HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/14/1992 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, July 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-1 OF APPRECIATION TO NOEL C. TAYLOR,
FORMER MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, FOR SERVICES
TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY
WHEREAS, Noel C. Taylor served the City of Roanoke as Mayor
from 1975 to 1992; and
WHEREAS, during that period, Mayor Taylor has consistently
worked for the good of the entire Valley, supporting economic
development projects, regional cooperation, and innovative
concepts; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County have benefitted from
Mayor Taylor's kindness, wisdom and dedication to all the residents
of the Valley, through his work with agencies such as the Blue
Ridge Mountains Council of Boy Scouts, the YWCA, and the American
Red Cross; and
WHEREAS, throughout his time as Mayor of the City of Roanoke,
he has served as a symbol of the Roanoke Valley, particularly
through his terms as President of the Virginia Municipal League and
Chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews; and
WHEREAS, Noel C. Taylor has been a good friend and neighbor to
the citizens of Roanoke County, and his enthusiasm, dedication and
commitment to the good of the Valley will be missed as he retires
from his service as Mayor of the City of Roanoke.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the
citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its sincere
appreciation to NOEL C. TAYLOR for his years of service to the
citizens of the City of Roanoke and for his dedication to maintain-
ing the high quality of life for all the people of the Roanoke
Valley; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby extend its sincere best wishes to Noel C.
Taylor for a happy and productive retirement from the Office of
Mayor of the City of Roanoke.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
W•
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
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, JULY 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-2 DECLARING THE WEER OF JULY 12 - 18, 1992
AS NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC RECREATION WEEK
WHEREAS, individual and organized forms of recreation and
the use of leisure time are vital to the lives of all Americans,
particularly persons with physical, mental, emotional and/or social
limitations; and
WHEREAS, therapeutic recreation is accomplished through
the provision of programs and services which assist in eliminating
barriers to leisure, developing leisure skills and attitudes, and
optimizing leisure involvement; and
WHEREAS, the Therapeutic Recreation Services of the
Roanoke County Parks and Recreation Department was founded 15 years
ago to provide these types of activities, and has developed a
comprehensive award-winning program to meet this goal; and
WHEREAS, the Therapeutics Program allows people of all
abilities to experience a variety of indoor and outdoor recreation-
al activities, classes and trips, and also provides services, such
as braille translations, sign language classes, and adaptations of
other Parks and Recreation programs; and
WHEREAS, the National Therapeutic Recreation Society, a
branch of the National Recreation and Park Association, originated
a week of observance to focus attention on the value of recreation
and leisure experiences for all persons, including those with
physical, mental, emotional and/or social limitations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby declare the
week of July 12-18, 1992 as NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC RECREATION WEER.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Director, Parks & Recreation Department
r
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-3 REQUESTING THE CIRCUIT COURT TO ORDER A
SPECIAL ELECTION ON THE QUESTION OF ISSUING
GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors ("Board") of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is advisable to
contract a debt and to issue general obligation capital improvement
bonds of the County in the maximum amount of $17,790,000 for the
purpose of financing the following public improvements in the
following estimated amounts:
School Projects:
Classroom additions,
building renovations
and air conditioning
of various schools
County Projects:
New Library Branch
$ 8,506,000
1,500,000
Landfill closure 2,750,000
Parks and Recreation
(acquisition of land
and construction and
equipping of improvements)
Land acquisition for new
high school 750,000
Miscellaneous improvements,
including street and road
improvements, fire hydrants,
economic development, and
drainage and flood control
improvements 2,534,000
1,750,000
Subtotal for County Projects 9,284,000
TOTAL $17,790,000
The foregoing are estimated amounts and the Board, in its
discretion, may reallocate proceeds of the proposed capital
improvement bonds among the various capital improvements described
above, provided that $8,506,000 shall be allocated to school
projects and $9,284,000 shall be allocated to various County
capital improvement projects.
rr
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the Public Finance
Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended ("Act") the Board proposes to call a special election to
take the sense of the qualified voters of the County on the
following question regarding the issuance of such general
obligation capital improvement bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract
a debt and to issue general obligation capital improvement bonds of
the County in the amounts and for the purposes as set forth above.
2. The Board hereby requests the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia to order a special election on November 3, 1992 on
the following question pursuant to Sections 15.1-227.12 and 15.1-
227.13 of the Act, provided that such date is at least sixty (60)
days after the date on which the Court enters its order. The
purposes and amounts of the bonds proposed to be issued shall be
combined into a single ballot question in substantially the
following form:
SPECIAL ELECTION
November 3, 1992
QUESTION: Shall Roanoke County, Virginia contract a debt
and issue its general obligation capital improvement
bonds in the maximum amount of Seventeen Million Seven
Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($17,790,000) pursuant to
the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, for the
purpose of paying the costs, in whole or in part, of the
following public improvements in the following
maximum amounts:
School Projects (additions and
renovations, air conditioning) $ 8,506,000
County Projects (library, landfill
closure, drainage, flood control,
parks and recreation, economic
development, roads, fire safety
and land acquisition) 9,284,000
1 TOTAL $17,790,000
( ) YES
( ) NO
3. The County Administrator is instructed to file a certified
copy of this resolution with the Circuit Court of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
4. In accordance with Section 15.1-227.2 of the Code, the Board
elects to issue the bonds pursuant to the Public Finance Act of
1991.
5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
CC: File
Judge G. O. Clemens, Roanoke Circuit Court
Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Roanoke Circuit Court
E. Elizabeth Leah, Registrar
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct copy of Resolution 71492-3 adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia at
a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July, 1992.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia, this /!of`+ day of t4 , 1992.
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia
(SEAL)
ACTION # A-71492-4
ITEM NUMBER_Z�-_,Z'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of Informational Program for Bond Referendum
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: �1 f/ /'_ �7 d0
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The proposed November bond referendum will
require a coordinated informational campaign to educate the voters
on the projects which would be funded, and the methodology which
will be used to pay the debt. In the past, the County has used
outside professional assistance in the preparation of educational
material such as videos, slide presentations, brochures, advertise-
ments, etc., and the Public Information Office has coordinated the
informational program. Local governments can expend public funds
to provide educational material to voters, but cannot attempt to
persuade people to vote either for or against particular referendum
questions.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff has begun meeting to discuss what
type of information will be required by our citizens and the best
methods for distribution of this information. A committee, chaired
by the Public Information Officer, has been formed to coordinate
the activities and the membership is comprised of an Assistant
County Administrator, the Clerk to the Board, the Library Director,
two representatives from the County school system, the Assistant
Director of Recreation, and the Assistant Director of Engineering.
The committee is in the process of reviewing the types of informa-
tional efforts which can be conducted in-house, and deciding which
groups to target during the campaign. The following suggestions
were discussed:
o Prepare a short fact sheet, containing information on the
projects, so that everyone involved will have the same data.
o Compile a list of possible speakers for use when civic
groups, PTAs, etc., request someone to speak on the topic.
o Inform the County Council of PTAs about the entire bond
issue, and arrangements will be made for inclusion of this
1
is
information during the "Back To School" programs in September.
Speakers will be provided for those meetings so that the topic
will be familiar to the parents.
o Educate County and School employees about the bond issue
and the projects. This will ensure that they have correct
information when they are asked questions.
o Target user groups, such as Youth Athletic Leagues, library
patrons, and students, to receive specific information about
the bond issue.
o Establish a hot-line for use by citizens with questions
about the bond issue. The questions which are asked can also
give the County some feedback on any areas which are confusing
to the citizens.
o Erect a display at Tanglewood Mall to help keep the
proposal before the public during the Back to School shopping
time.
o Approach Civic Leagues and Neighborhood Watch Groups for
time on their agendas, and tailor the talks to the concerns
of the citizens of that area.
o Target the Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, and other
business clubs and organizations for presentations on the
economic development component of the proposal.
o Place an insert inside the regular Parks and Recreation
informational brochure which will be distributed at the
beginning of September. Extra copies of the insert can be
printed at a nominal cost, and would be available for
distribution at meetings.
In addition, the Committee has agreed that it is important to
obtain professional services for the preparation of printed
materials and audio/visual elements of the campaign. The resources
are not available within County Departments to provide the
necessary artwork, videos, etc. which would be appropriate for a
project of this magnitude.
Staff has already sent out a Request for Proposals for
professional services with respect to the bond referendum, and
received four proposals. The estimated costs are as follows:
Newspaper Advertising (includes design) $8,000
Television Advertising (includes production) $6,000
Radio Advertising (includes production) $4,500
Brochure (includes design and printing) $9,000
Postage $4,000
Slide Presentation 000
TOTAL
2
$36,500
_D -Z
The last bond referendum held by the County was for a single
project, Spring Hollow Reservoir, and passed in November, 1986.
Advertising and other professional services for that campaign
totaled $22,000.00. The campaign included a brochure mailed to all
County residents, along with radio, television and newspaper
advertising. Several costs, particularly newspaper advertising,
have risen since that time.
FISCAL IMPACT: $36,500.00 for a full-scale informational campaign,
with assistance from outside advertising professionals.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Proceed with the full-scale campaign, along with the in-
house informational promotion outlined above, and appropriate
$36,500 from the Board contingency fund to cover the cost. This
allows the County to keep the matter before the public during the
entire pre-election time period, and is likely to make the majority
of voters aware of the issue and its costs and benefits.
2. Proceed with the in-house informational program and
certain elements of the educational activities. It is possible
that the projects on this referendum are already familiar to the
public, and that television and/or radio advertising may not be
necessary to educate the voters on the matter. Cost for a partial
campaign, including newspaper, radio and brochure, would be
approximately $25,000, and this amount would need to be ap-
propriated from the Board contingency fund.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. This allows
flexibility in proceeding, and it is still possible that all
mediums would not be necessary. This could be determined later in
the summer, and any funds not expended would then be returned to
the Board Contingency Fund.
Anne Marie Green
Public Information Officer
Approved (X)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
cc: File
o -v
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Motion by: Harry C. Nickens
to approve 18,250 funding Eddy
from Board Contingency Kohinke
Fund with 18,250 fund to Johnson
come from Schools Minnix
Nickens
VOTE
No Yes
X
x
x
x
x
Anne Marie Green, Public Information Officer
Diane Hyatt, Director, FinanVe
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
Abs
ACTION NO. A-71492-5 DENIAL
ITEM NO. -7 -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Claim by the City of Roanoke for Unapproved Charges
for Surplus Water
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
The Board requested the staff to once again contact the City to discuss this issue. It was
further suggested that we include one or more elected officials. I contacted the Roanoke City
Manager who has advised me that the City Council does not wish to become involved in this
issue. They have referred the claim to the City Attorney for legal action.
I recommend denial of the claim.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By letter dated April 30, 1992, the City Attorney submitted a
claim on behalf of the City of Roanoke in the amount of $320,353.39
for unpaid charges from the purchase by the County of bulk water
from the City for fiscal year 1991 pursuant to the contract dated
August 13, 1979.
BACKGROUND:
Sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia
describe the procedure for submitting claims to boards of supervi-
sors. No legal action against the county upon any claim or demand
may be maintained unless and until such claim has been presented to
the board of supervisors.
A determination by the board disallowing a claim shall be
final and a perpetual bar to any action in any court on such claim,
unless the decision of the board is appealed to the circuit court
within 30 days from the date of decision.
