HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/10/1988 - Adopted Board RecordsACTION # A-51088-1
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Valleypointe - project letter and schedule
COUNTY ADM NISTRATOR?'S COMMENTS:
r a
c'i
Q
(�
L�vt%mac..- �✓ /c
vrrt v-- sC , it-Crrl
BACKGROUND
The Board of Supervisors approved the acceptance of VDOT indus-
trial access funds in the amount of $450,000 at the April 26,
1988 meeting. A design -build concept was authorized to be
initiated to construct the Valleypointe access road.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Roanoke County and Lingerfelt Development Inc. have previously
executed a project document dated December 1, 1987 that should be
revised and updated. Lingerfelt is proceeding to close the
purchase of a portion of the Harris-Moomaw tract by May 30, 1988
and obtain a building permit for his first tenant. Roanoke
County has purchased 8 acres from the Ida Mae Holland estate and
is proceeding to exchange this with the Regional Airport Commis-
sion for equivalent acreage in the extended Airport Clear Zone.
Completion of the design of the access road will enable the
County to begin the review and approval with VDOT and Roanoke
City and seek bids in June. Exhibit III of the attached letter
of understanding sets forth the project schedule.
The project letter sets forth financial commitments and project
responsibilities determined at meetings between Roanoke County
and Lingerfelt Development, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Proceed with endorsement of the letter of understanding and amend-
ments for stormwater management and project site density (Exhibit
V).
j..
SUBMITTED BY:
Timo by W. Gu ala
Director, Economic Development
APPROVED BY:
XgaElmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (X) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Harry C. No Yes Abstai
Denied ( ) Nickens to approve after elimination Garrett x
Received ( ) of Paragraph 5 and correction on Johnson --77
Referred addendum McGraw �-
To Nickens �—
Robers
cc: File
Tim Gubala
John Hubbard
Phil Henry
ACTION # A-51088-2
ITEM NUMBER - -2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Contribution to VACO for Rate Negotiations with
Appalachian Power Company
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
„"" •�"z,,'tA..�.+' —�'� .fit c/j--�--c-�i c,-..-c� (�2�.�,i
RACK(;RnTTND
The VML/VACO Steering Committee was formed for the purpose
of negotiating electrical rates with Appalachian Power Company
for electrical service to the political subdivisions in the
Appalachian service area. VML/VACO has asked for a contribution
from all localities to finance these negotiations.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
VACO has asked that we again consider making a voluntary
contribution of $7,072 towards the expenses of the Steering
Committee. The VML/VACO Steering Committee has successfully
completed its negotiations with Appalachian Power Company.
Overall general service, school and pumping rates to all
jurisdictions are to be decreased by approximately 10 percent for
the last six months of 1987 and approximately 15 percent
beginning January 1, 1988. These decreases will be retroactive.
Savings to the County are estimated as follows:
Schools
Utility
County
11MR AMIN
$175,000
36,000
26,000
$237,000
$175,000
36,000
26,000
$237,000
The Schools have already been notified of these savings and
have used them in their 1988-89 budget preparation. The County
would like to use their portion of the savings to upgrade the
street lighting from mercury vapor to high pressure sodium.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1. The County could contribute $7,072 to the VML/VACO
Steering Committee. The cost could be charged to the
—.Z
departments in proportion to their savings
(School -$5,221, Utility -$1,074, County -$777).
2. The County could contribute $7,072 to the VML/VACO
Steering Committee. This money could be taken from the
reserve for board contingency which currently has a
balance of $30,733.
3. The County could decline to make a contribution to the
VML/VACO Steering Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1 in light of the successful
negotiations and the future savings which it will bring to the
County.
Respectfully submitted,
Jaz f n . � aw
Diane D. Hyatt;/
Director of Finance
Approved by,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/Steven No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) A. McGraw to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Alternate #1 Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Diane Hyatt
Reta Busher
Bayes Wilson
Cliff Craig
ACTION # A-51088-3
ITEM NUMBER - 3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
May 10, 1988
Roanoke County Agreement on Level III Regional
Response Team with Department of Emergency Ser-
vices
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Virginia Hazardous Materials Emergency Responses Pro-
gram, Chapter 3.5 of Title 44 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, was enacted in 1987 in order to coordinate hazardous
materials training emergency response programs between the state
and local political subdivisions. This program is a response to
federal mandates in "the Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know Act of 1986: contained in Title III of the Super_fund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"). The Roanoke
County Fire and Rescue Department is directly involved in this
program by providing immediate response capability at the Level
III for emergency hazardous materials accidents.
