HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/1996 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-1 REQUESTING APPROVAL BY THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE EXPANSION OF SIX
EXISTING GATEWAY BEAUTIFICATION SITES AND THE ADDITION OF
ONE PROPOSED GATEWAY BEAUTIFICATION SITE WITHIN PUBLIC
RIGHTS OF WAY IN ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
reviewed specifications for the design, installation, and
maintenance of existing highway median plantings and shall review
specifications for the design, installation, and maintenance of all
proposed highway median plantings at particular locations in
Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission originally
requested the establishment of the Gateway Beautification project
and endorsed its creation on February 7, 1995, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County first
endorsed this project on February 13, 1996 and has appropriated the
amount of $18,000 to fund this project for the 1996-1997 fiscal
year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia requests that the Virginia Department
of Transportation approve the submitted specifications, permit
expansion of the existing landscaped planting areas at locations
1 through 6 and permit a new landscaped planting area at location
7 specified herein:
(1) U.S. 220 South of the Blue Ridge Parkway
(2) VA 419/Tanglewood Mall southwest of the Roanoke City
1
Limits
(3) VA 24 at the Blue Ridge Parkway
(4) U.S. 460 at the Botetourt County Line
(5) VA 311 at Interstate 81
(6) VA 419 south of the Salem City Limits
(7) U.S. 11 at VA 2010 southeast of Hollins College, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County hereby agrees to pay 100 percent of the total cost
for design, installation, and perpetual maintenance of this project
in lieu of a permit fee or continuous bond at the six existing
sites proposed for expansion and at one new proposed Gateway
Beautification location
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Jeffrey Echols, Resident Engineer, VDOT
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
2
A-121796-2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER 'C��,
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Urban Partnership for $5,000
appropriation to continue membership
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOW S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In 1995, the Urban Partnership was established to promote
efficiencies through regional cooperative efforts. They also
recommended that the state provide monetary incentives to those
regions that develop successful regional solutions. While the
majority of member localities were cities, several urban counties
also joined the organization. Chesterfield County was a member
last year and has chosen to continue their membership for this
fiscal year.
One of the outcomes of the Urban Partnership was the Regional
Competitiveness Act which allocated $3 million in incentive funds
to localities that developed regional solutions to problems.
Supervisor Lee Eddy is a member of the Governor's Advisory
Committee for the Regional Competitiveness Act.
1 4 5"'arelas WN • : u •
The Board has now received a request from the organization to
continue membership in the Urban Partnership. Membership dues for
the year is $5,000. In their request they describe the goals they
plan to focus on as follows: (1) To increase state funding for the
Regional Competitiveness Act to $50 million in Fiscal Year 1998 and
fully fund the Act in the next biennial budget; (2) Development of
Regional Competitiveness Act regulations consistent with the intent
of the Act and goals of the Urban Partnership; and (3) Encourage
regions to form regional partnerships and apply for the Regional
Competitiveness Act incentive funds.
Roanoke County was an active participant in the Urban Partnership
activities during 1995. On August 13, 1996, the Board also
officially supported the establishment of a regional steering
committee coordinated by the Fifth Planning District Commission to
develop a regional partnership and appointed members to serve on
the committee. At the December 3, 1996 Board of Supervisors
meeting, Chairman Johnson requested that staff bring to the Board
the request from the Urban Partnership to continue our membership
in the organization.
If the Board of Supervisors decides to
Urban Partnership, membership dues
appropriated. The funds could be
Contingency Fund or the General Fund
continue membership in the
of $5,000 will need to be
appropriated from the Board
Unappropriated Balance.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors continue their
membership in the Urban Partnership and appropriate the $5,000 dues
from the Board Contingency Fund.
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Respectfully submitted,
66�� *
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Motion by: Lee B Eddy to
approve 55,000 funding from
Board Contingency Fund
cc: File
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Urban Partnership File
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy x
Harrison_
Johnson x
Minnix_
Nickens x_
U
A-121796-3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Smith Gap Landfill Host Community Fund
Expenditure Plan
Recommend approval of the expenditure of funds for community projects as requested. This policy
was originally approved for projects on RVR,4 property, but it makes sense to expand this policy for
worthwhile projects in the Bradshaw Community such as these. Additionally, we should consider
amending the policy to broaden these categories based on an approval process by the Board of
Supervisors. In some cases, projects may need to be approved by the Planning Commission as well.
If you support the broadening of these categories, we will amend the operating policies and bring
them to you at a later date.
With the selection and approval of the Smith Gap Landfill in
1989 the Board adopted a comprehensive set of Permit Conditions and
Operating Policies that govern the use and operation of this
facility. One of the adopted operating policies was the
establishment of a Host Community Improvement Fund. This fund
would be financed by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA)
and could be used for the construction and maintenance of public
improvements to the Resource Authority property, if approved by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
00i .1 • 03-10
►� •
The citizens of the Bradshaw Community have developed an
improvement plan for capital needs within the Bradshaw and Mason
Cove communities. This plan proposes a maximum $30,000 expenditure
from the Host Community Improvement Fund for capital needs for the
Masons Cove Fire Department, Masons Cove Rescue Squad and Masons
Cove Elementary School.
2
The plan proposes $4,000 for the purchase of pagers for the
Mason's Cove Fire Department and Rescue Squad, and $17,000 for the
purchase of classroom computers for the Mason's Cove School. In
addition, the plan proposes a $9,000 expenditure for the purchase
of playground equipment at the school if the $9,000 is matched by
an additional $9,000 of County funding from the Parks and
Recreation Department's Capital Improvement Incentive Fund.
The RVRA approved this plan on November 28, 1996. The
Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval
of the plan expenditures at their meeting on December 7, 1996. In
recommending approval, the Commission commented that they were
impressed that the Bradshaw citizens believed that the best
expenditure of these funds was for needs at facilities within the
Mason's Cove Community.
All funding to implement the plan has been previously
appropriated as part of the RVRA budget. Matching funds, if
available, would be from the Parks and Recreation Department's
Capital Improvement and Incentive Fund.
*9014 1 l •�
Staff recommends as follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors accept the recommended funding
plan as prepared by the citizens of the Bradshaw community and
approved by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the Roanoke
County Planning Commission.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terrance Harri ton, AICP
Director f Pla ing and Zoning
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
cc: File
Terry
Diane
John
Pete
Approved,
/Kcit
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Motion by: Fenton F. Harrison
to approve expenditure plan
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy x
Harrison x
Johnson x
Minnix x
Nickens x
Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
R. Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer, RVRA
Hairslip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Pit
ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY
November 28, 1996
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
RE: Smith Ggp Landfill,• Host Community Improvement Fund
Dear Elmer:
As you know, the Landfill Permit Operating Policies adopted by the County Board of
Supervisors for the Smith Gap Landfill provide for the establishment of a Host Community
Improvement Fund. The policy provides that the fund shall be utilized for the construction and
maintenance of public improvements to Landfill Agency property approved by the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission.
The citizens of the Bradshaw community have developed the attached plan for the use
of the Host Community Improvement Fund. As you will note, the proposed plan does not
comply with the express requirements of the policy. Specifically, improvements are not being
made to Resource Authority property.
The Resource Authority believes that the planned use of the fund for public improvements
is in the interest of the community and is worthwhile. The Resource Authority has concurred
in the proposed plan, subject to the approval and authorization of the proposed improvements
under the policy by the County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commission.
Attached is a copy of the Resource Authority's recent action on this issue.
Upon notification that these proposed expenditures are acceptable under the policy and
have been approved by the County, the Resource Authority will proceed to implement the
proposed plan.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
ZRSincer,
ubbard, P.E.
Chief Executive Officer
Attachments (2)
1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056
MEETING:
SUBJECT:
ACTION REQUIRED:
BACKGROUND.
November 27, 1996
Host Community Improvement Fund
Approval to Submit Plan to Roanoke County
As part of the permit issued for the Smith Gap Landfill by Roanoke County, a Reserve
Fund was established for providing money for improvements in the Bradshaw Community. The
fund was designated for the construction and maintenance of public improvements to the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority property, approved by the Board of Supervisors and the
Roanoke County Planning Commission. The improvements plan for the expenditure of the fund
is to be developed with assistance from the residents of the host community.
Residents of the host community have recently developed a list of improvements that they
feel would be the most beneficial to the entire Bradshaw/Mason's Cove Community. The
improvements are as follows:
1. Mason's Cove Fire Department Equipment ..................... $2,000
2. Mason's Cove Rescue Squad Equipment ....................... $2,000
3. Mason's Cove Elementary School
Playground Equipment ......................... $9,000
Computers .............................. $17,000
TOTAL..................................... $30,000
Per the policy, the improvements must be made to Resource Authority property. The
Resource Authority has no choice but to operate within this policy, however, Roanoke County
may approve the plan and authorize the Authority to make expenditures outside the guidelines.
If the Resource Authority concurs with the designated improvements, the plan could be
submitted to Roanoke County for their final determination and approval.
FUNDING:
Funds are available in the Host Community Improvement Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
The improvements requested will be beneficial to the entire Bradshaw Community and
are worthy of special approval. It is therefore recommended that the Resource Authority Board
concur in the proposed improvements subject to approval by Roanoke County, and authorize the
Chief Executive Officer to submit the noted improvement plan for Roanoke County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisor's approval and authorization of these expenditures by the
Resource Authority, and upon approval of Roanoke County, authorize the .distribution of funds
by the Resource Authority for the specified improvements.
Res4JohnR.
ectfully submitted:
ubbard, E.
Chief Executive Officer
RESOLUTION No. RA96-215
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING IN PROPOSED USES OF THE HOST
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT FUND, SUBJECT TO AND UPON CERTAIN
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority that the Authority hereby
concurs in the proposed improvements to be funded from the Host Community Improvement
Fund, subject to submission and formal approval of the improvements and expenditure by the
Authority of these funds for these specific purposes by the Roanoke County Planning Commission
and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors under the Smith Gap Landfill Operating Permit,
all as more particularly set forth in the report to this Board by the Chief Executive Officer, dated
November 28, 1996, which report is incorporated by reference herein.
ATTEST:
Secretary
Mr. Kiser made a motion to approve resolution RA96-215, concurring in proposed uses of the
Host Community Improvement Fund, subject to and upon certain terms and conditions, seconded
by Ms. Hyatt, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Goodman, Ms. Hyatt, Mr. Kiser, Mr. Porterfield, Mr. Rand, Ms. Schefsky,
Mr. Robinson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
rvm\measures\6osdund.imp
A-121796-4
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER 415--'/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Change to Recycling Program
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 1987, Roanoke County began a pilot
program to study curbside collection of recyclables. The original program consisted of
source separation, with homes in some areas receiving stackable bins for newspaper,
aluminum and glass for collection on a biweekly basis. In 1989, this program was
expanded into another area of the County. The participation rate for these programs has
averaged between 25-35% per biweekly collection. In the early 1990's, the County began
automated commingled collection, with selected homes receiving 65 gallon containers in
which to commingle mixed paper, aluminum, plastic and cardboard. With a monthly
pickup schedule, participation rates have ranged from 70-80%.
DATE MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
1987 Windsor Hills
1989 Catawba
1990 Catawba
1990 Vinton
# OF HOMES TYPE OF RECYCLING
1,000 Source Separated
900 Source Separated
900 Commingled
900 Commingled
The cost of these programs is listed in Attachment A. The cost in that Attachment does
not include the $15 per ton which the County pays to deliver the commingled materials
to Cycle Systems, nor does it include the $50 per ton which is saved by not taking source
separated and commingled tonnages to the Resource Authority. This is a popular service
for citizens living in those areas, a list of which is Attachment B.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board has asked staff to review these pilot
programs along with possibilities for providing this service equitably on a County -wide
basis. Expansion of recycling opportunities to all households will require additional
equipment and staff. Capital costs are a main component of any expansion of service,
although there are a variety of different methods the County could use for this purpose.
�I
Commingled recycling is more cost effective and has a higher percentage of
participation. We currently spend 89 cents per household per month for this program, and
to expand it County -wide would cost $1.34 million in capital cost and $220,200 in annual
operating cost. This program can be undertaken over a period of time. A breakdown of
these costs is shown on Attachment C. It can be easily phased in, with first year costs
anticipated only for additional carts. Expanding this program will also allow us to
terminate the source separation program, which is more expensive per customer. If this
program is expanded, it will also become less expensive per household due to economies
of scale.