This matter was previously considered by the Board on May 26,
1992. Action was deferred to provide a final opportunity for the
Board to engage in direct settlement negotiations with City Council
on this matter; however, the Mayor of the City responded that this
was a legal matter to be handled by the City Attorney. Attached is
the Chairman's June 24, 1992, correspondence to the Mayor.
2
The City Attorney has rejected this offer by the Chairman and
has requested the Board to formally act upon the City's claim.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The City's claim and supporting information was previously
submitted to the Board on May 26, 1992.
By letter from the County Administrator to the City Manager
dated December 17, 1991, the County listed its objections to these
additional charges. For the period in question the County has
paid $1,260,734.00 for FY 1991 and is objecting only to additional,
adjusted billing.
The County's objections are summarized as follows:
1) the inclusion of capital costs that are of a specific
benefit only to particular City neighborhoods, that neither serve
nor benefit the County, and that are not necessary to meet the
City's obligations under the contract or to meet water quality or
treatment standards;
2) the inclusion of capital costs to expand the City system
to serve new customers in the City;
3) the inclusion of capital costs for significant long term
expansions or upgrades of the City water system, (since the City
unilaterally defined "surplus water" and the City retains the
opportunity to cancel the contract);
4) the inclusion of capital costs for new services already
paid for by new users (charging the County for expenditures for
expansions or extensions previously paid by new users); and
5) charging the County for "capital outlay from revenue"
from current or prior years' retained earnings, since a portion of
these retained earnings were previously provided by the County
(City expends funds from retained earnings for "capital outlay from
revenue," then adds this expenditure to other costs to calculate
the actual bulk water rate: in effect charging the County twice).
FISCAL IMPACTS•
If the Board allows the claim, the County would be required to
pay an additional $320,353.39 plus interest.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Disallow the claim based upon the objections set forth
above.
2) Allow the claim and pay the additional, adjusted amount
billed by the City for FY 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board disallow the claim, and
thereby permit the City to pursue a judicial remedy.
Respectfully submitted,
U --vv,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by Bob L. Johnson to Eddy x
Denied ( deny claim Johnson x
Received ( ) Kohinke x
Referred Nickens x
to Minnix x
c:\wp51\agendaVmwater.dm
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council, Certified Copy
NOEL C. TAYLOR
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-24.14
June 9, 1992
The Honorable Lee B. Eddy, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Cit;'' the Count
Dear Chairman Eddy:
You have requested a meeting with members of City Council to discuss the
County's unpaid water debt in the amount of $320,353.39. The City Council
has placed this matter in the hands of the City Attorney for collection
through the court system, and, accordingly, on April 30, 1992, the City
Attorney hand delivered our Notice of Claim to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors. City Council remains of the opinion that the County's unpaid
charge for purchase of surplus bulk water is a legal matter and that any
-ommunications from the County relating to this issue should be -addressed to
the City Attorney.
As you may know, by letter of June 5, 1992, to Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Dibling
offered to meet with the County Attorney and receive any good faith
settlement offer or suggestion of compromise that he might want to present on
behalf of the County. Of course, Mr. Dibling will communicate any settlement
offer or recommendation as to compromise to City Council immediately. If the
County has any good faith offer to make, I would encourage you to have your
attorney take advantage of Mr. Dibling's offer.
In anjr case, we cannot allow resolution of this matter to be delayed.
Since October .14, 1991, the City has been denied $320,353.39 rightfully uue
to it under the August 13, 1979, contract. The matter of interest is rapidly
becoming a major concern to City Council and City officials. Therefore, we
must insist that the County act on the City's Notice of Claim immediately.
Sincerely yours,
e / V�V �.
Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
NCT/mf
:c: Members, Roanoke City Council
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney
Joel. M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
OF ROANO,Y� �+.J
v a of
1838
P.O. BOX 29800
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ELMER C. HODGE LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DSTRICT
(703) 772-2004 EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
24 June 1992 HOWNS MAGISTERIAL CISTRICT
H. ODELL "FUZZY MINNIX
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
(703) 772-2005
Mayor Noel C. Taylor
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue
Room 452
Roanoke, VA 24011
Re: City of Roanoke Water Claim
Dear Mayor Taylor:
This letter is in response to your letter of June 9, 1992. The purpose of this letter is to
propose a good faith offer to compromise and to seek a possible framework for the City
and the County to achieve a mutually -agreeable resolution to the dispute over the
interpretation of the 1979 water contract. This dispute apparently stems from an
adjustment in the water rates caused by certain charges made by the City identified as
"capital outlay from revenue." This disagreement over the interpretation of the contract
with respect to these charges is significant not only for the FY 1991 billings, but also for
the as yet unknown impact of the City's $29.5 million bond issue for "water plant
expansion and system improvements" on future rates and billings. Therefore, we agree that
it is of critical importance to resolve this interpretation issue as soon as possible.
The County is concerned that it cannot respond with specifics since we have incomplete
data. At the beginning of this dispute the County requested more data concerning the
specific projects and expenses included in the capital outlay for FY 1991 bulk water
computation. The data provided by the City staff was very sparse. Therefore, we request
further detail from the City explaining and justifying the various capital outlay projects.
We have attempted to calculate the County's "fair" payment, but are unable to do so
because of a dearth of data.
It is necessary to clarify the contractual definition of "capital outlay." This clarification
would clearly define those capital items properly included in the formula. It is the County's
position that those expenditures that are of a specific benefit only to limited parts of the
® Recycied Paper
Page Two
24 June 1992
City water system or serve only a single particular neighborhood, are ineligible for
inclusion in the formula. Further, any expenditure must directly benefit County water
customers to be included in the formula. Also, expenditures for expansions of the City
water system should be eliminated from the formula, as well as expenditures to serve new
customers in the City. It is particularly important to eliminate from consideration in the
formula expenditures for new service expansions where the cost of the expansion has been
previously paid for by a new user or developer. In the alternative, the formula should
provide a capital credit for fees paid by new users or developers. Finally, payments for
capital outlay expenditures should reflect the life of the capital facilities, not just the timing
of the capital payments. For example, if a new facility is constructed with an intended
forty or fifty year life, then the payment for that cost should reflect the actual life of that
capital facility not the entire payment for that capital facility in one or two accounting
periods.
This latter aspect is of particular interest to the County as a result of the City's definition
of "surplus water" in 1985. It is necessary to clarify the surplus water issue in light of the
Section 2.4 contract language ("During times of water shortages or emergencies, the needs
of both parties shall be treated equitably on a pro rata basis.") The clarification of the
surplus water issue is a critical factor when considered in conjunction with the life of the
capital facilities.
There exists a question as to the constitutional validity of an interpretation of this contract
that would bind the County to make future payments on the City's general obligation bond
issue. To cure this problem the County suggests that the constitutional savings language
of "subject to future appropriations" be added to this contract just as the City and County
have incorporated similar constitutional debt provisions in the airport and landfill
agreements.
Since the County is expanding its own water supply system, it does not require expansions
of the City water system in order to serve the long-term water needs of County water
customers under the 1979 contract. The County is willing to pay its portion of the cost
of capital upgrades spread over the life of the capital improvements. No provision in the
contract requires the County to pay for expansions of the City water system. While
objecting to including the costs for expansions of the City water system in the contract
formula, the County would acknowledge an obligation to pay its fair share for "upgrades"
to the City water system, if the Board of Supervisors were given the opportunity to review
and approve long term capital improvements designed to benefit County water customers
(for example, upgrades that are necessary to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act or surface
water treatment rule requirements would be proper expenditures for the capital outlay
formula). This review and approval is consistent with other regional cooperative efforts
of the City and County, and would resolve the constitutional debt problem, when subject
to future appropriations.
Page Three
24 June 1992
Finally, to complete the framework for a possible settlement of this dispute, the County
urges a review of the "capital outlay from revenue" provisions of the contract and the use
of "retained earnings" for the entire contract period. Quite simply, it appears that the
formula as interpreted by the City results in double charging County water customers. For
example, the County under the contract pays all actual expenses. In addition, it also pays
the "f' factor. This 'T' factor is a 25 percent profit allocated to retained earnings.
Subsequently, the City expends funds from retained earnings for "capital outlay from
revenue." The City then adds this expenditure to other costs to calculate the actual bulk
water rate. Therefore, in effect, in subsequent years this application of the formula results
in double -charging County water customers.
Therefore, the County proposal for settlement of this dispute is as follows: The FY 1991
capital outlay projects must be recalculated, eliminating those projects that are of specific
benefit only to the City or to individual neighborhoods in the City and not being of any
benefit to the entire water system or not being necessary to serve County water customers.
The 1979 water contract should be clarified to more particularly define those elements
constituting "capital outlay." The constitutional debt creation problem should be resolved
by making expenditures for capital projects subject to future appropriations. Expenditures
for capital projects should reflect the life of the improvements, not an artificial accounting
methodology. The 1985 surplus water definition should be clarified with respect to Section
2.4 of the contract and with respect to expenditures for capital facilities in conjunction
with the life of these capital facilities. Finally, the double -charging of County water
customers through capital outlay from revenue and expenditures from retained earnings
must be reviewed.
I understand that members of our respective staffs plan to meet to discuss these issues
within the next few days. If appropriate, I would be pleased to meet with you and/or
other City officials to further discuss this proposal. Of course, any settlement would have
to be approved by both City Council and Board of Supervisors.
Very ruly yours,
, //3
Lee B. Eddy, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
cc: Members, Roanoke City Council and Council -Elect
Members, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
1d
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
W. C. Dibling, Jr., Esquire, City Attorney
Paul M. Mahoney, Esquire, County Attorney
V ,
�Z- L/
ACTION NO. A-71492-6
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Public -Private Partnership for Signalization at
Colonnade Corporate Center, Route 419
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Bruce Hobart, developer of Colonnade, has had several prospects for
the Colonnade II building. One of the issues affecting a decision
on the location is ingress/egress to the site from Route 419. The
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has advised the County
staff that a traffic signal is needed on 419 at McVitty Road and
the entrance to Colonnade. There is an existing agreement between
VDOT and Bruce Hobart to install the signal and allocate the
estimated $75,000 costs of this signal between VDOT and the Hobart
Companies. Bruce Hobart has requested Roanoke County to fund a
portion of the signal costs under the Public -Private Partnership
Policy. The Public -Private Partnership Policy allows for the
expenditure of public funds for basic industries such as
manufacturing, and for major employers hiring over 250 employees.
Currently there are six companies in Colonnade II and nine
companies in Colonnade I with a total of 200 employees. There is
a lease pending for 17,679 square feet (one floor) of Colonnade II
and 75 new employees for a company relocating from outside the
Roanoke Valley. This concentration of companies meets the criteria
of 250 employees that is set forth in the policy.
There are several other active prospects being pursued through the
Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership that would
necessitate the construction of a third building on the site.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Colonnade I and II have an annual real estate tax of $41,734.30.
Public -Private Partnership funds are available from the Economic
Development Fund which has a balance of $100,000. Payback from
real estate taxes will occur within 1 1/2 years ($20,000 for
Colonnade II) if the prospect locates.
- 41
For a $30,000 appropriation, Roanoke County would be spending $109
per job ($30,000 - 275). On a comparative basis, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) requires that a job be created for
every $15,000 of Federal funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appropriate $30,000 from the Economic Development Fund towards the
cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Route 419 and
McVitty Road with the condition that the Hobart Companies make
payment of $7,500 prior to Roanoke County expending any funds
toward this project.
