the next bidder, but close to the industry average for
the quantity of rock excavation of this project.
Comments:
The above omissions claimed by Dixon are not as significant as
claimed nor substantiated by the submitted documents or bid -form.
The total price difference between Dixon and the next lowest
bidder by comparison of the bid -forms for the items claimed is
$21,922.50. This price difference between bidders is not
unreasonable for a project of this size.
Competitive bidding practices vary between contractors depending
on the need or desire to perform the project. variations between
the line item unit prices are common and expected. These
variations would account for the contractor owning instead of
renting equipment, having materials on hand, location of the
project so that crew housing and meals are minimized, efficiency
of the crew, and numerous other factors.
-j W
UOO
O
N
N
O
OV
O
O
O U
O0
O
a40�
F J
00O
V
O00
0XO000OOti
Q
F F- ti
G
trek
,,ww
_)
LLJ00
N
�
CL o�
Q4
�o
90
OO0
hO0
00O
aO0
W IL'
0O0
H
� dNMNtt70f
rT(p000N�MONO
Wa Q Z
J 0)
V Z U Z
O J
OONrOet
0 �
NW��
aWZZ
f-~
000000
Nt()000
z
O W L- LL
tjm0a
O
U
T
r
W
V
'�Zf'Wootnoln00000000000
Z V
Ott1f�ON00000000000
W �Q'NM�t00a�OtAtritljOti
OOtDtf�ef
LLarrT
e-
IONMM
1t)et0
to
r•
LL
Q
T
T
J W
H Q U
0
O
0
O
t 17
N
O
O
p
4!
0
O
0
O
0
to
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W'
001,-ON001-00cm00000
z0
ZOO Q.Nr
O
et
(O
st
Op
N
n.
N
00
M
C)
etN0"00000
(O
et
00
0)
tD
0
0
0
0
O
J
O
LO
rOd
t17C)rr
MdMOONNe-
M
rr
r
cMI�Op(pi
r
J
a
�Z V�L?tiONOOOOOOOOOOO
aD it
aq1t
04
Vet
0•-OOO
VV
901-
Lr)
04000
ON
0000cV
It0C14
T
0)C)
T
M
(O
O
e-
M
"1 WO
U
Z
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O I
l--
FOwOOOOVaaO
8
00MN0000t+r0N
A000000001
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O I
UF-
0)dN
00N90-000)
V
(D
00�.LQ0
pON
001
CD
01
Mr—
-T,
0M0000rNA�O
4
r
1
(
Z
O
t
L) ~ W
zZU0000000000000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z) of
0
00
0
N
0
0
0
O
C
O
to
N
O
M
LO
00
K p
MNNM
Cl)
NOtAC)W)NOO
(OI-
TNqqtre-
tf)
V,N
T
s
F
I
Z
5_JJJJJ
ti
Li
ti
ti
U:
QQ
W
Q
W>
LL
Q
W
Q
U:
JJW
ti
Q
>:
cAC>U
>:
>-
}}00(nr-
etd
r
tn00pe-pT000
ON
NCO
0000
F-M—(004M
�M
rN
N
tCNtt7
Z
d
J
J
F-
VZF-=
g
Z
W
C7
CV
Q
2
J
W
Zg
U
W�
6Z"O
J
J
vO
Z
Q
N
W9Ou1
cnln
WwZWl:*dq
WF
Olz
QYU
00
r.)(om29NL&&&�
W
00<2
W
W
W
m
F-
20-a.>>:
»UU=Uq
>(np
1L}aWNm.
Wo
_W
r
Q
C4
NQ
V-_m
~�LL1a�WwC000ti(04�
LLJ
vYC>
O
N
LLJ
Y
N
y
W
W
0
(7
Z
II • .