Source separated recycling has a lower capital cost of $1 million, but higher annual
operating costs of $347,000. Based on limited historical data, however, we do receive
revenue from this method of approximately $27 per ton, which would equate to an offset
of $59,486. Details of this are provided in Attachment D. This does not have as high a
participation rate in the pilot areas, and requires a substantial investment in personnel.
Drop-off centers are currently provided in some areas of the County, and
preliminary investigation indicates that this program could be expanded to six sites located
throughout the County, at existing County facilities. This would allow all County residents
to recycle, but would discontinue the current pilot program at 3,700 homes. Funding for
this program would require approximately $75,000 in operating cost and $10,000 the first
year for public information. This can be privatized and would necessitate an RFP to
obtain proposals. While this alternative would also save $85,280 currently being expended
on the pilot programs, it would discontinue a very popular program at 3700 households.
It will also leave the County with 1800 used cans used in the commingle program which
will need to be stored or discarded.
An additional alternative would be to explore regional recycling through the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. The localities could collect commingled recycling and
construct a facility for separating the materials and selling them at the appropriate time
in the market. While this would require additional capital costs for adding space for this
process and additional operating cost for personnel to perform the sorting, it would allow
the Authority to pick and choose what to recycle, depending on the marketability of the
material. Since the City of Roanoke is currently extending recycling to all homes, and the
Town of Vinton already does that, those governments are obviously committed to
providing this service to their residents. By doing this regionally, we could realize
efficiencies which should save tax dollars in the long run. Virginia Tech may be able to
assist us with studying this option and making a recommendation for proceeding.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
1. Expand commingled recycling to the entire County at a cost of $1.34 million in
capital and $220,200 in annual operating costs. This will provide the service equally to all
County residents, but at a large capital start up cost. The program can be phased in
E -Y
however, based on available funding in each budget year.
2. Expand source separated recycling to the entire County at a cost of $1 million
in capital and $347,000 in operating cost. While this would expand the service to the
entire County, participation rate is not as high as with the commingled program, and the
service has a larger on going cost.
3. Investigate privatization of drop off centers through the RFP process, which
will allow all County households an equal opportunity to recycle. The cost of this is
expected to be approximately $75,000 annually and $10,000 initially for an information
campaign, and has the advantage of working with the local business community to provide
a service.
4. Work with Virginia Tech and the Resource Authority to study regional
commingled pickup to serve the entire Valley.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative 4, working with the other localities, the Resource
Authority and Virginia Tech to find a regional solution to the recycling issue. In the
interim, staff recommends Alternative 3, which will even out the service for all County
residents.
If the Board does not wish to pursue those Alternatives at this time, staff
recommends Alternative 1, expansion of the commingled recycling program. This can be
phased in over several years, as funding permits, and is an efficient method of providing
the recycling service.
— ,E
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: H. Odell Minnix No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) substitute motion to continue Eddy x
Received ( ) the present program and requestHarrison x
Referred ( ) that RVRA and other governmentsJohnson x
To ( ) work towards a regional solu- Minnix x
tion with a report to be Nickens x
brought back in 90 days (2nd
meeting in March)
cc: File
Bill Rand, Director, General Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
A iu:.�. x %1 -- 1 a Al IAt-kiNl fq lA
RECYC$.XLS 11/22/96
COIVMNGLED
SOURCE
TOTAL
Category
SEPARATED
Direct Costs
Labor Costs
Workers, Drivers and Misc.
$
7,000.00
$
28,000.00
$
35,000.00
Overtime
$
3,220.00
$
2,146.00
$
5,366.00
Temporary Wages
$
-
$
-
Worker Compensation
$
131.00
$
523.00
$
654.00
Total Labor Costs
$
10,351.00
$
30,669.00
$
41,020.00
Operating Costs
Maintenance - Vehicle
$
6,857.00
$
27,427.00
$
34,284.00
Motor Fuels and Lubricants
$
881.00
$
3,522.00
$
4,403.00
Advertising - Public Information
$
174.00
$
695.00
$
869.00
General Operating Expenses
$
779.00
$
3,115.00
$
3,894.00
Wearing Apparel
$
162.00
$
648.00
$
810.00
Total Operating Costs
$
8,853.00
$
35,407.00
$
44,260.00
Total Costs (Direct)
$
19,204.00
$
66,076.00
$
85,280.00
Sale Income
$
(4,763.00)
$
(4,763.00)
Net Total Costs
$
19,204.00
$
61,313.00
$
80,517.00
Number of Customers
1,800
1,900
3,700
Cost Per Customer Per Year
$
10.67
$
32.27
$
21.76
Cost Per Customer Per Month
$
0.89
$
2.69
$
1.81
Average Tons
99.42
113.3
212.72
Average Cost Per Ton
$
193.16
$
541.16 1
$
378.51
RECYC$.XLS 11/22/96
Attachment B
RECYCLING HISTORY
COUN'T'Y OF ROANOKE
The first phase started October 1987 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
1000 homes in the Castle Rock area were delivered three stackable bins: orange for aluminum,
green for glass, and blue for newspaper. The subdivisions included:
Woodmont Manor
Farmington
Nottingham Hill
Nottingham Heights
Orander Park
Sugarloaf Farms
Castle Rock Farms
Castle Rock
Phase two began in August (approx.) of 1989 in the Catawba Magisterial District.
900 homes in the West Salem area were delivered three stackable bins. The subdivisons included:
Texas Hollow
North Beverly Heights
Vermont Heights
Quail Crossing
Grandview Gardens
Bear Rock-
Westward
ockWestward Lakes Estates
Glenvar East
Cherokee Hills
Phase three began in 1991 (possibly October) with homes in the Catawba Magisterial District and
the Vinton Magisterial District.
A total of 1900 homes were given a 65 gallon automated container for the comingling of mixed
paper, plastic, and aluminum cans. The subdivisions included:
Catawba Magisterial District: Vinton Maaisterial District:
Beacon Hill Lindenwood
North Lakes Crofton
Willow Creek Montgomery Village
Foxfire
E -q
ATTACHMENT C
ALTERNATIVE # 1...
PROJECTED COSTS FOR COUNTYWIDE
AUTOMATED COMMINGLED RECYCLING
Approximately 23,736 homes are now receiving automated collection of weekly
household refuse. It requires 28 routes per week to collect all of these homes. With
approximately 22 work days in a month it would require two vehicles to offer these
homes commingled recycling collection. The capital investment and start-up costs would
be as follows:
(2) Automated collection vehicles @ $150,000 per vehicle - $ 300,000
*22,000 - (65) gallon automated containers @ $47 per cart - 1,034,000
Public information/education campaign - 10.000
TOTAL $1,344,000
The program would require two additional employees. The costs of these employees,
vehicle maintenance, fuel, and cart replacement would be included in the operating costs.
(2) Vehicles @ $35,000 per vehicle (maintenance and fuel) $ 70,000
(2) Operators @ $31,000 (fully burdened with fringes) 62,000
(600) Replacement carts @ $47.00 per cart 28.200
TOTAL $ 160,200
The remaining 2,064 residents currently receiving manual service would be offered some
version of curbside collection, such as a blue -bag system, which can be collected with
manual rearloading trucks. The annual operating cost of this service would resemble the
cost of collection of manual service which is $60,000.
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR
COUNTYWIDE COMMINGLED RECYCLING: $ 220,200
PROS
Standardize fleet - compatible with weekly household collection fleet
Most efficient/effective method of collection
Convenience increases participation (historically averaged 70%-80%)
Convenience increases volume which would result in a projected avoidance revenue of
$63,802
Avoidance revenue is the difference between $15 sort fee and $50 tipping fee.
Historically volume collected has averaged .0064 tons per month per customer.
23,736 x .0064 tons x 12 months x $35 per ton = $63,802 (projected).
CONS
Large capital investment
Contamination of materials - containers harder to monitor
No revenue received - sorting fee paid to materials recycling facility ($15 per ton)
* 1,800 homes already have 65 gallon containers.
ATTACHMENT D
ALTERNATIVE #2
PROJECTED COSTS FOR COUNTYWIDE
SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLING
To collect weekly household refuse in Roanoke County requires approximately 33 routes
(28 automated routes and 5 manual routes). To offer bi-weekly curbside source separated
recycling to all 25,800 homes in Roanoke County would require half of those routes
being serviced weekly. To collect approximately 17 routes per week would require the
following capital costs:
(4) Side -loading manual recycling vehicles @ $100,000 each - $ 400,000
23,600 Recycling container sets @ $25 per set - 590,000
Public information/education campaign 10_,000
TOTAL $1,000,000
The source separated program would require 8 additional employees. The cost of these
employees, vehicle maintenance, fuel and container set replacement would be included in
the operating costs.
(4) vehicles @ $25,000 per vehicle (maintenance and fuel) - $ 100,000
(4) operators @ $31,000 (fully burdened with fringes) - 124,000
(4) collectors @ $27,000 (fully burdened with fringes) - 108,000
600 recycling container sets @ $25 per set - 15,000
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST FOR
COUNTYWIDE SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLING:
$ 347,000
PROS
More convenient than drop-off recycling centers
Less capital investment than commingled recycling
Receive revenue - approximately $27 per ton based upon limited historical data
25,500 homes x.0072 tons x 12 months x $27 per ton revenue = $59,486
CONS
Less convenient than commingled - lower participation rates (25%-35%)
Method does not allow much capability to change materials collected as markets change
More labor intensive
E - `F
A-121796-5
ACTION NO
ITEM NO. ..
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Request to use Public Private
Partnership Funds to complete an
application for a 1997 ISTEA Grant
for the Hanging Rock Battlefield
Trail
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND•
The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation
was awarded $549,300 by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) to construct the Roanoke Valley's "first" green way between
the Hanging Rock area and the City of Salem. Plans are being
finalized for construction of the Phase I Trail to begin in the
spring of 1997.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Foundation has been encouraged by VDOT to complete the plans
for the rails to trails project that were prepared for the 1995
Intersurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding cycle.
The 1995 grant award did not provide sufficient funding to
implement the entire plan. The Foundation has developed land for
the Phase I project and identified a list of items for funding a
Phase II application which includes a bridge over Mason's Creek,
the acquisition of the Brubaker house, the preservation of the
Norfolk -Southern coal pier, and the extension of the Trail north
along Dutch Oven Road and south along Route 419 to the Brubaker
house. Since all of these project items are located in Roanoke
County, the Foundation is requesting funding from Roanoke County to
assist them in completing the ISTEA application for 1997. Hill
Studios has advised the Foundation that an application can be
prepared at a cost of $3,500. The Foundation is requesting that
Roanoke County fund the application costs of $3,500 for preparing
the ISTEA Grant.
FISCAL IMPACT•
Funds are available in the Economic Development Public Private
Partnership fund.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Fund the amount of $3,500 requested by the Hanging Rock
Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation for
planning/design of a 1997 ISTEA Phase II application.
2. Do not fund the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve Alternative
#1 and continue its previous support of the implementation of the
"first" Roanoke Valley green way.
Respectfully submitted:
Timothy W. Gubala, Director
Department of Economic Development
Approved:
64�� ka-'e
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
VOTE
Approved (x)
Motion by:
Fenton F. Harrison
No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
to approve
funding of $3,500
Eddy _x
Received ( )
for Phase II
application and
Harrison x
Referred ( )
that contract
with Hill
Johnson _x
To ( )
Associates
not to exceed
Minnix _x
$3,500
Nickens x
cc: File
Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Econ Dev
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Attachment
99Ean9irz9 - o4 3affL[ 'd afzd cRaLfwaty -(Ass.Fzvaliozz 9OWJatWr2
Sra3i 11Lnicn '_7amn
3L4Lnc 703-993-7662
to SouLt d` fruiun &cef, wile 1400
703-993-7711
oQon c�ec. CVVinia 24011
l
P.O. Box 14125
oQr� itrcr� c�9e�l
dC oam�c. CkVinia 24038-4121
620 High Street
Salem, VA 24153
December 9, 1996
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.