Respectfully submitted:
Timothy W. Gubala
Director of Economic Development
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
to
Approved:
E mer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
( Motion by: H. Odell Minnix
( ) motion to approve staff
( ) recommendation
No Yes Abstain
Eddy x
Johnson X
Kohinke x
Minnix _x
Nickens X_
cc: File
Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
ACTION NO. A-71492-8 DENIAL
ITEM NO. ID — &
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: APPEAL OF DELANCEY STREET NORTH CAROLINA FROM DENIAL
OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO SOLICIT IN ROANOKE
COUNTY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Commissioner of Revenue has determined that Delancey
Street North Carolina, a § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, must
obtain a solicitation license for each of its representatives due
to their direct sale of a product as their fund raising activity.
BACKGROUND:
Delancey Street North Carolina is a drug rehabilitation
program located in Greensboro, North Carolina housing approximately
25 residents. It is an independently functioning and self-support-
ing unit of the Delancey Street Foundation which was originally
founded in San Francisco approximately twenty years ago. Residents
of this facility are required to work in one of Delancey Street's
business operations and make a multi-year commitment to this
rehabilitation program. The residents receive no wages or income
from their activities, but all profits go to support the opera-
tions, which provides food, shelter and clothing for these
individuals. Delancey Street does not directly solicit donations
for its activities but requires its residents to either sell items
such as barkchip planters, sand paintings and cutting boards or to
work for their moving company or landscaping operation.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Upon being advised of the potential application of Roanoke
County's business license ordinance, Chapter 10, and solicitation
ordinance, Chapter 19, representatives of Delancey Street North
Carolina met with Commissioner R. Wayne Compton, Mary H. Allen,
Clerk to the Board, and myself. After a meeting which lasted more
than one hour, it was the determination of Commissioner Compton
that the fund raising activities contemplated by this organization
within Roanoke County constituted "solicitation" as defined by Sec.
19-1 of the Roanoke County Code, specifically: "(1) Seeking to
obtain orders for the purchase of goods wares merchandise,
foodstuffs or services of any kind, character or description.; (4)
Seeking to obtain contributions for charitable nonprofit organiza-
tions or selling any goods, wares merchandise or other things for
the benefit of such an organization." [Emphasis added]. Therefore,
any individual to be engaged in such solicitation was required to
obtain a permit as required by Sec. 19-3 of the Code at a cost of
$30.00 per person. In addition, the organization was required to
obtain a business license as a direct seller under Sec. 10-48 of
the County Code.
It was the determination of Commissioner Compton, after
conferring with legal counsel, that no provision existed in Chapter
19 of the Roanoke County Code which would permit him to exempt
these individuals from this permit requirement even though we
accepted their assurance that 100% of the proceeds from their sales
on behalf of Delancey Street went directly back to the organiza-
tion. Delancey Street North Carolina has obtained solicitation
permits for six of its residents to solicit in Roanoke County at
a cost of $180.00. The organization has noted its appeal of the
Commissioner's decision pursuant to Sec. 19-24 (b) of the County
Code by letter dated June 30, 1992.
ALTERNATIVES•
I. Uphold the decision of the Commissioner of the Revenue
and deny this appeal.
II. Grant the appeal of Delancey Street North Carolina to
permit their representatives to solicit within the County
of Roanoke by obtaining orders for the purchase of goods,
wares and merchandise without the payment of a permit fee
upon the following rationale:
a. As a one time exemption with all similar requests
to come before the Board for approval; or
b. Amend Sec. 19-21 of the Roanoke County Code to
provide a specific exemption for this and similar
organizations by the addition of a new subsection
(c) as follows: "The provisions of this section
shall not apply to any solicitation conducted by
participants in or residents of a § 501(c)(3)
organization where 100 % [80 %] of the proceeds of
any solicitation, as defined by Sec. 19-1, are
deposited to the account of or credited directly to
the benefit of that organization."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative I.
2
Respectfully submitted,
V. Obenshain
Assistant County Attorney
------------------------------------s---------------------------
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved
( ) Motion by Edward G. Kohinke, Eddy x
Denied (x) Sr. to approve Alternative #1 Johnson x
Received ( ) to deny the claim Kohinke x
Referred Minnix x
to Nickens x
cc: File
Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board
Alvester Ellis, Director, Delancey Street North Carolina -
Certified Copy
DELANCEY STREET NORTH CAROLINA
811 North Elm Street Greensboro
June 30, 1992
Mr. Lee B. Eddy
Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Dear Mr. Eddy,
9�_6'j
North Carolina 27401 (919) 379.8477
MIMI M. SILBERT, Ph.D., PRESIDENT/ CEO
This is a formal request to appeal the denial of our application for a
permit to solicit in Roanoke County.
The application was denied based on opinions given by the ounty
Attorney's office and the Commissioner of Revenue. Because Delancev
Street's solication involves direct sales of a product, they felt that
we should apply for a business & solicitation license through the
Commissioner of Revenue's office.
We feel that Delancey Street should have been issued a solicitors
license free of charge. Delancey Street is a non-profit organization
as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. The solicitors and
solicitations regulation Article I (In General) Sec. 19-1 Number 4,
applies to organizations such as Delancey Street Foundation. Enclosed,
is a copy of the Roanoke County, Virginia application for a free 1 i cense
which clearly applies to Delancey Street.
Enclosed are copies of licenses which were obtained thru the
Commissioner's of Revenue Office for six residents of Delancey Street.
Delancey Street does not have any paid staff. All funds from the sale
of planters are used to defray operating expenses. The refund should
be in the amount of $180.00. If you have any questions or need
additional information, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Alvester Ellis
Director
AE/bg
SAN FRANCISCO NEW YORK NEW MEXICO
2563 Diuisadero Turk dill Road P.O. Box 1240
San Francisco Brewster San Juan Pueblo
LOS ANGELES
134416th Street
Santa Monica
SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS § 19-4
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 19.1. Definition.
r, the term- shall mean and include any one or
For the purpose of this chapte
more of the following activities:
(1) Seeking to obtain orders for the purchase of goods, wares, merchandise, foodstuffs or
services of any kind, character or description.
(2) Seeking to obtain prospective customers for application for, or purchase of, insurance
of any type, kind or character.
(3) Seeking to obtain subscriptions to books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers or any
other type or kind of publication.
(4) Seeking to obtain contributions for charitable nonprofit organizations or se at an
goods, wares, merchandise or other ty
hings for the benefit of such an organiz
(Ord. No. 1789, § 16.1.9, 6-14.77)
Sec. 19.2. Violation of chapter.
Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class 4 misde-
meanor.
(Ord. No. 1789, §§ 16.1-3, 16.1-10, 6-14-77)
Cross reference—Penalty for Class 4 misdemeanor, § 1-10.
Sec. 19-3. Solicitor's permit generally. ,
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation'in the county unless such
person shall have first obtained a permit at a cost as,from.time to, time is established by the
the _revenue with his
board of supervisors. The applicant must provide the.commissioner of
name, local address, acceptable identification and: the name. of his employer. Any person
wishing to solicit subscriptions for books, magazines or other publications must also obtain a
permit from the commissioner of labor and industry, -as .required by section 40.1-112 of the
Code of Virginia.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not,be applicable to school children of the county
nsored activities or to solicitations conducted pursuant to a
when soliciting for school spo
permit issued under article II of this chapter.
(Code 1971, § 11.4; Ord. No. 84.194, § 3, 11-13-84)
Sec. 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation in the county at any time prior
to 9:00 a.m. or after 10:00 P.M.
(Ord. No. 1789, § 16.1-7, 6-14.77)
1227
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA /0�.,
This form is for use by charitable, non-profit organization applying
SIJ
Roanoke County for a permit to
sale solicit or sell or cause a solication
to be made within Roanoke County.
[1] Applicant's name and address:
-, 1_/
[2] Applicant's phone number between 8 a.m.,
and 5 p.m.'
[3] Name and address of the organization receiving proceeds f=
solicitation:
-? 7 -16)
[4] Name and address of the principal officer or manager of the applica:
if the applicant is other than an individual:
[5] Purpose for which any receipts derived from the solicitation are to
used:
• r/' T � f' r� Y
[6] Name of the person by whom the receipts of the solicitation will
received and disbursed:
'� -� � •� �. G i � r � _, ._) C . 3
[7] Name and address of the person who will be in direct
conducting the solicitation: charge
[8] Outline the Jmethod to be used in conducting the solicitation:
[9] Provide a full statement of the character and extent of the charitab.
educational, or philanthropic work being done in Roanoke County by
organization receiving proceeds from the solicitation:
—_liregr. ' t ri ��/r��o� •ice A>li; V___�/._�
[l0] Federal tax employer identification number•*717 O <
State and federal tax-exempt identification numbers: // �� Y�
[11] Dates on which solicati.on will begin and end (NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAY
TO BE CONDUCTED ONLY BETWEEN 9
A.M.
_AND 10 P.M,,,
LOCAL i
FORM TO: CLERK TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P. O. BOX 29800
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
(703) 772-2005
01 k
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(703) 772-2004
`LVun af Ywanjake
P.O. BOX 29800
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798
June 17, 1992
Mr. Tom Jones
Delancey Street Foundation
811 North Elm Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
Dear Mr. Jones:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEE B. EDDY, CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
EDWARD G. KOHINKE, SR., VICE-CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
H. ODELLFUZZY" MINNIX
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
(703) 772-2005
This is to acknowledge receipt of your application for a permit to
solicit in Roanoke County on behalf of the Delancey Street
Foundation.
Your application has been denied based on opinions given by the
County Attorney's Office and the Commissioner of Revenue. Because
your organization's solicitation will involve direct sales of a
product, they feel that you should apply for a business license and
a solicitation license through the Commissioner of Revenue's
Office.
According to Roanoke County Code, you have the right to appeal this
denial directly to the Board of Supervisors. If you wish to
proceed with an appeal, please let me know and the issue will be
placed on the next Board of Supervisor's Agenda.
If I can be of further assistance, please call me.
Sincerely,
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
MMA/ bjh
cc: R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of the
Joseph B. Obenshain, Chief Assistant
John H. Cease, Police Chief
® Recycled Paper
Revenue
County Attorney
W ERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
DISTRICT DIRECTOR
C - 11;0
ATLANTA, GA 30301
MAY 1 2 1997
KWCLV STREET NORTH FAQQC:Nr
W11 NOR K ELM _, i YiE.K
GREENSBORO, NC 27401
__Gear Applicant:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASUR'Y'
I_il.I.i Letter D,l.ed
My 019R."
rdde,noum APDjjyE-
WE
ED—
This modifies our letter of the above date i which stated ~ me 1tl•lat y!'u
would be treated as an organization that is not a f+. private
F foundation unci i the
expiration of your advance ruling period.
Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the
information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private
foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Cede because you are an
Organization of the type described in section 509(a) (1) and 170(b) (1) (A) (vi).
Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the
Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you
lose your section 509 (a) (1) status, a granter or contributor may not rely on
this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of,
the act or failure to act, or the substantial or material change on the part of
the organization that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he or she
acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you
would no longer be classified as a section 509(x)(1) organization.
If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum
applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter.
Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private
foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records.
