Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2001 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 09, 2001 RESOLUTION 010901-1 OF APPRECIATION TO JOSEPH MCNAMARA FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2000 WHEREAS, Joseph McNamara served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 2000; and WHEREAS, during Mr. McNamara's term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety of accomplishments, including: ■ A successful joint retreat with the Board of Supervisors, the School Board and their respective staffs establishing priorities for the year. ■ Groundbreaking for the construction of the new South County High School and renovations to Glenvar Middle School. ■ "Celebrate 2000", a year-long successful special events program that highlighted the past, present and future of Roanoke County, and offered activities for all ages. ■ Continued regional cooperation by scheduling joint meetings with the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton, and a picnic at Explore Park for all Roanoke Valley governing bodies. ■ Grand Opening of the first regional fire training facility in the Valley, located at the County's Kessler Mill Road facility, which will serve the training needs for all of Southwest Virginia ■ Opening Ceremonies of the 457 acre Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology located in West County which will become a premier technology park. ■ Amendments to the Community Plan utilizing intensive citizen input and community meetings in the Colonial Avenue Corridor and Clearbrook -Route 220 area which will serve as models for other communities in the future. ■ Successful national accreditation of the Sheriff's Office and reaccreditation of the Police Department. WHEREAS, Mr. McNamara worked diligently during his term to represent all the citizens of Roanoke County and to promote regional projects which would benefit all the residents of the Roanoke Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to Joseph McNamara for his service as Chairman during 2000 and for his belief in democracy and participation by citizens in local government. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File 1 A-010901-2 ACTION #. ITEM NUMBER �E_ / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING DATE: January 9, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation of Final Year -End Balance from School Operations for Year Ended June 30, 2000 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS: 1 talked with the School staff and I support their request. The new construction and remodeling of existing facilities is going forward as planned. This request will accommodate other ongoing capital needs. This is an opportunity to keep up the existing facilities and equipment. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: As a result of year-end operations, school revenue exceeded the budgeted amount by $691,389, while savings in our major spending categories accounted for $1,783,813. This generates a year end balance for school operations of $2,475,202. The details of the budget to actual comparison for the year ended June 30, 2000 are shown on Attachment A. In past years, the Board of Supervisors has allowed the School Board to purchase school buses with year- end funds and set aside the remaining funds for other speck purposes. The Attachment B outlines the school staff requests for capital and/or non-recurring expenditures that have not been funded within the regular school operating fund. The School Board approved this recommended list of appropriations at its meeting on December 11, 2000. The School Board cannot proceed with the expenditure of these funds until the County Board of Supervisors appropriates the funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The School staff requests that the Board of Supervisors appropriate the year-end balance for capital/non-recurring expenditures as outlined on the Attachment B and that the unallocated balance of $115,098 be appropriated to the school capital fund for future school capital needs. SUBMITTED BY: L1G Linda Weber Superintendent of Schools APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. County Administrator ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens substitute Church x Denied () motion to appropriate $650,000 for school Johnson _ x — Received () buses and bring back other funding McNamara x — _ Referred () requests for work session and action at Minnix _ x To () the 1/23/01 meeting Nickens _ x cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk, School Board Revenues: Tuition, Rent & Interest State Revenue Federal Revenue Transfer from County Miscellaneous Revenue Beginning Balance Total Revenue Expenditures: 70 School Board 71 School Superintendent 72 Budget & Finance 73 Instructional Personnel 74 Transportation 75 Facilities & Operations 76 Administrative Personnel 77 Summer School 78 Community Relations 79 Instruction 80 Assistant Superintendent 81 Remediation & Testing 82 Vocational Education 83 Pupil Personnel Services 85 Staff Development 86 Guidance 87 Media Services 88 Pupil Assignment 89 Classified Personnel 90 Adult Education Total Expenditures Ending Balance as of June 30, 2000 Roanoke County Schools Year -End Balance for FY 1999-2000 Budget 1999-2000 Year to Date Actuals Attachment A Dollar Difference Percent Difference 496,255 655,549 159,294 32.10% 42,686,283 43,239,933 553,650 1.30% 124,564 124,996 432 0.35% 48,351,740 48,351,740 0 0.00% 61,910 39,923 (21,987) -35.51% 1,951,696 1,951,696 0 0.00% 93,672,448 94,363,837 691,389 0.74% 105,027 92,641 12,387 11.79% 426,296 117,900 308,396 72.34% 6,966,050 6,700,177 265,873 3.82% 57,889,336 57,166,903 722,433 1.25% 604,419 792,313 (187,895) -31.09% 3,623,655 3,410,380 213,275 5.89% 6,323,986 6,210,529 113,457 1.79% 393,776 616,847 (223,071) -56.65% 88,164 64,980 23,184 26.30% 480,491 469,459 11,032 2.30% 829,066 828,897 169 0.02% 128,684 115,167 13,517 10.50% 263,756 250,338 13,417 5.09% 1,814,175 1,800,725 13,450 0.74% 74,352 62,104 12,249 16.47% 207,820 207,776 44 0.02% 601,200 601,010 190 0.03% 92,660 73,645 19,015 20.52% 12,604,471 12,199,271 405,200 3.21% 155,064 107,572 47,492 30.63% 93,672,448 91,888,635 1,783,813 1.90% MAR nance\Com mon\Audit2000\ye-su m m ary.xls01 /03/2001 0 2,475,202 2,475,202 Attachment B Audited Year -End Balance Roanoke County Schools June 30, 2000 Carryover balance from 1998-99 Revenues from 1999-2000 (less than 1 % over budget) Less expenditures from 1999-2000 (1.9% under budget) Audited year-end balance at 6-30-00 Less Rollover Obligations: GASB #34 services