Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/13/1988 - Adopted Board RecordsACTION # 91388-1 ITEM NUMBER e AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 13, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Request to proceed with the design of Spring Hollow Reservoir COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: '6_11 -u- W X-4,0, i1� �c i/t-i 2 }; l vii. "L• i ./YL2. U c' ' it BACKGROUND: The need for additional water supplies for the Roanoke Valley has been well-known since 1967. Numerous studies have been conducted over the past 20 years to determine alternatives and which would be pursued. (See Attached). In November of 1981, the local governing bodies established a water committee to study and address the valley's water supply needs and recommend the best option for a regional water supply. On September 14, 1983, a joint meeting was held at the Salem -Roanoke County Civic Center of all the valley governments to receive and act on the water committee's report. The action taken on that day established the future water needs to the year 2040 and chose to pursue Spring Hollow as the next valley water supply. Roanoke County was selected to pursue the preliminary design, acquire the land and the necessary permits. The county has accomplished all three tasks. If today the cities of Roanoke and Salem have determined their long-term needs have changed since 1983 and they no longer need additional supplies, Roanoke County should pursue the project for their needs only. The selection of Spring Hollow over other alternatives has been supported by recent studies by Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern and by Lewis Guy, a Salem and Roanoke City consultant reviewing the project. COSTS: _D —) In recent months, Spring Hollow opponents have provided a considerable amount of inaccurate information regarding costs. They have mislead many to believe costs have risen to $70 million dollars for dam construction. The $70 million figure represents costs that include treatment and transmission mains. Cost estimates have changed with inflation and as prelimi- nary estimates have progressed to engineering estimates. Costs will continue to change as final designs, schedules, bids, con- struction, and the economy change. Below is a progression of the cost estimates for the full-sized dam and reservoir since 1983: $35,000,000 Oct. 1983 by Corps of Engineers and Roanoke County $36,000,000 Feb. 1984 by Corps of Engineers and Roanoke County $36,000,000 April 1984 Permit Application $34,000,000 June 1986 - Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern: Concept Report $36,400,000 September 1988 - Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern * Delays alone have caused costs to rise nearly 10 per cent since 1984, amounting to over $3,000,000. Schedules for final designs and construction have changed with project delays. Today, we anticipate progress to follow the schedule below: Final Design: October 1988 - October 1990 Bid and Award: November 1990 - February 1991 Construction: March 1991 - March 1995 Final Design is the next critical step in the development process. It will consume the next two years and cost approxi- mately $700,000. ALTERNATIVES• It is imperative that Roanoke County proceed immediately with Spring Hollow to meet its existing and future water needs. With Roanoke and Salem not indicating their commitment to partici- pate, the County has several options in constructing a reservoir to meet its needs of 17 MGD by year 2040. (1) Design and construct a dam and reservoir to provide 17 MGD. (2) Design and construct a dam and reservoir in phases to provide a total of 23 MGD which would maximize the use 2 of the site and provide additional water for use by others. Should either City choose to participate at a later date, the reservoir design could be changed, at City expense, to be constructed for the full 23 MGD yield. With each option, a water treatment plant would be required. Funds for the treatment plant are available within the Utility Fund. FISCAL IMPACT: The Final Design Phase is the next major step which will require funding. It is anticipated that $175,000 will be required within this fiscal year and a total of $700,000 through October 1990. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern be authorized to proceed with the Final Design of a dam and reservoir to supply the County with a 17 MGD water source. SUBMITTED BY: ohn R, ubbard, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Community Services & Development APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ Denied ( ) Richard W. Robers to autho- Received ( ) rize staff and HSMM to pro - Referred ceed with design phase for to 23 MGD cc: File John Hubbard Cliff Craig 3 VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x PAST WATER SUPPLY STUDIES ° Roanoke Valley Regional Water Reservoir Plan - HUM, 1967 ° Comprehensive Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Facilities Plan - HSM M, 1971 ° Regional Water System for Vinton - W&W, 1972 ° Potential High Yield Well Site in Roanoke County - NAE, 1974 ° Comprehensive Water Supply Plan -5th PDC, 1974 Roanoke County Groundwater - SWCB, 1976 ° Geohydrology for the Upper Roanoke River Basin, Virginia - J. A. Waller, SWCB, 1976 Feasibility Report - BCM - Vinton, 1978 ° Roanoke River Upper Basin -Nater Resources Study - COE, 1979 ° Upper Roanoke Valley Water Supply Plan - SWCB, COE, 1980 • Back Creek Water Supply - ABH - Roanoke City, 1981 ° Carvins Cove/Roanoke River Interconnection - HSiMM? 1983 ° Spring Hollow Reservoir - HS1M9 - Roanoke County, 1986 ° Roanoke Basin Water Supply Plan - SWCB, 1987 WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS ° Carvins Creek ° Roanoke River South ° Johns Creek ° James River ° Roanoke River Mainstream Roanoke River North ° Smith Mountain ° New River ° Carvins Cove Back Creek ° Glade Creek ° Beaverdam Creek ° Falling Creek Ellett Creek Bottom Creek Groundwater Conservation ° Claytor Lake ° Spring Hollow PA679 A Y Water supply Committee Study Results A. Projected water supply needs through the year 2040 indicating a deficit of 30 MGD. WATER DEMAND IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY B. Review of alternatives: - New River - Smith Mountain - Back Creek - Groundwater - Dry Branch - North Fork Roanoke River - Bradshaw Creek - Water Conservation - West County C. Coordination and development of Roanoke River/Carvin Cove Interconnection Feasibility Study by Hayes. Seay, Mattern and Mattern. 