Gy
Y�
O
a40�
F J
V
WMA
a II
_N
� J
Q
F F- ti
G
trek
,,ww
_)
LLJ00
N
�
CL o�
Q4
�o
tp
WMA
>-O-69
m LL
I—
D
= O LLJU
W IL'
F-Wz�
�V=) a
H
(L
LL 1A
ON
Wa Q Z
J 0)
V Z U Z
O J
0 �
NW��
W
V
Z
W
W
W
LL
a
II • .
Gy
a
LL
O
a40�
WMA
a II
c
LQ
Q
F F- ti
G
trek
Z W � o
CL LU
Q
a
II
H O
CL o�
Q4
�o
(NUl
aXWM
U
WMA
>-O-69
m LL
I—
D
= O LLJU
0 u
F-Wz�
�V=) a
Yo
(L
Wa Q Z
U x
ZLL:
V Z U Z
O J
U(0
NW��
aWZZ
f-~
y(u:(i
z
O W L- LL
tjm0a
O
U
z 7
. 0-0�
081396-3
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: August 13, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of funds to VML/VACO for Assessment
for American Electric Power Negotiations.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
d6lle-e�-1-1i are;_Az�
BACKGROUND:
The VML/VACO Appalachian Power Company, now known as American
Electric Power (AEP) Steering Committee, was established to
negotiate reduced electric service charges with.AEP for the local
governments. Roanoke County's current contract with AEP was
approved in 1994 and expired June 30, 1996. Previously, each
locality negotiated individual contracts with AEP, but several
years ago VML/VACO agreed to negotiate the contract with AEP on
behalf of all participating localities. AEP has now proposed a new
three-year contract with rates frozen at their present level
(exclusive of the fuel adjustment clause).
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Due to the costs of a Utility Consultant, legal fees, and other
expenses associated with and acquired by the negotiations, each
local government is asked to contribute its share of the cost.
Each locality's share is determined by its proportionate use of
electricity (exclusive of street lights). The 1996 assessment made
by the VML/VACO Steering Committee totals $125,000. The amount
that has been assessed for the County of Roanoke is $9,735. The
amount is due by August 30, 1996.
Negotiations will be monitored by the Utility Director, the
Director of General Services, and the County Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT: The $9,735 assessment can be appropriated from the
Board Contingency Fund.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the payment of the negotiating fee from the Board
Contingency Fund.
2. Negotiate separately with AEP. The County would have to employ
a consultant which would also require an expenditure of funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends making the necessary appropriation of $9,735 from
the Board Contingency Fund and forwarding it to the VML/VACO
Steering Committee.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
Amber Buckowsky Elmer C. Hodge
Roanoke County Intern County Administrator
------------
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
-----------------------------------------------------
Motion by: Supervisor
Minnix
No
Yes Abs
to approve $9,735
expenditure
Eddy _
X _
with County
Administrator
Harrison _
X _
funding from
current budget
Johnson _
Minnix _
_X _
X _
Nickens
CC: File
Diane Hyatt, Finance Department
Gary Robertson, Utility Director
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
F I
TO: County Administrators and City/Town Managers
in AEP Service Territory
FROM: Kit B. Kiser, Director of Public Utilities, O K
City of Roanoke, Chairman of VML/VACO APCO �`
Steering Committee
DATE: June 27, 1996
RE: VML/VACO APCo Negotiations Assessments
As you know, your locality's contract with Appalachian Power
Company (now known as American Electric Power (AEP)) expires June
30, 1996. We finally received AEP's proposal for the new
contract period. AEP proposes a three year contract with rates
frozen at their present level (exclusive of the fuel adjustment
clause) for this three-year period. We believe, however, that a
rate reduction is appropriate. AEP also proposes that we
consider an optional demand billing rate which would be available
to individual accounts, subject to certain limitations. We
believe this should be explored also.
