HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/26/2013 - RegularRoanoke County
Board of Supervisors
February 26, 2073
INVOCATION: Reverend Milton Marks
Raleigh Court United Methodist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG
Disclaimer.
"Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting
shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the
Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been
previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent
the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of
the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such
decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of
the Board."
Page 1 of 5
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
February 26, 2013
NOTE: There will not be a 7:00 p.m. evening session as there are no
advertised public hearings.
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for February 26, 2013. Regular meetings
are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at
7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be
announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be
rebroadcast on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday at 4:00 p.m. Board of
Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke County's website at
www.RoanokeCountyVA.gov. Our meetings are closed- captioned, so it is important for
everyone to speak directly into the microphones at the podium. Individuals who require
assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors
meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772 -2005 at least 48 hours in
advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place on silent.
A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.)
1. Roll Call
B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of the Roanoke County Emergency Communications Center
Award Winners for 2012 (Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and
Information Technology)
D. BRIEFINGS
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution approving a proposed amendment to the Bent Mountain
Community Center Lease regarding insurance limits (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
Page 2 of 5
2. Resolution for Roanoke County's continued participation in the Roanoke
Valley's community discussion regarding the state and condition of Broad
Band (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
3. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to study
safety improvements for the intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain
Road in Roanoke County (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING
ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate
support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies
procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held
after recommendation by the Planning Commission
1. The petition of Old Heritage Corporation to rezone approximately 1.880 acres
from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to C -1 C, Office, District with
proffered conditions, located near the intersection of Crossbow Circle and
Franklin Road (Route 220 South) and including a portion of 5259 Crossbow
Circle, Cave Spring Magisterial District
G.
H.
APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by
District)
2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District)
3. Social Services Advisory Board (appointed by District)
CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION
IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
1. Approval of minutes — February 12, 2013
2. Confirmation of appointments to the Community Policy and Management
Team (CPMT); Grievance Panel (at Large) and the League of Older
Americans
3. Request to approve the Health Insurance Plan and premiums for 2013 -2014
Page 3of5
4. Request to approve the Dental Plan and premiums for 2013 -2014
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Doris J. Johnson upon her retirement after more than
twenty -one (21) years of service
I. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
J. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
K. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
L. REPORTS
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as
of January 31, 2013
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of January 31,
2013
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of January 31, 2013
7. Accounts Paid — January 31, 2013
M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Richard C. Flora
2. Joseph B. "Butch" Church
3. Eddie "Ed" Elswick
4. Charlotte A. Moore
5. Michael W. Altizer
N. WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session on transferring title to the real estate in the Center for Research
and Technology from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to the
Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; Jill Loope, Acting Director of Economic Development)
Page 4 of 5
2. Work session to discuss the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study, Tier 2
Environmental Assessment (David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
O. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows:
1. Section 2.2- 3711.A.19, Briefings by staff members and law- enforcement
officials concerning threats to public safety; and discussion of reports or
plans related to the security of County facilities, buildings and structures, and
the safety of persons using these facilities, buildings and structures
P. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
Q. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 5
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. C -1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Roanoke County Emergency
Communications Center Award Winners for 2012
SUBMITTED BY: Bill Hunter
Director of Communications and Information Technology
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Roanoke county Emergency Communications Center Annual Awards program
recognizes 911 dispatchers who've provided outstanding service in several categories. The
winners are selected by an awards committee comprised of representatives from each of
the Emergency Communication Center's (ECC's) shifts. The 2012 winners are:
Supervisor of the Year - Pal a DeSilve : Paige was selected for her exceptional
leadership skills. When the ECC's Training Officer suffered an injury, Paige stepped up
and served as a temporary replacement. When called upon, Paige was also willing to serve
as the ECC's Chief Communications Officer on several occasions. In addition, Paige
demonstrated leadership and team- building when the ECC transitioned from three shifts to
a foi..ir platoon format in August. Paige exemplifies the qualities of a leader and richly
deserves this recognition.
Communications officer of the Year - Nikki Crush: Nikki was recognized by her peers
for going above and beyond the day -to -day responsibilities of a Communications Officer
(911 Dispatcher). Nikki understands the vital role she and others play in providing critical
communication between emergency response units and those who need assistance. As an
example, Nikki regularly anticipates the needs of 'first responders in the field by having
critical information ready when called upon. In addition to being recognized by her peers,
Page 1 of 2
the Police Department praised Nikki for her ability to remain calm while delivering vital
information during a 100 mile --per -hour pursuit.
Rookie of the Year - Kathryn Kimmel: This award recognizes a new communication
officer who has displayed extraordinary skill and professionalism during the ECC's six to
eight month training program. Though new to the profession, Kat has demonstrated the
qualities of a seasoned professional. Her quick thinking, attention to detail and ability to
multitask has made her a valuable addition to the team.
Shift of the Year - Evening Shift: Prior to moving to the platoon concept, the evening shift
ran from 3 to 11 PM. In 2012, employees who worked this shift handled more than 700
calls ranging from problems associated with an ice storm to roofs collapsing during a
structure fire. The County's 911 dispatchers - often referred to as heroes behind the
scenes — also handled over 3,500 calls during the Super Derecho wind storm. The never
quit attitude of this hard working group proved time and again they can handle anything
that comes their way.
Page 2 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT "rHE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DA'rE: February 20, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving a proposed amendment to the Bent
Mountain Community Center Lease regarding insurance limits
SUBMITTED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator 71��W
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Representatives from the Bent Mountain Community Center group contacted my office to
advise they were having difficulty attaining the lease required insurance amounts. They
asked that the BoS consider amending the lease to allow a lower insurance amount.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
A representative of the nonprofit group sought quotes for insurance. An agent who
responded to - their inquiry advised that - the quote includes $300,000 coverage for damage
to premises rented to the nonprofit. The approved lease states that Roanoke County was
asking the Community Center to secure $500,000 coverage, however the responding
agent cannot find a market that will increase that coverage to $500,000. The agenda
reported that in Virginia, the usual amount is $50,000. The agent was able to secure a
quote with $300,000 coverage. It is the type of risk itself that is affecting the coverage. For
a Community Center, the agents have to go to specialty markets for coverage. There are
only so many that are willing to quote Community Centers and we could only find the
increased coverage to $300,000.