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Salem 5.6 6.8 8.2 10.0 12.1 14.5 Roanoke City 15.9 16.7 18.7 21.3 24.6 28.8 Roanoke County 5.0 10.18 12.51 14.71 16.64 17.58 Vinton 1.5 2.3 2.5 3.8 4.2 4.7 Average Daily Total Demand 28.0 35.98 41.91 49.81 57.54 65.58 Capacity of existing facilities: Carvins Cove Filter Plant 20.0 mgd Salem's Glenvar Filter Plant and Salem's Old Filter Plant 5.0 mgd Crystal Spring 3.5 mgd Falling Creek Filter Plant 1.5 mgd Vinton Wells 3.0 mgd Roanoke County Wells 3.5 mgd 36.5 mgd B. Review of alternatives: - New River - Smith Mountain - Back Creek - Groundwater - Dry Branch - North Fork Roanoke River - Bradshaw Creek - Water Conservation - West County C. Coordination and development of Roanoke River/Carvin Cove Interconnection Feasibility Study by Hayes. Seay, Mattern and Mattern. •, to M AY 6 110-1 8-7 r � � Vr � ��_��,, � ►a� .»,, 1�. is,,, itis„ \.n Virginia's 46 Conservationists BOARD DIhr FiD 4602-D West Grove Court • Virginia Beach, VA 23455 R E S O L U T I O N THE ROANOKE RIVER WHEREAS, Roanoke County proposes to build a which will reduce the flow of the Roanoke River average annual flow, and LG BLJ / SAM county reservoir to a low of 1�f WHEREAS, this reduced flow will have a major destructive impact on the Roanoke River ecosystem, and WHEREAS, this ecosystem is especially unique in that it contains more fish species and a greater number of endemic species C- than any other drainage on the Atlantic slope, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Wildlife Federation's Board of Directors, assembled at their quarterly meeting in Millboro, Virginia, on April 26, 1987, voted to support the minimal flow requirements of 20% on the Roanoke River, an(jr--isopposed to requests by Roanoke oun y or reducing those minimal flow requirements for the county reservoir, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Wildlife Federation supports further research into alternatives other than a county reservoir, including research and testing for groundwater options. ADOPTED Millboro, Virginia April 26, 1987 "An Affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation" A (T I .I :hIZ;AI-ION (V 1=.X(1:[ .1.1:N( T DOANOKE-i,Q) LEG I V2 OU I'' \1 OW March 5, 1987 Mr. Bob Hume Norfolk District Army Corps of Engineers 803 Front Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Dear Bob: Regarding the proposed West County Reservoir Project, I support the 30-20 X MAF Roanoke River minimum flowby compromise initially suggested by the Corps in the 17 November 1986 meeting 3.n—RI—c'Kmond, and again supported by a nanel of biologists in the 25 February 1987 meeting in Richmond. In my opinion, these fl-oyby limits represent a very solid compromise. Indeed, the compromise may be too severe biologically when considering the virtual certainty of the Roanoke logperch being listed as a nationally Threatened species. I wish to briefly review the pertinent biological facts. 1) Data base for listing. — The distributional data supporting the upper Roanoke River population as being clearly the largest remaining population of the Roanoke logperch is certainly one of the best data sets ever made available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to document the need for listing. The data base represents over 2000 collections made in the Roanoke River drainage, Virginia. Many of these collections were specifically aimed at capture of the logperch. 2) Putative historical and present distribution. — The Roanoke logperch is endemic to the Roanoke drainage in the Roanoke, Dan and Nottoway river systems in Virginia. The largest remaining population occurs in the upper Roanoke River, in and above Roanoke, Roanoke and Montgomery counties. A small population of Percina rex occurs in the Pigg River tributary of the Roanoke System. In the Dan system, P. rex is restricted to a small relictual population in the Smith River system. The Pigg River and Smith River populations strongly suggest P. rex was formerly widespread in the upper Roanoke drainage. The Fall Line population in the Nottoway system is greatly disjunct from the upper Roanoke drainage and is considered strong evidence that the Roanoke logperch populated much of the Piedmont. Thus its presegt distribution portrays a pattern of dramatic range contraction. ;A veI The principal eading to decline of total range are most certainly impoundment and siltation The proposed West County Reservior would be located in the heart of the best population. �• as BAR g 19� �A1-1.\1, V!R61\1A ' 41 i 3- 37 )4 ,7131 —J Mr_ Bob Hume C Page Two March 5, 1987 3) Flowby considerations. - The Virginia State Water Control Board permitted 7Q10 flowby (=27 cfs) for the West County Reservoir. Under contract to Roanoke County, Burkhead (1986a,b) concluded that the 7Q10 flowby would at times severely dewater the Roanoke River and clearly place the Roanoke logperch the riverine biota under extreme stress. The Corps compromise minimum flowby of 20% MAY (=50.1 cfs) in a very strong biological compromise, and frankly, one that I am not entirely comfortable with. Leonard et al. (1986) developed an equation based discharge which reflects optimum overall fish habitat in the upper James: Qopt = 1.441 RAF 0.746 The upper James and upper Roanoke are certainly roughly comparable, and using the above equation, Qopt for the Roanoke = 88.7 cfs! It is my strong recommendation that 20% MAF be adhered to as the absolute minimum flowby for the proposed West County Reservoir. 