This agreement on Level III Regional Response Team will per-
mit the establishment of a Regional Hazardous Materials Incident
Response Team to support the Virginia Hazardous Materials Emer-
gency Response Program. The Department of Emergency Services
(DES) will provide to the County for the Fire and Rescue Depart-
ment not less than $42,5000 during the current fiscal year and a
total of approximately $95,000 over three years for equipment
required to maintain the minimum equipment list established by
DES. DES will conduct Level III training for twenty-five (25)
County personnel at no cost to the County. The agreement sets
forth a procedure and reimbursement rates for County personnel
and equipment involved in a Level III response. Further, DES
will cover the costs of yearly medical monitoring and exposure
examinations of hazardous materials team members as well as
worker's compensation and liability protection coverage including
legal representation.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
-- _-E3
Funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Emergency Services, not less than $42,500 during current fisca]_
year, and $95,000 over three years.
STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'ION:
It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Admin-
istrator to execute this agreement on Level III Regional Response
Team on behalf of the County and for the Treasurer to accept any
grant from the Department- of Emergency Services and to pay out
such funds received for the purchase of equipment by the Fire and
Rescue Departments in accordance with the minimum equipment list
specified by DES.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Richard W. Robers to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Paul Mahoney
Diane Hyatt
Reta Busher
Tommy Fuqua
ACTION # A-51088-4
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Or ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to Premium Refuse Collection Service
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:?��Zc� a?v` ✓ ""
BACKGROUND:
Citizen concern has been raised over the fact that when
performing premium service, the refuse collectors will only take
the household garbage. Further, in review of our current
procedures, elderly and handicapped residents also receive
backdoor service for household garbage only. The resolutions
defining Curbside Service, 85-147 and Premium Service, 85-183
were passed by the Board, September 3, 1985 and October 22, 1985,
respectively. These resolutions established the procedures and
charges for premium service, established backyard "Collection for
Disabled", and established the policy that residents who qualify
for these two services "... must make their own arrangements to
have any materials that are not part of their regular household
refuse placed at the curb for collection." This proposed redefi-
nition will increase service to 351 residents who fall in these
two categories.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Item 1 - Redefinition of Premium Service:
Premium service will include trash that is not part of the
normal household garbage. This would include grass, leaves, and
any other materials that can be containerized and weigh 50 lbs.
or less. These materials will be collected with the normal
household garbage. Bulk items that cannot be containerized
(white goods, sofas, etc.) will continue to be collected at the
curb under the published monthly schedule.
Item 1.A - Cost of Redefined Premium Service:
Premium service presently costs the citizen $1.25 per
collection or $5.00 per month for those residents within 100 ft.
of the curb and an additional $4.00 charge for each additional
100 ft. or fraction thereof over the initial 100 ft. Cost of the
redefined service is increased by $.75 per collection for a total
of $8.00 per month and $5.00 per additional 100 ft.
Item 1.B - Redefined Premium Refuse Service Charge Per Month:
Distance From Curb
Proposed
Current Rate Charge Per Month
100
ft. or
less
$ 5.00
$ 8.00
101
- 200
ft.
9.00
13.00
201
- 300
ft.
13.00
18.00
301
- 400
ft.
19.00
23.00
401
- 500
ft.
21.00
28.00
501
- 600
ft.
25.00
33.00
601
- 700
ft.
29.00
38.00
701
- 800
ft.
33.00
43.00
801
- 900
ft.
37.00
48.00
901
- 1000
ft.
41.00
53.00
Item 2 - Redefinition of Backyard Service for Disabled Residents:
Disabled residents receiving backyard service will receive
the same redefined premium service without a fee.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1. Redefine premium service to include trash that is not part
of the normal household garbage such as grass, leaves, and
and other materials that can be containerized and weigh 50
pounds or less and increase the fee to cover the service.
This will increase the annual refuse revenues by an
estimated $3,750.00 to cover additional time required to
collect additional refuse.
2. Leave service and fee at present levels. This alternative
will limit backyard service to household refuse only, and it
would require premium and disabled service residents to make
their own arrangements to have any other materials placed at
the curb for collection.
The current services and fees are as follows:
Number of Customers Fee Service
40 $ 5.00 Premium
19 9.00 Premium
5 10.00 or more Premium
287 No Fee Elderly/Disabled
3. Redefine premium service with no increase in fees. This
alternative will increase service time and cost to the
county and require the department to absorb that cost.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1 and requests approval to
amend the Resolution covering premium refuse collection service.