The nonprofit group tried to obtain three (3) competitive insurance quotes, but could not
obtain the desired $500,000.
The County Attorney and County Risk Manager reviewed the information provided by the
Bent Mountain Community Center nonprofit and agreed to recommend to the BoS to
amend the lease to reduce the requested coverage from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000) for fire legal liability coverage, per occurrence for each; to Three Hundred
" rhousand Dollars ($300,000) for fire legal liability coverage, per occurrence for each.
Page 1 of 3
The requested section of the lease to be amended is listed below with the amended
language included for your review.
8. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY:
County shall, at all times during the term of this Lease, obtain and keep in force hazard
insurance on the premises in which the Leased Premises are situated in amounts as
deemed appropriate by the County. County at its sole discretion may self - insure. Tenant
agrees that it will not do anything that will cause County's insurance against loss by fire or
such other hazard as are covered and protected against under policies of insurance
commonly referred to and known as "all risk coverage" or "designated risk", as well as
public liability insurance, to be canceled or that will prevent County from procuring same in
acceptable companies and at standard rates. Tenant will further do everything reasonably
possible and consistent with the conduct of Tenant's business to enable County to obtain
the lowest possible rates for insurance on the Leased Premises.
Tenant shall waive any and all claims it may have against the County from any and all
liability, damage, loss, and expense, cause of action, suits, claims, or judgment arising from
injury to person or property including, without limitation, environmental liabilities on the
Leased Premises, or upon the adjoining sidewalks or other common areas, or otherwise
resulting from the Tenant's use of the Leased Premises. County will not provide insurance
coverage for any personal property, nor be held responsible to damages to any personal
property. If the Tenant or any sub -let wishes to insure personal property for potential
damages, they may do so at their risk and cost.
The Tenant shall maintain at its expense, throughout the Term, insurance against loss or
liability in connection with bodily injury, death, property damage and destruction, occurring
within the Leased Premises or arising out of the use thereof by the Tenant or its agents,
employees, officers or invitees, visitors and guests under one or more policies of general
public liability insurance, including fire legal liability coverage, having such limits as to each
as are reasonably required by the County from time to time in accordance with insurance
industry standards, but in any event, of not less than (a) One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) for general public liability insurance, and (b) (Three) Hundred
Thousand Dollars /$300, 000) for fire legal liability coverage, per occurrence
for each. Such policy or policies shall be in the name of the Tenant as the insured party,
and shall include an endorsement naming the County (and, at the County's request, any
Mortgagee) as an additional insured party, and shall be issued by an insurer(s) of
recognized responsibility authorized to do business in Virginia. A Certificate of Insurance for
this coverage shall be on file with the County at all times during this Lease or any
extensions or renewals thereof. Nothing in this shall prevent Tenant from carrying any of
the insurance required of Tenant hereunder in the form of (i) a blanket insurance policy or
policies which cover other properties owned or operated by Tenant in addition to the
Leased Premises, or (ii) self - insurance; provided, however, that such alternatives shall be
subject to such conditions as may be required and approved by the County. The County (i)
shall be responsible for any and all liability arising out of any injury to or death of any
person or damage to any property, occurring anywhere upon the Leased Premises, if, only
Page 2 of 3
if and to the extent that such injury, death or damage is proximately caused by the grossly
negligent or intentional act or omission of the County or its agents, officers or employees,
but (ii) shall not be responsible for any such injury, death or damage occurring anywhere
upon the Leased Premises), solely by reason of the Tenant's occupancy or use of the
Leased Premises or because of fire, windstorm, act of God or other cause , unless
proximately caused by such grossly negligent or intentional act or omission, as aforesaid.
The Tenant shall be responsible for, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the County
against and from, any and all liability arising out of any injury to or death of any person or
damage to any property, occurring within the Leased Premises, except to the extent caused
by County or its agents, officers or employees' gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve requested lease amendment.
2. Not approve requested lease amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the BoS approve the proposed amendment reducing the item B insurance
coverage from $slAA to $300,000 for fire legal liability per occurrence for each.
Page 3of3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BENT
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE REGARDING INSURANCE
LIMITS.
WHEREAS, The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has approved a lease
with the Bent Mountain Community Center nonprofit to operate a community center in
the Center; and
WHEREAS, the nonprofit group is in the process of completing the terms and
conditions of the lease; and
WHEREAS, The Bent Mountain Community Center nonprofit reports difficulty
meeting the lease requirement of $500,000 coverage for fire legal liability coverage, per
occurrence for each; and
WHEREAS, The Bent Mountain Community Center nonprofit has obtained three
quotes for $300,000 coverage and reports, however that the agent assisting the Bent
Mountain Community Center cannot find a carrier that will increase coverage to
$500,000; and the issue is the type of risk itself that is affecting the coverage limits, and
for a Community Center, the agents must go to specialty markets for coverage; and
there are only so many that are willing to quote Community Centers and only could find
the increased coverage to $300,000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby approve the following amendment to the Bent Mountain
Center Lease:
Page 1 of 2
The Tenant shall maintain at its expense, throughout the Term, insurance against loss
or liability in connection with bodily injury, death, property damage and destruction,
occurring within the Leased Premises or arising out of the use thereof by the Tenant or
its agents, employees, officers or invitees, visitors and guests under one or more
policies of general public liability insurance, including fire legal liability coverage, having
such limits as to each as are reasonably required by the County from time to time in
accordance with insurance industry standards, but in any event, of not less than (a) One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for general public liability insurance, and (b) (Three)
Hundred Thousand Dollars 1$300,000) for fire legal liability coverage, per
occurrence for each. Such policy or policies shall be in the name of the Tenant as the
insured party, and shall include an endorsement naming the County (and, at the
County's request, any Mortgagee) as an additional insured party, and shall be issued by
an insurer(s) of recognized responsibility authorized to do business in Virginia.