approved by Board during budget KPMG upgrade approved by Board during budget Outstanding purchase orders ERIP contract rollover Music uniforms rollover Starbase contract rollover Summer testing bills outstanding Legal fees due for 99-00 Estimated balance available for departmental requests Departmental Requests: 1 Schoolbuses 2 Restore contingency for fuel tank replacement in 99-i 3 Restore workers comp reserve for excess charges in 4 Distance leaming lab at CSHS 5 Upgrade distance learning lab at GHS, NSHS 6 Tables & chairs for NSHS distance leaming lab 7 Teaching consoles for distance learning labs 8 Classroom set of math books for grades 3-8 9 Projected fuel shortage for current year 10 Facilities vehicle 11 Floor covering replacements 12 Replace in -ground lifts 13 Replace above -ground lifts 14 Filter crusher 15 Tire balancer 16 Electronic engine analyzer 17 Dump truck 18 NMS - room heattac units ($6,000 each) 19 5 computer stations for each high school library 20 Wireless networking for mobiles/misc network upgrc 21 Memory for GMS computers 22 Instructional and administrative computers 23 Reimburse media services for server room upgrade 24 Middle school classroom computers 25 Elementary classroom computers 26 Chairs for CSHS computer labs 27 Carpet, blinds, re -key ARBTC 28 Carpet, TV & VCR's, re -key RCCC 29 LCD projector 30 Temporary Instructional Assistants 31 Playground at Mount Pleasant 32 ARBTC computer lab (Cisco program) 1,951,696 92,412,141 (91,888,635) 2,475,202 (50,000) (97,967) (60,033) (41,300) (19,882) (7,882) (8,429) (10,598) 2,179,111 04 L 1 8 Unallocated Balance - School Capital Fund 115,098 Flora Weber Hodge Lange Lange Lange Lange Lange Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora Flora James James James _ James _ James _ James _ James _ Calhoun -Calhoun _ Calhoun -Whitaker _ Trumbower Trent E` M:\Finance\Common\Audit2000\year-end.)ls01 /03/2001 01/03/2001 A-010901-3 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER'S A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January9, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Funding to Match a $175,000 TEA -21 Grant to Construct the Green Hill Park Section of the Roanoke River Greenway. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: You may recall this was brought to you in work session on December 19, 2000 and was discussed as a use of the year-end surplus. These funds are now part of the General Fund - Unappropriated Balance and we feel comfortable taking it from that account. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke River Greenway was identified as the backbone of the Roanoke Valley Greenway system in the Conceptual Greenway Plan that was adopted by all the Valley governments in 1997. Since that time both Salem and the City of Roanoke have proceeded with the development of various sections within their respective localities. In 1999 Roanoke County and the City of Salem formed a partnership for the purposes of soliciting grant funds for the construction of the Roanoke River Greenway from Green Hill Park to the City of Salem/City of Roanoke boundary on Apperson Drive. As part of the grant process Roanoke County agreed to provide matching funds to construct that portion located in Roanoke County. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On December 21, 2000 Parks, Recreation, and Tourism staff and Liz Belcher, Greenway Coordinator for the Greenway Commission, held a work session with the Board of Supervisors to update them on the status of the Roanoke River Greenway and to outline the proposed plan of action for the planning and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County. As part of the presentation, staff presented plans regarding the joint effort of Salem and Roanoke County to complete portions of the trail utilizing a $300,000 TEA -21 grant that had been awarded to Salem and Roanoke County. Staff from Salem and Roanoke County met and decided to allocate $175,000 of this grant to construct the Green Hill section of the trail with Salem retaining $125,000 to engineer the remainder of the Roanoke River -Greenway to be located in Salem. The total cost of the Green Hill project is $222,100 and will include approximately one mile of paved trail, a parking lot, landscaping, and site amenities. The use of TEA -21 funds requires at least a 20% local match. At the work session the Board supported proceeding with the construction of the section in Green Hill and directed staff to bring forward a request for matching funds. Consequently, staff is requesting matching funds of $47,100 to complete this project. FISCAL IMPACT: Operating impact is negligible as maintenance staff currently maintains the proposed site. The $47,100 to complete the project will need to be appropriated from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1. Appropriate $47,100 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance as matching funds for the construction of the Green Hill section of the Roanoke River Greenway. Alternative 2. Do not approve funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1, appropriating $47,100 from the General Fund Unappropriated Balance to allow for the construction of the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Pete Haislip, Director Elmer C. Hodge Parks, Recreation, Tourism County Administrator Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) ACTION VOTE No Yes Motion by: Joseph B. Church motion to Church _ appropriate $47,100 Johnson _ McNamara_ Minnix _ Nickens cc: File Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance x Abs A-010901-4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER E-° —:� AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Appropriation of Funds to VML/VACO for Assessment for Electric Power Negotiations COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: di�� JtA-� BACKGROUND: The VML/VACO Steering Committee consists of local government officials within the American Electric Power service area. The committee was established to negotiate reduced electric service charges with AEP for the local governments. Roanoke County's current contract with AEP was approved in 2000 and expires June 30, 2002. Previously, negotiations with AEP would begin six to eight months before the contract expires. These changes will necessitate that planning and/or negotiations begin much earlier. Because of deregulation, "Customer Choice" will become available to all customers beginning January 1, 2004 and to some customers immediately. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: While AEP is legally obligated to continue to supply power to local governments after the contract ends June 30, 2002, they have made it clear that future rates to local governments should be at market rates. Industry experts feel that this could result in a rate increase of up to 18%. There are steps that local governments can take to minimize these impacts and prepare for a restructured electric industry. The steering committee has recommended that the following steps be taken: ➢ Pursue legislation to ensure that governmental electric customers have "rate cap" protection until July 1, 2007. Delegate Terry Kilgore has agreed to introduce it in the 2001 session. ➢ Negotiate with AEP to "unbundle" their rates into distribution, transmission and generation components. (Even if Roanoke County chooses another supplier for electricity we will continue to pay AEP for distribution and transmission). ➢ Monitor and participate in proceedings at the SCC and expected legislative activity. ➢ The probable need to develop an RFP for the procurement of electric service after deregulation. This could happen through either a Cooperative Procurement, Joint Powers Agreement, or an Electric Procurement Association. (See Attachment "A"). At this time the Steering Committee is recommending that we pursue the development of a joint entity for the procurement of electric power. FISCAL IMPACT: While it is difficult to estimate the amount of legal and consulting assistance that will be needed over the next few years, the Committee has recommended a budget of $500,000 for the next three years. This would be $200,000 at this time, $200,000 on July 1, 2001, and $100,000 on July 1, 2002. Roanoke County's share of the $500,000 budget is $31,372.50 of which $12,549.00 is due at this time. The remaining funds can be included in the next two fiscal year budgets. The $12,549 assessment could be charged as follows: — General Fund $4,183 Roanoke Co. Schools $4,183 Utility Fund $4,183 The school administration has been contacted and are agreeable to their share of the assessment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels it is very important that Roanoke County take the appropriate steps to be prepared for a restructured electric industry and recommends that$12,549 be paid to the VML EPR Fund. Staff recommends that $4,183 be appropriated from the Board Contingency to pay the General Fund portion. The remaining portions will be paid by the Utility Fund and the Schools. SUBMITTED BY: Gary R ertson, P.E. Utility Director Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) APPROVED: 9W //WV Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Bob L. Johnson motion to appropriate $12,549 with $4,183 from General Fund $4,183 from Utility Fund and $4,183 from Schools cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent Brenda Chastain, Clerk, School Board VOTE No Yes Abs Church _ x _ Johnson _ x _ McNamara_ x _ Minnix _ x Nickens _ x _ 3 ATTACHMENT "A" E— Outline of Three Organizational Options For Local Governments to Collectively Procure Power and Some Advantages and Disadvantages of Each I. Cooperative Procurement — authorized by Va. Code § 11-40. A "public body may participate in, sponsor, conduct, or administer a cooperative procurement agreement with one or more public bodies" including the State and federal government. "Public body" is very broadly defined in Section 11-37 to include any type of governmental authority, committee, board or political subdivision. [Note: Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act currently does not expressly authorize counties, cities and towns or other political subdivisions to aggregate with the Commonwealth or the federal government for the purchase of electricity. Va. Code § 56- 589.1 Cooperative procurement agreement cannot be done on behalf of government and non- government entities (except in one express situation unrelated to procurement of electric services). • Any public body joining with a local government which has adopted alternative procurement provisions must comply with the alternative provisions of the "sponsoring government." In practice, the public body actually conducting the procurement on behalf of all of the public bodies involved in the cooperative agreement follows its own rules. II. Joint Powers Agreement — authorized by Va. Code § 15.2-1300. Local political subdivisions may enter into a joint powers agreement with other political subdivisions (but not with the Commonwealth) to exercise jointly any privilege or authority which each could exercise independently unless an express statutory procedure is otherwise provided for the joint exercise. Local governments joining together for tis purpose would not be an "aggregator" under the Restructuring Act required to obtain a license from the SCC. Va Code § 56-576 and -589 (2000 Supp). III. Electric Procurement Association — established pursuant to joint powers authority (Va. Code § 15.2-1300) and § 15.2-1303. • Section 15.2-1303 of the Code of Virginia allows local governments to "form and maintain associations for the purpose of promoting, through investigation discussion and cooperative effort, the interest and welfare of the several political subdivisions of the Commonwealth ...." • During the 2000 General Assembly Session, Senate Bill 383 was adopted amending the Public Procurement Act such that any public body may enter into contracts for the purchase of electric utility services without competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation "if purchased through an association of which it is a member if the association was formed and is maintained for the purpose of promoting the interest and welfare of and developing close relationships with similar public bodies, provided such association has procured the ... electric utility services by use of competitive principles . ..." Va. Code § 11-45(c) (2000 Supp). Utilizing the authority in the two foregoing statutes, political subdivisions could form an association, administered by the VML and/or VACo and affiliated with them to purchase power. The membership and the organizational documents could be drafted consistent with the joint powers act. Thus the members who join the association are joining with each other to issue a request for proposal and negotiate the purchase of electricity for consumption by each member. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 56-576, the association would not be an "aggregator" which must be licensed by the SCC. Also, as stated above, while the association must follow competitive principles in seeking bids for power, it will not be bound by the precise notice and timing requirements of competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiations under the Public Procurement Act. Advantages of Utilizing Cooperative Procurement 1) May be a simpler method for a single transaction. 2) Some may perceive the ability of the government to choose to participate in a cooperative procurement after the terms of the procurement have been established to be an advantage. However, a joint powers agreement can be structured in a manner which provides equal flexibility if desired. Disadvantages of Utilizing Cooperative Procurement 1) One locality is burdened with all the requirements for initiating a proposal and complying with the Public Procurement Act. If the procuring local government has adopted alternative procurement provisions, these must be complied with. Placing the main burden on one local government can be negated in large part, however, by the "sponsoring government" contracting with others to perform these tasks and by sharing the costs among all who participate. 2) The cooperative procurement statute does not authorize the establishment of a joint board or governing mechanism as is established under a joint powers agreement. Presumably such organizational structure could be provided informally similar to the manner in which the Steering Committee currently operates. 3) A cooperative procurement is organized for a single transaction whereas a joint powers agreement can be utilized for multiple uses and multiple transactions. 1!51-3 4) Each project or solicitation that is undertaken could be more tedious and time consuming to organize and "sell" to each local government because each solicitation would be a "new" undertaking. 5) A cooperative procurement does not offer the continuity that a joint powers agreement can offer. 6) A cooperative procurement may have less bargaining strength because it may be perceived as lacking authority to negotiate for the entire load requirements of all participants and be considered a "one time customer" which may not be together after the end of the contract period. 7) Only public bodies can directly participate in a cooperative procurement. Advantages of Utilizing Joint Powers Agreement 1) Flexibility. Utilization of a joint powers agreement for the purchase of electric energy and energy related services offers substantial flexibility in the manner in which it can be structured. 2) Members can be expanded or contracted readily as desired. 3) The agreement can be used for multiple uses and multiple transactions. For example, a joint powers agreement may be broadened to provide for cooperative technical advice; educational opportunities; monitoring of legislative and regulatory proceedings; monitoring the implementation of joint enterprises, and so on. 4) A joint powers agreement can offer continuity and an ongoing recognition as a "single entity." 5) No license from the SCC would be required if the local governments were purchasing power only for their own governmental use. The Restructuring Act presumably provides for licensure if the municipality is an "aggregator" for its residential, commercial or industrial customers. Va. Code § 56-589 (2000 Supp.) 6) Requirements of governing body authorization results in recognizable standing and support of the member political subdivision. Disadvantages of Utilizing a Joint Powers Agreement 1) The Commonwealth cannot be a party to a joint powers agreement. However, local governments acting through a joint powers agreement could probably avail themselves of a cooperative procurement initiated by the Commonwealth. 63 [Amendment to the Restructuring Act would be necessary for this to be authorized for the purchase of electric power.] Advantages of Utilizing Electric Procurement Association 1) Same advantages listed for a Joint Powers Agreement. 2) Use of competitive principles in procuring power rather than the need to follow the requirements of competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiations. Disadvantages of Utilizing Electric Procurement Association 1) Same as disadvantages listed for a Joint Powers Agreement. 0625716v2 5/23/00 A-010901-5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 9, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of two Grants Awarded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Appropriation of Grant Funds to the Public Library Budget COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides grant money to libraries to purchase computers, software, and training. To receive the grant funds, the Foundation established criteria that the money must be used in communities that meet certain income limitations. Roanoke County Public Library has been awarded two grants by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. One grant, in the amount of $8,058 is intended to purchase computers and software for the Mount Pleasant Branch Library in support of the expansion of public access to computers and the Internet. A second grant of $43,118 has been awarded to establish a regional training lab at the Vinton Branch Library. Grant funds will be used to purchase eleven computers, a server, a laser printer, and a projector. Training lab goals include: establishing an instructional venue for the Gates Foundation to train public librarians throughout the region during the six month implementation phase of the foundations' program in Virginia; securing a standardized training facility for the Library of Virginia in this area of the state; and, providing a well equipped training room that our library can use for instructional programs for our citizens and for expanded public access to the Internet. While grants for the individual building installations, such as the one received for Mount Pleasant, were based on a set of fairly standardized demographic criteria, the grants for the training labs were highly competitive. Only seventeen lab grants were awarded throughout the state, and we are very fortunate to have been selected as a recipient. In addition to the funding received via the Gates grants, the library will soon be awarded additional grants through the Library of Virginia's Infopowering partnership, a complementary program to the Gates effort. These additional grants will be for the purchase of public access equipment at the Glenvar, Vinton, and Bent Mountain branches, and provide funding for facility improvements and furnishings in support of the lab at Vinton. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance and appropriation of the donated funds will require no additional funding by the County. Additional funding from the Infopowering program and grants from the Friends of the Library and the Junior Woman's Club of Vinton will cover the costs for furnishings, electrical work, and other improvements required for the new lab site at Vinton. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grants, and appropriation of both the $8,058 and the $43,118 funding awards to the Library's budget. Respectfully submitted, 4Spencer"Watts Library Director Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens motion to Church _ x Denied () accept and appropriate grant funds Johnson _ x _ Received () McNamara_ x _ Referred () Minnix _ x To O Nickens _ x _ cc: File Spencer Watts, Director, Library Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance A-010901-6 ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER 5-6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 09, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions and Boards for 2001 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a list of the 2000 Committee Assignments with the following exceptions: The appointments specific to the chairman and vice chairman are now listed under Chairman Minnix and Vice Chairman Church's name. At this time, the Board of Supervisors may make any modifications they wish. Many of the appointments are for specific terms and those appointments should be made at the expiration of the terms, although the Board may also make changes to these appointments if they desire. Several new school construction related committees were added during 1998 and 1999. Supervisor Joseph McNamara was appointed to the School Construction Committee. Supervisors Bob Johnson and Harry Nickens were appointed to the Joint School Construction Advisory Committee, and Supervisor McNamara serves as alternate. If these committees are no longer active, the Board may wish to remove them from the Committee List. Listed below is information about several of the Committees: Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization In January 2000, the Board appointed Supervisor Church to complete former Supervisor Fenton Harrison's term which expires July 1, 2002. On February 8, 2000, with Supervisor Church's concurrence, Mr. Harrison was reappointed to complete his original term. That action is attached. The Board may wish to appoint a Board member to complete this term or wait until the appointment becomes vacant on July 1, 2002. C "S Liaisons to the Virginia Association of Counties In 1994, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to interact directly with VACo regarding legislative matters. At a 1994 meeting, The Board recommended that the Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serve in this capacity. However, any Board member may be appointed. In 1992, VACo requested that a member of the governing body be appointed to work directly with the regional representative on the VACo Board of Directors. The Chairman has served in this capacity for several years, but any Board member may be appointed. Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors serves on this organization. Therefore Chairman Minnix should be appointed to this position. Roanoke County Cable Television Committee This is similar to the Roanoke Valley Cable Television Committee and the same members serve with the addition of the Supervisor who represents the Catawba Magisterial District, the primary area served by Adelphia Cable TV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the Board of Supervisors appointments for calendar year 2001. Submitted by: Mary H. Allen, CMC/AAE Clerk to the Board Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To ( ) Approved by: &W01 &6� Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Motion by: Harry C. Nickens motion to approve appointments for 2001 with changes for Chair and Vice -Chair and addition of Joseph B. Church to School Construction Committee and removal of School Construction Advisory Committee cc: File Committee Book VOTE No Yes Abs Church — x Johnson _ x McNamara_ x — Minnix — x Nickens — x BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2001 JOSEPH B. CHURCH -- Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Liaison (As Vice -Chairman) Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission(3 year term expires 6/30/2001) -- Roanoke County Cable Television Committee (Representing Catawba District) -- Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority - alternate (4-yeartermexpires 9/24/2002) Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission Water Supply Policy Committee -- School Construction Committee (Appointed by School Board 11/1999) BOB L. JOHNSON -- Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors (2 -year term expires 5/5/2000. Mr. Johnson appointed Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes as his designee.) -- Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (4 -year term expires 9/24/2002) JOSEPH MCNAMARA -- Audit Committee -- Clean Valley Council (2 -year term expires 6/30/2001) -- Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission (3 -year term expires 6/30/2002) -- School Construction Committee (appointed by the Board of Supervisors on January 13, 1998 ) -- Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization (3 -year term expires 7/1/2002) H. ODELL MINNIX -- Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership (As Chairman) -- Virginia Association of Counties Liaison (As Chairman) -- Urban Partnership (As Chairman) -- Audit Committee -- Social Services Advisory Board (4 -year term expires 8/1/2002) -- Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization (3 -year term expires 7/1/2002) -- Lewis Gale Hospital Bio -ethics Committee HARRY C. NICKENS -- Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee -- Roanoke County Cable Television Committee -- Virginia Association of Counties Region 9 Director (elected by VACo) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001 ORDINANCE 010901-7 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUIT -CLAIM AND RELEASE OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 100 -FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON `PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE', PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY DFC ROANOKE, LLC (TAX MAP #40.01-1-4.3) AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by Deed of Easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1337, page 540, F & W Community Development Corporation, as owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4, conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, a 100' drainage easement as depicted on 'Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted To County of Roanoke' of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and, WHEREAS, F & W Community Development Corporation subsequently subdivided a portion of said tract of land, and the subject property. is located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District and is now designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4.3; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner, DFC Roanoke, LLC, is the current owner of the property and has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit -claim and release a portion of the above-described existing 100' drainage easement as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2000, and a second reading was held on January 9, 2001. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (portion of drainage easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That, subject to the following conditions, the vacation, quit -claim and release of a portion of an existing 100' drainage easement across property of DFC Roanoke, LLC, located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, cross -hatched and designated as 11100' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been acquired by deed of easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1337, page 540, shown and designated as "NEW 100' DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on plat entitled'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That Petitioner, DFC Roanoke, LLC, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, all costs associated with the 2 establishment of an alternative drainage system, surveys, publication, and recordation of documents; and, 5. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation, quit -claim, and release, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Gary Robertson, Director, Utility William E. Driver, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 1 00 1 WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED PARCEL: 40.01-1-4 ROANOKE COUNTY MAP DETAILING VACATION, QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE DEPARTMENT OF OF EXISTING 1 OO FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON TAX PARCEL: 40.01-1-4.3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCALE: l" = 200' DECEMBER 1 3, 2000 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001 ORDINANCE 010901-8 TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15 -FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON PLAT ENTITLED `SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 112, AND FURTHER SHOWN AS "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)" IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', dated September 14,1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, a fifteen -foot (15') drainage easement was shown and created on remaining property of F & W Community Development Corp., the subject easement being designated on said plat as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT"; and, WHEREAS, the subject easement is further shown and designated as "EXISTING 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)", on plat entitled 'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners, F & W Community Development Corporation and DFC Roanoke, LLC, are the current owners of these properties designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as 40.01-1-4 and 40.01-1-4.3, respectively, and have requested that a portion of the above-described existing 15' drainage easement be vacated; and, WHEREAS, the construction of a proposed multi -family development will result in an encroachment on the subject drainage easement and the Petitioners have requested that it be vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2000, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 9, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of the existing drainage easement being designated and shown as "15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been shown and designated as "15DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on the subdivision plat entitled 'SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD', dated September 14, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown and designated as "EXISTING 15DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)", on plat entitled 'PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...', dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the conditions contained herein. 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 2 f- 3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Gary Robertson, Director, Utility William E. Driver, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 9 ,tea 0 Rp .yam Vl�'�1VI T Y ,1l�A P' , M ' A IL UM TL Oi. i,, va JN y ' � sore ea w ,na rxeca, pis . • ,_ X0`40 � ` � � � �• F. & W. Community Development Corp. Tax Map #40.01-1-4 1 %,may •,`` 15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT s TO BE VACATED (HATCEED) /. ' �. I oo foot Drainage Basement f P.B. 13, PG- 59 \ w F1 DFC Roanoke, LLC Tax Map # 40.01-1-4.3 ES CRIPTION: A 15 foot drainage easement (P.B. 9, PG. 112) within the properties (Tax Map No. 40'01-1-4 and Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4.3) located between Crumpacker Drive (VA Sec. Rte #781) and Cortland Road (V A Sec. Rte # 1003). EXHIBIT "A„ RDAN(3 ' CQT1.NT Y5 -FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT i DEPART NT {1� TO BE VACATED I COMMUNITY. DEVE.LOPMZNT ' THE ORCHARDS APARTMENT DOMES . . AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001 RESOLUTION 010901-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 9, 2001, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Resolution of support for the Virginia Public Broadcasting Board to finance the acquisition of equipment through the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Harrisonburg, VA. 2. Request for acceptance of Carter Grove Lane and Carter Grove Circle into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 3. Request for acceptance of the remaining portion of Derby Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. 4. Request to add Autumn Drive to the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System under the Rural Addition Program. 5. Resolution of guarantee by Roanoke County to the Virginia Department of Transportation furnished in lieu of a guarantee fee or bond for public works permits. 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. 