4) The Roanoke River resource. - Consideration should also be given to the upper Roanoke River as a valuable natural resource. The Roanoke drainage harbors the richest fish fauna of all the Atlantic slope drainages. The drainage has experienced extensive modification by human activity, and the upper Roanoke above Niagara Dam remains as the best free flowing example of this rich natural heritage. It contains the largest indigenous population of the rare organgefin madtom as well as healthy populations of other drainage endemics, e.g., the Roanoke hogsucker, the bigeye jumprock and the riverweed darter. This valuable resource merits judicious management. In summary, the Roanoke logperch merits listing a nationally Threatened species, and its largest population survives in the upper Roanoke River, particu- larly in and above West Salem. The flowby reductions proposed by the Roanoke County Administration for the West County Reservoir project would adversely impact the Roanoke logperch in the area of its densest population, as well as other biota of the Roanoke River. The proposed Corps compromise of a 30% MAF target flowby, 20z MAF minimum flowby represents a rational balance of the water needs of the valley and the responsibility to conserve a unique natural resource. It is my opinion that the projected water demands greatly exceed sustenance needs plus reasonable growth. Roanoke County is simply trying to acquire all the water possible through the West County Reservoir without reasonable consideration of environmental cost. Sincerely, Noel M. Bu rkhead Research Associate, Biology NB:st cc: David K. Whitehurst Andrew Moser P.O. Box 1750 Ru.mokc. Virginia 21008 T :/ Tel. (703) 313 3698 •1� In addition, Friends of the Roanoke River takes the following positions regarding the reservoir/river controversy: 1. We support the current recommended' minimum flow requirements, proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Our position is that the Corps limitation on damage to the river is minimal. Less than the Corps recommended 20% minimal flow would seriously jeopardize the quality of the river, and thereby the quality of life in the Roanoke Valley. The Roanoke (fiver is part of the appeal of the Roanoke Valley, part of the attraction for Valley growth and part of our quality of life. This includes consideration of aesthetic values,,, recreational values for boating, fishing, swimming, wading, bicycling and jogging, as well as its economic value for tourism. In addition, the Roanoke River is an officially stocked trout stream, one of an ever -diminishing number. The county's proposal could affect a fall trout stocking, or possibly prohibit it. 2. There are other alternatives, despite the statements of county officials. The Spring Hollow County Reservoir was chosen from a list of nine (9) alternatives, many of which are still quite feasible. Some may be more expensive, but some could be less expensive. Some may have been discarded -without sufficient study. Some may have been rejected for political considerations that are not justifiable. • The extensive 1976 State Water Control Board study that recom- mended ground water was not given a fair trial. Accurate cost analyses were not done on this option. Test wells were not conducted, even though recent wells have been drilled success- fully. • Other alternatives do exist. J%_ x 1_�A i�� �� , t. �, �u c1 t �LJx�C. 4t1 V cl P.O. [lox 1750 Roanoke. ZV4 is 2'1008 —/ Tel. (77 033) 313 3fi.98 3. Friends of the Roanoke River are not anti -development. We are for development; but careful, considered development. Water for future development does not mean simply drying up one asset to provide another. Alternative sources have not been fully explored, as some county officials have openly admitted. While protection of an endangered species may be the focal point for some river protectionists, we feel preserving,the log perch is only one part of a larger issue. The Roanoke River is much more than the habitat of a rare species. There are many perspectives on the reservoir/river controversy, and ultimately, compromises may have to be made. But if we e.rr, „We should err on the side of our quality of life, not the quantity of our valley population. We urge all those who would like,to know more about the reservoir vs. t -he river controversy to contact Friends of the Roanoke River. And we hope all individuals and groups who would like to see the Roanoke River protected would join us in forming a coalition of friends of the river. c/6 fir( Ic-�)tC P'Y_ L_;T1 1�1 William H. Tanger, III, Chairman Friends of the Roanoke River �_�. c,\A� ,G J O� ROANO a r � � y Z 0 2 v a 1838 F50 988 SFSQVICENTFS"� �l Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C�nundy of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS, VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The decision to construct the Spring Hollow Reservoir may very well be one of the most important decisions for the Roanoke Valley in recent history. Roanoke County must have additional water for the growth and development that is taking place. Roanoke City and Salem are unable to supply additional water and may need new supplies for their own purposes. It is a difficult decision because of the cost, the risks involved, and the length of time it takes to construct such a facility. And yet, this is the same decision that our predecessors had to make when Carvins Cove was built some years ago. There must have been uncertainties and criticism at that time as there are now, but decisions were made with a vision of what the future could be. There is always a greater degree of risk with a new project of this magnitude than with the expansion of one that is already in place. Such projects must be studied carefully and alternatives should be evaluated. There must be an established need. All aspects of the project must be planned for - the technical aspects to be certain, but the aesthetic qualities as well. I believe this has been done with the Spring Hollow Reservoir. The County has employed an excellent engineering firm and the project has been approved by all federal and state agencies. There have been numerous studies over the span of a quarter of a century. Because of the natural characteristics of the area, no solution will be easy and no source will supply all the water needs of the Valley. Concessions have been made in the permitting process to protect the Roanoke River. Perhaps Bob Hume of the Army Corps of engineers said it best, "with the changes made by the County during the permit process, this