Page of
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E -2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DA7rE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution for Roanoke County's continued participation in the
Roanoke Valley's community discussion regarding the state
and condition of Broad Band
SUBMITTED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
Victor lannello and Sam English conducted a work session at the Board of Supervisors
February 12, 2013, meeting and presented the Task Force's recommendations and next
steps in pursuing the enhancement of broadband services and access to the internet for
the Roanoke Valley.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
At the February 12, 2013, BoS meeting, Mr. lannello and Mr. English advised that the
Task Force reviewed a study commissioned by local governments and business located in
the Roanoke Valley.
The report found: "The Roanoke Region is lagging behind other communities when it
comes to its fiber optic network, and it needs to take action."
The main challenges identified by the Design IVine study were:
1. Accessibility: There are many areas of the region which have limited or no access to
broadband service
2. Affordability: There is virtually no competition among providers which drives up the
cost.
3. Reliability: There is no fully redundant fiber ring in the region, meaning that if a fiber
line gets cut there is no way to re -route service and keep customers working. For
businesses this is critical.
4. Speed: Businesses need faster access speeds that will allow them to work from
there offices in the valley with companies and customers anywhere in the world.
Page 1 of 2
"These challenges may seem technical said Andrew Cohill, President of Design Nine,
authors of the study, but the bottom line is that the Roanoke region lacks a robust fiber
backbone to carry it into the 21 st century. If we don't move now, we will be left on the side
of the information super highway."
Using the study, the task force has identified three primary areas that need to be
addressed:
1. Develop local government policies and cooperative agreements that expand the
infrastructure of broadband throughout the region.
2. Improve the availability of low -cost broadband for residents and business throughout
the region.
3. Explore the need and economic feasibility of one or more data centers in the region.
Attached to this report is a copy of the Task Force recommendations. The Task Force's
representatives at the February 12, 2013, meeting recommended creation of a Wireless
Authority to assist in implementing the recommendations and to move the Valley forward.
The Wireless Authorities Act was established to help promote better public /private
cooperation and planning in development of fiber.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At this time, a cost estimate for participation in these discussions is unknown. Staff
anticipates that during the ongoing discussions, it may be necessary for the participating
parties to share in the cost for staff /consultants which may be necessary to assist in
moving forward the draft recommendations. The cost should be minimally, if the number of
participating local governments includes or exceeds three or more.
ALTERNATIVES:
1.) Accept report and file for future action.
2.) Accept report and decline future action.
3.) Accept report and authorize County staff to participate in discussions to form a
Valley wide Wireless Authority with Board of Supervisor approval before any formal
action.
These are the three alternatives presented at the February 12, 2013, meeting. During the
work session discussion, it was the consensus of the BoS that this matter be placed on the
next agenda and the BoS consider adopting a resolution of support authorizing the County
Administrator and designated County staff to continue the discussion as to the formation of
the appropriate body to move forward the Task Force recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is my recommendation that the County continues its participation in this process and also
considers supporting the creation of a Wireless Authority to identify strategies and
programs which can address the three primary areas listed above.
Page 2 of 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
RESOLUTION FOR ROANOKE COUNTY'S CONTINUED
PARTICIPATION IN THE ROANOKE VALLEY'S COMMUNITY
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATE AND CONDITION OF BROAD
BAND
WHEREAS, Roanoke County along with other local governments, and private
businesses have participated in a Broad Band Task Force which had reviewed a study
commissioned by local governments and business located in the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the report found: "The Roanoke Region is lagging behind other
communities when it comes to its fiber optic network, and it needs to take action"; and
WHEREAS, The Study prepared by Design Nine found that the four main
challenges in the Roanoke Valley were:
1. Accessibility: There are many areas of the region which have limited or no
access to broadband service
2. Affordability: There is virtually no competition among providers which drives
up the cost.
3. Reliability: There is no fully redundant fiber ring in the region, meaning that if
a fiber line gets cut there is no way to re -route service and keep customers
working. For businesses this is critical.
4. Speed: Businesses need faster access speeds that will allow them to work
from there offices in the valley with companies and customers anywhere in
the world; and
WHEREAS, Victor lannello and Sam English conducted a work session at the
Board of Supervisors February 12, 2013, meeting and presented the Task Force's
Page 1 of 2
recommendations and next step in pursuing the enhancement of broadband services
and access to the internet for the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the task force has identified three primary areas that need to be
addressed:
1. Develop local government policies and cooperative agreements that expand
the infrastructure of broadband throughout the region.
2. Improve the availability of low -cost broadband for residents and business
throughout the region.
3. Explore the need and economic feasibility of one or more data centers in the
region.
The Task Force's representatives at the February 12, 2013, meeting also
recommended creation of a Wireless Authority to assist in implementing the
recommendations and to move the Valley forward. The Wireless Authorities Act was
established to help promote better public /private cooperation and planning in
development of fiber.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby accept the Broad band Task Force recommendation and
authorize the County Administrator and designated County staff to continue participating
in ongoing discussions on how best to move forward the Broad band Task Force's
recommendation and establish robust fiber backbone to carry the Roanoke Valley into
the 21 st century.
Page of
DRAFT Recommendations
Roanoke Valley Broadband /Fiber Taskforce
Whereas we believe that the use and importance of the internet will grow, and the Roanoke Valley and
the New River Valley region need to develop a plan that addresses our current and future needs in order
to accelerate the growth of our regional economy and attract new residents. To this end, we recognize
that access to high speed, reasonably - priced internet services will enable:
• Business Communities to be better positioned to Incubate, attract, retain, and grog companies
• Educational institutions to be better equipped to prepare our students to enter the workforce
• Residential communities to improve the quality and variety of in -home entertainment options
and to improve the economic viability of home -based businesses
In order to meet these objectives, we identify the following needs and associated action items:
Need: Develop local government policies and cooperative agreements that expand the infrastructure of
broadband throughout the region.
Actions:
• Identify and reach out to large companies, institutions and broadband users to broaden
stakeholder support.
• develop a master plan for construction and operation of a high speed, redundant, Regional
Network Ring with connection to the Mid Atlantic Broadband Communities Corporation (MBC)
and/or Citizens Telephone Cooperative. The network should reach schools, industrial parks,
large employers, and other economic centers.
• Develop cooperative agreements for localities with technical specifications and commercial
terms for operat1ng network and for exchanging data across jurisdictional boundaries.