An organizational meeting of the VML/VACO APCo Steering
Committee was held on June 4, 1996 in Roanoke. The Steering
Committee voted to pursue negotiations with AEP and to seek funds
from each locality to cover the expenses of a utility consultant,
legal fees and other expenses associated with negotiations. Each
local government is asked to contribute its proportionate share
of $125,000.based on the proportionate electricity usage for its
locality (exclusive of street lights). Funds not used during
these negotiations will be retained by the Virginia Association
O. -LE Cuuncies in a separate interest bearing account for future
negotiations. Enclosed is an invoice reflecting your locality's
share of negotiating expenses. It would be helpful to have your
locality's remittance prior to August 30, 1996.
In the past, as a result of the Steering Committee's
efforts, each local government has always received a savings in
its electricity costs far greater than its share of negotiating
expenses. For example, during the last negotiations in 1993,
APCo initially proposed a rate increase of $4.4 million over a
three year period. Final rates negotiated increased rates by
$1.37 million over a three year period; a savings of more than $3
million as a result of the negotiation process. This saving was
approximately 29 times the cost of the negotiations. It is
believed that local governments will again experience a high
return from their investment in the negotiation expenses.
-over-
M
E
M
O
R
A
N
D
U M
TO: County Administrators and City/Town Managers
in AEP Service Territory
FROM: Kit B. Kiser, Director of Public Utilities, O K
City of Roanoke, Chairman of VML/VACO APCO �`
Steering Committee
DATE: June 27, 1996
RE: VML/VACO APCo Negotiations Assessments
As you know, your locality's contract with Appalachian Power
Company (now known as American Electric Power (AEP)) expires June
30, 1996. We finally received AEP's proposal for the new
contract period. AEP proposes a three year contract with rates
frozen at their present level (exclusive of the fuel adjustment
clause) for this three-year period. We believe, however, that a
rate reduction is appropriate. AEP also proposes that we
consider an optional demand billing rate which would be available
to individual accounts, subject to certain limitations. We
believe this should be explored also.
An organizational meeting of the VML/VACO APCo Steering
Committee was held on June 4, 1996 in Roanoke. The Steering
Committee voted to pursue negotiations with AEP and to seek funds
from each locality to cover the expenses of a utility consultant,
legal fees and other expenses associated with negotiations. Each
local government is asked to contribute its proportionate share
of $125,000.based on the proportionate electricity usage for its
locality (exclusive of street lights). Funds not used during
these negotiations will be retained by the Virginia Association
O. -LE Cuuncies in a separate interest bearing account for future
negotiations. Enclosed is an invoice reflecting your locality's
share of negotiating expenses. It would be helpful to have your
locality's remittance prior to August 30, 1996.
In the past, as a result of the Steering Committee's
efforts, each local government has always received a savings in
its electricity costs far greater than its share of negotiating
expenses. For example, during the last negotiations in 1993,
APCo initially proposed a rate increase of $4.4 million over a
three year period. Final rates negotiated increased rates by
$1.37 million over a three year period; a savings of more than $3
million as a result of the negotiation process. This saving was
approximately 29 times the cost of the negotiations. It is
believed that local governments will again experience a high
return from their investment in the negotiation expenses.
-over-
M E M O R A N D U M
County Administrators and City/Town Managers
in AEP Service Territory
FROM: Kit B. Kiser, Director of Public Utilities, K
City of Roanoke, Chairman of VML/VACO APCO
Steering Committee
DATE: June 27, 1996
RE: VML/VACO APCo Negotiations Assessments
F
As you know, your locality's contract with Appalachian Power
Company (now known as American Electric Power (AEP)) expires June
30, 1996. We finally received AEP's proposal for the new
contract period. AEP proposes a three year contract with rates
frozen at their present level (exclusive of the fuel adjustment
clause) for this three-year period. We believe, however, that a
rate reduction is appropriate. AEP also proposes that we
consider an optional demand billing rate which would be available
to individual accounts, subject to certain limitations. We
believe this should be explored also.