This will require first and second readings of a proposed
Ordinance which will be scheduled June 14, 1988, and June 28,
1988. It is further .requested that a public hearing be held on
June 28, 1988, for public comment on the increase in fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
Gardner W. Smith
Director
Department of General Services
APPROVED:
� /,-, &-I
Elme C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/
Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw to approve
Received ( ) Alternate #1
Referred
to
cc: File
Gardner Smith
John Hubbard
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
ACTION NUMBER
A-51088-5
`
ITEM NUMBER])- -�
d -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to Proceed with discussion of
cooperative ventures suggested by The Roanoke
Valley Cooperation Committee
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
On April 22, 1988, the Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee met
for the first time. This committee is made up of officials from
Roanoke County, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton and
Boutetourt County. Roanoke City has not yet appointed members to
serve. Representing Roanoke County are Supervisors Steven McGraw
and Richard Robers. At the meeting, it was requested that the
members bring back to their governing bodies a list of potential
cooperative projects that were suggested for future review.
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the April 22nd meeting for
your review. They are a draft and subject to change at the next
meeting on May 13th.
Supervisors McGraw and Robers will review with the board these
suggested ventures and ask for approval to proceed with further
study on the feasibility of cooperative efforts concerning these
suggestions.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
J
Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge
Deputy Clerk County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Lee Garrett/Harry C. Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) Nickens to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To: Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Roanoke Valley Cooperative Committee File
ACTION NUMBER A-51088-6
ITEM NUMBER jD - &
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Request for Authorization to Proceed with an
Employee Wellness Program
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
0.-
-fc�)'Y1.�rn.Grv� ,�'l�C�fc,Gc�'.�iv�1 .•'
BACKGROUND
The Department of Human Resources was requested by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to complete a study on
employee wellness programs. One benefit of an employee wellness
program is a healthier workforce which could lead to lower health
care costs. Other benefits are reduced employee absences and
increased productivity, satisfaction, and morale.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Department of Human Resources contacted the Roanoke
County Health Department, other localities who have implemented
wellness programs, local fitness facilities, and community
resources in the study. There are a variety of wellness programs
currently on the market, some of which may be very costly to the
employer. However, there are also a variety of community
resources which promote wellness in the workplace. One such
community resource is a program sponsored by the American Heart
Association entitled "Heart at Work".
The Heart at Work Program is a comprehensive package
designed to promote cardiovascular education and disease pre-
vention at the workplace. It consists of materials for programs
to encourage employees to control high blood pressure, stop
smoking, eat wisely, exercise regularly and recognize early
warning signs of heart attack and stroke. The Heart at Work
Program provides step-by-step instructions on how to implement
such a program including coordination with other community
resources such as the Roanoke County Health Department.
The Heart at Work Program is new to the Roanoke valley. The
program is currently successful in three thousand companies or
other organizations in the United States. The City of Lynchburg
is currently participating in Heart at Work and the City of
Roanoke, Shenandoah Life, Allstate Insurance Company, and Crestar
Bank have signed a pledge of support to participate. In
addition, several other large employers in the area are con-
sidering participation.
The Heart at Work Program offers five modules which
employers may implement in the workplace. These are: High Blood
Pressure, Smoking Cessation, Nutrition, Exercise, and Signals and
Actions (to prevent heart disease). Employers may choose to
implement all five or concentrate on implementing selected
modules. Employers may also select the level at which they will
implement the Heart at Work modules i.e. either at an employee
awareness level, an employee detection and screening level, or an
education and control level.
In order to assess employee wellness needs and select the
appropriate levels of implementation for the Heart at Work
modules, the Department of Human Resources recommends conducting
a Health Risk Appraisal through the Roanoke County Health Depart-
ment. The Health Risk Appraisal includes cholesterol and blood
pressure testing and provides county employees with recommen-
dations for improving their lifestyles to increase life expect-
ancy. The results of the Health Risk Appraisal are provided to
each participating employee on a confidential basis. However,
the Department of Human Resources will receive an overall assess-
ment of employee wellness needs. This appraisal may be conducted
annually to continue to determine appropriate implementation
levels and to determine potential cost savings of an employee
wellness program.
The Department of Human Resources further recommends empha-
sizing the smoking cessation module of the Heart at Work employee
wellness program. This will coincide with the study currently
underway on smoking in Roanoke County buildings. Accordingly,
the Department of Human Resources will coordinate smoking cessa-
tion classes and other educational programs.
The American Heart Association provides Heart at Work mod-
ules, speakers and reference materials, and staff training free
of charge. There are costs associated with purchasing desired
educational materials from the Heart Association ($300); costs
for the Health Risk Appraisal which will cover the cost of choles-
terol testing for all employees ($2600); and costs for the
Smoking Cessation Program ($500). The total first year cost for
the Employee Wellness Program excluding staff time is $3400. The
Department of Human Resources recommends that the funding for
this program be provided from the fiscal year 1987-88 Board of
Supervisor's Contingency Fund. The Heart at Work Program will be
effective on July 1, 1988, for Roanoke County employees. The
staff time required is estimated to be 150 hours, and this will
be absorbed through the Human Resources work program.