• Develop and Implement "dig -once" requirements for construction projects, including the
placement of open - access conduit for optical fiber cable.
■ Explore the creation of policies and /or agreements with "Carillon Clinic and Virginia Tech for
open- access to high speed Internet In their adjacent communities.
■ Work with the New River Valley and other adjacent communities that are supporting existing
broadband /fiber deployments.
• identify the benefits and process of creating a more formal broadband committee structure or
broadband authority to create assist with policy development, infrastructure development,
partnership agreements, and asset ownership.
• Provide support to the City of Salem in any efforts to expand their fiber network through the
Salem Electric Department.
■ Communicate broadband related activities and technology to the public and a clear and efficient
manner.
Need: Improve the availability of low -cost broadband for residents and business throughout the re ion.
Actions:
• Encourage the rapid deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 by cable operators in the region to increase the
bandwidth at an affordable cost to cable subscribers.
• Streamline permitting of towers for Long Term Evolution (LTE), marketed as 4G LTE, to increase
the availability of wire -less broadband, with emphasis on rural parts of the region.
* •Promote open- access to the Regional Network Ring to other broadband providers to encourage
competitive and diverse offerings of internet services In the region.
• work with Virginia Tech, CIT, the western Virginia Water Authority and other entities to conduct
a vertical asset inventory relating to wireless technology deployment.
• Identify wireless opportunities and partnerships to provide broadband opportunities to
underserved areas.
• Work with existing providers to streamline regulations/permitting and encourage affordable
service options.
* As the broadband market changes and bandwidth demand increases, consider development of
an RFI, with assistance from Virginia CIT, for an open access fiber -to- the -home (FTTH) network.
Advertise the RFI nationally and carefully examine the viability of such a network in the Roanoke
Valley.
Need: Ex l ore the need and economic feasibility of one or more data centers in the re ion
* Research the development and operation requirements of a data center, to establish the
benefits for the Roanoke Valley. Assess the value of a data center for recruiting new businesses
to the region and for incubating new businesses, as well as support for existing businesses and
institutions.
• Survey potential users of data centers, including local governments, state agencies, educational
institutions, and existing businesses, and assess their collective needs and potential
partnerships.
* Develop a preliminary business plan for the data center to assess its economic feasibility.
• Concurrently identify site requirements and/or potential sites for a data center.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E -3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DA'rE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA rrEM: Resolution supporting Starkey Road /Buck Mountain Road
Traffic Safety Study
SUBMITTED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
A citizen from the Cave Spring District brought to me a copy of a petition with more than
600 signatures on it, requesting that VDOT consider making public safety improvements to
the intersection of Starkey Road, and Buck Mt. Road. This is a very busy intersection, in
which 4 public schools have school buses that travel this route twice a day.
There is a daycare center located on Starkey Road and a refueling station for large tai '
trucks also located on Starkey Road. Supervisor Moore has stated that she has had
requests from citizens, who live near this intersection and from parents and teachers that
safety improvements are looked into. Supervisor Moore has asked the BOS to support a
resolution requesting that VDOT do a study of this intersection to evaluate any safety
improvements that may address the citizens' concerns.
Attached to this report is a proposed resolution to support a petition containing over 600
signatures from citizens requesting that VDOT make public safety improvements to the
intersection of Buck Mt. and Starkey Road.
Page 1 of 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO STUDY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
INTERSECTION OF STARKEY ROAD AND BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD
IN ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, six hundred and fifteen (615) citizens of Roanoke County have
signed a petition requesting the construction of safety improvements at the intersection
of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road; and
WHEREAS, Penn Forest Elementary, Clearbrook Elementary, Cave Spring
Middle School, Cave Spring High School, and Faith Christian School all have school
buses that travel this intersection twice a day, and Country Bear Day Care is also
located on Starkey Road, and these parents use this intersection; and
WHEREAS, many large trucks and fuel tanker trucks utilize these roads to
access U.S. Route 220 in order to avoid traffic congestion of Route 419; and
WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions are located near this intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Virginia Department of Transportation study possible safety
improvements for the intersection of Starkey Road and Buck Mountain Road.
2. That the Virginia Department of Transportation consider making public
safety improvements to this intersection.
3. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors send a copy of this resolution
to Delegate Greg Habeeb, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Senators Mark Warner,
Timothy Kaine.
Page 1of1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. F -1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Requests for public hearing and first reading for rezoning
ordinances; consent agenda
SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson
Deputy Director of Planning
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator t
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
BACKGROUND
The first reading on this ordinance is accorripiished by adoption of this ordinance in the
manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of this item does not imply approval of the
substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the
procedural requirements of the County charter and schedules the required public hearing
and second reading of this ordinance. The second reading and public hearing on this
ordinance is scheduled for March 26 2013.
The title of this ordinance is as follows:
1. The petition of Old Heritage Corporation to rezone approximately 1.880 acres
from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to C -1 C, Office, District with proffered
conditions, located near the intersection of Crossbow Circle and Franklin Road
(Route 220 South) and including a portion of 5259 Crossbow circle, cave
Spring Magisterial District
Maps are attached. More detailed information is available in the Clerk's Office.
Page 1 of 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends as follows:
1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this rezoning ordinance for the
purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for March 26 2013
2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth as Item 1, and that the Clerk is 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 action.
Paget oft
Count of Roanoke
Communit Development
Plannin & Zonin
5204 Bernard Drive
P 0 Box 29800
Roanoke, V.A 24018-0798
(540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155
ALL APPLICANTS
Fria Staff I.Jqe 0n1v
Date received:
Received b
0\ Q,
ONO F CQ
Appk,ation fed'-
PC/Ek'pl,-A d,,'w.:
Placards issued:
Bu S dav-,,.
c)
C a ,;t N a mbe r
Check t of application fi led (check all that appl
N Rezonin 11 Special Use 11 Variance 0 Waiver 0 Administrative Appeal 0 Coin p Plan (15.2-223,.?) Review
Applicants name/address w/zip
Old Herita Corporation
c/o C W. Creamer
P . Box 8425, Roanoke,, VA 24014
Owner's name/address w/ zip
Same as Applicant
Propert Location Intersect. of Crossbow
Circle & Franklin Rd./US Rt. 220S and
52.59 Crossbow Circle
Tax Map No. - Por t ion of 88.0 5 -01 �01 . 00
and Portion of 87.08
Size of parcel ( s ) - Acres: 1.880
Phone- 540-1537-8555
Work.