11 On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Gary Robertson, Director, Utility - Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 04, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001 RESOLUTION 010901-9.a OF SUPPORT FOR THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC BROADCASTING BOARD TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARRISONBURG, VIRGINA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "Governing Body") has been asked by the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia (the "Harrisonburg Authority") to concur with a resolution of inducement adopted by the Harrisonburg Authority at its meeting held on December 12, 2000 for the benefit of the Virginia Public Broadcasting Board (the "VPBB") to assist in financing the acquisition of certain equipment for the conversion of Virginia's public television stations to the Federal Communications Commission's new digital standard (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), provides that if a locality has created an industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a another locality may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first locality concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by such industrial development authority; and WHEREAS, a portion of the equipment constituting the Project will be located in the County of Roanoke, Virginia and operated by the Virginia public television station or stations serving the Roanoke County area and the Governing Body constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County of Roanoke, Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Governing Body concurs with the resolution adopted by the Harrisonburg Authority and approves the loan by the Harrisonburg Authority for the benefit of the VPBB, as required by Section 15.2-4905 of the Act. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 1 On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES : Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer 2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 010901-9.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF CARTER GROVE LANE AND CARTER GROVE CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR -5(a), fully. incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR -5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: Absent: Supervisor McNamara None Required Supervisors Johnson McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix None None A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation T_ Z, NOPTX PLANTATION GROVES SECTION 2 (DES: 1 & 2) c l \" y� ,( /e CA ,. ' Yn "' b.o .� .M1��^ rpt', ' `th �' `gym � +nom' ` •'� � ht's �� � ro y,`'\ you ,. ,- : a :E H ffi w„y Hs \ 8 •.,,.: Gd � � +,�. •aft;;,; /-0"�5 �'o ;� � � �'+�' , � � � \ �'� a S�y2t mess �ry i, 'cP 0�' \.= ��•} aN sf a td� y� � '� Vn w ��"�' 8 �• 1 � 9, �� .-'� wry P5 V ,� 6 €p �� \ Y,°p �e�� s PLANTATION GROVE '' , vp "� 1 �> 1 (DES:') `o/ Edi . �•r� p11�5, ,_. �N' SECTION V+ h \ sM.6"SYS PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION: 1) Carter Grove Lane - From the intersection with Plantation Grove Lane southwest to its cul-de-sac. 2) Carter Grove Circle - From the intersection with Carter Grove Lane northwest to its cul-de-sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.23 RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 PAVEMENT WIDTH: (1) 26&32 SERVICE: (1) 10 MILES FEET FEET HOMES (2) 0.12 MILES (2) 50 FEET (2) 26 FEET (2) 6 HOMES PLANTATION GROVE, SECTIONS 1 & 2 ROANOKE. COUNTY D-EPARTMENT Q.F '-Acceptance of Carter Grove Lane and Carter Grove Circle COMMUNITYDEVELOPMZNT into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 010901-9.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF DERBY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR -5(a), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR -5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: Absent: Supervisor McNamara None Required Supervisors Johnson McNamara Church Nickens, Minnix None None A Copy Teste: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation 16 bf V Si IE a S� ti0 VICINITY ,MAP, arc •, . aer. wK nmurm ro rnmrr � L 111+ a1gM iJr,1EJ varriom � � avnoE �sr""`iver� mage scnaN r � 11V RAr. �,IIM EUOC MLL LTiA1E3 LEGEND f •�ti Ivrc wowHr I V I� a I , I ,a,..,, w a.! L tGi Avvnahwie // ,lW! 264E •AE• / •pr. NOTE,LDT lie OUMOE Ol THE u (1) 100Evf.9 .,. .06DWAV - TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, SECTION 2 Z3 NORTH 6iA .r6mmrr y �?i u�'"aancarmra b an � � I +sdn a+ a woos +�. oolmwr v. cutaar ,anw-a_ru v.• un n n. CROWN ESTATES, SECTION 3 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION : 1) Derby Drive - From the intersection with Belmont Court northeast to its cul-de-sac. LENGTH: (1) 0.17 MILES RIGHT OF WAY: (1) 50 FEET ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 32 FEET SERVICE: (1) 4 HOMES ROANOXF ��� TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES, SECTIONS 2 & 3 NTY .DEEF.AiRTMENT OF Acceptance of the remaining portion of Derby Drive into the C0:ffMuNITY• DEVE_LOPdfffNT Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System_ 0, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2001, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION 010901-9.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF AUTUMN DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street(s) described below was established on or before July 1985 and serves at least three families per mile, and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does exist and deems that extenuating circumstances also exist to warrant this addition, and WHEREAS, this Board has determined that the pro rata share of speculative interest is the sum of $12,388.00, as prescribed by section 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (D) ,Code of Virginia: Name of Street: Autumn Drive Length: 0.16 mi. From: Intersection of Carson Road (Rte 758) To: cul-de-sac Guaranteed right-of-way width: 40 feet Deed Recordation - Grantor: D.B. 1676, PG. 0086 - Ira Garland Bower, Wanda Ruth Huff and Charlotte Anne Bibb, devisees of Ruth Fralin Bower D.B. 1676, PG. 0094 - Jennings Robertson and Doris K. Robertson DB. 1670, PG. 1846 - Stuart J. Wamsley and Geraldine H. Wamsley DB. 1670, PG. 1869 - Harold B. Hodges and Hazel G. Hodges DB. 1670, PG. 1862 - Joseph K. Bushnell and Virginia A. Bushnell DB. 1678, PG. 0600 - Residential Contractors, Inc. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right- of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation to improved said street to the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor McNamara Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Johnson McNamara Church Nickens, Minnix Nays: None Absent: None A Copy Teste: Mary H. Alle , CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections Virginia Department of Transportation 2 Ts 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001 RESOLUTION 010901-9.e OF GUARANTEE BY THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED IN LIEU OF A GUARANTEE FEE OR BOND FOR PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS WHEREAS, it becomes necessary from time to time for the County of Roanoke to obtain permits from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to install, construct, reconstruct, maintain, and operate certain public works along, across, over and upon the highway system of Virginia; and WHEREAS, expense, damage or injury may be sustained by the Commonwealth of Virginia growing out of the granting to said County by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation of said permits for the work aforesaid; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of such permit or permits is that the County of Roanoke shall indemnify the Commonwealth of Virginia to the extent permitted by law against all damages and injuries to the highways and bridges and to persons or property lawfully upon such highways. NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such that if the said County of Roanoke shall in all respects comply with all of the conditions of permit or permits that have been, or will be, granted said County of Roanoke, and, to the extent permitted by law, shall indemnify and save harmless the Commonwealth of Virginia against and from all loss, cost, expense, damage or injury to highways and bridges and to persons and property lawfully on such highways growing out of the granting of such permit or permits to said County of Roanoke, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force 1 and virtue. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said County of Roanoke has caused this bond to be executed and its official seal affixed the day and year first above written, pursuant to this Resolution adopted by its Board of Supervisors on the 9th day of January, 2001. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility Virginia Department of Transportation Vickie L. Huffman, Assistant 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 JANUARY 9, 2001, RESOLUTION 010901-10 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the Certification Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CMC Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Closed Meeting File ACTION NUMBER A-012301-1 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: January 23, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Request for $40,000 for Phase II Clean Water Act NPDES Requirements Needs Assessment COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Effective March 10, 2003 (fiscal year 2002-03), localities having a population of fewer than 100,000 will be required to comply with the Phase II provisions of the Clean Water Act and obtain a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for stormwater quality. The localities in the Roanoke Valley, including Roanoke County, Roanoke City, the City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton will be required to obtain an NPDES permit and initiate compliance. Staff conducted a work session with the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 2001 for the purpose of briefing the Board on upcoming regulations. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Environmental Protection Agency is currently regulating stormwater quality in localities having a population of 100,000 or greater under Phase I of the Clean Water Act. The EPA has now moved into Phase ll, which will require Roanoke County to move toward eliminating pollutants in stormwater discharges. The six basic requirements for compliance are: (1) public education and outreach; (2) public involvement and participation; (3) detection and elimination of illicit discharges; (4) stormwater runoff controls for construction sites; (5) stormwater management for post construction activities; and (6) pollution prevention/good housekeeping activities. The Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission has offered to serve as the coordinating agency to pursue compliance of Phase 11 on behalf of the local governments. By pursuing compliance on a regional approach, it is hoped to save money by not duplicating efforts. We have selected AMEC Earth and Environment, Inc. to prepare a "Needs Assessment" that will identify for each locality 1 what it has to do to comply with the regulations, what costs will be involved, and what potential revenue sources are available to enable each locality to comply. It will also identify areas that can be addressed on a regional basis, allowing the localities to share costs and resources for requirements that can be shared. As stated in the work session, EPA's estimate of compliance with Phase Il for water quality is between $1.70 and $7.60 per capita, which relates to between $144,500 and $646,000 for Roanoke County. This is an unfunded federal mandate. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Alternative 1. Appropriate $40,000 for Roanoke County's share of the needs assessment study. This will enable us to identify the specific cost requirements, resources, potential revenue sources, and specific actions needed for compliance with the Phase II requirements. Alternative 2. Do not appropriate funds for this study at the present time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriating $40,000 from the general fund unappropriated balance for the purpose of participating in a needs assessment with the other localities through the Roanoke Valley Allegh�ry Regional Commission. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: George W Simpson, III, PE., Assistant Director Elmer C. Hodge Department of Community Development County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens to approve Church _ x Denied () participation in needs assessments with Johnson _ x Received () $40.000 funding allocated from existing McNamara_ x Referred () Community Development budget. Staff to Minnix _ x To () come back to Board if there are Nickens _ x insufficient funds at the end of budget year cc: File George W. Simpson, Assistant Director, Community Development Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Danial Morris, Director, Finance 2