Sincere��
Pau| N/ ||/»ms
District Director
Enc|osure:
Addendum
f
Lf E L (I N C E Ti F
b&causp the C,.,
I iO (b
♦Wl
f
r
ACTION NO. A-71492-7
ITEM NUMBER - _!r
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Request for a Recreation Partnership Policy and for
an appropriation of $15,000 to fund the Lighting of
Ball Fields at Green Hill Park.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S
COMMENTS •
BACKGROUND:
It has been suggested that staff develop a partnership policy
for the development of recreational facilities. This policy would
be similar to our current policy with the Fire and Rescue
Department in the purchase of vehicles and our public-private
partnership policy for economic development projects. Using this
Policy, organizations or individuals could make proposals to the
County whereby they would fund part of the facility or development
cost and the County would be invited to share in the cost. The
policy would also address issues such as the ownership of the
asset, liabilities assumed, handling of the operating costs or
other pertinent conditions. The County has shared in the cost of
some improvements in the past in a less formal manner, however,
with the increased number of requests, a system must be implemented
to control the priority and consistency of handling these requests.
Staff suggests that the policy be recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission and returned to the Board of
Supervisors for action.
The County is presently in receipt of a proposal from the
Glenvar Youth Boosters to light three ball fields at Green Hill
Park. The Club has already received donation of twelve sixty foot
poles which have been delivered to the site. The Club also has
commitments for donated services to plant the poles, install the
light apparatus, and complete the electrical work for these three
fields. The County would be responsible for the ongoing operating
cost for the electrical service.
The Club is requesting $15,000 to be appropriated by the
County to assist in the purchase of the light fixtures, bulbs, and
related electrical apparatus. The cash difference would be
provided by the Club. The expenditure of these monies must be in
compliance with the County's Procurement Ordinance and normal
bidding procedures.
During the preparation
referendum, staff was aware
field at Green Hill Park and
would be completed without
concurs in the desirability c
plan for the development of
of three baseball fields. '
field using total contract
depending on field size, c
of the list of projects for the bond
that the Club was working to light a
it was felt that the capital project
assistance from the County. Staff
if lighting ball fields and the master
3reen Hill Park suggests the lighting
Che estimated cost to light one ball
work ranged from $42,000 to $72,000
.esired lighting intensity, and the
availability of power to the site. The requested $15,000
contribution from the County would be approximately 1/3 of the
value of the materials required for this project.
FISCAL IMPACT•
The County share for the lights is $15,000.
ALTERNATIVES•
(1) Appropriate the $15,000 from the Capital Reserve Account.
(2) Defer Action and consider the request as a part of the
normal budget process for the 1993-94 fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff suggests alternative (1) to appropriate the monies from
the Capital Reserve Account. Staff further recommends that the
Parks and Recreation Department and the Advisory Commission develop
a partnership policy for future park improvements to be brought
back to the Board for consideration and approval.
Respectfully submitted, Approv d by
John M. Chambli s, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approved (X)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
cc: File
ACTION
Motion by: Edward G.Kohinke, Sr.
to approve Alternative #1 Eddy
Johnson
Kohinke
Minnix
Nickens
John Chambliss, Jr., Assistant Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
VOTE
No Yes Abs
X
X
X
X
X
Elaine Carver, Director, Procurement
John Chambliss, Jr., Acting Director, Parks & Recreation
ACTION NO. A-71492-9 - DENIAL
ITEM NO. -Z - 7
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: JULY 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Claim of Daniel L. Chisom
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 1 /' //
BACKGROUND:
Sections 15.1-550 through 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia
describes the procedure for submitting claims to boards of
supervisors. No legal action against the county upon any claim or
demand may be maintained unless and until such claim has been
presented to the board of supervisors.
A determination by the board disallowing a claim shall be
final and a perpetual bar to any action in any court on such claim,
unless the decision of the board is appealed to the circuit court
within 30 days from the date of decision.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
By letter dated May 6, 1992, the law firm of Cranwell & Shiel
submitted a claim on behalf of Daniel L. Chisom in the amount of
$75,000.00 for personal injury. A summary of this claim is
attached to this report.
This claim was submitted to the County's insurance carrier for
consideration.
Attached is a copy of the response denying this claim based on
the fact that the storm drain is owned and maintained by the State
of Virginia.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If the Board allows the claim, the County would be required to
pay $75,000.00.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Disallow the claim based upon the objections set forth
above.
2) Allow the claim and pay the $75,000.00.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board disallow the claim.
Approved ( )
Denied
Received ( )
Referred
to
Action
Respectfully submitted,
Q'� cv, .
-Tf\ -- I
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Vote
Motion by Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs
Eddy x
motion to approve Alter ive Johnson x
to eny the c aim Kohinke x
Nickens x
Minnix x
CAWP51\agemk\1k\ehi1Dms1m
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Robert C. Jernigan, Risk Management
Cranwell & Shiel, Attorneys for Daniel L. Chisom - Certified Copy
Alexss T
=ederal Reserve BanK Bu ono
';1 East Bvro Street
=cs1 Office Box 11 77
=1cnmono. Virginia 23209
ieonone 18041 783-0339
^.VX 710-956-0123
asvunK 62908992
--�iecooler !804) 783-9550
June 12. 1992
Mr. M. Dean Cranwell
Attornev at Law
P.O. Box 903
Vinton. 'VA 24179
RE: CLAIM #:
OUR CLIENT:
CLAIMANT:
D/A:
Dear Mr. Cranwell:
79VMP91G0725
RoanoKe County
Daniel Chisholm
12/6/91
".'SK
Suosic ary Aiexaneer s r exaneer inc
Alexsis Risk Manaaement Services, Inc. is the third party administrator
on behalf of the County of Roanoke. This will acknowledge receipt of the
correspondence you sent to Mr. Paul Mahoney.
The allegeo open manhole you indicated vour client 'ell in is a storm
drain. rather than a sewer drain. and is owned and maintained by the
state. It would appear, therefore. that your claim should be cirected to
the State of Virginia for the state -maintained storm drain.
Based on this, I would be unable to consider any payment reaard.na vour
client's iniuries. If you should have any questions, please feel free tc
contact me at (804) 783-0569.
Sincerely,
William E. Padgett
Senior Claims Specialist
WEP/pab
cc: Bob Jernigan - County of Roanoke
22 23
�Z02A
x
JM B92 N
10
RECENM
WMKE COUNTY �w r
N0.
8t 9s�£z%V
M. DEAN CRANWELL
PATRICK S. SHIEL
CRANWELL & SHIEL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1106 EAST WASHINGTON AVENUE
P.O. BOX 507
VINTON. VIRGINIA 24179-0507
May 6, 1992
Paul Mahoney, Esquire HAND DELIVERED
Roanoke County
Attorney's Office
3738 Brambleton Avenue
Roanoke, VA
RE: Daniel L. Chisom v. Roanoke County
Dear Mr. Mahoney:
n;. ,y --
---------------------
TELEPHONE (703) 985-0002
FACSIMILE (703) 985-0511
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter dated April 28,
1992, from Mark Allan Williams, Assistant City Attorney, denying
our claim against the City on the basis that the property where
Mr. Chisom fell is not located in the City. Therefore, we are
placing the County on notice of this incident also and would
request that someone acknowlege receipt of this notice as soon
as possible.
Sincerely,
CRANWELL & SHIEL
Al�x�3�Cz/�
Pamela J. Bear
Paralegal
/pam
Enclosures
e./ 1i
NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY
TO: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Pursuant to Section 8.01-222 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, Daniel L. Chisom, residing at 1623
Underhill Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24014, hereby gives notice of
his claim against the County of Roanoke, its agents, officers or
employees:
On December 6, 1991, at approximately 2:00 in the
afternoon, claimant was walking along the side of Underhill Avenue
near the gate of the City's Sewage Treatment Plant in the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, when he fell down an open manhole about 10 feet
to the left of the gate when entering the City's Sewage Treatment
Plant and across the street from 1623 Underhill Avenue in the
County of Roanoke, Virginia. As a result of the fall Mr. Chisom
sustained leg and back injuries.
Claimant was taken immediately to Roanoke Memorial
Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries by Doctors George
Henning and Bruce Thomas and Steve Pasternak.
Claimant has been under the care of Dr. George Henning
since the accident.
As a result of this accident, claimant has incurred
medical bills in the amount of Four Hundred Thirteen and 75/100
Dollars ($413.75) as follows:
Roanoke Orthopedic $ 179.00
Dr. Bruce Thomas 19.00
Emergency Room fee at Roanoke Memorial 215.75
Total $ 413.75
,Z- 7
Further, claimant will continue to incur medical bills in
an attempt to treat the injuries he has sustained.
Further, claimant has been prevented from working at his
usual rate of employment since the date of the accident and
anticipates future disabilities. The claimant has undergone severe
pain and mental anguish as a result of this injury and anticipates
that this pain and suffering will continue.
Claimant hereby makes a claim against the County of
Roanoke in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00)
to compensate him for the injuries and losses described above, and
such future losses and expenses as he may suffer as a result of
this accident, which he alleges were sustained by reason of the
negligence of the County of Roanoke, its agents, officers or
employees.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL L. CHISOM
I:y 74:k 2a
Of • -
M. Dean Cranwell, Esquire
Patrick S. Shiel, Esquire
CRANWELL & SHIEL
P. O. Box 507
Vinton, Virginia 24179
(703)985-0002
M
ACTION NO. A-71492-10
ITEM NO. -:b _8
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Funding for Special Education Program
at Roanoke County/Salem Jail Facility
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Sheriff's Office has been selected
by the Virginia Department of Education as one of three pilot sites
in the state to develop and implement an educational program for
targeted inmates under the age of 22. This program will provide
classroom instruction for inmates in the Roanoke County/Salem Jail
who have special education needs. This pilot program originated
from a complaint in 1987 that was filed with the Office for Civil
Rights regarding unavailability of special education services for
eligible inmates. In 1990 the Virginia State Crime Commission made
the following recommendations:
1. Local responsible felons should receive services through
cooperation between local jail administrator and local
division school superintendent.
2. State responsible felons with disabilities should be
assigned high priority for transfer to Department of
Corrections facilities.
3. All funding should be provided by the Commonwealth.
4. Virginia Department of Education should serve as the
agency responsible for coordination and conduct of the
program.
5. Virginia Department of Correctional Education should
provide technical assistance to jail and education
personnel.
Target date for implementation of this pilot program is
August 1, 1992. Statewide implementation of this educational
program is mandated to begin in Fiscal Year 1994-95.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Sheriff's Office and
Roanoke County School Board will jointly develop and implement a
special educational program within the Roanoke County/Salem Jail
Board Report
July 14, 1992
Page 2
Facility. All funding for this program ($90,000) will be provided
by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Crime Commission. The
funding provides for personnel to include one special education
teacher provided to the Roanoke County School Board, and two
employees provided to the Roanoke County Sheriff's Office to
include: one Correctional Officer/Deputy Sheriff for security, and
one secretary for administration of the program.
FISCAL IMPACT: -0-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of funding
Respectfully submitted, Appro d by
Gerald S. Holt Elmer C. Hodg , Jr.