Cell 9: 5 3 7-8 5 5 5
Fax No,: 540-774-3669
Phone 9:
Work-.
f q
lax No.
Ma Distria Cave -S
pr-in
Communit Plannin area: NA
1,.-'x i s t I. n g Zoni n g '. R1 Low Densit Residential
Existin Land Use Vacant
RP,-7, 0.7VING, SPECL4 L USE PERMI T, WA I VER A ND COMP PLA N ( 15 2 - 22 3 2 ) RE 111E W A PPL ICA N TV (R/ S fW / C P)
ProposedZonin C-1, Office District
F- -i
Proposed Land Use: 01-11ce
Does the parcel nne the minimum lot area, width, and fronta re irements of the re district?
Yes"XX N .0 N IF N0 A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST.
Does the parcel meet the ini n imurn criteria for the re Use T y pe? Yes Jdc No ❑
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS RE FIRST
If rezonin re are conditions bein proffered with this re Yes
VA R NC E, WA I VE R AND A DJUINISTRA T1 VE A PPE4 L A PPLICA NTS ( V4 ° AA
Variance/ Waiver of Section (s)
of the Roanoke Coutit on in Ord i nan ce in order to -
A p-p ea I of Zonin Ad.m int' s trator " s decision- to
Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke Count Zonin Ordinance
Appeal of Interpretation of Zonin Map to
I s th e app icat ion complete? Please check if enclosed.. APPLICATION W I L L NOT BE ACCE PTE D I F A NY OF THESE ITEMS
ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE.
R/.S'AV/CP VIAA 'R/,S/W/CP V/AA M�SAN'.-'('P V
Consultation 8 1/2 01 x 1. 1 " concept plan Application fee
Application Metes and bounds description ProMrs, if applicable
Justification Water and sewer application Adjoiriin properl owner
I hereb certif that I am either the owner o6 0 J ort C owner"s a q, ontract purchaser and am aQtin with the know lod and consent
P ta C OD
f the owncr, R 0 r a n
I
00
10'' I ; 111 Owner"s Si
is W. 'Cr4�66'r
19
J L) STI SIC AT I ON FOR REZONIN G, SPEC 1A L USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COM P PLAN ( 15.2-2232 ) REV I F'W
REQUESTS
Applicant Old He ri t o Cor-pora. t i on
The Plannin Commission will stud rezonin special use perMit waiver or communit plan (15.2-2232) review re to
detemine the need and justification for the chan in terms of public health, safet and g eneral w elf arei Please answer the
followin q uestions as thorou as possible. Use additional space if necessar
Please explain how the re furthers the put-poses of the Roanoke Count Ordinance as we] I as the purpose found at the
be of the applicable zonin district classification in the Zonin Ordinance.
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
Please explain how the pro conforms to the g eneral g uidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke Count Communit
Plan.
Please describe the i-tnpact o f the re on the propert itself, the adj oinin properties, and the surround in area, as wel I as
the impacts on public services and facilities, includin water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue.
SEE -ATT-ACHED SHEET
Please explain how the reciuest furthers the -pur es of the Roanoke Count Qrdinance
as well as the purpose found at the beginninR.... the a pplicable -zoning district
classification in the Zonina Ordinance,.
The purpose of C- I Office District is to provide locations for the development of office uses
R.
in the urban service area which serve both communit and counl needs, The subject
propert is located on a corner lot alon a major arterial road, U,S. Route 220/Franktl'n Road,
in an area alread developed and. continui i g to
, be develo m
ped as comercial. A C-1
development of the subject propert would serve as a lo buffer between U.S. Route
220/Fran.klin Road and the residential. development ad . . :Y the subject propeft .
inin
Please explain how the RM i. ect conforms to the g eneral 2uidefines and Policies
,contained. in the RoanCount Communit Plan.
A portion of tax map 088.05-01-01 is desi as a Core area in the Roanoke Count
Communit Plan in the Future Land Usc Map. The Communit Plan identifies a core area as
an area where hi intensit urban development is encoura Land use within core areas
41
ma parallel -the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem, and Vinton., Core areas ma
also be appropriate for lar hi oriented retail uses and re
shoppin facilities. The balance of the tax parcel is desi Nei Conservation
in the Communit Plan. However, this propert is located on a corner lot frontin one of the
major commercial corridors in. the Roanoke Valle at a si intersection. Comm erc'I'al
uses exist on both sides of the U.S. Route 220/1'ranklin Road coiTidor 'in the nei of
the subject propert Rezonin this propert to C-I is consistent with the g uidelines set in
the Communit Plan. Furthermore, g iven the commercial 'flavor of the, propert location,
y our applicant is convinced that it cannot be developed for residential purposes.
Please descri the impact(s) of the request on the propert itself, the adj oini
properties, and the surroundin area, as w� the __ impac ts on -public services and
facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue,,
Because thl's propert is located in what is alrcad a maJor commercial corridor, no adverse
i I
i mpacts on public sery - ices are anticipated.
CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST
A concept plan of the proposed pro must be submitted with the applicati ai r,, r[,I,, concept p lan sly a] I g raph ical l depict the
[and use chan development or variance that is to be considered. Fuillier, flic plan shall address an potential land use or
desi issues arisin from the re In such cases involvin rezonin the applicant ma pry off-er conditions to limit the future
use and development of the propert an b so do in g , correct an deficiencies that ma not be mana b Count permittin
re
1'he concept plan shoul not be confused with the site plan or pl ot plan that is re prior to the issuance of a bull din permit.