Roanoke County Administrator
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Dear Mr. Hodge:
The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preserva-
tion Foundation, Inc., is in the process of resubmitting
a competitive application for Phase II ISTEA grant fund-
ing. The deadline.for this application is January 31,1997.
Phase II shall be comprised of the following components:
1. Mason's Creek pedestrian footbridge ($100,000)
2. Brubaker house orientation center and battle-
field restoration ($238,000)
3. Coal pier restoration ($35,000)
4. AEP/ Hanging Rock trail and observation platform
($97,000)
Attached is a proposal letter from Hill Studio, P. C.,
listing fees of $3,500 for preparing the application.
Since all Phase II components are located in Roanoke.County,
the Foundation respectfully requests funding from the
County in the amount of $3,500 to pay for Hill Studio's work.
Thank you very much for your ongoing support of this
worthwhile greenway project.
Sincerely yours,
J. David Robbins
President
Enclosures: 3 pages
November 22, 1996
Hanging Rock Railway and Battlefield Preservation Foundation
c/o Tim Gubala, Board Member
P.o. Box 29800
Roanoke VA 24018-0798
Re: Phase li Hanging Rock Trail Application Revision
Dear MrF--6aba1a:, O Pdl 'L W31W&
This letter will serve as the agreement between the Hanging Rock Railway and Battlefield
Preservation Foundation (Owner) and Hill Studio, P.C. (landscape architect) regarding complete
services as outlined. The goal of this project is for the revision and resubmitttal of a competitive
application for ISTEA grant funding by January 31, 1997. Hill Studio, PC, proposes to produce the
application, based on the material that was part of the 1996 Application, as a phase II component
of the original grant. The following process is proposed:
SCOPE OF WORK:
1. Conduct Initial Public Meeting
The Organization will be responsible for inviting Key Board Mambers, Business leaders, City and
County Officials, Professionals, and others to this grant Kick-off Meeting. This is scheduled for
December 2, 1996 at Hill Studio.
• Identify DesirablelDesired Program Characteristics from last year's application.
• Evaluate and Analyze Existing Site and Situation, and changes that may be appropriate for
equitable inclusion In Phase I/ resubmittal
Phase II shall be comprised of the following components:
1. Mason's Creek Pedestrian Foot Bridge ($100,000)
2. Brubaker House Orientation Center and Battlefield Restoration
• Building restrooms, New Restrooms, Security,
Parking, HC imp rovements.($238,000)
3. Coal Pier Restoration ($35,000)
• All proposed components
4. AEP / Hanging Rock Trail & Observation Platform ($97,000)
11. Develop Grant Proposal to Draft Stage
• Prepare any amendments to existing Design Master Plan, Sections, Illustrations
• Prepare Phasing and Budgeting Plans for ISTEA component
• Produce Draft Text for Review by Committee
Ill. Provide Materials for Public Hearings
• Provision of Illustrative Plans for others to present to Salem City Council
and to Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
• Provision of Implementation Strategy
IV. Final Draft Documentation
• Production of Final Application, Including text, cost estimate, phasing
V. Submittal to Funding Sources
• Final Submittal of Report to Client and applicable Agencies
Hanging Rock 11
November 22, 1996
SCHEDULE and TIMING
I. Kick-off Meeting
ii. Develop Draft Application
III. Public Hearings
IV. Final Draft
V. Final Submittal
OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Dec. 2, 12 p.m.
Dec. 2 to Jan 14
Jan. 14, 7 p.m. Roanoke County (?)
Jan.13 (?) Salem City
Jan. 14 to Jan 25
Jan. 25, 1996
9455.02-2
It will be the responsibility of the Director of Economic Development for Roanoke County or his
delegated appointees to assemble the massive amount of backup letters of support needed for a
competitive proposal.
The Owner will make presentations to public bodies without the consultant present.
Letters need to be received at the County by January 25, 1995 to be published for the submittal.
OTHER TERMS OF AGREEMENT
The Hanging Rock Railway and Battlefield Preservation Foundation will compensate Hill Studio, P.C.
for the above services on a lump -sum basis for fees determined as follows:
I. Conduct Kick-off Meeting 200.00
ll. Develop Draft Application 2,000.00
III. Public Hearings 000.00
I V. Final Draft 11100.00
V. Final Submittal 200.00
TOTAL FEES $ 3,500.00
Hili Studio, P.C. will also Invoice for any additional services requested in writing by the Owner.
Additional services are any services not specifically Included in the aforementioned Scope of
Services. For additional services, Hill Studio, P.C. will Invoice all consultant costs at 1.10 times the
consultants' invoice. All consultants will be approved by the Owner In writing prior to Contract being
Issued.
Hill Studio, P.C. will Invoice on a monthly basis. Interest will be charged at the rate of 1 1/2% per
month or 18% per annum on invoices not paid within thirty (60) days.
METHOD OF EXPENSES
In addition to compensation for basic services, Hili Studio, P.C. will invoice at 1.05 times the actual
cost to a budget of $1000 for the following expenses incurred in conjunction with the project:
1. Expense of local and out-of-town transportation, long distance
telephone communications.
2. Expense of reproduction, blueprinting and photocopying of
drawings, specifications, and other documents.
3. Expense of postage and Express shipping.
4. Expense of photography and photographic production
techniques when used in conjunction with the project.
I
Hanging Rock II 9455.02-3
November 22, 1996 ;
Hill Studio is authorized to proceed with all the work in this scope of services upon signature of this
document below. The above represents the entire agreement between The Hanging Rock Railway
and Battlefield Preservation Foundation and Hill Studio, P.C. This agreement may only be amended
by written instrument signed by both parties to this contract.
Please indicate your understanding of and agreement with 'the above by signing both copies and
returning one to Hili Studio, P.C. for our files.
Sincerely, APPROVED:
Hill Studio, P.C. Hanging Rock Railway & Battlefield Preservation Foundation
David P. Hill, ASLA By:
President
Title:
Date:
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-6 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 December 17, 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 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Blue
Ridge Community Services Board of Directors.
2. Adoption of the Drainage Maintenance Projects for
Fiscal Year 1996/97.
3. Donation of right-of-way from Dennis E. Phelps and
Sandra Phelps to the Board of Supervisors in
connection with the Pinkard Court Rural Addition
Road Project.
4. Donation of water line easements to the Board of
Supervisors from Fralin and Waldron and Minh and
Su Dinh.
5. Confirmation of Committee appointment to the Blue
Ridge Community Services Board of Directors.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Consent
01
Resolution with the addition of Item 5, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Y';t� "V. a-t-.t�
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
2
A -121796-6.a
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: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the
Blue Ridge Community Services Board of
Directors
The following nomination was made at the December 3, 1996 meeting
and should now be confirmed.
Supervisor Harrison nominated Bonnie Pollack to fill the
unexpired term of J. William Pistner. The term will expire on
December 31, 1998.
It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed by the
Board of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
Mary H. Allen, CMC Elmer C. Hodge
Clerk to the Board County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L Johnson to No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) approve Eddy x
Received ( ) Harrison
Referred ( ) Johnson_
To ( ) Minnix_
Nickens _x
cc: File
Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors File
ACTION NUMBER
A -121796-6.b
ITEM NUMBER '
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Request for adoption of Drainage Maintenance Projects for FY96/97.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
During the December 3, 1996 work session, the Board of Supervisors approved the attached
drainage projects for inclusion into the Drainage Maintenance Priority List for FY96/97.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
No additional funding is being requested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of these additional drainage projects for inclusion into the
Drainage Maintenance Priority List.
MITTED BY:
Arnold Covey, D
of Engineering &
1
APPROVED BY:
2� A-oqf v
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
r
EXHIBIT "A"
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTS % COMPLETED
P-87 thru P-208 91%
r�
P-102
Randy Gerber
Complete
3038 Pebble Drive.
Cost:
$ 1,100
Hamden Hills
P-103
Betty Overstreet
Complete
5315 Cave Spring Lane
Cost:
$25,000
Nottingham Hills
P-104
Alton Prillaman
Complete
6139 Darby Road
Cost:
$ 500
P-105
John Newman
Indefinitely delayed
8242 Loman Drive
Loman Drive being a private
road, property owners not
in agreement of project.
Cost:
$25,000
P-106
Summit Ridge Road
Complete
La Bellevue
Cost:
$ 2,500
P-107
Leroy Moran
Complete
5000 Carriage Drive
Cost:
$ 1,000
P-108
Elbert Lester
Complete
2695 Eastland Drive
Cost:
$ 1,500
P-109
Jerry Arnold
Complete
4233 Arlington Hills
Cost:
$ 2,800
Arlington Hills
P-110
P. W. Carroll
Complete
5529 Merriman Road
Cost:
$ 5,000
P-111
Betty Prater Berry
Complete
3402 Overhill Trail
Cost:
$15,000
Penn Forest
P-112
Harry Williams
Complete
1001 Martin McNeil Rd.
Cost:
$ 1,500
P-113
Deborah Lynn Marshall
Complete
7192 Bent Mountain Rd.
Cost:
$ 1,000
P-114
Robert Tunnell
Complete
5522 Galloway Circle
Cost:
$ 3,300
Castle Rock Farms
P-115
W. H. Farthing
Complete
1848 Dorset Drive, S.W.
Cost:,
$ 1,500
P-116
VDOT
Complete
Manassas Avenue
Cost:
$15,000
Mt. Vernon Heights
Bond
P-131
Sylvia Arthur
Complete
8109 Hunters Trail
Cost:
$
500
Bellview Gardens
P-132
Ronnie Wade
Complete
3505 Brandywine Avenue
Cost:
$
5,000
Mt. Vernon Heights
P-133
Gilbert B. Banton
Complete
2331 Coachman Drive
Cost:
$
800
La Bellevue
P-134
George Jacob
Complete
6024 Williamson Road
Cost:
$
1,400
P-135
Daniel Wray
Complete
4426 Keefer Road
Cost:
$10,000
P-136
Nelson Craighead
Complete
4913 Colonial Avenue
Cost:
$
5,500
P-137
Judy Shandor
Complete
5781 Scenic Hills Drive
Cost:
$
1,000
Crystle Creek
P-138
Gary Crews
Complete
3661 Bunker Hill Drive
Cost:
$23,000
Mt. Vernon Heights
P-139
Gordon Willoughby
Complete
3718 Martinell Avenue
Cost:
$
3,000
P-140
Charles Callahan
Complete
6324 Fairway Forest Drive
Cost:
$
1,300
Fairway Forest
P-141
Mark DiCarlo
Complete
2613 Gaylor Road
Cost:
$
3,000
Sugarload Heights
P-142
Carroll Smith
Complete
3787 Fairburn Drive
Cost:
$
800
P-143
Sherry Burton
Complete
5406 Apple Blossom Lane
Cost:
$
5,000
Hidden Valley Court
P-144
Troy Leon Smith
Complete
913 Grove Lane
Cost:
$
2,000
Captain Grove -Estates
P-145
S. Weade
Complete
4015 Drake Circle
Cost:
$
1,500
Buckland Forest
P-160
P-161
P-162
P-163
P-164
P-165
P-166
P-167
i• .:
P-169
P -169A
P-170
P-171
John Hamilton
Complete
4209 Arlington Hill Dr.
Cost:
Arlington Hills
Randy Likens
Complete
906 Starmount Avenue
Cost:
Deer Run Estates, Section #2
Mrs. Legg
Complete
5647 Penguin Drive
Cost:
Penn Forest
Nancy Biggs Indefinitely delayed
549 Water Oak Road Estimated Cost:
Danny Gilbert Complete
1820 Dorset Cost:
Windsor Hills
Wayne Lineberry Construction is
3730 Ellen Drive expected to begin
Catawba next year
Mr. Taylor
2950 Penn Forest Blvd.
Cave Spring
Mr. Peyton
4818 Colonial Avenue
Cave Spring
Mr. Harry Goin
8167 Hunters Trail
Hollins
Linda K. Winge
4914 North Spring Dr.
Catawba
Public Safety BLDG.