2
D -- &
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
1. Authorize the County Administrator to sign an American Heart
Association Cooperative Pledge of Support to participate in
the Heart at Work Program. Fiscal impact will be $3,400
which we recommend funding through the Board of Supervisor's
Contingency Fund. The Heart at Work Program will be effec-
tive on July 1, 1988, for Roanoke County employees.
2. Participate in an employee wellness program sponsored by
another company or organization. Fiscal impact may range
from $500 to $5,000 per year.
3. Do not participate in an employee wellness program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Human Resources recommends alternative one
which authorizes the County Administrator to sign the pledge of
support to participate in the American Heart Association Heart at
Work Program, and that funds in the amount of $3400 be provided
from the Board of Supervisor's Contingency Fund for imple-
mentation of this program.
SUBMITTED BY:
D. K. Coo
Director of Human Resources
APPROVED BY:
i .
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry c._ NinkPns/
Denied ( ) Bob L. Johnson to approve Garrett
Received ( ) Alternative #1 r-�-- Johnson
Referred McGraw
To Nickens
Robers
cc: File
Keith Cook
Diane Hyatt
Reta Busher
3
VOTE
No Yes Abs
x
x
x
x
x
ACTION NUMBER A-51088-7
ITEM NUMBER _Z) -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Classification Plan for FY 1988-89
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
The Board of Supervisors annually approves the Classifi-
cation Plan for county employees in conjunction with the adoption
of the county budget. The Classification Plan consists of salary
grades for position classifications and incorporates the total
number of positions approved for the fiscal year.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Classification Plan for county employees consists of
classified and unclassified positions incorporated in the pro-
posed county budget for fiscal year 1988-89.
The salary of members of the Board of Supervisors are deter-
mined by ordinance of the Board. The salary of the County Admin-
istrator, County Attorney, along with any salary supplements
approved for elected constitutional officers, are also determined
by the Board.
The salaries for other county employees, both classified and
unclassified, are determined by the County Administrator within
the limits of the adopted Classification Plan and appropriated
funds. The recommended salary structure for classified personnel
consists of 15 steps (A through 0) with increments of approxi-
mately 2.5% between each sten. The existing salary structure for
fiscal year 1987-88 consists of pay grades of 8 steps (A through
H) with precise 5% increments 'between each step. In computing
the proposed 15 step structure, half steps of approximately 2.5%
have been added or averaged between existing steps A, B, C, D, E,
F, G and H. In a comparison of both pay plans, the minimum and
maximum steps are the same.
The proposed pay plan with 15 steps is recommended to allow
staff to begin implementation of a pay for performance system in
which employees will be eligible for salary increases depending
upon the individual employee's level of performance during the
evaluation period. Once a pay for performance system is
established, we hope to be able to incorporate a minimum, mid-
point and maximum salary for each pay grade in which all steps
between minimum and maximum are eliminated. The pay for per-
formance system will be worked out with staff prior to July 1,
1988, and brought back to the Board of Supervisors prior to imple-
mentation.
In addition, the Classification Plan pay schedule has been
increased by 5% to maintain a competitive salary structure with
comparable positions in area municipalities and in the private
sector of employment. The proposed pay plan also includes pay
grade revisions for positions in which salary changes were recom-
mended as a result of the market salary survey conducted by the
Department of Human Resources last fall.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Classification Plan for
county employees for fiscal year 1988-89 with 15 steps, including
increments of approximately 2.5% between each pay step; an
increase of 5% in the Classification Plan pay schedule to main-
tain a competitive salary structure with comparable positions in
area municipalities and in the private sector of employment; and
pay grade revisions for positions as a result of the market
salary study. In the approval of this recommendation, employees
will be eligible for merit salary increases depending upon the
individual employee's level of performance during the evaluation
period, with total salary increases limited to an average of 5%
for the fiscal year. Individual employee merit salary increases
will also be limited to a maximum of 10%. The funding required
by this recommendation is incorporated in the proposed county
budget.