Sheriff County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
VOTE
Approved
(YJ Motion by:
Harry C. Nickens
No
Yes Aba
Denied
( ) to accept grant
Eddy
x
Received
( )
Johnson
x
Referred
( )
Kohinke
x
To
( )
Minnix
x
Nickens
x
cc: File
Gerald
S. Holt, Sheriff
Bayes
Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke
County Schools
Diane
Hyatt, Director,
Finance
Reta
Busher, Director,
Management & Budget
Keith
Cook, Director,
Human Resources
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY AT 7
P.M. ON JULY 9, 1992 IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, SALEM, VIRGINIA.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE
SCHOOL GRANT FUND FOR A PILOT PROGRAM TO EDUCATE
JUVENILES AND INMATES UNDER AGE 22 WHO ARE
INCARCERATED AND IN NEED OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has been selected as a site to pilot
an education program for juveniles and inmates under age 22 in need of
special education, who are incarcerated in jail, and
WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County will serve
as the fiscal agent for the project of $90,000.00 awarded by the
Virginia Department of Education for the period of July 1, 1992 through
June 30, 1993;
BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Roanoke County
on motion of Maurice L. Mitchell and duly seconded, requests an
appropriation by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to the
School Grant Fund in the amount of $90,000.00 for the project as set
forth.
Adopted on the following recorded vote:
AYES: Jerry L. Canada, Barbara B. Chewning, Maurice L.
Mitchell, Frank E. Thomas
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Charlsie S. Pafford
TESTE:
Clerk
c: Mrs. Diane Hyatt
0
w'� LYS w•� -
f4: S U PT
I' IN 3 01992
COMMONWEAL T/ H ®f VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P.O. BOX 6-0
RICHMONO 23216-2060
June 26, 1992
Dr. Bayes E. Wilson
Superintendent
Roanoke County Schools
526 College Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
Dear Dr. Wilson:
We are pleased to inform you that your community has been
selected as a site to pilot an education program for juveniles, and
inmates under age 22 in need of special education, who are
incarcerated in jail. We have completed joint negotiations with
Dr. Eddie Kolb and Mr. Frank Sparks from your staff, and Captain
Barry Tayloe from the Roanoke County Jail, and will fund the
project for $90,000.00. As this amount is less than was requested
in your proposal, it will be necessary for you, as fiscal agent for
the project, to submit a revised budget reflecting the award
amount. The period of the award is from July 1, 1992 through June
30, 1993. Reimbursement will be made for project expenditures on
a semester basis and will be processed as part of your first and
second semester requests for special education categorical funds.
Ms. Lisa Yaryan is the Department of Education contact for
this project (804-225-2709), and will be working closely with the
project staff on an ongoing basis. We commend you and Sheriff Holt
for your efforts in establishing this program, and are eager to
assist you in any way that we can.
Sincerely,
ohn Mitchell, Principal
Grants Administration
cc: Sheriff Gerald Holt
Lisa Yaryan
ACTION NO. A-71492-11 - DENIAL
ITEM NO. �-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA
ITEM:
Request
for Public
Hearing
COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR'S
COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VAKS, Ltd. through its attorney has requested the Board of
Supervisors to adopt a resolution supporting its request to the
General Assembly for tax exempt status. Such a resolution shall
be adopted only after a public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Section 30-19.04 of the State Code prescribes the procedure to
be followed in requests to the General Assembly for tax exempt
status. The General Assembly requires the adoption of a resolution
by the local governing body supporting or refusing to support this
exemption, or evidence that a formal and timely request has been
made and that the governing body has failed to act on the request
or has refused to adopt the resolution.
This Code section lists specific findings of fact or questions
to be considered.
The cost of publication of
hearing may be collected from
property tax exemption.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
the legal notice for the public
the organization requesting the
The VAKS, Ltd. request for consideration of a resolution by
the Board of Supervisors for tax exempt status was made in late
November, 1991. The Board was not receptive to considering such
a request at that time. This request has been renewed in
anticipation of the 1993 session of the Virginia General Assembly.
If the Board wishes to consider a resolution for tax exempt
status, it shall be adopted only after holding a public hearing.
Therefore a public hearing would have to be scheduled to consider
this matter. July 28, 1992 or August 25, 1992 are the next two
1
regular meetings of the Board at which evening public hearings are
scheduled.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
It is recommended that the Board require VAKS, Ltd. to pay the
costs of legal notice publication.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Schedule a public hearing to consider the adoption of a
resolution for tax exempt status for VAKS, Ltd.
2) Refuse to schedule a public hearing to consider the
adoption of a resolution for tax exempt status for YAKS, Ltd.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Commissioner of the Revenue and the County Attorney
recommend that the Board reject the request of YAKS, Ltd. for
adoption of a resolution supporting property tax exemption. The
reasons for this opposition could be summarized at a subsequent
meeting, if requested.
The scheduling of a public hearing in consideration of the
adoption of a resolution concerning tax exempt status is a matter
of Board discretion.
Respectfully submitted,
"l',
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Edward A. Natt, Attorney for2VAKS, Ltd.- Certified Copy
Action
Vote
Approved ( ) Motion
by Bob L. Johnson
Edd y
No Yes Abs
X
Denied (g) motion
to eny req ues or
Johnson�—
Received ( ) Pu is
earing
Kohinke
Referred
Nickens
to
Minix
cc: File
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Edward A. Natt, Attorney for2VAKS, Ltd.- Certified Copy
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-12 APPROVING AND CONCURRING
IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J - 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 July 14, 1992, designated as Item J - Consent
Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item
separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 15,
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes - May 26, 1992, June 2, 1992,
June 9, 1992.
2. Request for Acceptance of Ashbury Court, Ashbury
Drive and Greenmont Court into the Virginia
Department of Transportation Secondary System.
3. Request for Acceptance of Millbridge Road into the
Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary
System.
4. Request for Acceptance of Barrens Village Lane,
Barrens Village Court, and Deer Branch Drive into
the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary
System.
5. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to Board of
Zoning Appeals and Social Services Board.
6. Request to Accept Grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services for Drug Enforcement
Program.
7. Request to Accept Grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services for Community Crime
Prevention Services.
8. Donation of Easements in Connection with the
Hunting Hills Road Project.
9. Donation of Sanitary Sewer Easements in Connection
with "THE ORCHARDS111 Applewood, Section 2 (F&W
Community Development Corporation).
10. Acceptance of Donation of Right -of -Way and Easement
for the Bushdale Road Rural Addition Project.
11. Donation of Easements from Springwood Associates
and Leroy G. Lochner.
12. Donation of a Water Line Easement Situated on Lot
32 and 33, Block 5, Section 3, Waterford.
13. Donation of a Water Line Easement from James R.
Crawford and Thelma E. Crawford.
14. Donation of Rights -of Way in Connection with the
Fallowater Lane Project.
15. Request from County Treasurer to Destroy Records
for Tax Payments Prior to July 1, 1987.
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
Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
John Cease, Chief of Police
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-12.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
ASHBURY COURT, ASHBURY DRIVE AND GREENMONT COURT
INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Ashbury Court from
the intersection of West Ruritan Road (Route 610) to the cul-de-
sac, Ashbury Drive from the intersection of Ashbury Court to the
cul-de-sac and Greenmont Court from the intersection of Ashbury
Drive to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part of the
Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the
Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and
a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have heretofore been
dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as The Meadows of
Trent, Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 11, Page
133, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County, Virginia, on April 6, 1989 and that by reason of
the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage
easements and rights-of-way for the streets.
3. That said roads known as Ashbury Court, Ashbury Drive and
Greenmont Court and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying
this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public
roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in
Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official
acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
Sa
NORTH
DESCRIPTION:
1) Ashbury Court from the intersection of West Ruritan Road
(Route 610) to the cul-de-sac.
2) Ashbury Drive from the intersection of Ashbury Court to the
cul-de-sac.
3) Greenmont Court from the intersection of Ashbury Drive to the
cul-de-sac.
LENGTH:
(1)
0.09
miles
(2)
0.20
miles
(3)
0.07
miles
RIGHT OF WAY:
(1)
50
feet
(2)
50
feet
(3)
50
feet
ROADWAY WIDTH:
(1)
30
feet
(2)
30
feet
(3)
30
feet
SURFACE WIDTH:
(1)
26
feet
(2)
26
feet
(3)
26
feet
SERVICE:
(1)
3
homes
(2)
16
homes
(3)
9
homes
ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF ASHBURY COURT, ASHBURY DRIVE AND
ENGINEERING & GREENMONT COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
2
CORRECTED SECTION NUMBERS, MONTHS DATES AND YEARS 08/06/92
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-12.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
MILLBRIDGE ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Millbridge Road
(Route 1168) from the intersection of Millwheel Drive (Route 1167
to the cul-de-sac) to the cul-de-sac to be accepted and made a part
of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of
the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and
a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have heretofore been
dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Woodbridge,
Subdivision, Sections 8 and 12, which maps were recorded
respectively in Plat Book 9, Page 310, and Plat Book 12, Page 84 of
the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on December 17, 1984 and March 2, 1990
respectively and that by reason of the recordation of said map no
report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-
of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board
hereby guarantees said drainage easements and a right-of-way for
the street.
3. That said road known as Millbridge Road and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the
same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the
State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and
after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway
by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. A len, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1992
RESOLUTION 71492-12.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
BARRENS VILLAGE LANE, BARRENS VILLAGE COURT, AND
DEER BRANCH DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Barrens Village
Court east of Barrens Village Lane to the cul-de-sac for a distance
of 0.07 miles, Barrens Village Court west of Barrens Village Lane
to the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.11 miles, Barrens Village
Lane from the intersection of Barrens Road (Route 1832) to the cul-
de-sac for a distance of 0.41 miles, and Deer Branch Drive (Route
1882) from end of state maintenance to the intersection of Barrens
Village Lane for a distance of 0.07 miles to be accepted and made
a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section
33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and
a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads has heretofore been
dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as Barrens Village,
Sections 1, 2, and 3, which maps were recorded in Plat Book 10,
Page 83, Page 84 and Page 85 respectively, of the records of the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on
August 13, 1987 and that by reason
of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers,
nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said drainage
easements and rights-of-way for the streets.
3. That said roads known as Barrens Village Lane, Barrens
Village Court, and Deer Branch Drive and which is shown on a
certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are
hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State
Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after
notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
��Ifz� . 0tit
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
..,.•-#.�.. .�'"'-�-.a' I.1r1rc" ay •t:�-. k,�&tegs:,n _^,ce'. t'llk:t+'�'�i.1�Yd'7+.' •��+i+d#'Gs!�fw+f1.:3 :•y�i5itl'�..A�R*
�fti ��'oy' o r�
0 - TOgg
�` 7"� VICINITY MAP
""N
,r
id 0
MII� �• �LVV �,
I TM
p L • 1 N//
• j e' j ' PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY
`� :✓/ "� ~ DESCRIPTION:
1) Barrens Village Court. east of Barrens Village Lane to the cul-de-sac.
•`
?•„I 2) Barrens Village Court west of Barrens Village Lane to the cul-de-sac.
3) Barrens Village Lane from the intersection of Barrens Road (Route 1832)
to the cul-de-sac.
4) Deer Branch Drive (Route 1882) from end of state maintenance to the
intersection of Barrens Village Lane.
LENGTH: (1) 0.07 mi. (2) 0.11 mi. (3) 0.41 mi. (4) 0.07 mi.
R -OF -WAY: (2) 50 ft. (3) �0 ft. (4) 50 ft.
ROADWAY WD:(1) 30 ft. (2) 30 ft. (3) 361-38'varies(4) 30 ft.