3568 Peters Creek Road
Catawba
Martin Carle
5515 Tanney Drive
Catawba
Reggie Lemons
7131 Cedar Crest Road
Hollins
Estimated Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Indefinitely delayed
Complete (Engineering)
Cost:
Construction
Additional Cost:
Complete
Cost:
i--
$ 6,000
$ 3,000
$ 4,000
$ 1,000
$20,000
$30,000
$18,000
$ 3,000
$ 1,000
$ 5,000
$ 8,000
$ 4,000
$10,000
$ 5,000
P-185
P-187
• _::
P-190
P-191
P-192
P-193
P-194
Dorothy Overstreet
2725 Tanglewood Drive
Lucille Iartosca
1313 Deer Run Drive
Vinton
Amber Spikes
4847 Cherokee Hills Drive
Betty Saunders
1861 Terry Drive
Vinton
Mrs. Vickie Stinson
5487 West River Road
Catawba
David Herrick
2635 Greenridge Circle
Catawba
Jeff Foutz
5440 Setter Road
Hollins
Carl Sutter
5007 Labradore
Hollins
Elizabeth Weaver
4415 Wyndale Avenue
Windsors Hills
Joe Farmer
4749 Brookwood Drive
Windsor Hills
P-195 Melinda Crosser
6172 Burnham Road
Windsor Hills
P-196 Barbara Doyle
5041 Craun Lane
Catawba
P-197 Lucille Harmon
3630 Brandywine Avenue
Windsor Hills
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Cost:
Complete
Drive
Complete
$ 3,000
$ 1,500
$ 1,000
$10,000
$ 3,000
$ 7,000
$ 5,000
$10,000
Cost: $ 8,000
Additional Cost: $ 6,000
(expand scope of project)
Complete
Cost: $30,000
Additional Costs: $15,000
(expand scope of project)
Complete
Cost: $ 1,000
Under Construction
Estimated Cost: $20,000
Engineering & Survey
underway
Estimated Cost: $15,000
EXHIBIT "B"
PROPOSED PROJECTS
P 209-237
P-213 Gina Barringer
3422 Lakeland Drive
DESCRIPTION:. CONSTRUCT STABLE CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $5,000
TAX MAP # 76.19-2-58
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: WINDSOR HILLS
P-214 Robert Furrow
2711 Sunnyvale
DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT NEW CHANNEL FROM RIGHT OF
WAY TO NATURAL WATERCOURSE
ESTIMATED COST: $4,000
TAX MAP # 79.01-3-16
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: VINTON
P-215 Steven T. Doyle
1879 Elbert Drive
DESCRIPTION: INSTALL ADEQUATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM
ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
TAX MAP # 76.06-3-40
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: WINDSOR HILLS
P-216 Julie E & J R Bell
2032 Governor Drive
DESCRIPTION: INSTALL ADEQUATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM
ESTIMATED COST: $18,000
TAX MAP # 36.19-2-32
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: CATAWBA
P-221 Craig S. Sellers
3616 Manassas Drive
DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT ADEQUATE CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $8,000
TAX MAP # 77.18-4-25
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: CAVE SPRING
P-222 Terry Edwards
6258 Buckland Mill Road
DESCRIPTION: STABILIZE EXISTING CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $8,000
TAX MAP # 18.17-4-26
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: HOLLINS
P-223 Paul T. & Susan Leroy
4037 Crawford Road
DESCRIPTION: REPAIR EXISTING CONCRETE CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $5,000
TAX MAP # 77.19-2-54
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: CAVE SPRING
P-224 Jonathan Bingham
2725 White Pelican
DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT ADEQUATE CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $20,000
TAX MAP # 87.13-2-4
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: CAVE SPRING
P-229 Mr. David Cushman
805 Halifax Circle
DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT ADEQUATE CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $6,000
TAX MAP # 71.10-2-23
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: VINTON
P-230 John A. & Cynthia L. D. Marco
5069 Williamsburg Court
DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT ADEQUATE CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $ 3,000
TAX MAP # 86.08-5-24
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: WINDSOR HILLS
P-231 Don Neighbors
2020 Denise Circle
DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT NEW CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $3,500
TAX MAP # 39.04-1-35
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: HOLLINS
P-232 Jerry Ogden
3446 Poff Lane
DESCRIPTION: STABILIZE EXISTING CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $12,000
TAX MAP # 87.10-3-11
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: CAVE SPRING
P-237 Patricia Lewis
7192 Bent Mountain Road
DESCRIPTION: STABILIZE EXISTING CHANNEL
ESTIMATED COST: $5,000
TAX MAP # 95.01-02-40
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: WINDSOR HILLS
COMPLETION DATE JOB DESCRIPTION
9/12/96 Removed several trees from creek behind
71 Orlando Drive.
9/18/96 Cut up walnut tree, which had fallen behind
house at 4803 Topping Hill Drive.
9/18/96 Cut up.cherry tree, which had fallen behind
3629 Willetta Drive.
9/19/96 Patched driveway where storm drain was repaired
at Brookwood Drive.
9/26/96 Repaired drainage inlet with quickrete and
filled sinkholes with dirt at 1719 Kingsmill
Road.
9/26/96 Put up 80 ft. of silt fence where ditch is
washing out at 3446 Poff Lane.
9/27/96 Filled in sinkholes and patched gap at bottom
of pipe in drainage inlet at 3660 Bunker Hill
Drive.
10/2/96 Dug up and repaired corrugated metal storm
drain at 5133 Canter Drive.
10/4/96 Removed several trees from creek behind 3102
Garst Cabin Drive.
2/13/96 Installed 3 ft. riser on manhole at Sierra and
Fenwick Drives.
2/26/96 Rip -rapped small section of ditch behind 3576
Colony Lane.
4/8/96 Installed 4" drain across driveway at 4616
Summerset Drive.
4/9/96 Put rip -rap around storm drain outlet behind
4425 Summerset Drive.
5/9/96 Removed trees from creek at 2826 Embassy
Circle and also from under bridge at Poage
Valley Road and Rt. 221.
5/14/96 Installed 240 ft. french drain beside
Clearbrook School. .
5/31/96 Lined ditch with rip -rap between 1223 and 1233
Martha Drive.
2
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
cmmiSQY.Y
`
ft---
8
Anthony Wallace
5621 Legate Drive
Montclair Est.
36.19-01-42
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS P-209
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING &INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
0;#
x,11
Ql
O�
Peggy Stack
323 Ingal Blvd.
Glenvar East
54.02-02-4
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS P-211
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
1, 0
Co,nter
R ,1
Gina Barringer
3422 Lakeland Drive
Nottingham Hills
76.19-02-58
W — PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Rt,1501
Rt,1573
Dr
P-213 1
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
i
c
0j
P vd,
Penn Forest
6,87
d
o�
Roger Jefferson
Darrel Brittin
4721 Starkey Road
87.07-04-10
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS P-217
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
'9
9 CX
57
0 1�,
s
Doris E. & Mabel Carlson
4229 Sharolyn Drive
Arlington Hills
86.16-04-3
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
P-219 1
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
q P�
N
P
o-�
Craig S. Sellers
3616 Manassas Drive
Castle Hill D.
77.18-04-25
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS P-221
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS,;,
�rb x1i�
0< �
0 _
LL -
Paul T. & Susan Leroy
4037 Crawford Road
Greenvalley
77.19-02-54
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS P-223
IM
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
L., -
O
S �
� cQ
� Q
� Rd,
Hatevan
Rt, 1361
Walt Dixon
2680 Willowlawn Sreet
Southwoods
77.05-05-21
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
P-227 1
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
",lP
.Y
S
Horn Cr,
Rt,1071
David Cushman
805 Halifax Circle
Montgomery Village
71.10-02-23
X — PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
P-229
a
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Don Neighbors
2020 Denise Circle
SUBDIVISION NAME
39-04-1-35
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS P-231
ROANOKE COUNTY
_ ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS _ .
1995-96 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
W rrcvru3r.L 1MrrcV Yz,lV1L' lY l.J ll�- - --
g:-\cad\drainac7d\d5003215
ROANOKE COUNTY
ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS
1993-94 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
/-I
TSP
l t,P
O-
��6 k �
Geo- �a
'erg
Patricia Lewis
7192 Bent Mountain Road
95.01-02-40
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
P-237 I
A -121796-6.c
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. L-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of right-of-way from Dennis E. Phelps and Sandra Phelps to
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in connection with the
Pinkard Court Rural Addition Road Project
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SU ARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the following parcel of land
which is required for a turn -around at the proposed end of state maintenance for Pinkard
Street in connection with the Pinkard Court Rural Addition Road Project in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke.
a) Donation from Dennis E. Phelps and Sandra Phelps of the fee simple interest
in a parcel of land containing 0.037 acres designated as "PROPOSED RIGHT-
OF-WAY" on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering
Department, dated October 7, 1992, revised October 12, 1995, a 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:
The Department of Engineering and Inspections was represented by outside counsel
in the preparation, acquisition, and approval of this right-of-way donation. The
engineering staff recommends acceptance of the donation.
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Respectfully submitted,
Vickie L. Huffj4aA
Assistant County Attorney
ACTION
Motion by: Bob L Johnson to
approve
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy x
Harrison x
Johnson x
Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A
COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT
AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
TAX MAP No.
87.08-1-61
PERPETUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENT
(0.037 Ac.) �cS
ai9.
e
PINKARD CT. LOT 5 & 4
REMAINING PROPERTY OF
DENNIS E. & SANDRA P. PHELPS
2 P.B.1 PG.363
PROPERTY OF --1151
DONALD ROOSEVELT MUSE 1 5,
TAX MAP No. 87.08-1-64
oo.�
TAX MAP NO. 87.08-1-62
SCALE:- 1 =20'
PLAT SHOWING PERPETUAL RIGHT & EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
DENNIS E. & SANDRA P. PHELPS
REVISED 10-12-95
PREPARED BY.- ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: j0-07=92
ACTION# A -121796-6.d
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Accept Donation of Water Line Easements from Fralin and
Waldron and Minh and Su Dinh
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ����� ✓���
BACKGROUND:
The Sherry Road water project was approved in the Utility Department's 1995/1996 Capital
Improvement Program. The project is located in the Hollins Magisterial District and involves
replacing the water line in Sherry Road and connecting to the water line in Past Times Lane.
During the design of this project, it was determined that the most economical route for
interconnecting the water line in Past Times Lane was across the corner of the property owned by
Minh and Su Dinh. The owners have agreed to donate the easement to Roanoke County.
The Carriage Hills subdivision was constructed with a private water system that was later acquired
by Roanoke County. This water system was designed and constructed with no fire protection. The
residents are greatly concerned about this.
Staff determined that a single fire hydrant could be installed in the lower section of Carriage Hills as
part of our maintenance budget. This project requires an easement across a lot owned by Fralin and
Waldron Development Corporation. Fralin and Waldron Development Corporation has agreed to
donate the easement to Roanoke County.
The residents have been informed that fire protection cannot be fully provided until a new water
source (Spring Hollow) is available and storage is increased.
FISCAL IMPACT:
These easements are being donated by the property owners and will have no fiscal impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisor accept the donation of these two easements.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
. .... ... ....................
B7
-j Gary Robe on, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge
Utility Director County Administrator
Approved (x)
Denied ' ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
ACTION
Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to
approve
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy x
Harrison x
Johnson x
Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
A -121796-6.e
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: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the
Blue Ridge Community Services Board of
Directors
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
The following nomination was made at the December 17, 1996 meeting
and added to the Consent Agenda for confirmation.
1. Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors
Supervisor Eddy nominated Susan Cloeter to serve another three
year term. Her term will expire on December 31, 1999.
It is recommended that the above appointment be confirmed by the
Board of Supervisors.
Respectfully submitted,
s
Mary H. Allen, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Approved by,
(�-
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) approve Eddy x
Received ( ) Harrison x
Referred ( ) Johnson x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-7 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity
with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of
each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson 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, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Executive Session
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-8 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO CHIP
SULLIVAN FOR BEING THE FIRST PERSON FROM THE
ROANOKE VALLEY TO QUALIFY FOR THE PGA TOUR
WHEREAS, Chip Sullivan has been the golf pro at Hanging Rock
Golf Course in Roanoke County since April, 1993, and before that,
served as Assistant Pro at the Maple Bluff Country Club course in
Madison, Wisconsin; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Sullivan has participated in a variety of PGA
events, such as the PGA African Tour and the PGA Winter Events in
Florida; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Sullivan won the Mid -Atlantic Assistants
Championship, as well as the Mid -Atlantic Pro Championship, and
finished first in the regional qualifying round and third in the
national qualifying round for the 1997 PGA Tour; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Sullivan is the first person from the Roanoke
Valley to participate in the national PGA Tour.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its congratulations
to Chip Sullivan for qualifying for the 1997 PGA Championship Tour;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors commends
Mr. Sullivan for his hard work and dedication to his sport and
extends its best wishes as he participates in the PGA Championship
Round.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
-4 .