SUBMITTED BY:
D. K. Cook
Director of Human Resources
APPROVED BY:
L
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/
Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw to approve Garrett
Received ( ) staff recommendation Johnson
Referred McGraw
To Nickens
Robers
cc: File
Keith Cook
Assistant County Administrators
Department Heads
VOTE
No Yes Abs
x
X
x
x
x
x
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1988
ORDINANCE 51088-8 AMENDING AND
REENACTING CHAPTER 21 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE, TAXATION, BY THE ADDITION
OF A NEW ARTICLE VIII, TAX ON PREPARED
FOOD AND BEVERAGES; SUCH NEW ARTICLE
VIII IMPOSING A TAX ON CERTAIN FOOD AND
BEVERAGES SOLD IN THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 58.1-3833,
CODE OF VIRGINIA (1950), AS AMENDED,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE AMOUNT OF SUCH
TAX, PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTION, DUTIES
OF SELLERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL
OFFICIALS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TAX,
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, CIVIL PENALTIES
FOR LATE PAYMENT, MISDEMEANOR PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE, EXEMPTIONS,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, after consideration of this subject and after
an opportunity for the citizens of this County to be heard upon
this matter at a public hearing held on April 12, 1988, pursuant
to Section 58.1-3007, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held
on April 26, 1988, and the second reading on this ordinance was
held on May 10, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, finds that it is appropriate to impose a tax on certain
food and beverages sold in the County of Roanoke, pursuant to
Section 58.1-3833, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Chapter 21, Taxation, of the Code of Roanoke
County, is hereby amended and reenacted by the addition of a new
Article VIII, Tax on prepared food and beverages, to read and
provide as follows:
ARTICLE VIII.
TAX ON PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Sec. 21-150. Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this arti-
cle, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the following
respective meanings except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
(a) Caterer: A person who furnishes food on the prem-
ises of another, for compensation.
(b) Commissioner of the Revenue: The Commissioner of
the Revenue of the County of Roanoke, and any of
his duly authorized deputies, assistants, employ-
ees or agents.
(c) Food: Any and all edible refreshments or nourish-
ment, liquid or otherwise, including alcoholic
beverages, purchased in or from a restaurant or
from a caterer, except snack foods.
(d) Person: Any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership or any group of
individuals acting as a unit.
(e) Purchaser: Any person who purchases food in or
from a restaurant or from a caterer.
(f) Restaurant: Any place in or from which food is
sold in the County, including, but not limited to,
any restaurant, dining room, grill, coffee shop,
cafeteria, cafe, snack bar, lunch counter, delica-
tessen, confectionery, bakery, eating house, eat-
ery, drugstore, vending machine, lunch wagon or
truck, pushcart or other mobile facility from
which food is sold, public or private club, re-
sort, bar or lounge. The word "restaurant" shall
not mean a grocery store or supermarket except for
any space or section therein designated as a deli-
catessen or for the sale of prepared sandwiches,
delicatessen food or food prepared in a delicates-
sen.
(g) Seller: Any person who sells food in or from a
restaurant or as a caterer.
2
(h) Snack food: Unopened bottles or cans of carbon-
ated soft drinks; chewing gum; candy; popcorn;
peanuts and other nuts; unopened packages of cook-
ies, donuts, crackers and potato chips; and other
items of essentially the same nature and consumed
for essentially the same purpose.
(i)
Sec. 21-151.
Treasurer: The Treasurer of the County of Roanoke
and any of his duly authorized deputies, assis-
tants, employees or agents.
Levy of tax; amount.
In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now
or hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed
on the purchaser of all food served, sold or delivered in the
County in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restau-
rant or not and whether consumed on the premises or not, or by a
caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four (4) percent of the
amount paid for such food. In the computation of this tax, any
fraction of one-half cent or more shall be treated as one cent.
Sec. 21-152. Payment and collection of tax.
Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is
levied under this article shall collect the amount of tax imposed
under this article from the purchaser on whom the same is levied
at the time payment for such food becomes due and payable, whe-
ther payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means of a
credit card or otherwise. The amount of tax owed by the purcha-
ser shall be added to the cost of the food by the seller who
shall pay the taxes collected to the County as provided in this
article. Taxes collected by the seller shall be held in trust by
the seller until remitted to the County.
Sec. 21-153. Reports and remittances generally.
Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is
levied under this article shall make out a report, upon such
forms and setting forth such information as the Commissioner of
the Revenue may prescribe and require, showing the amount of food
charges collected and the tax required to be collected, and shall
sign and deliver such report to the County Treasurer with a remit-
tance of such tax. Such reports and remittance shall be made on
or before the twentieth day of each month, covering the amount of
tax collected during the preceding month.
Sec. 21-154. Preservation of records.
It shall be the duty of any seller of food liable for
collection and remittance of the taxes imposed by this article to
keep and preserve for a period of three years records showing
gross sales of all food and beverages, the amount charged the
purchaser of each such purchase, the date thereof, the taxes col -
3
lected thereon and the amount of tax required to be collected by
this article. The Commissioner of the Revenue shall have the
power to examine such records at reasonable times and without
unreasonable interference with the business of the seller, for
the purpose of administering and enforcing the provisions of this
article and to make copies of all or any parts thereon.