Site plan and buildin perms it procedures ensure compliance with State and Count development repulations and ma re
chan to the in itial concept plan. Unl ess I imitin conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezonin or imposed on a special
use permit or variance, the concept plan ma be altered to the extent permitted b the zonin district and other re
A concept plan is re with all rezonin special use pert-nit, waiver, communit plan ( 15.2-2232) review and variance
a pp li cations. ]he ' plan should be prepared b a professional site planner. The level of detal I ma var depen din on the nature
of the re "rhe Count Plannin Division staff ma exempt some of the items or su the addition of extra items, but the
followin are considered minimum:
ALL APPLICANTS
A � a. Applicant name and name of development
b. Date, scale and north arrow
c. Lot size in acres or s feet and dimensions
d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke Count tax map numbers of adjoinin properties
e. Ph features such as g round cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc.
f. The zonin and land use of all adjacent properties
g . All propert lines and easements
h, All buildin existin and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and hei
i. t,ocation, widths and names of all existin or platted streets or other public wa within or adjacent to the development
J. Dimensions and locations of all drivewa parkin spaces and loadin spaces
lid(litional information re REZONING and SPECIAL UL�E PERMIT A P PLICANYS
k. Existin utilities (rater, sewer, storm drains and connections at the site
1. An drivewa entrances/exits, curb openin and crossovers
m. Topo map in a suitable scale and contour intervals
n. Approximate street g rades and site distances at intersections
o. Locations of all adjacent fire h
p, An proffered conditions at the site and how the are addressed
A// j q . If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule
certif that all items re in the checklist above are complete.
Old Hen ga q prporation
B
Si of a plkant thi, reamer ate
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The followin is a deed description for the southerl portion of Roanoke Count Tax #
088.05-01-01.W This description does not include the 0,315 acre portion of Roanoke
Count Tax 4 088.05-01-01.00 located alon the nortlict-l ri line of Crossbow
Circle. The description Is as follows:
BEGINNING at an existin iron pin located on the southerl ri of Crossbow
Circle, said point atso bein the northwesterl corner of Lot 1, Block 1, of Section 8 4,
"Huntin Hills," as recorded in Plat Book 7, Pa 21 of the public records of Roanoke
Count Vir bein the propert of Old Herita Corporation as recorded 'in
Instrument # 201109651, desi as Roanoke Count Tax # 087.08-02-04.00, thence
leavin the said propert of Old Herita Corporation and with the southerl ri
line of Crossbow Circle for the followin three courses r-un with a curve to the ri
which said curve is defined b a delta an of 25' 19' 09", a. radius of 250,00, an arc
len of 11 0.4 8', a chord o f 109.5 81 and beari n 5 6" 40' 2 5 " E, to an ex stin iron pi n
thence N 69' 20' 0011 E� 221.,29' to a point thence with a curve to the ri which said
curve is defined b a delta an of 89' 48' 20", a radius of 30.003, an arc len of
47.029 , a chord 42.35', and bearin S 65' 45' 50" E, to a point, said point located on the
westerl ri of Franklin Road ( U.S., Route # 220 thence leavin Crossbow
Circle and with Franklin Road for the followin two courses; run S 20' 5 V 40"' E,
128.97' to a, point; -thence S 22' 04' 13" E,) 205.33' to a point, said point located on the
northerl 'boundar of the propert of Huntin Hills Golf, LLC, Roanoke Count Tax #
087.12-01-21.00 thence leavin Franklin Road and with Huntin I-Till's Golf, LL C, run S
570 52' 30" WD 47.00' to a point, said point bein the northeasterl corner of Roanoke
Count Tax # 088.05-0.1-02.00,.p.ropert of Michael L. & Sall A. Lodebole, bein Lot
16, Block 1, of the said Section. # 4, "Huntin Hills," thence leavin Huntin Hills Golf.,
LLC and run N 62' 565 00i" W, with the northerl propert line of Lodebole for 287-39'
and with the northerl propert line of Old Herita Corporation's Lot I Block I of the
Section s id on # 4. "Huntin Hills", in, all a distance of 472.22' to the northwesterl corner
sa id I
of Lot 1, Block I, of the said Section 9 4. "Huntin Hills", the place of be and
containin 77,722 S Feet, 1.784 Acres,
LEGAL DESCRITTION OF PROPERTY
The followin 'is a deed description for a 0.096 acre portion of Tax # 087.08-02-04.00
bein the northerl portion of ori Lot 1, Block, 1, Section #4, "Huntin Hilts", as
recorded in P.B.7, PG. 21. The description is as follows:
BEGINNING at an existin iron pin located on the southerl ri of Crossbow
Circle, said point also bein the northwesterl corner of Lot 1, Block 1, of the said
Section # 4, "Huntin Hills," bein the propert of Old Herita Corporation as recorded
in Instrument # 201109651, desi as Roanoke Count Tax # 087A-02-04.00
thence with the northerl propert line of said propert of Old Herita Corporation as
recorded in In strum ent # 201109651 and with the southerl propert line of Roanoke
Count Tax # 088.05-.01-01.00, run S 62 56' 0011 E, 184.93" to the northwesterl corner
of Roanoke Count Tax # 088.05-01-02.00, propert of Michael L. & Sall A. Lo del ole,
bein Lot 16, Block 1, of the said Section #4, "Huntin Hills," thence leavin Roanoke
Count Tax # 088.05 -01- 1.00 and with the propert line between Lot 1, Block I and Lot
16, Block I of the said Section #4, "Huntin Mills ", the said 1,ot 16 bein the propert of
Michael L. and Sall A. Lodebole, run S 27' 04' 00" W, 22.27' to a point, thence leavin
the propei-t of Lodebole and with a proposed new division line thru the propert of Old
Herita Corporation, bein Lot I., Block 1, of the said Section #4, "Huntin Hilts" as
follows-. run N 620 56' 00" W, 190.52' to a point located on the southerl ri of
Crossbow Circle, thence with the southerl ri of Crossbow Circle alon a
curve to the ri which said curve is defined b a. delta an of 5' 16' 10", a radius of
250.005, an are len of 22.99', a chord of 22,98' and bearin N 41' 22" 46'5 E to the
place of be and containin 4,184 S Feet, 0.096 Acres.