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolutions of Congratulations File
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-9 OF APPRECIATION TO
VOLUNTEERS FOR OVER 25 YEARS OF DEDICATED
SERVICE TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is indebted to the volunteers who
provide fire and rescue service to the citizens of the County; and
WHEREAS, these men and women dedicate countless hours, unpaid
but appreciated, to ensure the safety of the people and property of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, due to the complexity of family and business life,
few volunteers are able to maintain this type of commitment over a
long period of time, as demands on their time and energy increase;
and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County wishes to recognize those people who
have been able to continue in service to the citizens of the
County, and has established a Quarter Century Club for the
volunteers who have served for over 25 years.
WHEREAS, they have served as volunteers at the Vinton First
Aid Crew, Hollins Fire and Rescue Department, Cave Spring Fire
Department and Mount Pleasant Fire Department and are eligible for
membership in this club.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on the behalf of
the citizens of the County, does hereby express its deepest
appreciation to the following for over twenty-five years of service
as a volunteer with the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department:
DOUG ADAMS, TOM PHILPOTT, DANNY SNIDER, BARRY FUQUA, BARRY LUSSEN
AND DEAN RORRER; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that they are hereby certified as
members of the Quarter Century Club for Volunteers in Roanoke
County.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Ma�H.Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Amy L. Shelor, Fire & Rescue Volunteer Coordinator
Joseph Sgroi, Director, Human Resources
Resolutions of Appreciation File
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-10 TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING
TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HANGING ROCK
BATTLEFIELD AND RAILWAY PRESERVATION FOUNDATION AND USED
FOR ITS CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND RECREATIONAL
PURPOSES ON A NON-PROFIT BASIS
WHEREAS, The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation
Foundation (the "Foundation") has petitioned this Board for support
of a bill to be introduced at the 1997 Session of the Virginia
General Assembly to exempt certain property of the Foundation from
taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution
of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an
opportunity to be heard with respect to the Foundation's request
was held by the Board on -December 17, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and
considered by the Board; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation agrees that the property to be exempt
from taxation is the property of the Foundation.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That, in accordance with Section 30-19.04 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board supports an exemption from
taxation under Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of
Virginia of property owned and used by The Hanging Rock Battlefield
and Railway Preservation Foundation for its charitable,
educational, and recreational purposes. This resolution is adopted
1
by the Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as
to which public notice was given and at which citizens had an
opportunity to be heard. In adopting this Resolution, the Council
has examined and considered the provisions of subsection B of
Section 30-19.04 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The
assessed value of the property owned and used by the Foundation is
$51,600 and the property tax is $583.08. The Tax Parcel Nos. of
the property owned by the Foundation is 36.03-1-62 and 36.10-1-16.
2. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this
Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly
considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation
pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of
Virginia, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for
Roanoke County, and to The Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway
Preservation Foundation.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
�--- -;;V .
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell, Chairman, Finance Committee
The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith, Va House of Delegates
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Hanging Rock Battlefield and Railway Preservation Foundation
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-11 PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1-238(E) OF
THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF AN EASEMENT THROUGH SEPARATE PARCELS OF
LAND OWNED BY MICHAEL C. MARTIN AND FAYE H. MARTIN AND
RAYMOND e. WEEKS AND DEBeRA Q. WEEKS FOR THE WATER
TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
Following. a public hearing of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., after
due notice to the public, this Board makes the following findings
of fact and adopted the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Water Transmission - Line Project has been
approved to provide a source of water for the citizens of Roanoke
County.
2. That the project is necessary for the general health,
safety and welfare of the public, and specifically will provide a
long-term water source in Roanoke County.
3. That acquisition of an interest in certain parcels of
land, described below, is necessary for construction of water
transmission lines from the Roanoke County Water Treatment Plant to
southwest Roanoke County.
4. In order to complete this Project, the County needs to
acquire an interest in the properties described below:
(a) OWNER: Michael C. Martin and Faye H. Martin
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Parcel of land located on Tyler
Road, Salem, Virginia (Roanoke County Tax Map No. 44.04-
2-49.1)
See attached plat identified as "EXHIBIT All showing water
easement and temporary construction easement to be acquired from
Michael C. Martin and Faye H. Martin.
5. That the fair market value of the interest in the
property to be taken and damages to the residue of such property,
if any, is as follows:
FAIR MARKET VALUE
AND DAMAGES, IF ANY
Michael C. Martin and
Faye H. Martin $ 957.00
6. That each of the landowners have been offered the amounts
listed in paragraph 5 above for an interest in their property and
that each offer was refused by the landowners. Therefore, the only
feasible way of acquiring the land described above is by
condemnation.
7. That it is necessary for the County to immediately enter
upon and take possession of the properties described above and
commence construction of such water transmission lines and any
other appurtenances to the water supply system in order to more
adequately serve the needs of the citizens of Roanoke County and to
2
institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to
the above-described property as provided by law and by this
resolution the County hereby states its intent to do so.
8. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-238(E) of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Board finds that it is
necessary to be vested with those powers granted the Commonwealth
Transportation Commissioner pursuant to Sections 33.1-119 through
33.1-129, both inclusive, in order to enter upon the property to be
condemned prior to or during the condemnation proceeding for the
construction of water transmission lines and any other
appurtenances to the water supply system as described above.
9. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby
condemn the interest in the properties shown on the Exhibits
attached hereto and made a part of this resolution and authorizes
the County Administrator and the County Attorney to sign all papers
and documents necessary to this end on behalf of the County.
10. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors shall in
accordance with Section 15.1-238(E) of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, be vested with those powers granted to the Commonwealth
Transportation Commissioner pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through
33.1-129, both inclusive, in order to enter upon and take the
condemned property prior to or during the condemnation proceeding
so that the construction and maintenance of the water transmission
lines as described above may be commenced immediately the Board of
Supervisors shall perform the duties and functions required of the
Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner in such statutes.
3
11. That notice of this condemnation setting forth the
compensation offered shall be sent by certified mail to the
landowners as described above on or before December 23, 1996.
12. That the law firm of Martin, Hopkins & Lemon, P.C. shall
be the duly authorized agent and attorney for the County for the
purpose of instituting condemnation proceedings and the handling of
the acquisition of these properties for the County.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Resolution and
delete condemnation proceedings against Raymond C. Weeks and Debora
Weeks, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
William B. Hopkins, Jr., Counsel for Roanoke County
(Certified copy)
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
4
pMO
PROPERTY OF
GERALD S: &
UNDA G. HOLT
TAX NO. 44.04-02-58
D.B. 746, PG 355
PROPERTY OF
ANNIE L W/R
D.B. 458, PG. 55
W.B. 60, PG. 59
OLD PINS
pA�p DRIVE X FOUND
''r pRiVATE RO-prA _ ='--r
PROPERTY OF
LEONARD D. WRIGHT
T TAX NO. 44.04-02-50.1
D.B. 1278, PG. 1600
77E ONLY 77E ONLY
�rN 8455'19' E _•— S 1251'03' E
10.7f
NEW EA�ENT UNE� CONS7RUC71t TIENT
o 7,152 SO. FT
BOUNDED BY CORNERS
1 7HRU 5 TO 1
s� PROPERTY OF
MICHAEL C. & FAYE H. MARTIN
TAX NO. 44.04-02-49.1
D.B. 604, PG. 518
PROPERTY OF
U RALPH &
MAGGE G HENSLEY
TAX NO. 44.04-02-48
D.B. 955, PG. 393
NEV 25' WATERLINE
EA"EN T
LEGEND I
(�
PROPERTY
N 845519 E 196.00
LINE
®NEW
WATER
S 125103 E 25.55'
NE ESM'
UT.
--7Y--
FENCE
cd
POWER POLE
'(
WATER METER
PROPERTY OF
LEONARD D. WRIGHT
T TAX NO. 44.04-02-50.1
D.B. 1278, PG. 1600
77E ONLY 77E ONLY
�rN 8455'19' E _•— S 1251'03' E
10.7f
NEW EA�ENT UNE� CONS7RUC71t TIENT
o 7,152 SO. FT
BOUNDED BY CORNERS
1 7HRU 5 TO 1
s� PROPERTY OF
MICHAEL C. & FAYE H. MARTIN
TAX NO. 44.04-02-49.1
D.B. 604, PG. 518
PROPERTY OF
U RALPH &
MAGGE G HENSLEY
TAX NO. 44.04-02-48
D.B. 955, PG. 393
NEV 25' WATERLINE
EA"EN T
LINE
DIREC77ON DISTANCE
1-2
N 845519 E 196.00
2-3
N 89772 26 E 143.47
3-4
S 125103 E 25.55'
4-5
S 89172 26 W 341.96'
5-1
N 12'42 22 W 11.16
AREA = 7,752 SO. FT.
NO7ES.
1. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A 777LE REPORT AND IS
SUBJECT THERETO. THEREFORE, THERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH
AFFECT 774E PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON.
2. METES AND BOUNDS DESCR/P770NS SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT A
COMPOSITE OF DEEDS, PLA 75; CALCULATED INFORMA77ON AND FIELD
77ES TO PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TO LOCATE THE POS177ON OF THE
EASEMENT IN RELATION TO THE BOUNDARIES THIS SUR SURVEY DOES
NOT REFLECT. A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE BO-UNDA
R
Y SJ„ >Fvl
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
EASEMENT PLAT FOR
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
AX NO. 44.04-0
.6. DRAWN
ALC. CHK .D
LOSED: JB
SHOWING A NEW 25' WATERLINE EASEMENT AND A
NEW 10' TEMPORARY CONSTRUC7701V EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED BY
MICHAEL C. & FAYE H. MAR 77N
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
TH OF Y
qK B. CALDWELL, III ;P'
No. 1335
'Aft su V510.
J-49,1 TPP&S T. P. PARKER &SONSCALE: 1"= -)U'81g Boulevard DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1996
EGINEERS
SURVEYORS Post oiSne Bos 39 D— 46207 _
PLANNERS Salem, Virginia 24153 W.O.: 92_ 1078
EXHIBIT
A
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
ORDINANCE 121796-12.a AMENDING AND REENACTING
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5, ANIMALS AND FOWL OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO CLARIFY THE AUTHORITY OF
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THE COUNTY'S ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCES, AND TO INCREASE THE FEES FOR
BOARDING AND PICKUP OF ANIMALS.
WHEREAS, the animal control ordinance of Roanoke County was
passed prior to the creation of the Roanoke County Police
Department and the creation of the position of Community Service
Officer within that Department; and
WHEREAS, the need exists to clarify the duties and
responsibilities of the County's Community Service officers to
enforce the provisions of the County's animal control ordinance
contained in Chapter 5 of the Roanoke County Code; and
WHEREAS, the County's new contract with the Roanoke Valley
SPCA includes an increase in the daily boarding rate for any
domestic animal to $7.75 and the current pickup fee for confined
animals no longer covers a reasonable portion of the County's cost
involved in impounding such animals; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
December 3, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing for
this ordinance was held on December 17, 1996.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, as follows.
1. That Chapter 5, ANIMALS AND FOWL of the Roanoke County
Code be amended and reenacted as follows:
CHAPTER 5 ANIMALS AND FOWL*
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 5-1. Animal control officer generally.
(a) There is hereby created the position ofn3
.................... .
for the county. Such
officer# shall be appointed by the << 1€ can Y
c Such number of.c��trti�;'�>}<'�'•�.;.;:::.:::::::::.;;..:.:.:�.�:<.�.:::::._.:::depaties-to
the animal contro-1-affiCo-_ as are authorized by the board of
b > a
supervisors �'��''>� map -be appointed Ythe .............................................:..........
d The ony>rrz><4
shall be deemed to be the county's animal warden, within the
meaning of section s ?=9213.:Ta of the Code of Virginia.