SURFACE WD:(1) 26 ft. (2) 26 ft. (3) 321-34'varies(4) 26 ft.
SERVICE: (1) 7 homes (2) 12 homes(3) 34 homes (4) 8 homes
ROANOKE COUNTY ACCEPTANCE OF BARRENS VILLAGE LANE, BARRENS VILLAGE
ENGINEERING & COURT, AND DEER BRANCH DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
3
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.d
ITEM NUMBER S- �9
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
July 14, 1992
Confirmation of Committee Appointments to
Board of Zoning Appeals and Social Services
Board.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Board of Zoning Appeals
Supervisor Johnson nominated Carlton Wright for another five-year
term which will expire June 30, 1992.
Social Services Board
Supervisor Nickens nominated Betty Jo Anthony for another four -term
which will expire July 19, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the above nominees be appointed.
Mary H. 'Allen
Clerk to the Board
Eo
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
---------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred ( ) Kohinke x
To ( ) Minnix x
Nickens x
cc: File
Board of Zoning Appeals File
Social Services Board File
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.e
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a grant by the County Police Department for drug
enforcement program.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I -
BACKGROUND:
The Criminal Investigations Division of the Roanoke County Police
Department has been notified by the Department of Criminal Justice Services
that it has been awarded a grant renewal in the amount of $20,029 for the
purpose of enhancing the investigation and prosecution of persons who use
Roanoke County motels as a temporary location to distribute drugs.
The monies will be used to pay officers and detectives to work overtime,
and to pay informants and purchase drugs. Since this enforcement program is
conducted during the officers' off duty time, the current level of general
law enforcement in the County will not be affected.
FISCAL IMPACT•
This grant will not require an additional allocation from the County
budget. A matching fund of $6,676 will be supplied from seized monies from
a DEA Task Force operation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the acceptance of said grant to defray the expense of this
additional enforcement action.
Respectfully submitted,
;T4hn
H. Cease
C- Chief of Police
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To
Motion by:
Approved by,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Bob L. Johnson
cc: File
John Cease, Chief of Police
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy x
Kohinke x
Johnson x
Minnix x
Nickens x
A -71492-12.g
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: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of easements in connection with the Hunt-
ing Hills Road Project to the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of easements
for road purposes over and across properties located in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke in relation to
the Hunting Hills Road Project as follows:
a) Donation of an easement from Glenn 0. Thornhill, Sr. and
Suzanne P. Thornhill (Deed Book 1097, page 551) (Tax Map
No. 88.13-4-20), shown and designated as "PROPOSED R/W"
on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering
Department, dated March 14, 1991.
b) Donation of a sight easement from David L. Dale and
Aloris F. Dale (Deed Book 1340, page 611) (Tax Map No.
88.13-4-11), shown and designated as "PROPOSED SIGHT
EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County
Engineering Department, dated March 12, 1991.
C) Donation of a sight easement from Victor F. Foti and
Roberta S. Foti (Deed Book 1246, page 1529) (Tax Map No.
88.13-4-24) shown and designated as "PROPOSED SIGHT
EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by the Roanoke County
Engineering Department, dated March 13, 1991.
The location and dimensions of these properties have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of these properties.
J --
Respectfully submitted,
Vicki6 L. H man
Assistant County Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x
Denied ( ) Johnson x
Received ( ) Kohinke x
Referred Nickens x
to Minnix x
c:\wp5l\agenda\donation\hunting.hiI
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
AWNS AND BOUM S DESORPTION SHOWN ON THIS PUT REPRESENT' COWVSITE OF DEEDS
PLATA AND CALCULATED WNWAT11ONAND DO NOT REFLECT ANACCURATE BOU DARY SURVEY
TAX NO -87.19-1-21
N8.49,�E
210, 2l
w
LOT 13 0 _
TA X NO. i4 0) LOT /2
88.13-4-19 : Properly of.
OD '- GL ENN O. SR, 9
a SUZANNE P. THORNH/LL
6.04!
SCOFF -SET
FROM EXISTING
RADIUS PT.
N 54021'40•W
EXISTING R/W
TAX MP MQ. 88.13-4-20
PROPOSED R/W
A
= 89016'05"
R
= 50.00'
T
= 49.45'
L
= 77.99'
S 44.05'
06"W
63.70'
70.32'
BGc� •A
10,
LOT II
TAX NO.88.13-4-21
AP
CURVE
DATA
CHORD
CRV.
ARC
BEARING I DIST.
A
112.17'
N3.30'20"E 106.38'
B
63.70'
N41.19'45 E 57.18'
SCALE: I"= 50'
PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
GLENN 0. SR, SUZANNE P. THORNHILL
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: 3 -14-91
METES AND BOUNDS DESCR PTM SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF DEEDA
PLATS, AND CALCULATED M ORMA ilON AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
ec'
OF,
�e9g'
l5le
'f-s-
o,Q2
LOT 6
TAX N0. 88.13-4-12 ,
a� Ma
^ LOT 7
Property of: S 21° 52' 20° W
DAVID S ALOR/S18.10'
DALE /O TEMP.
CONST. ESMT.
ARC=,
PROPOSED 27 82
S 8°2'10"W SIGHT EASEMENT �m
22E7'
'q RC , /3c� \Z ARC = 28.19
Moi 9>?8,1 _ -" �rN4� cH.=s2716
CURVE DATA CHORD
CRV. ARC I BEARING DIST.
A 1429.9' SI5.O5'2O"W 147.64'
8 56.01' N 75.21'35' E 48.22
C 227.91' S21.28'30"E 217.85'
TAX AW N0. 88.13-4-11
�C`
RAD= 2 0.� N10 -S pR.
H. S34.12WE HUN r/
128.24'
SCALE. 1" = 50'
PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED SIGHT EASEMENT
BY
DAVID AND ALORIS DALE
PREPARED BY. ROAMWE COUNTY ENOWERM DEPARTMENT DATE.Q:J- 1
AOMS AND BOUNDS DESCRPT1ON SHOWN ON TN/S PLAT REPRESENT A COAMMM OF DEEDS~
PLA TA AND CALCULATED WORUAflQN AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
B
LOT 9
TAX 88.13-4-23
04� 0)
0 �.
CO
i
G
CURVE DATA
CHORD
CRV
ARC
BEARING DIST.
A
83.61'
N84'18'25"E— 83.11
8
55.86'
S 31' 2800E 48.13'
IL C
159.83'
N15.0520 E I59AV.
TAX ANAP IVOt, 88.13 -4-24
TAX N0. 87.12-1-21
tido
2S.
2p2 Sp
.A� F
LOT 8
Property of.•
VICTOR F. B
ROBERTA S FOTI
IO 'TEMP.
CONST. ESMT
PROPOSED
SIGHT EASEMENT
�' z
I
,
common. 0
h
J
3
Z
(D 0-
.
wDioo
Z
r
Z
�
J
23.33
Z
Conc. Mon.
c c
ca
CID �co
N Q
S2,,, JAf
RAD 3 30:0
ARC=2416
CH.= S61044!05"E
23.51
SCALE: i„= soy
PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED SIGHT EASEMENT
CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
VICTOR F. & ROBERTA S. FOTI
PREPARED BY: ROANOKECOUNTYENGINEERINQ DEPARTINENT DATE 3-13-91
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.h
ITEM NO. U.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of sanitary sewer easements in connection
with "THE ORCHARDS," Applewood, Section No. 2 (F&W
Community Development Corporation) to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of easements
for sanitary sewer purposes in connection with "THE ORCHARDS,"
Applewood, Section 2 (Plat Book 9, page 112), owned and developed
by F & W Community Development Corporation, located in the Vinton
Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke as follows:
a) Donation of a variable width sanitary sewer easement from
Roger L. Moretz and Jean Moretz (Deed Book 1312, page
790; Tax Map No. 40.10-1-6) across Lot 2, Block 1,
Section 2, Applewood Subdivision of the Orchards Subdivi-
sion, said easement being shown and designated as "NEW
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess,
Certified Land Surveyor, dated 29 July 1988.
b) Donation of a variable width sanitary sewer easement from
Ricky A. Chocklett and Karen M. Chocklett (Deed Book
1266, page 1806, Tax Map No. 40.10-1-7) across Lot 1,
Block 1, Section 2, Applewood Subdivision of the Orchards
Subdivision, said easement being shown and designated as
"NEW SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE CONVEYED TO ROANOKE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" on a plat prepared by Jack
G. Bess, Certified Land Surveyor, dated 29 July 1988.
C) Donation of a variable width sanitary sewer easement from
James R. Gross and Catesby T. Gross ( Deed Book 1332, page
1296, Tax Map No. 40.10-1-4) across Lot 4, Block 1,
Section 2, Applewood Subdivision of the Orchards Subdivi-
sion, said easement being shown and designated as "NEW
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess,
Certified Land Surveyor, dated 29 July 1988.
d) Donation of a variable width sanitary sewer easement from
Nelson E. Catron and Jennifer A. Catron (Deed Book 1312,
page 532, Tax Map No. 40.10-1-5) across Lot 3, Block 1,
Section 2, Applewood Subdivision of the Orchards Subdivi-
sion, said easement being shown and designated as "NEW
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" on a plat prepared by Jack G. Bess,
Certified Land Surveyor, dated 29 July 1988.
The location and dimensions of these properties have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of these properties.
Respectfully submitted,
4111V jjflmu _j
Vickie L. Hitfian
Assistant County Attorney
Action
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) Kohinke
Referred Nickens
to Minnix
cAwp51\agenda\&nadon\orchar&
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
Vote
No Yes Abs
X
X
X
X
X
�� ARG14.11' MER/OigN
RAo:25.0'
F PL,c
�O e
4 o
5 lc' 43
�h 4
OIQ �h N N ti
N
ti
Is, °
I�'14 N
W
0
3o" w
I,W
M �
ti °~
�,.e
--
/o ETHAAI E. OO6^V,, ./,e.
eGAL REFEKEn/G6: !o v� AO--CC,4 M DOGAN
O. f3. /2¢B, 1% //05
IWAO MADE row 7,4K Ala.M/a-1-4
F9 W COWIA111 DE✓EL OPMEAIT CORP
590w,/A/G 4 NEW ✓AQ/ABLE G✓10TH SANIMRy yE!</ER EASEME ✓T
4-ea5s LOWS I TH,2d ¢ /3LOGK I, 5EGj/O,✓ i✓O• 2 APPLEWOOO,
Sd�90/✓/3/O.� Of rHE Oge,144R05
J MD G. G. GESS ZOAWKE CQ ,
V/RG/N/A
U ./�>
CERTIFICATE No.
.p 1070 �o CERT/f/ED CORRECT /j�/:
JACK G. ,3�ss
LAND gJPJ� CE12TjF/E0 LAND 511R\1EXOV-
N.F3. O-Rf� 999
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.i
ITEM NO. ;:�*" 1 o
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
EASEMENT FOR THE BUSHDALE ROAD RURAL ADDITION
PROJECT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following right-of-way and easements from Robert W. Martin and
Virginia M. Martin (Deed Book 1073, page 238) (Tax Map No. 79.03-4-
39 and 40) to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
in connection with the Bushdale Road Rural Addition Project in the
Vinton Magisterial District:
a) a parcel of land shown and designated as "PROPOSED RIGHT
OF WAY (.038 Ac.)" on a plat, dated December 28, 1990,
prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering Department, a
copy of which is attached hereto;
b) a drainage easement, five feet (51) in width, as shown
and designated "PROPOSED 5' D.E." on the above -referenced
plat; and
C) all right, title and interest in and to the existing
"Private Road," known as Bushdale Road, varying in width
from twelve feet (121) to thirty-one (311), leading to
and from Virginia Secondary Route 659 (Mayfield Drive,
formerly Gearhart Road).