Address of Subiect Promarfji= Vacant lot located at intersection of Crossbow Circle and Franklin Road/
U.S. Route 220 South and 5.259 Crossbow Circle
Cave Sprin Ma District
Roanoke Count
Tax Mao Nos.:- Portion of 088.05-01-01.00-0000
Portion of 087-08-02-04.00-0000
Present Zon[n RI , Low Densit Residential
Proposed Zonin -1, Office District
Applicant's Nanne: Old Herita Corporation
c/o C th is W. Creamer
P. 0. Box 8425
Roanoke, Vir 24014
Owner: Same as Applicant
AMENDED PROFFERS
The undersi ownerlapplicant does hereb proffer the followin conditions in conjunction with rezonin
application:
1. The followin buildin finishes are prohibited on an buildin constructed on the Propert
a. Unpainted or bare metal panels
b, Bare exposed concrete that is not exposed a hammered, sand
Masted or covered with a cement based acr coatin
C. Unfinished wood other than cedar, maho teak or redwood
2. Acceptable buildin finishes for an buildin on the Propert Include;
a. brick
b. wood, vin or composite wood substitute lap sidin and trim
G. stucco or exterior 1 n su lated finis h s (E I FS
d. -stone face colored concrete block
e. stone or cast stone
f, standrn seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shin roof
3. The maximum hei of a buildin on the propert shall be 40 feet.
4. The roof of an buildin on the propert shall be pitched, and not flat, and shall be
residential in st such as a g abled roof, hip roof or mansard roof.
5. Freestandin si shall be monument st utilizin materials listed as acceptable
buildin materjais in proffer 2 above. Monument si shall be located within the 90'
monument si setback area denoted on the Concept Plan prepared b Lumsden
Associates, P. C. dated Januar 14, 2013. This does not preclude, however, directional
si bein located outside the monument si g n setback area.
6. Retainin walls shall be subject to proffers 1 and 2 above relatin to construction
materials or be composed of textured ke blocks.
7. Re screenin of service and trash areas shall be with finish materials matchin the
exterior fin ish materla I of th e bu i Id i n for wh ich it serves..
8. Site Li
a. All I.i on the Propert shall be shielded "cut off' t to internalize
illumination and avoid spillover to adjacent residential properties.
b. No exposed fluorescent li shall be permitted.
C. The maximum hei of freestandin li fixtures shall be 18 feet,
9. Landscapin and Ve
a. I n order to provide add itio n al b u f f erin to the adj n in res! . nt-i a I ne i h borhood s ,
that portion of tax map parcel 087.08-02-04-00 for which rezonin is re
shall remain undeveloped except for [nstal lire g such additional landscapin
g radin g or utilities related to storm water detention as ma be needed to serve
the balance of the Propert
Dated this da of Januar 2013.
Respectfull submitted,
OLD HERITA(3E CORPORATION,
B
ra e4s u
r�t W, ream re t r r
ek, Sec
ii f
lij ,., ; ;-
L��
i
H
cy
k
a--cc Lel
EN
Lu Iz Ell
CL Zi
L�j L. Zj
-o—z ft
LU Ki r am:
Ln _j
LL
LLJ If!
LLJ
CY) Ir-
0
'F— CC)
CD
Et
LLJ
_j
U
iq
Elf
0
02
LA
Ln
u
L
Ln
;� cs �2
0
0
LD -
CL CS
-'_
gn
I
Q:
Ql�l
j
u
<
Z
U Z
�� 1� R
C ,
Q
2
Q
"S'
LD
Q
r r
0
0
a)
0
LL
0
c LLI
u Ln
>-
I_
uj On ci
2 C�
LLj
E '
US NZ
W LL:
vi
LL.
CL
LLJ
Z
13L
�
rz
� �
11, CL
. -.1 ILJ
0 6 CS U-J.
W
u
LL. w
0
z
L L' Z
Fm
'_.) �'
L, Lu 1-i z,
Q I-
Q
z
LLJ
CE
L of
o z
z 0
v �o
l L4J
z
L/)
0
Z_E
(r) Lu
LLI
>
C) <
Sf z
<
d rZ5 N
zz
Q 686�Wmln
zz -:z
u
w
Li
zi
z
LLJ
77
- Wi'Sr
0
Z
ii f
lij ,., ; ;-
L��
i
H
cy
k
a--cc Lel
EN
Lu Iz Ell
CL Zi
L�j L. Zj
-o—z ft
LU Ki r am:
Ln _j
LL
LLJ If!
LLJ
CY) Ir-
0
'F— CC)
CD
Et
I—
Z �"j U
LO
Q5
Z
�7,
I 'CL
Z
Z
,z) Cl
:z SC
F.
'-J 'lil -4 LL
CI:
3< LY C,
ti CS f_km C-5
;� �s CL
zi C �_
d :Z) 4
LL' ti Cb
Ca
CL
2 a — LrI
m u
4- 0
0
0u E
o c) E
Ln 0 Ln
4E
kA
<
E
Lo
Lj
L)
Lo U _ 0 Ln
OL
U.j >w c
Ln Ln
< B o
Ln kA 0
� o w
m r
-0 —
LW C
0
Ld _c 2'
Ln Ln M 0 CL .— >_
LLJ co
Z) I—
z CD
LLJ 1;4-
>
z z
0
CC) >
5� C-4 L2
< x S
ce 0 (:)
cc Z
<
0
"r CL CL-
L) C)
0 5- e�
U)
C -
Z Z
0--i w w
6 m p - 9 0 1 d - L 9 L L L U 0 \ L g t 0 Z \ S 5 U I M 12 J p \: AA
Cb
q w vv
m
L
0
Ql�l
j
r r
a)
P-1 N [L
z
C) C)
Vr
C)
Lr) Lr) ur)
, L
Z <
C) H @)
R fJ
I—
Z �"j U
LO
Q5
Z
�7,
I 'CL
Z
Z
,z) Cl
:z SC
F.