Sec. 21-155. Advertising payment or absorption of tax prohib-
ited.
No seller shall advertise or hold out to the public in
any manner, directly or indirectly, that all or any part of the
tax imposed under this article will be paid or absorbed by the
seller or anyone else, or that the seller or anyone else will
relieve the purchaser of the payment of all or any part of the
tax.
Sec. 21-156. Tips and service charges.
Where a purchaser provides a tip for an employee of a
seller, and the amount of the tip is wholly in the discretion of
the purchaser, the tip is not subject to the tax imposed by this
article, whether paid in cash to the employee or added to the
bill and charged to the purchaser's account, provided, in the
latter case, the full amount of the tip is turned over to the
employee by the seller.
An amount or percent, whether designated as a tip or a
service charge, that is added to the price of the meal by the
seller, and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a part of
the selling price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed
by this article.
Sec. 21-157. Duty of seller when going out of business.
Whenever any seller required to collect any pay to the
County a tax under this article shall cease to operate or other-
wise dispose of his business, any tax payable under this article
shall become immediately due and payable and such person shall
immediately make a report and pay the tax due.
Sec. 21-158. Discount.
For the purpose of compensating sellers for the collec-
tion of the tax imposed by this article, every seller shall be
allowed three (3) percent of the amount of the tax due and ac-
counted for in the form of a deduction on his monthly return;
provided, the amount due is not delinquent at the time of pay-
ment.
Sec. 21-159. Enforcement; duty of Commissioner of the Revenue.
The Commissioner of the Revenue shall promulgate rules
and regulations for the interpretation, administration and en -
4
forcement of this article. It shall also be the duty of the Com-
missioner of the Revenue to ascertain the name of every seller
liable for the collection of the tax imposed by this article, who
fails, refuses or neglects to collect such tax or to make the
reports and remittances required by this article. The Commis-
sioner of the Revenue shall have all of the enforcement powers as
authorized by Article 1, Chapter 31 of Title 58.1 of the Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, for purposes of this Article.
Sec. 21-160. Procedure upon failure to collect, report, etc.
If any seller, whose duty it is to do so shall fail or
refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make,
within the time provided in this article, the reports and remit-
tances mentioned in this article, the Commissioner of the Revenue
shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts
and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As
soon as the Commissioner of the Revenue shall procure such facts
and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the
assessment of any tax payable by any seller who has failed or
refused to collect such tax and to make such report and remit-
tance, he shall proceed to determine and assess against such
seller the tax and penalties provided for by this article and
shall notify such seller, by registered mail sent to his last
known place of address, of the total amount of such tax and penal-
ties and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten
(10) days from the date such notice is sent.
Sec. 21-161. Duty of County Treasurer.
The Treasurer shall have the power and the duty of
collecting the taxes imposed and levied hereunder and shall cause
the same to be paid into the general treasury for the County.
Sec. 21-162. Penalty of late remittance or false return.
(a) If any seller whose duty it is to do so shall fail
or refuse to file any report required by this article or to remit
to the County Treasurer the tax required to be collected and paid
under this article within the time and in the amount specified
in this article, there shall be added to such tax by the County
Treasurer a penalty in the amount of ten (10) percent if the fail-
ure is not for more than thirty (30) days, with an additional ten
(10) percent of the total amount of tax owed for each additional
thirty (30) days or fraction thereof during which the failure
continues, not to exceed twenty-five (25) percent in the aggre-
gate, with a minimum penalty of two dollars ($2.00).
(b) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with
intent to defraud the County of any tax due under this article, a
penalty of fifty (50) percent of the tax shall be assessed
against the person required to collect such tax.
Sec. 21-163. Violations of article.
5
Any person violating, failing, refusing or neglecting
to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a
Class 3 misdemeanor. Conviction of such violation shall not
relieve any person from the payment, collection or remittance of
the taxes provided for in this article. Any agreement by any
person to pay the taxes provided for in this article by a series
of installment payments shall not relieve any person of criminal
liability for violation of this article until the full amount of
taxes agreed to be paid by such person is received by the Trea-
surer. Each failure, refusal, neglect or violation, and each
day's continuance thereof, shall constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 21-164. Exemptions.
The following purchases of food shall not be subject to
the tax under this article:
(a) Food furnished by restaurants to employees as part
of their compensation when no charge is made to
the employee.
(b) Food sold by non-profit day care centers, public
or private elementary or secondary schools or food
sold by any college or university to its students
or employees.
(c) Food for use or consumption by the Commonwealth,
any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or
the United States.
(d) Food furnished by a hospital, medical clinic, con-
valescent home, nursing home, home for the aged,
infirm or handicapped or other extended care facil-
ity to patients or residents thereof.