County staff has inspected and approved the location and
dimensions of the right-of-way and easements for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No county funding is required for these acquisitions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the donations of right-of-way
and easements for the Bushdale Road Rural Addition Project.
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
e:\wp51\agen&\donation\buskdek
Respectfully submitted,
1
Vickie L. HtAoEmn
Assistant County Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x
Johnson x
Kohinke x
Nickens x
Minnix x
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRFTXW SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOWE OF DEED
PLAT, AND CALCULATED MMMWA77ON AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY.
TAX NO. 79.03-4-32
PROP. BUSHDALE ROAD
60
PROPOSED oo .
R/GHr OF WAY
(.03BAc)
f
3 3
0 °D 0
pi cd oj0
tD N M tto
N N t/)
REMAINING PROPERTIES OF IRo6ERrW&
VIRGINIA M. MART/N
TAX NO. 79.03.4-40
( .525 Ac)
PROPOSED
5' D.E
TAX NO.79.03-4-38
W
yO �
p" C
0
N w
Z
TAX NO.79.03 - 4- 39
( .247 At)
101.35' 12.05'
S 29°40' E —
r`
TAX NO.79.03-4-33 N
39:19
TAX MAP NO. 79.03-4-39 8 40 S 290 40 E'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
ROBERT W. & VIRGINIA M. MARTIN
PREPARED BY: ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE. 12-28-90
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.j
ITEM NO. -.;:0- 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of easements from Springwood Associates
and Leroy G. Lochner to the County of Roanoke
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following easements to the County of Roanoke in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District.
a) Donation of a variable width drainage easement from Leroy
G. Lochner and Ann W. Lochner (DB 1145, page 57) (Tax Map
No. 76.07-3-23) shown and designated as "NEW DRAINAGE
EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by Mountain Top Surveyors,
Inc. dated 2 February 1989.
b) Donation of a variable width drainage easement from
Springwood Associates (DB 1310, page 666) (Tax Map No.
76.07-3-24) shown and designated as "NEW DRAINAGE
EASEMENT" on a plat prepared by Mountain Top Surveyors,
Inc. dated 2 February 1989.
C) Donation of a 15' drainage easement from Springwood
Associates (DB 1310, page 666) (Tax Map No. 76.07-3-24)
shown and designated as 1115' NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT" on a
plat prepared by Mountain Top Surveyors, Inc. dated 2
February 1989.
The location and dimensions of these properties have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of these properties.
Respectfully submitted,
rill F
Lua
Vickie L. Nifiman
Assistant County Attorney
Action
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) Kohinke
Referred Nickens
to Minnix
C:\WPSI\AGENDA\DONATION\SPRINGWOOD
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
Vote
No Yes Abs
x
x
x
x
x
i• I
NOTES,
1) REFERENCES, TRACT 'A'
DEED BOOK 1,310 PAGE 666
TAX PARCEL, 176.07 - 3 - 24
PRESENT OWNER, SPRINGWOOD ASSOCIATES
TRACT 'B'
DEED BOOK 1145 PAGE 57
TAX PARCEL, 76.07 - 3 - 23
PRESENT OWNER, LEROY G. LOCHNER
2) THIS SURVEY PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
A TITLE REPORT BY AN ATTORNEY AND THEREFORE,
MAY NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL EPCUMBRANCES
UPON THE PROPERTY.
N33'20'45'E
3717�-- 3.0'
(TOTAL) �r�
a1-:
b i
3) CURVE DATA, ARC, 33.87'
RADIUS, 25.37' CHORD, 31.41'
BEARING, N 56' 41' 15' W
-------LEGEND------
0 SET IRON ROD WITH
ALUMINUM CAP
U FOUND. IRON REBAR
80W v FOUND IRON PIPE
;t,?
r1 ,, , o04p• R/GHT OROq D
s��e i , ' ROA l E Y)
r 138.,
le,1 �
1
TRACT V"
'I
N0.277 ACRE
I). 85• l
-91 N
r7 q
04,
• f`
i"
.,
BLOCK 2
for
Q1 w
a iW
o
u� 1 0
W
Z
TRACT 'A'
0.577 ACR
I
A:2dsr
30 ,B
ARCO 33.67'
(SEE NOTE #3)
8.0'
ROBERT G. CANTLEY
No. ''15597
�•(�/"
?EVISED APRIL
W
X99.99'
f rOTA�� LOT 3
)r 2 /ti
4
�585.0q,0p w X13.49'
' LOUIS G. 8
' HARRIETTE C. SHARTZER
DEED BOOK 1268 PG. 276
TAX PARCEL 76.07 - 3 - 25
EDGE OF
ROT OF WAY
1\S 78' 2' 10' E '
\ 2.64'
E 0 R ORTN RO
OF wq qD
SURVEY FOR
SHOWING BOUNDARY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT
FOR THE PROPERTIES OF
SPROW M00X A380CIATES $
LEWY G. Locmm
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SURVEYED FEBRUARY 2,1989
SCALE# 1' - 50'
DALEVILLE 40.00142 I 2 MWF
1990 OFFICE I JOB N0. ISIZE REV. DWN. BY
ID
N
N
M
so
d -
h
in
N
oil
0 c
i I k?
3 I W
O I m
J I
V.
Z
a.
0
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.k
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of a water line easement situated on Lot
32 and 33, Block 5, Section 3, Waterford to the
County of Roanoke
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following easement to the County of Roanoke for water line
purposes:
a) Donation of a fifteen foot (151) water line easement
situated along the lot line between Lot 32 and Lot 33,
Block 5, Section 3, Waterford ( PB 13, page 113 ) shown and
designated as "NEW 15' WATER LINE EASEMENT" on a plat
dated April 13, 1992, by Lumsden Associates, P.C. from
Strauss Construction Corporation.
The location and dimensions of this easement have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of this easement.
Respectfully submitted,
Jilckie L. H§*f1han
Assistant County Attorney
Action Vote
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. JohnsonNo Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received
Johnson x
( ) Kohinke x
Referred Nickens x
to
Minnix x
c:\wp5l\agerida\donation\waedom.rpt
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
56!'54'45"E ---
47.61'
�5 �3
I /
31
t
U3
m
I
7.M." 26.16. 7. 16
✓AME4 R. GRAWF9R1I 9,
T14FLMA E. GRAWFORTI
60?
i'/ 5 38 ppQs 'E
��
\ ��.
GOT 33
_
Pa.-
� 7,v
7. // I � Pp EASEtijE
7.5 I P
LOT
/ o
FX14T• PRIVATE 5'W.4., /'t '% a
/ �.
&� 6AN. 6EWER EA5EMENW
$X. VARIAI346 WIpT!/ OF
_ PUgG /C
Gu�RR Y a
t0 6en4a6Rf6T po4n (5105 A` a
Cup VE ISA II /+'' s
Sp
R —105,00' CC F EME�P
A —46.65' -ii
CND m 46.5¢' les 04�
gaG, — N 39'51'33"W
o I
o� VINCENT K
� ALU
= I
Z1428B
PLAT SHOWING
151 WATER LINE EASEMENT
SITUATED ON
LOT 32 AND LOT 33, BLOCK 5, SECTION 3
WATERFORD (P.B. 13, PAGE 113)
BEING GRANTED TO
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
BY
STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ZZ SCALE: 1"- 20' DATE: APRIL 13, 1 9 9 2
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS -SURVEYORS -PLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
34
09ye "�3"
d =l7°03'54"
R,- 168.88'
-
A - 31.77'
CNo.= qt 70'
PERU. = N5Z"68'03"W
A-71492-12.1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. .,7—/3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of a water line easement from James R.
Crawford and Thelma E. Crawford to the County of
Roanoke
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of the
following easement to the County of Roanoke in the Hollins
Magisterial District.
a) Donation of a 20' water line easement from James R.
Crawford and Thelma E. Crawford (DB 819, page 444 and DB
822, page 602) (Tax Map No. 26.16-2-15 and 26.16-2-16)
shown and designated as 1120' WATER LINE EASEMENT" on a
plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. dated 12 April
1992.
The location and dimensions of this easement have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of this easement.
Respectfully submitted,
4AA LA
Vick'e L. HufilmaW
Assistant County Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x
Denied ( ) Johnson x
Received ( ) Kohinke x
Referred Nickens x
to Minnix x
C:\WPS]\AGENDA\DONATION\CRAWFORD
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
646'40'E- ?71.0'
JAMES R. ¢ TNELMA E. 6AAWFov71`2
3.70 A 6AF6
n.p�. 822 P6,60?
TAX `?6.16- 7 - 104
0
� I
f
Lu
3.70 AGP7Eh
0-0. 8 t 9 P6,444
TAX 7 • !h
0
N
PLAT SHOWING
NEW 101 PRIVATE WATER LINE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED BY
JAMES R. CRAWFORD , ET UX
SITUS TED
WITHIN 3.70 AC. TRAC� (D.B. 822, PG. 602)
F R
EXCLUSIVE USE OF 3.70 AC. TRACT (D.B. 819, PG. 444)
' %HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
p�w ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
i
SCALE: I" = 100' DATE: 12 APRIL 1992
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-RLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMM. 4F97 - 150
e
M
w
20'WATEP7 CINE
NEW 10' PRIVATE
0
EA9EMENt
728 t' rorac
4. +
*r WATER CINE EASEMENT
i E
24y
_ _
�
y0.4p
I I
241,0
— N40*42'W , 007.25'
I
�N y04p
3Z
33 34 34
f6 6TAAU64 r2cVE�OPMENT GOAPOAArlo)Y
O)LO&A 5 966Tt0N
PAopFATY
-
WATFp)poAo
P. r3• !3 PU. 113
NOTE:
20' WATER LINE
EASEMENT COINCIDES
WITH EXISTING
15' RIGHT-OF-WAY.
PLAT SHOWING
NEW 101 PRIVATE WATER LINE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED BY
JAMES R. CRAWFORD , ET UX
SITUS TED
WITHIN 3.70 AC. TRAC� (D.B. 822, PG. 602)
F R
EXCLUSIVE USE OF 3.70 AC. TRACT (D.B. 819, PG. 444)
' %HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
p�w ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
i
SCALE: I" = 100' DATE: 12 APRIL 1992
LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-RLANNERS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMM. 4F97 - 150
ACTION NO. A -71492-12.m
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Donation of rights-of-way in connection with the
Fallowater Lane Project to the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This consent agenda item involves the donation of rights-of-
way for road purposes over and across properties located in the
Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke in
relation to the Fallowater Lane Project as follows:
a) Donation of a right-of-way from George L. Boone and Jo
Anne B. Boone (Deed Book 1288, page 763 and Deed Book
1288, page 765) (Tax Map Nos. 77.19-1-22 and 77.19-1-21)
shown and designated as "PROPOSED 10' R/W" on a plat
prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering Department,
dated September 19, 1991.
b) Donation of a right-of-way from George L. Boone and Jo
Anne B. Boone (Deed Book 1368, page 308) (Tax Map Nos.