(Code 1971, § 5-4)
Sec. 5-3. Wild bird sanctuaries --Established; markers.
(a) The following area(s) in the county shall be set aside
and declared wild bird sanctuaries:
LIP
0 U-01-
�ffi IN
NIL
() Beginning at a point on Ruritan Road (Virginia
Secondary'Route 609) at its intersection with the lot
line of Lot 11, Block 8, of La Bellevue Subdivision,
thence S 850 19' 30" W 910.35 feet to a point; thence N
580 11' 44" W 400.30 feet to a point; thence N 120 22'
W along the northwest right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 609 to a point; thence N 590 40' W
118.76 feet to a point; thence S 440 32' W 1007.22 feet
to a point; thence S 340 45' E 358.82 feet to a point;
thence S 460 32' W 487.47 feet to a point; thence N 33°
37' W 1307.70 feet to a point; thence N 110 59' 20" E
1219.37 feet to a point; thence along the northerly
property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of La Bellevue to a
point on the north lot line of Lot 2, Block 1 of La
Bellevue; thence N 520 46' 42" E 1511.15 feet to a
point; thence N 90 34' 24" E 70.62 feet to a point;
thence N 380 44' 54" E 201.40 feet to a point; thence N
560 16' 57" W 166.75 feet to a point; thence N 180 45'
E 173.25 feet to a point; thence N 400 38' 12" for a
distance of 91.14 feet to a point; thence N 320 33' 47"
W 207.99 feet to a point; thence S 710 50' for a
distance of 100 feet to a point; thence N 330 42' 38" W
463.79 feet to a point; thence N 520 46' 42" E 920.0
feet to a point; thence S 580 50' 40" E 442.76 feet to
a point; thence S 580 15' E for a distance of 1091.51
feet to a point; thence S 580 15' E 629.46 feet to a
point; thence S 300 32' 09" W 1665.36 feet to a point;
thence S 190 51' 40" W 321.80 feet to a point; thence S
3
4!i•J-�il�=�•1�1•!•l�C.}�1��•i=�•l�al�N
l=•�•L.*�1=��•FZ•S�l•i�f-7��Z=�R•L
R.J �1
() Beginning at a point on Ruritan Road (Virginia
Secondary'Route 609) at its intersection with the lot
line of Lot 11, Block 8, of La Bellevue Subdivision,
thence S 850 19' 30" W 910.35 feet to a point; thence N
580 11' 44" W 400.30 feet to a point; thence N 120 22'
W along the northwest right-of-way of Virginia
Secondary Route 609 to a point; thence N 590 40' W
118.76 feet to a point; thence S 440 32' W 1007.22 feet
to a point; thence S 340 45' E 358.82 feet to a point;
thence S 460 32' W 487.47 feet to a point; thence N 33°
37' W 1307.70 feet to a point; thence N 110 59' 20" E
1219.37 feet to a point; thence along the northerly
property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of La Bellevue to a
point on the north lot line of Lot 2, Block 1 of La
Bellevue; thence N 520 46' 42" E 1511.15 feet to a
point; thence N 90 34' 24" E 70.62 feet to a point;
thence N 380 44' 54" E 201.40 feet to a point; thence N
560 16' 57" W 166.75 feet to a point; thence N 180 45'
E 173.25 feet to a point; thence N 400 38' 12" for a
distance of 91.14 feet to a point; thence N 320 33' 47"
W 207.99 feet to a point; thence S 710 50' for a
distance of 100 feet to a point; thence N 330 42' 38" W
463.79 feet to a point; thence N 520 46' 42" E 920.0
feet to a point; thence S 580 50' 40" E 442.76 feet to
a point; thence S 580 15' E for a distance of 1091.51
feet to a point; thence S 580 15' E 629.46 feet to a
point; thence S 300 32' 09" W 1665.36 feet to a point;
thence S 190 51' 40" W 321.80 feet to a point; thence S
3
410 32' E 300.08 feet to a point; thence S 410 45' 30"
W 199.61 feet to a point; thence across the right-of-
way of Ruritan Road (Virginia Secondary Route 609) to
the point of beginning and containing Blocks 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
20 and 21 of the La Bellevue Subdivision.
(b) Suitable markers approved by the county administrator
may be erected on the roads entering the sanctuaries described in
subsection (a) above, indicating that the areas have been so set
aside and declared.
(Code 1971, § 5-1; Ord. No. 2664, 9-9-80)
ARTICLE II. DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 5-23. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights
relating thereto.
(a) All dogs and cats in this county shall be deemed
personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious
or unlawful trespass and the owners thereof may maintain any
action for the killing of any such dogs or cats, or injury
thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof, as in the case of
other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is
injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this article by
any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the
damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such
person.
(Code 1971, § 5-6; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94)
4
See. 5-26.1. Dangerous dogs; vicious dog; penalties; procedures.
(a) Dangerous dog. It shall be unlawful and a Class 1
misdemeanor to own, keep, harbor, act as custodian of or permit
to remain on or about any premises any dog that the owner knew or
reasonably should have known to be a dangerous dog, as defined by
section 5-21, except in strict compliance with section 5-26.3 of
this Code. If after hearing evidence, the court finds any dog to
be a dangerous dog, the court shall, in addition to any other
penalties imposed, order the dog's owner to comply with the
provisions of section 5-26.3. If any owner knew or reasonably
should have known any dog to be a dangerous dog and such dog
thereafter causes a wound to any person, such owner shall be
guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) Vicious dog. It shall be unlawful and a Class 1
misdemeanor to own, keep, harbor, act as custodian of or permit
to remain on or about any premises any dog that the owner knew or
reasonably should have known to be a vicious dog, as defined by
section 5-21. If, after hearing evidence, the court finds any
dog to be a vicious dog, the court shall, in addition to any
other penalties imposed, order the
to euthanize the dog. If any owner knew
or reasonably should have known any dog to be a vicious dog and
such dog thereafter causes a wound to any person, such owner
shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(c) Procedures. When a warrant has been obtained or a
summons issued pursuant to this section, the gwowz er €
€044 and/or police officer may, in his
discretion, confine the dog until such time as evidence shall be
heard and a verdict rendered. The court may, through its
contempt power, compel the owner of any dog to produce it for the
....................................................' Sand/or police
officer. In the event any dog is found to be a dangerous dog or
vicious dog, the owner of such dog shall be responsible for
payment to the county of any expenses of impounding and keeping
the dog pending disposition of the case at the rate prescribed by
the county board of supervisors.
(Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93)
Sec. 5-26.2. Licensure of dangerous dog.
(a) The owner of any dog found by a court to be a dangerous
dog shall, within ten (10) days of such finding, obtain a
dangerous dog license from the treasurer by paying the fee
required by section 5-41 of this Code. The treasurer shall
provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag which identifies
E
the dog as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the
dog's collar and ensure that the dog wears collar and tag at all
times. All licenses issued pursuant to this section shall be
renewed annually as required by section 5-41 of this Code.
(b) No dangerous dog license shall be issued until the
applicant has filed with the treasurer the insurance certificate
required by section 5-26.3(c). The treasurer shall immediately
forward .�x«:: :.; ;:»::;orf such certificate to e::: c :: <:>::: :.:. 4
........;.:'�?.:�:�?'::.;;:.;:.;;;;: ....... ...........................::....�..�::::...:.:.;.:.:...:..::...:..:...:..::.
the county's risk manager for review and filing. The risk
...... ,
manager shall immediately notify the
of any noncompliance with the provisions
of section 5-26.3(c) of which the risk manager becomes aware.
(Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93)
Sec. 5-26.3. Keeping dangerous dogs; conditions.
It shall be unlawful for any owner of any dangerous dog to
own, keep, or harbor any such dog within the county except in
compliance with each of the following conditions and
specifications:
(a) Any dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors
or, if kept outdoors, shall be kept in a securely
enclosed and locked pen or structure adequate to
confine the dog and located upon the premises of the
owner of the dog. Any such pen or structure shall have
secure sides and a secure top and, if it has no bottom
secured to the sides, the sides shall be imbedded into
the ground no less than two (2) feet. Such pen or
structures shall provide any such dog with adequate
space and protection from the elements and shall be
kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
(b) The owner of any dangerous dog shall display two (2)
signs on his property stating: "Dangerous Dog on
Premises.'' One sign shall be posted at the front of
the property, and the second sign shall be posted at
the rear of the property. Each sign shall be capable of
being read from a distance of fifty (50) feet.
(c) The owner of any dangerous dog shall procure and
maintain public liability insurance in the amount of
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) insuring the owner
for any injury or damage caused by such dog. The owner
shall maintain a valid policy and certificate of
insurance issued by the insurance carrier or agent as
to the coverage required by this subsection at the
premises where such dog is kept and shall, upon
n
request, display such policy and certificate to any
ggM4 •.
police officer.
(d) The owner of any dangerous dog shall have such dog
permanently identified by means of a tatoo on an inside
thigh, and the owner of any dangerous dog shall provide
the x;animal cont:rvl Officer
with a color photograph of the dog taken within the
last twelve (12) months, suitable for use in
identifying the dog.
(e) If any dangerous dog is taken off the property of its
owner, such dog shall be muzzled and restrained by a
substantial chain or leash not exceeding six (6) feet
in length, and such dog shall at all times be kept
under the control of a responsible person. Such muzzle
shall be constructed in such a manner that it will
prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but
such that it will not cause injury to the dog or
interfere with its vision or respiration.
(f) The owner of any dangerous dog shall notify the
pq
with . i . n A. twenty four (24) hours i such dog is t?
..:...: .
>' loose or missing; if such dog has attacked or
wounded a human being or another animal; or if such dog
has been sold, leased, given away, died, or custody has
been transferred to another person for more than forty-
eight (48) hours. If such dog has been sold, leased,
given away, or custody has been so transferred, the
owner shall provide the:C4 a imal
.::...:.....:...:...:.........:.
with the name, address, and
telephone number of the new owner, lessee, or custodian
who shall be required to comply with the conditions of
this section if the dog is kept within the county. If
the owner of a dangerous dog moves such dog to a
different address, such owner shall notify the P+?
reanimal contrul department of such fact and
the new address within twenty-four (24) hours.
JO:!?):4:;::i}}}y>i}i' •.i4i:•iii;;Y.O:jJ:: :;:•;}.. ;:: ";j•iiii:•i:i•i:
(g) The»>re;;€f fanimal: contral: officer
and/or police officer shall be permitted the right to
inspect the enclosure in which any dangerous dog is
kept at any time.
(h) In addition to the conditions and specifications
established by this Section with respect to dangerous
dogs, the owner of any dangerous dog shall meet all
other requirements established by this article for
keeping any dog.
7
( i ) The::..
and/or police officer shall have the right to seize and
impound the dog if any of the conditions and
specifications established by this section for the
keeping of a dangerous dog are not being met.
(Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93)
Sec. 5-26.4. Violations.
It shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor for the owner of any dog
which has caused a wound to any person to conceal or cause to be
:.F.. ..:.::::......: ... n... Yi•}:L:^iii:::: :.: ..:: ...j, ... ..: ..may
concealed such dog from an is tft :- :: a mal
control officer or police officer.
(Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93)
Sec. 5-27. Barking or howling dogs.
The harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent
or habitual barking or howling or by any other conduct, shall
cause annoyance and disturb the peace and quiet of any person or
neighborhood shall be unlawful; and any such dog is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance. Any such dog may, after
reasonable notice - has been given by the tar:::
:•.::::: ..: ....: ii.::.'..: .:: viii:' ...:..,: i...: ...:: .: .. ::: ..:. ..:.:tii:' .': ".' :.F:•''?.�: `:.
dej
to the
owner of such dog, if known, or upon the complaint of any person,
if such owner is unknown, be impounded and confined in the county
animal shelter by the
0t8se:<;f:fxx�animal: cox a
:..:.....::....::...... ::..:..:..:...:...:.. .
officer. The disposition of any such dog shall be in accordance
with section 5-29.
(Code 1971, § 5-10.2)
Cross reference(s)--Noise generally, § 13-3.
Sec. 5-29. Same --Impoundment.