(e) Food Furnished by a non-profit charitable organiza-
tion to elderly, infirm, handicapped or needy per-
sons in their homes or at central locations.
(f) Food sold by a non-profit educational, charitable
or benevolent organization on an occasional basis
as a fund-raising activity or food sold by a
church or religious body on an occasional basis.
(g) Any other sale of food which is exempt from taxa-
tion under the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax
Act, or administrative rules and regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect on and after July 1, 1988.
0
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Robers, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
5/13/88
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Alfred A. Anderson, Treasurer
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Francis W. Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Sheriff Michael Kavanaugh
Magistrate
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, SW, Roanoke 24016
Main Library
Roanoke County Code Book
7
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 51088-9 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for May 10, 1988, designated as Item K -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8, inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes of Meetings - February 9, 1988, February
23, 1988
2. Request for acceptance of Fresh Meadow Lane and
Cloverleaf Circle into the VDOT Secondary System.
3. Request for acceptance of Haven's Trail into the
VDOT Secondary System.
4. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Fifth Planning District Commission, the Parks &
Recreation Advisory Commission, and Total Action
Against Poverty Board of Directors.
5. Resolution requesting approval of grant
application for Clean Valley Council.
6. Resolution of approval from the Planning
Commission for proposed park development in the
Hollins Project area.
7. Authorization to enter into an agreement for use
and maintenance of private road.
8. Acknowledgment from VDOT of the acceptance of 0.06
miles of Old Manor Drive and 0.11 miles of Old
Manor Court 0.13 miles of Branderwood Drive, 0.11
miles of Whipplewood Drive, 0.45 miles of
Summerset Drive and 0.07 miles of Summerset Circle
into VDOT Secondary System.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
5/12/88
CC: File
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Gardner Smith, Director of General Services
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1988
RESOLUTION 51088-9.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
FRESH MEADOW LANE AND CLOVERLEAF CIRCLE 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 Fresh Meadow Lane
and Cloverleaf Circle 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 been
dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as Beverly Heights
North, Section 4 and North Meadows, Section 1, which maps
were recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 264 and Plat Book 10, Page 36
respectively, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on October 28, 1983 and
December 15, 1986, respectively, 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
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Fresh Meadow Lane and
Cloverleaf Circle, which are 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 streets or
highways by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
5/13/88
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspection
Virginia Department of Transportation
E
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1988
RESOLUTION 51088-9.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
HAVEN'S TRAIL 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 for Haven's Trail,
from it's intersection with Route 864 to the terminus at the
cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.08 mile, 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 been
dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Buckhorn Meadows
Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 52, of
the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on April 13, 1987 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
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Haven's Trail and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same is hereby established as 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 Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY - TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
5/13/88
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspection
Virginia Department of Transportation
E,
A -51088-9.c
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE May 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following nominations were made at the previous board meeting
and must now be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. The
nominee has agreed to serve.
Fifth Plannincr District Commission:
Supervisor McGraw has nominated John
unexpired term of Timothy Gubala as
member of the Executive Committee.
1989.
Industrial Development Authority:
Hubbard to fill the
citizen representative and
His term will expire June 30,
Supervisor Nickens nominated William Triplett to serve another
four-year term. His term will expire September 26, 1991.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission:
Supervisor Robers nominated Vince Joyce to fill the unexpired
term of Leonard Winger. His term will expire June 30, 1989.
Supervisor McGraw nominated Roger Smith to fill the unexpired
term of Michael Lazzuri. His term will expire June 30, 1990.
Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors:
Supervisor Nickens nominated Elizabeth Stokes and Cabell Brand to
another two-year term. Their terms will expire May 5, 1990. Mr.
Brand is a joint appointee with the City of Salem.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (X) Motion by:RarTC, �i}6�ce�L. Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) Johnson Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To: Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Fifth Planning District File
Industrial Development Authority File
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission File
Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors File
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1988
RESOLUTION 51088-9.d
AUTHORIZING THE CLEAN
VALLEY COUNCIL TO APPLY FOR
AN ANTI -LITTER PROGRAM
GRANT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board hereby expresses its intent to
combine with the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt
County, and City of Salem in a mutually agreed upon and
cooperative program, contingent on approval of the application by
the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control
and Recycling, and contingent on receipt of such funds for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1989; and
2. That the Board hereby authorizes Clean Valley
Council, Inc., to plan and budget for a cooperative anti -litter
program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989 which shall
represent said program for all localities named in this
resolution; and
3. That the Board further authorizes Clean Valley
Council, Inc., to apply on behalf of Roanoke County for a grant,
and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and
completion of the program; and
4. That the Board further accepts responsibility
jointly with the Clean Valley Council, Inc., and the City of
Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and City of Salem for
all phases of the program; and
5. That said funds when received will be transferred
immediately to Clean Valley Council, Inc; all funds will be used
in the cooperative program to which the Board gives its
endorsement and support; and
6. That the financial records of Clean Valley Council,
Inc., shall be subject to inspection and review by the Assistant
County Administrator of Management Services and such data shall
be presented to allow proper reporting on a timely basis by the
County; and
7. That the Board requests the Department of
Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and Waste Recycling
to consider and approve the application and program, said program
being in accord with the regulations governing use and
expenditure of said funds.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
5/12/88
CC: File
Clean Valley Council
Clean Valley Council File
Clerk, Roanoke City Council
Clerk, Salem Cit}, Council
Clerk, Town of v_riton
Clerk, Botetourt County
H-51UiS2S-y.e
ITEM NUMBER �.