An organizational meeting of the VML/VACO APCo Steering
Committee was held on June 4, 1996 in Roanoke. The Steering
Committee voted to pursue negotiations with AEP and to seek funds
from each locality to cover the expenses of a utility consultant,
legal fees and other expenses associated with negotiations. Each
local government is asked to contribute its proportionate share
tocaYit. $125 000.'.based.on..the proportionate electricity usage for.its
1'o'
y (exclusive of street lights). Funds not used during
these negotiations will be retained by the Virginia Association
of Counties in a separate interest bearing account for future
negotiations. Enclosed is an invoice reflecting your locality's
share of negotiating expenses. It would be helpful to have your
locality's remittance prior to August 3'0, 1996.
In the past, as a result of the Steering Committee's
efforts, each local government has always received a savings in
its electricity costs far greater than its share of negotiating
expenses. For example, during the last negotiations in 1993,
APCo initially proposed a rate increase of $4.4 million over a
three year period. Final rates negotiated increased rates by
$1.37 million over a three year period; a savings of more than $3
million as a result of the negotiation process. This saving was
approximately 29 times the cost of the negotiations. It is
believed that local governments will again experience a high
return from their investment in the negotiation expenses.
-over-
Local governments benefit greatly from speaking with "one
voice" during negotiations with AEP. It is to our collective
benefit to continue negotiations in this manner. We hope your
locality will choose to pay its proportionate share of the
expenses and not just reap the benefit of the work of other local
governments.
The consultant, Steven Ruback of The Columbia Group, Inc.
has begun obtaining information from AEP with which to make a
detailed analysis. A Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for
August 9 to review his findings. Local governments are
encouraged to actively participate in the Steering Committee
meetings and communicate any concerns or questions which should
be discussed with AEP.
If you have any ctuestions regarding the as.sessmerit or
negotiations, please do not hesitate to call Flip Hicks at (804)
343-2505, Howard Dobbins or Sarah Hopkins Finley at (804) 643-
1991 or me at (540) 981-2602.
Enclosure
cc: Mr. R. Michael Amyx
Mr. James Campbell
Howard W. Dobbins, Esquire
Sarah Hopkins Finley, Esquire
C. F. Hicks, Esquire
Steering Committee Members
0265187.01
- 2 -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 13,1996
RESOLUTION 081396-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING
IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L - 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 August 13, 1996 designated as Item L - Consent
Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item
separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4,
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes - June 11, 1996, June 25, 1996,
July 9, 1996 (Joint Meeting with Roanoke City
Council), July 9, 1996 (regular meeting)
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Social
Services Advisory Board.
3. Request from the Sheriff's Department to accept and
appropriate the Adult Literacy and Basic Education
Program grant.
4. Request for acceptance of Lost Drive and Lost View
Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary System.
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 Nickens to adopt the Consent
Resolution after discussion of Item 3 and correction to Item 1, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
cc: File
Sheriff Gerald Holt
Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections
Social Services Advisory Board File
081396-4.a
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER L a
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Social Services Advisory Board
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD
Supervisor Nickens nominated Robert H. Lewis, Vinton
Magisterial District to another four-year term following the
July 23 meeting,and asked that his name be placed on the
Consent Agenda for confirmation. His term will expire August
1, 2000.
00XG101-04121` �►�
It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed by the
Board of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
---------------
Approved (X)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Approved by,
f
Elmer C. Hodge
County _ Administrator
----------------------------------------------------
Motion by:Supervisor Nickens No Yes Abs
to approve Eddy _ X _
Harrison _ X _
Johnson _ X _
Minnix
Nickens X
cc: File
Betty McCrary, Social Services Department
Social Services Advisory Board File
081396-4.b
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. / -03
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 13, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Request a resolution from the Board of Super�Tisors to
accept the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program grant and to
appropriate the funds into the Sheriff's Office Care and
Confinement of Prisoners Part -Time Salaries Account.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: We have received approval
State Department of Education for the
Education/GED program operated by Roano
auspices of the Roanoke County/Salem Jail
July 1, 1996 and will end June 30, 1997.