77.19-1-23 and 77.19-1-24) shown and designated as
"PROPOSED 10' R/W" on a plat prepared by the Roanoke
County Engineering Department, dated June 16, 1992.
C) Donation of a right-of-way from Dominion Bank, N.A. (Deed
Book 1030, page 290) (Tax Map No. 87.07-2-9) shown and
designated as "PROPOSED 10" R/W" on a plat prepared by
the Roanoke County Engineering Department, dated Septem-
ber 26, 1991.
The location and dimensions of these properties have been
reviewed and approved by the County's engineering staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of these properties.
Respectfully submitted,
Vi6k16 L. UHu*E"
Assistant County Attorney
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved (x) Motion by Bob L. Johnson Eddy x
Denied ( ) Johnson x
Received ( ) Kohinke x
Referred Nickens x
to Minnix x
C:\WPSI\agenda\donation\fallowater
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections
Clifford Craig, Director, Utility
- 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.
PROPERTY OF
GEORGE L, & JO ANNE
BOONS
\ r
�p �s
. p
PROPERTY OFt 4'
JOHN LEE L SEMRA N.
DAVENPORT
TAX MAP No. 77.19-1-21 L 22
22
PROPERTY OFi
\B.'
EORGE R. L BETTY F.
PREAS
TAX NO, 77.19-1-32
yid (0.55 Ac. REMAINING\\
r �•
PROPOSED 10' R./W
21
PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED RIGHT- OF- WAY
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
GEORGE L. & J❑ ANNE B.
BOONE
PREPARED BY. ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SCALE: i'=50'
DA TE: 09-19-91
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.
G•
C)
X(0�1 3
�2
P`RUPERTY OF
G.L. & J.A. B❑❑NE
D.B.1368, PG. 8
Z
��d NSe 24
0
PROPERTY OF
ll GEORGE L. & J❑ ANNE B.
�` B❑❑NE
37
7- TAX NO. 77.19-1-22
23
PROPOSED 10' R/W
o_
'CURVE 'B' .1O
R = 25.00'
T=34.01' C/
CH= N78'41'W ��
40.28�P
,B,
CURVE 'A'
R=15.00'
CH= N82'04'48'V P
23.39
TAX MAP NO. 77.19-1-24 & 23 _ SCALE: 1'=50'
PLAT SH❑WING RIGHT OF WAY
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
G.L. & J.A. B❑❑NE
0.59 Ac. REMAINING
PREPARED BY.- ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: 06 =16_92
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.
PROPOSED 10' R./W
r0 PROPERTY OF
GEORGE L. & JO, ANNE B,
c' BOONE
CURVE 'A' Q
u^
R = 25.00' ♦ CURVE 'H'
CH = N1121' 4"E PR = 25.00'
CH = N11'19'E 0
10 51, 29.61'
PROPERTY OF
DOMINION BANK
D.B. 1030 PG.290
,r
% �N
��
O
d O �
0
d�3
''AX MAP NO._87,07-2-9
0.33 Ac. REMAINING
TAX NO, 87,07-2-7
b.
NY
R
rl
S
TAX NO, 87,07-2-7
SCALE: V = S 0'
PLAT SHOWING PROPOSED RIGHT- OF- WAY
BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY
DOMINION BANK
PREPARED BY. ROANOAE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: -L9-26-91
A -71492-12.n
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER :7-- !'5 -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1992
AGENDA ITEM: Request from the County Treasurer to Destroy
Tax Payment Records prior to July 1, 1987
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is a memorandum from County Treasurer Alfred C. Anderson
requesting approval to destroy tax payment records prior to July 1,
1987.
The Virginia State Library and Archives requires that the governing
bodies approve destruction of paid tax records for personal
property and real estate taxes. (See attached schedule)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize the
County Treasurer to destroy real estate tax payments and personal
property tax payments prior to July 1, 1987.
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
cc: File
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
Eddy x
Johnson x
Kohinke x
Minnix x
Nickens x
C�oun#ij of Avan-ake
TO: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer �c R
DATE: June 24, 1992
SUBJECT: Disposal Approval
ALFRED C. ANDERSON, CFO, CGT
TREASURER
I am petitioning to the Board of Supervisors for their approval to destroy
records that have been retained for the secheduled retention period, as prescribed
by law. I need your approval so I can submit to the Commonwealth of Virginia
with their Certificate of Records Disposal to allow me to destroy records for
Real Estate tax payments prior to July 1, 1987 (24 Boxes) and Personal Property
tax payments prior to July 1, 1987 (12 boxes).
P.O. BOX 21009 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0533 • (703) 772-2056 • FAX: (703) 772-2015
9 Recycled Paper
FORM RM -2G, REV. 87F TITLE: PAGE � OF d NSE
COMMONYFJILTH OF VIRGINIA
FISCAL RECORDS GS -2
VIRGINIA STATE LIBRARY SCHEDULED AGENCIES:
AND ARCHIVES
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS DIVISION COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS v
(804) 786 SCHEDULED DIVISIONS;
SCHEDULE oArE • AUG 1988 TREASURERS. F 1 NANC I AL
RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT, PURCHASING AGENTS
This schedule is continuing authority under the provisions of the Virginia Public Records Act, 1142.1-76 at seq.,
Code of Virginia, for the retention and disposition of the records as stated and supersedes previously approved
applicable schedules. Request approval on Fore RM -3, co
Certificate of R4rds Disposal, for the destruction of
record series noted In this schedu I e. APPROVED; ��._ ,rC� STATE ARCHIVIST
RECORD SERIES NUMBER AND TITLE SCHMILED RETENTION Alp DISPOSITION
b. Logs and Registers Retain for 3
• years after audit and destroy.
e. Manuals Retain until Superseded and destroy.
d. Orders and Requisitions Retain for 5 years after audit and destroy.
25- Receipt Records Retain for 3 years after audit and destroy.
26- Reimbursement Records Retain for 3 years after audit and destroy.
and Reports
27- Retirement Files
Local Retirement System
a. Employment Records ,
b. Financial Records . . .
Retain for 3 years after death, or after
the employee is no longer vested in the
system, and then destroy.
. Retain in accordance with appropriate
entries in this schedule.
State Retirement system
e. Records and Reports .
. Retain for 3 years after audit and destroy.
28- Tax Records, Personal
Property
a. Asimssment Books Retain for 6 years and destroy (Code
558.1-3118).
b.C4mwtedAssessment Retain far 3 years after audit and destroy.
Records
c. Delinquent List Retain for 6 years and destroy.
F.'," RM -26, REV. 87 COMMONWEALT11 OF VIRGINIA SCHEDULE T I TLE: PAGE 6 OF 8 1 NIIFBE;
FISCAL RECORDS GS -2
VIRGINIA STATE LIBRARY SC EDULED AGENCIES:
AND ARCH I VES ■"�` I
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS DIVISION COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS V
SCHEDULED DIVISIONS:
(804) 786-5634 TREASURERS, FINANCIAL
SCHEDULE DATE: AUG 0 1 1988 RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT, PURCHASING AGENTS
This schedule is continuing authority under the provisions of the Virginia Public Records Act, Sf42.1-76 at seq..
Code of Virginia, for the retention and disposition of the records as stated and supersedes previously approved
applicable schedules. Request approval on Form RM-3lcate of Recsords Disposal, for the destruction of
record series noted in this schedule. APPROVED��� !,- , STATE ARCHIVIST
RECORD SERIES NUMBER AND TITLE SCHEDULED RETENTION AND DISPOSITION
d. Paid Tickets . Retain for 5 years after audit and then
petition the governing body for authoriza-
tion to destroy.
e. UnPaid Intangible Retain for 3 years after delinquent list
Tickets certification and destroy.
f. Unpaid Tangible Retain for 5 years after delinquent list
Tickets certification and destroy.
29- 'Paz Records, Real Estate
a. Assessment Book Retain for 6 years and destroy (Code
558.1-3310).
b. Corrected Assessment Retain for 3 years after audit and destroy.
Records
C. Delinquent List Retain for 20 years after creation and
then destroy.
d. Exonerations . Retain for 5 years after audit and then
destroy
e. Lien Records . Retain for 3 years after lien satisfaction
and audit, and then destroy (Code
558.1-3930).
f. Paid Tickets Retain for 5 years after audit and then
Petition the governing body for authwiza-
tion to destroy.
8- Unpaid Tickets . . . . . . Retain for 3 years after delinquent list
certification and destroy.
o� Zoe
VSSog SS�p,'S
oC 1 A�
o�, oa-,610 1,
f
$,Pg� Com 1992 S� 44
ol T� go �,sSg$ ,ACT �e5 pf
S11 A2s o Co�14II►L$ZS,i'sZE
1Gea spa 1990
'S �S,a �n pf
P gE RG A 011 og il�`t8 ;Ill a pt tY,e les Act-9ep,Qle
.Is vS 1g92�1�g'SC� ra serat 5apillt a�3airs
CZ0� g� e5s a to V1 ati°T' a 990
$oyaS o C°rqr ar wl cri��n e at, of 1
aeric ate ai5 car lit e5 Pct Vlsiprs
EgE
sea the tp elilc`lr of p,�eYl sa�illtl tpe pyo ent
nar✓ pa rterd5 as'Qects wit �1 W 1tn e�4l 11
mer Ica ,�j s law Z in all er icon t° Cpi�"Ql� pV eZ 1n� ' p�
t bilitles t,�e ern�ent 5yor5 C o�tatlor 15a�I
with' ay5ag�As' local gpv ge prove C t�ans4 e5 fob a
units of Act' tre. e5� �v�11 o�t�rltl
es by �,�,e t selc Catlor 0'9'9 YEgv�
et dpwn ove-cv ea ecoaz Age OF SU
5 oV iain9 CIO,
s � and tel BY To
BD
pr c°�°aatlor T � Y1
ac Ca 'as. E�gE gE Z X11 CO%9 a
mer how TxE rk toward � , 2l
^°�zY I.
puntY W111 wo ith Di5ab1� 1 1
of Roo not R°anoKe C the Amerl�ans w
'Ti in
dpWn
rpViSi°ns set pegln a trans1t1�T
the p
1
County Wil changes and arc
R°an
0 e
1990' Tra t ctural d,
describe all stru tan will be compfete
identify ana 1 prod eco ' This p
parrier rempva a Americans with
That in
c�,�iance with th
92 • fired self -e
19 will begin the req"'
Coun�to be completed b
goan°xe nd activities
Not Se�i.cel
programs.
1993'
a procedure to oversee
VI develop comments from
That Roanoke County and SeeK
ADA compliance, handle
complaints►
viduals• on the basis
and indi criminate
interested groups dis
inter County shall not
That Roanoke
in any employment action' t the resolution►
to adop
of disability Supervisor Johnson
On motion °f
vote:
the following recorded Nickens► Eddy
Johnson► yohinKe► Minnix
Supervisors ,
and carried by
AYES :
None
COPY TESTE=
NAYS: A
Ciera of
county Supervisors
Mary H' Allet► Boar
RoanoKe
Administrator, and
Assistant county ilities Act
File liss► Jr•, with Disab
cc: John Chamb America gran Resources
dinator' ices
Coor Director, General Sere
D, Keith Cook, Director,
Gardner W• Smith,