is a very nice project." Based on the need for an additional water supply and the exhaustive engineering studies of the alternatives, I must now urge the Board to go forward with the design of a 17 mgd reservoir that will serve the County and the Valley well into the next century. During the design, additional geological work will be done to assure the viability of the project. If, during the process, problems are encountered, then the project can be re- evaluated and a decision can be made to resume the search for another alternative. Safeguards must be included to minimize any PO. BOX 29800 - ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 - (703) 772-2004 p impact on the river and the surrounding area. The project should be designed to blend in with and add to the natural beauty of the area. It is uncertain at this time whether either of the Cities will participate in the project. It may be that their needs for additional water have not been as great as projected five years ago. It is my hope that they will choose to participate in what should be a regional project, at least for this design phase. If they elect to do so, the project can be constructed in phases or built to its full 23 mgd capacity. Final decisions to proceed can be made after the design is complete and construction bids are received. Therefore, I am requesting permission with the design of the Spring Hollow John Hubbard and the staff. There future need. The analysis has been responsibility to move forward with this valley, a ne if necessary. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 2 of the Board to go forward Reservoir as recommended by is a present as well as a done and it now becomes our the future water supply of ACTION # 91388-2 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: AGENDA ITEM: September 13, 1988 Request for Transfer of Funds Based on Preliminary Year -End Information COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The June 30, 1988 audit is nearing completion, and estimates of year-end revenues, expenses, and fund balances can now be made. Actual operations were very much as anticipated, and the General Fund balance can be increased to $2,287,000 (compared to $2,063,493 at June 30, 1987). This preliminary fund balance is 3.9 percent of the total General Fund budget, which is still less than the recommended 5 percent. The net result of the year's operation will add $1,306,654 to fund balance increasing it from $1,380,346 to $2,287,000. An analysis of the year's operation shows significant changes in the following areas: 1. Actual revenues were approximately $56,786,000 compared to a budgeted amount of $55,266,000. Most of this increase resulted from the proration of personal property. 2. Actual expenditures of the General Fund were approximately $23,970,000 compared to a budgeted amount of $24,829,000. Much of this savings resulted from efforts to curtail expenditures for the clean-up of the Dixie Caverns Landfill. 3. Other transfers and reserves of the General Fund were approximately $33,099,000 compared to a budgeted amunt of $34,653,000. This was achieved by deferring capital purchases and lease/purchases to reduce payments in the initial year. To balance this year's budget, $500,000 has been used of unexpended 1987-88 funds. In addition, $400,000 has already been allocated from the General Fund balance to treat the fly ash at Dixie Caverns. These two items have already been taken into consideration in the estimated fund balance of $2,287,000. While the year-end financial position is encouraging, there are still several contingencies facing the County. First is the construction of Spring Hollow Reservoir which will require debt service and additional capital costs. The Dixie Caverns project will likely require additional funds because of greater volumes of contaminated soils. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board Contingency account be increased by $50,000 at this time by transferring this amount from the General Fund balance. Further action will be required when the audit is completed in October. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Diane D. HyattY Elmer C. Hodge Director of Finance County Administrator ACTION Approved ( x) Motion by: Harry C_ Nickens/ Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw to allocate Received ( ) $50,000 from Fund Balance to Referred Board Continaencv Fund To cc: File Don Myers Diane Hyatt Reta Busher VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x 3 91088-3 ITEM NUMBER ) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: September 13, 1988 Approval of Roanoke County Smoking Policy COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND The Department of Human Resources was requested by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to develop a smoking policy for county buildings and facilities. The Department of Human Resources was assisted by a Smoking Policy Committee composed of smokers and nonsmokers representing all county buildings and including representation from the Employee Advisory Committee. The Roanoke County Health Depart- ment, the American Lung Association, and the Roanoke Valley Alive and Well Coalition also provided technical assistance for the development of a county -wide policy. The proposed policy was also reviewed by the County Attorney's Office for legal compli- ance. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Attached is the proposed Roanoke County Smoking Policy developed by the Smoking Policy Committee. This policy was presented to the Board of Supervisors on August 9, 1988. A final review by the Smoking Policy Committee was held on August 17, 1988, with the committee clarifying the policy by adding the County School System to those buildings and facilities not covered by the policy. The committee also recommended amending the transition period for implementing the policy to a sixty-day period from date of approval, in which to conduct employee education programs, identify designated smoking areas, install no smoking signs, and coordinate smoking cessation programs for employees who desire assistance. The proposed policy establishes guidelines for smoking in county -owned buildings and facilities, including leased spaces. The County School System, Courthouse and County Jail are not covered by the attached policy, based on the unique characteristics of these buildings. The proposed policy prohibits smoking in areas such as conference and meeting rooms, reception, waiting and counter areas and individual work areas, except as indicated. Smoking is also prohibited in medical facilities, classrooms, auditoriums, lobbies, hallways, elevators and restrooms. Smoking is only permitted in designated smoking areas such as individual work areas, lounges, lunchrooms and breakrooms, provided smoke is minimized through such means as ventilation, barriers, distance between work areas or other means. Methods for dispute reso- lution and enforcement are also covered in the proposed policy. FISCAL IMPACT It is anticipated that the fiscal impact of implementing the Smoking Policy as proposed will be $10,000. This amount includes $1,000 for the purchase of appropriate signs and $9,000 for the purchase of ventilation and air filtration devices and other methods to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke in those common areas in lounges, lunchrooms, or breakrooms identified as "designated smoking areas." An appropriation of funds will not be required, as funds will be provided from departmental budgets in those buildings and facilities in which the signs and air filtration devices are installed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Roanoke County Smoking Policy, as amended by the Smoking Policy Committee. SUBMITTED BY: D. K. Cook Director of Human Resources APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw to ap roveGarrett x Received ( ) Smoking Policy excluding Johnson x Referred funding of $9,000 for McGraw x To ventilation equipment Nickens x Robers x cc: File Keith Cook Assistant County Administrators ROANOKE COUNTY SMOKING POLICY 1.0 PURPOSE: J-3 This document establishes a policy for County -owned buildings and facilities, including leased space, that will protect the rights of the nonsmokers for an environment as free from secondhand and sidestream smoke as possible, and to provide those who choose to smoke, the opportunity to do so. The County plans to provide employees and the public with an example of health -promoting behavior, by maintaining an environment as clean and healthful as possible and to reduce the discomfort of employees and the public, whose tolerance for tobacco smoke is limited. It is believed that a spirit of thoughtfulness and cooperation among employees and the public in County buildings and facilities is normally adequate to resolve any disputes which might arise under the policy. Where disputes cannot be resolved, the rights of the nonsmoker for clean air shall be given precedence. 2.0 DEFINITIONS: 2.1 Smoking... Carrying or possessing any lighted tobacco product, to include: cigars, pipes, and cigarettes. 2.2 Designated Smoking Area ... Any area within a County facility where smoking is specifically permitted and is situated to allow nonsmoking individuals reasonable opportunity to conduct normal activity in an area as smoke free as possible. 3.0 POLICY: 3.1 Smoking is prohibited in the following areas: 3.1.1 Conference and meeting rooms; reception, waiting, and counter areas; individual work areas, except as indicated in 3.2.1. 3.1.2 Medical facilities or areas where cots may be set up for ill employees. 3.1.3 Classrooms and auditoriums. 3.1.4 Lobbies, hallways, elevators, and restrooms. i 3.2 Designated Smoking Areas: 3.2.1 Individual work areas may be designated as "smoking areas" if conditions of the definition "designated smoking area" are met by ventilation, barriers, distance between work areas, air filtering devices, (purchased by the employee and approved by the supervisor) or other methods to minimize environmental tobacco smoke. 3.2.2 Areas in lounges, lunchrooms, or breakrooms may be "designated smoking areas" as long as criteria in the definition and in paragraph 3.2.1 are met. The County will attempt to provide air filtering devices in those common areas where employees meet for breaks. 3.3 Based on unique characteristics in structure and authority of the County School System, Courthouse and County Jail, those buildings are specifically excluded from this policy. It is expected that a clean air policy will be developed for these facilities in order to provide nonsmoking employees, guests, students, inmates, and visitors with an environment as free from tobacco smoke as possible. 4.0 RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND ENFORCEMENT: 4.1 Smoking will be prohibited in any work area if any employee who is assigned to that area, or who is a victim of environmental tobacco smoke emanating from that work area, registers a confidential complaint to his/her supervisor about smoking, asks that smoking be prohibited, and the validity of the complaint is confirmed by the supervisor or department head. 4.2 The supervisor may attempt to resolve the conflict by the methods reviewed in paragraph 3.2.1. 4.3 If the supervisor and employee are unable to come to an acceptable solution, the Smoking Policy Committee will be involved as arbitrator. If those methods are not sufficient to minimize environmental tobacco smoke, the preferences of the nonsmoker will prevail. 4.4 Smoking will be prohibited in previously designated smoking areas in lounges, lunchrooms, or breakrooms if any employee who is a victim of environmental tobacco smoke emanating from that area registers a confidential complaint to the smoking committee about smoking, asks that smoking be prohibited, and the validity of the complaint is confirmed by the smoking committee. 4.5 The Smoking Policy Committee will be composed of the committee for the development of a smoking policy. 4.6 Department heads and supervisors are responsible for implementing and enforcing this policy and decisions of the Smoking Policy Committee. - L - 4.7 Suitable signs furnished and installed by the County, will clearly identify designated "Smoking" and "Nonsmoking" areas. 