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: May 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Review of Proposed Park Development
within the Hollins Community Development Project area in accordance
with § 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, as Amended
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
§ 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, requires
that the general location, characteristics and extent of public
areas, building, or structures be submitted to the Planning
Commission for its approval as being substantially in accordance
with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to this section, the
Planning Commission reviewed the acquisition of an approximate 3.5
acre tract from Esther B. Sadler for the development of a community
park within the Hollins Community Development Project area.
The Hollins Community Development program activities consisting of
highway improvements, water and sewer line installation, residential
rehabilitation, and park development were considered by the Planning
Commission at its October 1, 1985 meeting.
Attached is a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission express-
ing its approval of the purchase and the compatibility of the
location with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. A vicinity map
is attached as well.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Hollins Community Development Project budget includes the funds
for acquiring property and developing a public park. The
acquisition cost is $9,000. The park development cost will be
approximately $39,000. Additional nominal costs and time will be
required to maintain the park. An accurate cost for maintenance
cannot be determined until completion of final design of the park.
The park will be designed to be as maintenance free as is possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors accept this resolution of
approval from the Planning Commission.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED
RAr W. -LA, 451 G l
Rob Stal er Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.
Director of Planning County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved (x >
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
ACTION
Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/Bob
L. Johnson Garrett
cc: File, Rob Stalzer, Johnson
Steve Carpenter, McGraw
Diane Hyatt, Reta Bum er Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
_ x
_ x
X
X
X
ACTION NUMBER A -51088-9.f
ITEM NUMBER rl
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to enter into an agreement for use
and maintenance of a private road owned by Maynard
and Trucilla Heslep
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
For twelve years, Roanoke County has used a private road owned
and maintained by Maynard and Trucilla Heslep to gain access to a
well lot owned by the County. This road has been maintained by
the owner who is now requesting assistance in the maintenance.
After several meetings with Mr. Heslep, the County Attorney's
office has come to an agreement with the Heslep's which would
allow continued use of the private road by the County.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The attached agreement has been reviewed by the Hesleps and they
have indicated their willingness to participate. Roanoke County
will employ a contractor to tar and chip the aforesaid private
road, after which the County and the Hesleps will share in the
maintenance. There is a bridge on the road, and the agreement
stipulates that the bridge will be maintained by the owner unless
it is damaged by the County. In the event of a natural disaster,
both the County and the Hesleps will share in the cost of
restoring the bridge.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
Alternative #1: Authorize the County Administrator the enter
into the agreement setting forth the provisions for use and
maintenance of the private road. This will ensure continued
access to a County owned well lot.
Alternative #2: Do not authorize the County Administrator to
entire into the agreement with Maynard and Trucilla Heslep.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend Alternative #1.
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (X) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/Bob L. Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) Johnson to approve Alternative Garrett x_
Received ( ) #1 Johnson x
Referred McGraw _x
To: Nickens x
Robers —_
cc: File
Phil Henry
Cliff Craig
Paul Mahoney
ACTION NUMBER A -51088-9.g
ITEM NUMBER,' "u
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: May 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledgment from the Va. Department of
Transportation of acceptance of certain roads into
the Secondary System.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
Attached are letters from Oscar Mabry, Deputy Commission of the
Va. Department of Transportation acknowledging the following
additions to the Secondary System:
0.06 miles of Old Manor Drive, effective April 25, 1988
0.11 miles of Old Manor Court, effective April 25, 1988
0.13 miles of Branderwood Drive, effective April 26, 1988
0.11 miles of Whipplewood Drive, effective April 26, 1988
0.45 miles of Summerset Drive, effective April 26, 1988
0.07 miles of Summerset Circle
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Mary H. 91len Elmer C. Hodge
Deputy Clerk County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/Bob L. Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) Johnson Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To: Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Phil Henry
John Hubbard