`>c i> `;<>
duty
(a) It shall be the of the
or other officer to cause any dog found
running at large in violation of section 5-28 or any dog or cat
creating an animal nuisance in the presence of the officer as
defined by section 5-21 to be caught and confined in the county
animal shelter. Every st7 effort shall be made on the part
officer
�.>::>r��>�::``{'�e
of the '��Q�'.�...........
or
offs
.......::,:............. other :...::........:....:- ::....:.,:.:::,.::.iii:.:.>....
to determine the ownership of an animal so confined ze>>a1
its whereabouts.
8
and to notifv the owner of
..................... ..
confined under
(b) A dog or cat .... .......:::::::.:;:.;>:.;:.;;;:<.;:.;:.;>:..... .
d
this section . .. .. .... may be claimed by the
rightful owner after displaying proof of ownership, a current dog
or cat license and proof of current rabies inoculation of the
animal. No dog or cat shall be released to any person claiming
ownership, unless such license and proof have been displayed.
(c) An owner claiming his animal pursuant to subsection (b)
above shall be required to pay the actual expense incurred by the
county in keeping the animal confined. Such payment shall be made
to the anima± contro± of f icer ar othertiur of f icer at the
time of the release of the animal. It sfiall be the duty of the
animal control officer or ather-1`--!a--.".-X--,* officer to furnish the
owner with a written receipt for such payment, in a form and
manner approved by the board of supervisors. Such officer shall
keep a carbon copy of all such receipts in a bound book, which
shall be turned over to the county treasurer when the book is
filled and shall be subject to audit by representatives of the
board of supervisors whenever requested.
funds collected pursuant
......... ................. t ------
..' W' -P
M
to this subsection shall .... tV
M D. ...
. ......... ..
. ........ .......
be disposed of in Lhe sairte manner as
dug and cmt taxes. No payment made under this subsection
shall relieve the owner from prosecution for violating section 5-
28.
NO NOW" ---
V W-1 -,L- - Z
.
- �-Y --a.00) for the
(e) A pickup fee of n t�en dollars
El
+.....................: dollars )
first offense >:�'' y ($.00 for the
second offense, and f thirty dollars ($ t". .00) for the third
offense shall be imposed in addition to the normal board fee of
:.:;...>;«<..>:<::;.> ssx dollars $s''6-66 per da when any dog
....z.....::...:.::..:::.... P Y
or cat o; is claimed by its owner or custodian.
(Code 1971, §§ 5-11, 5-26; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No.
52290-7, § 1, 5-22-90; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94)
Sec.•5-31. Killing, injuring, etc., livestock or poultry --
Generally.
It shall be the duty of then ::>`uce;::»t3f:f>c::
(a) I YY:::::::::::::::::.:::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::.::...:.:.:......
...............::::.
animal: c;untrol officer
or other officer, if he finds a dog in the
act of killing, injuring, worrying or chasing livestock or
poultry, to kill such dog forthwith, whether such dog bears a tag
or not, and any person finding a dog committing any of the
depredations mentioned in this section shall have the right to
kill such dog on sight.
(b) The general district court or any other court shall have
the power to order the animal'?u.�::�:.;;;;>;:.;;;::;:.;:.;::
..:.....:.:.::.::...:......
officer
or other officer to kill any dog known to be a confirmed
livestock or poultry killer, and any dog killing poultry for the
third time shall be considered a confirmed poultry killer.
the "::
c If an person,includinzituezuc::
animal control officer, has reason to believe that any dog is
killing livestock or committing any of the depredations mentioned
in this section, he shall apply to a magistrate of the county,
who shall issue a warrant requiring the owner or custodian, if
known, to appear before the judge of the general district court
at the time and place named therein, at which time evidence shall
be heard, and if it shall appear that such dog is a livestock
killer or has committed any of the depredations mentioned in this
section, the dog shall be ordered killed immediately, which the
{i;iii::iwi'Y:ti ;<•:i:....i:.}`:•'ii:•::'.'._; ::+;: _:j.y; • :}:".: •'j'Y.;iii:;:4 i:'ii zt l _ ?anima± control officer - or other officer
designated by the judge of the general district court to act,
shall do.
(Code 1971, § 5-7)
State law reference(s)--Dogs killing, injuring, etc., other
10
animals, Code of Virginia, §§ 3.1-796.116, 3.1-796.117.
Sec. 5-32. Same --Investigation of claims against county.
a The aii>'feanimal coliftol officer
shall conduct an investigation into any claim made pursuant to
section 3.1-796.118 of the Code of Virginia for livestock or
poultry killed or injured by a dog prior to the payment of such
claim, to determine if the claimant has exhausted all legal
remedies available to him against the owner of the dog, if known,
prior to making such claim to the board of supervisors.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "exhaustion'' shall
mean a judgment against the owner of the dog upon which an
execution has been returned unsatisfied.
(Code 1971, § 5-13.1)
Sec. 5-33. Disposal of dead dogs.
The owner of any dog which has died from disease or other
cause shall forthwith cremate or bury the same. If, after notice,
the owner fails to do so, the ., .. .. E v ..;,L r all mal:
:.. :..
control officer or other officer shall bury or cremate the dog
and he may recover, on behalf of the county, from the owner his
cost f or this service.
(Code 1971, § 5-8)
Cross references) --County solid waste collectors not to
pick up dead animals, § 20-27.
07 office
Sec. 5-36.
"'D Animal i rs' Animal c - -- _-
duties and responsibilities.
There is hereby created the position ofdb
zsez
--------- --_ - -
____ -- t
officer within t
3zz . The ..xn;.:>::>::; :ere
y
.. ..:....
c or his agent or any law
n ..
........
forcement officer shall have the following powers:
(1) May enter upon private property to apprehend any
domestic animal which is in violation of any provision
of this chapter or to apprehend any animal which
presents an immediate threat to the safety, health or
welfare of any person, including an animal suspected of
11
being infected with rabies;
(2) May enter upon private property to investigate
complaints of inhumane or lack of responsible animal
care;
(3) May seize, impound or dispose of any vicious or
dangerous animal of any kind when necessary for the
protection of any person or animal; and
(4) May perform all other acts necessary to carry out the
requirements of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94)
Secs. 5-37--5-40. Reserved.
Division 2. License
Sec. 5-49. Preservation and exhibition of license receipt.
A dog or cat license receipt shall be carefully preserved by
the person to whom it is issued and exhibited promptly on request
for inspection by the.............:...:...:t..'4:.:<':'....;.
:::Qn..•iii::•: .:i.•:4:�.:-i:.?: ;....:.:..•::...?..:?..i.i i.i.i.:.:.•
animal contl
officer or any other officer.
(Code 1971, § 5-25; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94)
Sec. 5-53. Records of licenses sold.
A list of all dog or cat licenses and kennel licenses sold
shall be made in triplicate, consecutively numbered, and showing
to whom issued; residence address; magisterial district; tag
number; year ending; day, month and year issued; and the
signature of the county treasurer. The original copy shall be
delivered to the dog or cat owner, the second copy shall be
retained by the treasurer and the third copy shall be delivered
to
(Code 1971, § 5-19; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94)
Sec. 5-55. Special provisions as to kennel licenses.
(a) The owner of a kennel shall securely fasten the license
tag issued under this division to the kennel enclosure in full
12
view and keep one of the identification plates provided therewith
attached to the collar of each dog authorized to be kept enclosed
in the kennel. Any identification plates not so in use shall be
kept by the owner or custodian and promptly shown to any
animal control afficer or other officer
upon request. A kennel dog shall not be permitted to stray beyond
the limits of the enclosure, but this shall not prohibit removing
dogs therefrom temporarily while under the control of the owner
or custodian for the purpose of exercising, hunting, breeding,
trial or show. A kennel shall not be operated in such manner as
to defraud the county of the license tax applying to dogs which
cannot be legally covered thereunder or to in any manner violate
other provisions of this article.
(b) If a kennel dog is found running and roaming at large at
any time of the year in violation of any provision of this
article, the kennel license may be revoked, if the violation
appears to the trial court to have resulted from carelessness or
negligence on the part of the owner, who shall thereupon be
required to secure an individual license for each dog.
(Code 1971, 5 5-27)
Secs. 5-56--5-65. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. RABIES CONTROL*
Sec. 5-67. Vaccination certificate.
At the time of vaccination of a dog or cat pursuant to
section 5-66, a certificate shall be issued to the owner of the
dog or cat, which certificate shall be properly executed and
signed by AS
ctirrently -Licensed , and shall certify that the dog
or cat has been vaccinated as required by section 5-66. The
certificate shall show the date of vaccination, a brief
description of the dog or cat, and its sex and breed, and the
name of the owner of the dog or cat.
(Code 1971, 55 5-16, 5-30; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No.
51287-4, 5 1, 5-12-87; Ord. No. 72688-11, 5 1, 7-26-88)
13
Sec. 5-68. Impoundment of unvaccinated dogs or cats.
(a) Any dog or cat found in the county which is not
vaccinated as required in division shall be impounded by the
9:<: v .....:::::.... :: n.........:.... ... Y.......:::::
iia`;.« zc a or other
officer."', and txe±d at tile animal she±ter for a period of seven (Iy
daps. The dog or cat may be returned to its owner, upon proof of
ownership, vaccination of the dog or cat, and payment of the cost
of impounding the dog or cat. Such payment shall not relieve the
owner from prosecution for violating section 5-66.
impounded under t:his section and nut claimed by itn, owner may be
disposed of in accordance with the provision of section 3.±
796.96 of the eode of Vi.LLj-L11-LGX.
(Code 1971, § 5-30; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 51287-4, §
1, 5-12-87; Ord. No. 72688-11, § 1, 7-26-88)
Sec. 5-69. vaccination clinics.
The board of supervisors may provide for clinics for the
vaccination of dogs and cats under the supervision of the
and the health
director and fix fees to be charged for services rendered at such
clinics.
(Code 1971, § 5-31; Ord. No. 51287-4, § 1, 5-12-87)
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and
after January 1, 1997.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance with
the addition of "electronic implant" on page 8, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
14
cc: File
Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney
Circuit Court
G. O. Clemens, Judge
Roy B. Willett, Judge
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge
Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court
Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge
Philip Trompeter, Judge
John B. Ferguson, Judge
Joseph P. Bounds, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
John L. Apostolou, Judge
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Julian H. Raney, Judge
Theresa A. Childress, Clerk
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry
Main Library
John H. Cease, Police Chief
Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire & Rescue
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016
Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt
Roanoke County Code Book
Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
SPCA - Cerf if ied copy
15
A -121796-12.b
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER L I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: December 17, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING PORTIONS OF
CHAPTER 5, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE TO CLARIFY THE AUTHORITY OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
OFFICERS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
ENFORCE THE COUNTY'S ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCES, AND
TO INCREASE THE FEES FOR BOARDING AND PICKUP OF ANIMALS
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE
A CONTRACT WITH THE ROANOKE VALLEY SPCA FOR THE
IMPOUNDMENT OF ANIMALS.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The animal control ordinance of Roanoke County, Chapter 5 of the Roanoke County
Code, predates the establishment of the Roanoke County Police Department in 1990. With
the recent transfer of responsibility for enforcement of all animal control laws to the
Community Service Officers within the Police Department, the County's animal control
ordinance needs to be revised to conform to the current administrative structure. The
recent renegotiation of the County's contract with the Roanoke Valley SPCA for boarding
of impounded animals necessitates a revision of the boarding fee charged to owners who
claim their animals. Current costs of personnel and equipment involved in animal control
operations justifies an increase in the pickup fee for impounded animals which was first
established in 1971. Other revisions in state law also require updating of the County's
animal control ordinance.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The major substantive changes to the County's animal control ordinance are as
follows:
1. Creates the positions of Community Service Officer within the Roanoke
County Police Department, confers full law enforcement powers on these
officers who are appointed by the Chief of Police and designates them the
County's animal wardens for purposes of state law.
2. Substitutes "Community Service Officer" for "animal control officer"
throughout Chapter 5 of the Roanoke County Code so as to confer the same
duties and responsibilities upon these officers as formerly exercised by the
County's animal control officers.
3. Clarifies the obligation of officers to make "reasonable efforts" to contact the
owner of a dog or cat possessing an identifying tag or tattoo within 48 hours
in conformity with state law. Further clarifies the length of time impounded
animals must be confined before they may be delivered for adoption or
disposed of.