4.8 This policy will go into effect upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors as County policy. There will be a sixty-day transition period during which the following activities will occur: 4.8.1 Supervisors and department heads will educate their employees on environmental tobacco smoke and the smoking policy through staff meetings, speakers, and other means. 4.8.2 Designated smoking areas will be determined by personnel working in a facility or by a committee selected from the smokers and nonsmokers of the facility. Appropriate signs and air filtering devices will be installed. 4.8.3 Signs prohibiting smoking in areas specified in paragraph 3.1 will be installed. 4.8.4 Employees who desire assistance with smoking cessation or reduction will be provided information about available methods and programs. The specifics of the employee incentives will be addressed and developed through the employee wellness program - "Heart at Work" which will include smoking cessation classes provided by the County. 9-13-88 -3- —E ACTION # 91388-4 ITEM NUMBER ,D J5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: September 13, 1988 Bonsack Fire Station COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: 1 � BACKGROUND: The 1985 bond issue provides funding in the amount of $300,000 for the construction of a fire station in the Bonsack area of Roanoke County. Staff has worked with representatives from Botetourt County, Roanoke City, Botetourt Volunteer Fire Companies, and Roanoke County Volunteer Fire Companies to determine if a joint operation would be feasible. Although no commitments have been made, there seems to be interest in the concept and the staff will continue to pursue this avenue. However, in order to meet the deadline for the expenditure of bond funds, it is imperative to move forward with the construction of this facility. Over the past month, the staff has evaluated several potential sites and determined that the following prioritized locations would be the best to provide emergency service to the Bonsack area. 1. State Route 604 and 608 adjacent to Challenger Drive (Rt. 460) to provide rapid access to SR 604 and Rt. 460 decreasing response time. 2. Property currently designated for the fire station adjacent to the Botetourt-Roanoke Joint Library located behind the first location. Additional funding for capital equipment ($300,000), yearly operational costs ($25,000), staffing 24-hour coverage ($350,000), or 10 -hour coverage 7 a.m. - 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, supplemented by volunteer staffing ($120,000), not included and must be addressed in annual budget process. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: —.5- 1 Authorize the staff to negotiate with Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation and Roanoke Development Corporation to exchange the property adjacent to the joint library that is currently designated for the fire station with the property adjacent to Challenger Drive. This location will provide rapid access to Route 604 and 460 and will decrease response time. Also authorize construction to begin in early spring of 1989 to be funded with bond monies with costs for equipment and required staffing to be addressed in a future fiscal year budget process. 2. Do not begin construction until volunteers are recruited. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. Respectfully submitted, Thomas F qua Chief Fire & 4scue Department Approved by, L- Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACTION - - - - - - - - - - - -- VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Steven No Yes Abs Denied ( ) A. McGraw to approve staff Garrett x Received ( ) recommendations and report back Johnson x Referred to Board on negotiation to McGraw x To relocate. Nickens x _ Robers x cc: File Tommy Fuqua ps John Willey Paul Mahoney Diane Hyatt ACTION # 91388-5 ITEM NUMBER — & AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 13, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Agreement between Roanoke relative to Pretreatment Waste Discharge COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: County and Roanoke City of certain Industrial The municipalities in the Roanoke Valley that use the Regional Wastewater Treatment have each adopted Sewage Ordinances that require permitting and regulating pretreatment of Industrial Waste discharges to the sewer system. The City of Roanoke, as the owner of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, is required to provide documentation and reporting to EPA on the progress of the pretreatment program. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order for the EPA Pretreatment Program to be administered by each municipality according to their individual ordinances, an inter -municipal agreement has been proposed by EPA. The agreement requires each municipality to administer their own pretreatment program and report the results to the City of Roanoke. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact related to the proposed agreement. The funding and personnel to administer the pretreatment program within Roanoke County is included in the FY88/89 Utility Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman and/or County Administrator to execute this inter- municipal agreement for administration and reporting of the Pretreatment Program. 0 SUBMITTED BY: Cliff or ig, Utility Director APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw staff Garrett x Received ( ) recommendation Johnson x Referred McGraw x to Nickens x Robers x cc: File Cliff Craig John Hubbard Paul Mahoney AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 ORDINANCE 91388-6 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 0.518 ACRE FROM SMI'THSUB INC. FOR THE RELOCATION OF KENWORTH ROAD - VALLEYPOINTE, PHASE I BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the herein- after described real estate was held on August 23, 1988. A sec- ond reading on this matter was held on September 13, 1988. This real estate consists of 0.518 acre, more particularly described as Roanoke County Tax Map No. 37.07-1-6 and located in the Hol- lins Magisterial District adjacent to Interstate 581 and Peters Creek Road; and 2. That the 0.518 acre of real estate from Smithsub Inc. to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for $64,500.00 is hereby authorized and approved; and 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Robers, Garrett ABSTAIN: Supervisor. McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: )G2 ';�/. CZE-z� Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney John D. Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Timothy Gubala, Director, Economic Development Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 ORDINANCE 91388-7 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS TO FACILITATE THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO THE APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY SERVICE CENTER BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the acquisi- tion of the hereinafter -described easements was held on August 23, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on September 13, 1988. The sewer easements are located across the property of the George Harris Estate (Roanoke County Tax Map No. 36-15-1-10) and Leonard Huffman (Roanoke County Tax Map No. 36.10-1-14); and 2. That the acquisition of the sewer easements from the George Harris Estate in the amount of $4,300.00 and the sewer easement and 8 -inch diameter carrier pipe 1,100 feet across Inter- state 81 from Leonard Huffman in the amount of $30,000.00 are hereby authorized and approved; and 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of these easements, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Robers, Garrett ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Clifford Craig, Director, Utilities AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 91388-8 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 September 13, 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. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Grievance Panel. 2. Approval of minutes of meetings - May 10, 1988, May 24, 1988, June 14, 1988 3. Approval of reimbursement for water line extension on Tyler Road. 4. Authorization for County participation in extending a water and sewer line adjacent to Barrens Road. 5. Request for acceptance of Stonebridge Circle into the Va. Department of Transportation Secondary System. 6. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Winterberry Pointe. 7. Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation of the acceptance of 0.30 miles of Hill Drive into the Secondary System. 8. Acceptance of an assignment of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Dominion Builders. e 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, seconded by Supervisor Nickens 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 9/14/88 CC: John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Clifford Craig, Utility Director Phillip Henry, Director of Enginee3ring File ACTION NUMBER 91388-8.a ITEM NUMBER �_5 — AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE September 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointment to the Grievance Panel 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. Grievance Panel Thomas T. Palmer has been nominated by Supervisor Nickens to serve another two-year term. His term will expire September 10, 1990. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk v t � C I Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson /Harry C_ Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Nickens Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To: Nickens x Robers x cc: File Grievance Panel File ACTION # 91388-8.b 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: September 13, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Reimbursement for water line extension on Tyler Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Mr. and Mrs. William Brogan recently experienced problems with their individual well and paid to extend the 8 inch public water line approximately 450 feet along Tyler Road. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County off-site and oversized main credit policy allows a developer to receive off-site credits for any off-site line that is extended in excess of 300 feet. Without a reimbursement agreement, the property owner (developer) could only receive credits for their connection. Therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Brogan have requested the County extend a reimbursement agreement which would allow them to receive 100% of the off-site fees collected from other property owners that connect to this .line. The total cost of the water line extension was $11,880.83 and this agreement would allow them to be reimbursed up to $4000.00, which represents the cost of the portion of the water line in excess of 300 feet. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: (1) The Board of Supervisors could authorize a reimbursement agreement allowing the Brogan's to receive up to $4,000.00 as other customers connect to this line. (2) The Board of Supervisors could deny the request leaving the Brogan's responsible for the entire cost of the line. These alternatives require no expenditures by the County. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that Alternative 1 be accepted and that the County Attorney prepare an agreement and the County Administrator be authorized to execute the agreement. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: J L/W Cliffo id )raig, I Elmer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- AC TION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Harry No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to cc: File Cliff Craig John Hubbard Paul Mahoney Diane Hyatt C. Nickens Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers x 2 ACTION # 91388-8.c ITEM NUMBER /<— AT < AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: September 13, 1988 Authorization for County participation in extending a water and sewer line adjacent to Barrens Road COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The existing sewer line in Barrens Road has experienced surcharges during periods of wet weather, resulting in flooded basements. (i.e. Mr. Looney) SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The developers of Roanoke Hyundai Inc., were extending sewer to their property from Deer Branch. Staff requested that this line be extended to Barrens Road to provide relief for the existing line. In addition, the water line was extended from Barrens Road to their development. Staff requested that this water line be extended past their paved area so the pavement would not be disturbed when the line is extended in the future. Since these additional extensions were not a requirement of the developer, the County would pay the additional costs when the work was completed and accepted by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of these extensions is $5,239.00 for sewer and $928 for water. Monies are available for these expenditures in the Utility Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board authorize payment for these extensions to the developer in the amount of $6,167.00 as requested. 