grant is in the amount of $10,863. We
Federal funds in the amou t f
for grant money from the
Adult Literacy and Basic
-e City Schools under the
The funding period began
The total amount of the
will be reimbursed with
n o $9,696 and we are to cover the
remaining cost from Jail funds. The jail's match is being paid out
of the Sheriff's Office Subfund account and requires no additional
funding from the Board of Supervisors.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: See attachment.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ALTERNATIVES: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of this grant
per the conditions of the Roanoke City Public Schools and the
Roanoke County Sheriff's Office.
Respectfully submitted,
Gerald S. Holt
Sheriff
Approved by,
Elmer C. Hodge, 'Jr
County Administrator
------------------
---------------------------
________
Approved (X) Motion by:-ubervisor Nickens
Denied ( ) to approve No Yes Abs
Eddy
Received ( ) — __x _
Referred ( ) Harrison —x _
To ( ) Johnson _ x
Minnix — x _
Nickens — x _
cc: File
Sheriff Gerald Holt
it#
Roanoke
City Public Schools
Division of Instruction • Deparrmenr of Adult Education
The Jefferson Center. 541 Luck Ave., S.W., Sulre 330, Roanoke, Virginia 24016
i
memo
To: Sheriff Gerald Holt
County of Roanoke/City of Salem Jars'
401 East Main Street
Salem, VA 24153
From: 00.0'Dorothy W. Hayes
Supervisor of Adult and Contiriuisig ; duoation
Date: July 12, 1996
Re: Funding for 1996-97
t
+K;E OF THS %EAWi
(XKJNTY OF ROANOKE, V
L-3
Approval for the Adult Literacy and Basic Educ 4litirdG D program operated by Roanoke City
Schools under the auspices of the Roanoke County/City of Salem Jail has been received from the State
Department of Education. The funding period began July 1, 1996 and will end June 30, 1997. The
approval and the required local matching funds are listed beloo":
Federal Funds Jail =ds j"ot "
$9,696.00 $1,167.00 $10,863.&0
The local cash match may come from funds vi;at YOu use to purcha--ct supplies sill rr,a :rials or
pay salaries and/or fixed benefits to the instructor, Mr. Michael Vulgan. The local cash match must always
be maintained to equal the previous years level. The amount can never be any less. I understand that
for. Vulgan will be receiving a 4.5% pay increase this year. The increase will either have to be reflected in
fewer instructional hours or an additional local money match. There will be no increase in federal funding.
We will be contacting Ms. Pat Chockley in your office to secure irr url nation for work hours of Mr.
Vulgan for the December 1996 and June 1997 State Department of Education reimbursements. We will
forward funds to your office upon receipt.
We look forward to working with your instructional staff in professional develupin.-ani iii-serviceprograms for teachers during the school year. Please let us know if we can assist you in any way,
DH/kw
cc: Lloyd Enoch,.Director of Business, Technical and Adult Education
Roanoke City Schools ..
Michael Vulgan, Teacher
Roanoke County/City of Salem Jail
Exceller ice in Educotlon
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in regular meeting
on the 13th day of August, 1996, adopted the following:
RESOLUTION 081396-4.0 REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF LOST DRIVE AND
LOST VIEW LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form
SR -5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described
on the attached Additions Form SR -5(A) to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
resolution be forwarded to the
Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote:
that a certified copy of this
Resident engineer for the Virginia
Moved By: Supervisor Nickens
Yeas: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
Nays: None
A Copy Teste:
.lrvt•
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
CC: File
Arnold Covey, Director of Engineering & Inspections
Virginia Department of Transportation
s
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON AUGUST 13, 1996
RESOLUTION 081396-5 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 Minnix to adopt the Certification
Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
cc: File
Executive Session File