4. Increases the daily boarding fee to $7.75 and the pickup fees to $20.00,
$35.00 and $50.00 for first, second and third offenses, respectively and
permits such fees to be recovered as a debt owed to the County.
It had been staffs recommendation at the first reading of the ordinance on
December 3, 1996, to repeal Sec. 5-69. Vaccination clinics. However, it was the consensus
of the Board that this section be left in the Ordinance.
The County also needs to amend its contract with the SPCA to reflect the daily
boarding fee paid by the County for all impounded animals from $6.00 to $7.75 per day
(the amount being charged since September 1, 1996) and also to reflect the revised period
that the impounded animal will be held (five days instead of seven days unless the animal
has an identifying collar, tag, license or tattoo). The changes to the contract would be
effective immediately.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The County may save as much as $3,600 per year in boarding costs with the SPCA
by the change from 7 t o 5 days as the required minimum time for confining animals
whose owner cannot be identified. Funds were included in the 1996-97 Budget to cover
the daily cost increase from the $6.00 to the $7.75 rate.
2
U 10 -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following action:
(1) Adopt the proposed amendments to the County Code;
(2) Authorize the County Administrator to execute the revised contract with the
Roanoke Valley SPCA.
Respectfully submitted,
Jo h B. Obenshain
Se#or Assistant County Attorney
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) approve ordinance with additionEddy _X
Received ( ) of "electronic implant" on Harrison_
Referred ( ) page 8 of the ordinance Johnson x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens X
cc: SEE DISTRIBUTION ON ORDINANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson to No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) approve contract with SPCA Eddy _X
Received ( ) Harrison _x
Referred ( ) Johnson x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens X
cc: File
Joseph B. Obenshain, Sr. Assistant County Attorney
John H. Cease, Chief of Police
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator
SPCA
3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
ORDINANCE 121796-13 ESTABLISHING A BOARD OF APPEALS AND
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS TO HEAR APPEALS
FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, "FIRE
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION", OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, Section 27-98 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
provides that a local governing body may establish procedures and
requirements for the administration and enforcement of the Virginia
Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and,
WHEREAS, appeals concerning the application of this Code by the
County Fire Marshal shall first lie to a local board of appeals and
then to the State Building Code Technical Review Board ; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby
designates itself as a board of appeals and establishes procedures and
requirements for appeals of enforcement decisions made under the
provisions of Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the
Roanoke County Code; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December
3, 1996, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance
was held on December 17, 1996.
BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That Chapter 9, "Fire Prevention and Protection" of the
Roanoke County Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new
section, Section 9-21, "Appeals" to provide as follows:
Section 9-21 Appeals.
(a) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Roanoke
County Fire Marshal under the provisions of this Chapter may file a
1
written appeal with the clerk to the Board of Supervisors for review
of the Fire Marshal's decision. The written appeal must be filed
within ten (10) days of the decision of the Fire Marshall, in a manner
and form to be specified by the Fire and Rescue Chief.
(b) The written appeal must specify the grounds for the
appeal, and must be accompanied by the payment of the sum of Twenty -
Five ($25.00) Dollars in order to defray the costs of such appeal.
(c) Upon receipt of the appeal the board shall proceed at
its earliest convenience to hear the appeal. The board shall within
three (3) working days render a decision in accordance with its
findings.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after December 17, 1996.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
Supervisor Eddy
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
F
cc: File
Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire & Rescue
Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney
Circuit Court
G. O. Clemens, Judge
Roy B. Willett, Judge
Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge
Robert P. Doherty, Jr., Judge
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Cou
Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge
Philip Trompeter, Judge
John B. Ferguson, Judge
Joseph P. Bounds, Judge
Ruth P. Bates, Clerk
Intake Counsellor
General District Court
John L. Apostolou, Judge
George W. Harris, Judge
William Broadhurst, Judge
Vincent Lilley, Judge
Julian H. Raney, Judge
Theresa A. Childress, Clerk
Skip Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Magistrates Sherri Krantz/Betty Perry
Main Library
John H. Cease, Police Chief
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016
Roanoke County Law Library, Singleton Osterhoudt
Roanoke County Code Book
Gerald S. Holt, Sheriff
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
O. Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Terrance L. Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Michael Lazzuri, Court Services
William J. Rand, III, Director, General Services
Thomas S. Haislip, Director, Parks & Recreation
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-14 RESCINDING RESOLUTION 111996-13 AND
WITHDRAWING THE AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE A ONE ACRE
PARCEL OF LAND FROM RANDOLPH H. VEST, JR. AND LINDA C.
VEST FOR THE COUNTRY FARM ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, on November 19, 1996, the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County adopted Resolution 111996-13 pursuant to Title 25
and Sections 15.1-236 and 15.1-238 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, authorizing the acquisition of a 1 -acre parcel of land
from Randolph H. Vest, Jr. and Linda C. Vest for the Country Farm
Road Improvements Project by eminent domain proceedings; and
WHEREAS, based upon the recommendation and approval of the
Virginia Department of Transportation, the improvements to Country
Farm Road for purposes of this project are no longer necessary at
this time; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition and condemnation of the Vest property
is no longer required as a result of the VDOT changes to the road
improvement project; and
WHEREAS, the County has not entered upon this real estate; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it in the best
interests of the public to rescind Resolution 111996-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County as follows:
1. That the acquisition of this property for the Country
Farm Road Improvement Project is no longer necessary.
2. That Resolution 111996-13 is hereby rescinded and the
1
Board withdraws its authorization to acquire a one acre parcel of
land from Randolph H. Vest, Jr. and Linda C. Vest for the Country
Farm Road Improvement Project by eminent domain proceedings.
3. That this Resolution is effective immediately upon its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTS:
Mary( H. Allen,, Clerk
JWV
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Econ Dev
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-15 CONCURRING IN THE EXTENSION OF THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE KROGER CO., AN
OHIO CORPORATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING FOR RELIEF
FROM AN ASSESSMENT OF LICENSE TAXES
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue has assessed The
Kroger Co., an Ohio corporation, (the "Company") with certain
business, professional and occupational license taxes ("license
taxes") for the tax year 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the Company has raised certain objections with
respect to the assessment of these license taxes, and has sought a
refund thereof; and,
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue, the County of
Roanoke and the Company seek amicably to resolve this dispute with
respect to these license taxes; however, the statute of limitations
for filing an application for relief to the circuit court from this
assessment expires on December 31, 1996 in accordance with the
provisions of Section 58.1-3984, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
NOW THEREFORE, Be It Resolved, by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, as follows:
1. That the Board concurs in extending the applicable
statute of limitations for the filing of an application for relief
to the circuit court by The Kroger Co. from an assessment of
license taxes for the tax year 1993 for a period of time not to
exceed three months, until March 31, 1997.
1
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this resolution, in conjunction with the
Commissioner of the Revenue, all upon from approved by the County
Attorney.
on motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
kA
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-16 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS
TO THE REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE WITH THE CITY OF ROANOKE, THE CITY
OF SALEM, THE COUNTY OF BOTETOURT AND THE TOWN OF VINTON
WHEREAS, by Resolution 101194-1 adopted on October 11, 1994
the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the execution of
a regional sewage treatment contract, dated November 1, 1994, on
behalf of the County of Roanoke with the City of Roanoke, the City
of Salem, the County of Botetourt, and the Town of Vinton; and,
WHEREAS, the parties to this contract desire to amend this
contract to reflect certain changes to the capacity of the regional
sewage treatment plant, and the allocations of capacity in said
plant among the parties.,
cast:s among the parties.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, as follows:
1. That the amendments to the regional sewage treatment
contract dated November 1, 1994 on behalf of the County of Roanoke
with the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the County of
Botetourt and the Town of Vinton are hereby approved and
authorized. These amendments address certain changes to the
capacity of the regional sewage treatment plant, and the
allocations of capacity in said plant among the parties., and the
M110cations of tvta± project cos-- -ALtW111J the
2. That the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby
authorized to execute this amendment to the contract on behalf of
1
the citizens and Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
subject to the review and approval of the final contract amendment
by the County Administrator and the County Attorney.
3. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to
mail a certified copy of this resolution to the Clerks for the City
Councils of the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem, the Town
Council of the Town of Vinton, and the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Botetourt.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to approve the contract with
Supervisor Eddy's suggestion that Resolution be amended to remove
allocations of total project costs among the parties, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Gary Robertson, Director, Utility
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council
Forest Jones, Clerk, Salem City Council
Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council
Gerald A. Burgess, Botetourt County Administrator
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution 121796-16 adopted by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, December 17,
1996.
Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-17 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE
SETTLEMENT OF A LICENSE TAX CLAIM AGAINST COX CABLE
ROANOKE
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County") and Cox
Cable Roanoke ("Cox") have disagreed with respect to the liability
of Cox for business, professional and occupational license taxes;
and,
WHEREAS, the County and Cox desire to settle this dispute
amicably in order to avoid the expenses and uncertainty of
litigation; and,
WHEREAS, the County and Cox have negotiated a settlement of
their dispute.
NOW THEREFORE, Be It Resolved, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, as follows:
1. That in settlement of this dispute (a) Cox agrees to pay
to the County the sum of $32,725.00 to satisfy any liability for
license taxes for 1996 and a tax at .20 per hundred for the period
of July 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995; (b) the Commissioner of
the Revenue and Cox agree that Cox be classified as a Retailer
under Chapter 10, "LICENSES", of the Roanoke County Code; (c) Cox
agrees to withdraw any objection to this classification or
assessment and levy of license taxes by the Commissioner and the
County; (d) Cox agrees to pay said license taxes under the Retailer
classification beginning January 1, 1997; and (e) this license tax
1
shall not be reflected on the monthly bills of any cable television
customers.
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this resolution, in conjunction with the
Commissioner of the Revenue, all upon form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Resolution as
amended by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-18 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION TO THE LEASE IN THE SALEM BANK AND
TRUST BUILDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance 12390-4
authorizing the execution of a lease for office space for the Roanoke
County Department of Social Services to be housed in the Salem Bank
and Trust Building for an initial term from March 1, 1990 through
February 28, 1994 with renewal options with specific rental rates
extending through February 29, 2000; and
WHEREAS, by an amendment entered into on the 1st day of
November, 1995, the term of this lease shall end on February 28,
1997; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 *of the County Charter requires the
adoption of an ordinance to acquire an interest in real estate,
however, that after such ordinance shall have taken effect, all
subsequent proceedings incidental thereto may be taken by resolution
of the Board; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to extend the lease of 14,762 square
feet of space in this facility according to the rates, terms and
conditions defined in the original lease for a period of time not to
exceed August 31, 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County that the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute the necessary documents authorizing an extension of the lease
of said 14,762 square feet of office space in the Salem Bank and
Trust Building for use by the Department of Social Services or other
1
public purpose of the County for a period of time not to exceed
August 31, 1997, in accordance with the rates, terms and conditions
of the original lease upon form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator
Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
RESOLUTION 121796-19 TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REFUSING TO
SUPPORT TAX EXEMPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HOLLINS
COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
WHEREAS, Hollins Communications Research Institute
(hereinafter the "Institute") has petitioned this Board for support
of a bill to be introduced at the 1997 Session of the Virginia
General Assembly to exempt certain property of the Institute from
taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(4) and 6(a)(6) of the
Constitution of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an
opportunity to be heard with respect to the Institute's request was
held by the Board on December 17, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04 of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, have been examined and
considered by the Board; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follow:
1. The County refuses to support the petition of the Hollins
Communications Research Institute seeking exemption from State and
local taxation. In adopting this Resolution the Board has examined
and considered the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04
of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
2. The assessed value of the property owned by the Institute
is $222,700 and the property tax is $2,516.51. The Tax Parcel No.
is 27.06-3-4.
1
3. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this
Resolution to the Chairman of the Committee of the General Assembly
considering the designation of property to be exempt from taxation
pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(4) and 6(a)(6) of the
Constitution of Virginia and to the Institute.
On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt a Resolution of Support.
The motion was defeated by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Johnson
NAYS: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell, Chairman, Finance
Committee
The Honorable R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Hollins Communications Research Institute