1 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: H- ,-/ L Cliffor `�C Aig, Elmer C. Hodge Utility Director County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Harry C. Nickens Garrett x Received ( ) Referred to cc: File Cliff Craig John Hubbard Diane Hyatt Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 RESOLUTION 91388-8.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF STONEBRIDGE 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 Stonebridge Circle from the intersection with Stonebridge Drive, Route 1007, to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.11 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 road has been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Stonebridge Court which map is recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 304, of the record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on September 4, 1984 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 Stonebridge Circle 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 v from and after notification of official acceptance of said street by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by 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 cc:: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and Copy for Virginia Department of Transportation U 91388-8.e ITEM NUMBER 6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Winterberry Pointe COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Developers of Winterberry Pointe have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the water and sewer lines serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The water and sewer lines are installed, as shown on development plans prepared by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P. C., entitled Winterberry Pointe, dated June 4, 1984, and later revisions, which are on file in the Engineering Department. The water and sewer line construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The values of the water and sewer construction are $45,569 and $68,608 respectively. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: J C� Phillip T. Henry, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge Director of Engineeri g County Administrator Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To cc: ACTION VOTE Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Harry No Yes Abs C. Nickens Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x File Phil Henry Paul Mahoney Diane Hyatt Cliff Craig John Hubbard 2 Acceptance of water and sewer COMMUNITY SERVICES Winterberry Pointe & DEVELOPMENT -93 ACTION NO. 91388-8.f ITEM NUMBER 'O�'-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: September 13, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledgment from Va. Department of Transportation of Acceptances of Roads into Secondary System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Acknowledgment has been received from the Virginia Department of Transportation that 0.30 miles of Route 1095 (Hill Drive) has been accepted into the Secondary System effective August 24, 1988. C (�' Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Harry C. Yes No Abs Denied ( ) _Nickens Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred McGraw x To: Nickens x Robers x cc: File Phil Henry COMMONWEALTH ofV1RCj'1N1A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219 COMMISSIONER August 24, 1988 Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: ec I -/A - "I'ti Secondary System Addition Roanoke County /-'- 7 OSCAR K. MABRY DFPUiY COMMISSIONFR As requested in your resolution dated February 23, 1988, the following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke County is hereby approved, effective August 24, 1988. ADDITION DTNTV LTTT T T VKT!`Tu Route 1095 (Hill Drive) - From Route 636 to a South cul-de-sac. 0.30 Mi. Sincerely, Oscar K. Mabry Deputy Commissioner ACTION # 91388-8.q____ ITEM NUMBER �— AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: September 13, 1988 Acceptance of an assignment of a sanitary sewer easement being donated by Dominion Builders COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Dominion Builders, a Virginia General Partnership, has agreed to assign all of its right, title, and interest in an ease- ment for the location and construction of a ten (10) foot wide sanitary sewer line. This easement is located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District in the Farmingdale Subdivision across the property of Heritage Builders Ltd. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1987, the Board authorized the donations or dedications of matters. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1027874 adopted on October 27, County Administrator to accept non -controversial real estate It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this acceptance by resolution under the Consent Agenda. Respectfully submitted, - A Yv'l n Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney -S ------------------------------------------------------------------ Approved (X) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To ACTION Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ Harry C. Nic ens cc: File Paul Mahoney Phil Henry Cliff Craig VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett x Johnson x McGraw x Nickens x Robers x