'-J 'lil -4 LL
CI:
3< LY C,
ti CS f_km C-5
;� �s CL
zi C �_
d :Z) 4
LL' ti Cb
Ca
CL
2 a — LrI
m u
4- 0
0
0u E
o c) E
Ln 0 Ln
4E
kA
<
E
Lo
Lj
L)
Lo U _ 0 Ln
OL
U.j >w c
Ln Ln
< B o
Ln kA 0
� o w
m r
-0 —
LW C
0
Ld _c 2'
Ln Ln M 0 CL .— >_
LLJ co
Z) I—
z CD
LLJ 1;4-
>
z z
0
CC) >
5� C-4 L2
< x S
ce 0 (:)
cc Z
<
0
"r CL CL-
L) C)
0 5- e�
U)
C -
Z Z
0--i w w
6 m p - 9 0 1 d - L 9 L L L U 0 \ L g t 0 Z \ S 5 U I M 12 J p \: AA
Cb
q w vv
LLI
—j
L)
V)
Z
,
C an
Ln Z
L u
0 P <
LLJ L) V1 z
Lr) C)
ce) --j IY
Ln 5 C) :L(
V) rA o CIL' a� -
LL. C) LLJ
ry C: L
V) LLJ –) L/)
L) Cl LLJ G
< Q < o
Q-
LLJ LL. LLJ < U
> 0 � � ,
z
LU LLS z
< z = <
LLJ ce-
>
0 <
V) L)
LLJ
—j
0
0
z
,� C)
C!) D 0
z 2 QL 7
U) ILLI -
z < z :a
w 0 cn
0, �� 0 C) ca
LU
C) CL > Z D
w a <
LLJ
U)
LLJ Li
0 y
U) W w
W M
xs w -
_j
-i
3:
z
T 7
C) F- :�i 0
Lij ]z
LL] <
(n wo 00 Lu <
w Lj C� Lu D 0- z
LLJ ¢- u F 5 � -,t L.L
cr < M 2 LLJ 2: N ,
n1f ix F- Li > 0 C � z
Z LU z
w U) Lil C LLI
LL -
LL u w
(= CD
F- W 7)
m (D Lt, 0 (1, (D w z
Im
LLJ T- Lu w LLJ LJ (n 0
z > w >
w cr w 0
7)
EL < < 0
L F ) 0 , -w:
:D
LL D
Z Of LLJ ILL
Lu LL LL
CL L.L LLI <
LL LL 0 -j < 00
N LL :3 0 Z 0
D m -j LLI T-
W
1� W LLJ >
Cn 0 [r 2! LLj C�
0 — W3 LU
F - W LLJ LLJ 2 0 T-
T- CL > b U) Z LL 2 r
LLJ Lo < 0 0 IN
c 0 0
(D'CR: NFINWHiM Z zli-nod ST
TN 7 78 1 S—� 3 6 TOTS -C N- Y'l 0
LU
z
m
.LL
2
LL
z
g6
D
cc w
Ix
w ;., w C)
CIL 0 W
< LL , L I
0 w
V) 0 � Z
C) I- Ef c
z Z
UJ
QLJ W LLI
a 0 o-
�x It Q .
> - rL +
LU t LL-
LLJ 0
cr
c 17
i f Ek z
u
I wl� 0
0 +
Er C4
s.
jN
=IN TXE87-009ff +
+
11 dz-
0 O N I O N 1 r ?
LL
0
0
cr -1
z <
0 9:
F- C)
< LL Z
U) < <
Z:
L.Li
Z W C2 F-
L.) LL LL
Z LL (n
o 0
CL
Z
W Z a- C)
(n V) < W
GL C) I 1-u
GL z —
Lo CL o
W 0-
QL W <
LLI CL LLJ _
0 7r W T:
0 0 0 0 0
+
Ovc)� 11ANvd razz n o sTn
+
r m
vy
p =
0
0
g
j p
Lu
0
,L'L
J L
+
jJ �
OL
T
<
U-i
z
N
Ir
0
Lr)
"7r 2
z
LL
Lr) Ln
Z <
0
CL
CO
z CD
LL; -'T
> C-4
C)
U-1
>
C)
< ><
o o
Z
<
0
CL me
C )
7K 0
'310 36
moos
Uo
0 0 0 a c 0 0 0
0 in n
z
0
C)
W
U)
T
<
U-i
z
N
Ir
0
Lr)
"7r 2
z
LL
Lr) Ln
Z <
0
CL
CO
z CD
LL; -'T
> C-4
C)
U-1
>
C)
< ><
o o
Z
<
0
CL me
C )
7K 0
4 1 " UA
�0 �L�'�LM�L.1'L�WEALTH of VIRG
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PO BOX 3071
GREGORY A. WHIRLEY SALEM, VA 24153-0560
COMMISSIONER
Au 28, 2012
Ms. Me Cronise
Roanoke Count Plannin Department
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
RE Rezonin — R -1 to C-2
Old Herita Corporation
Proposed Land Use — Commercial Retail Office
Route 1290, Crossbow Circle
Traffic Impact Anal — Concur
Dear Ms. Cronise:
The traffic impact anal for the above-mentioned development received b our office on
Au 8, 2012 has been reviewed and it appears that all applicable standards and specifications
have been met as the Vir Licensed Professional En has acknowled b si and
stampin the anal
The comments issued on Au 20, 2012 were addressed with Traffic Operations prior to the
submittal of the full report with the review of electronic files from the anal software,
Therefore, those comments are no lon valid.
Please be aware this concurrence does not constitute final approval of the re site plan for
the development which would include entrance location spacin intersection si distance,,
proposed draina etc.
Should y ou have an q uestions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank y ou.
Sincerel
Brian K. Blevins, P.E.
Area Land Use En
VD T, Salem District Transportation and Land Use
www.Vir
We Keep Vir Moving
All
IN,
yypp ts Ir
EWA
Air
- le
00
NAM& W
•7 L
lam&
Orr,
/m, m
.:. � lip �:d
�
7F
0
W
Z�
M
OL
C)
m
0
C)
(D
C)
C:
c1r)
0
W
0)
m
0
C)
OC) C)
C:) C'4
0
L-
0
Lo
C)
Q)
'M
(l)
0
—
00
OD C:
m
C) o
L)
4-;
■
Q)
C:
a) 0
U)
(D
4—
E
m
c:
-E
'E
0
N
En
`0
E
=3 C)
L)
m
CD
cn
m
0 M
U) 0
z
0
N
(D
a)
Z C
c:)
00
oc)
m
LL LO
0
U
-a
0)
C:
En
0
En
0
m 1
oo
C)
a)
C/)
3
C % 4
C) LO
CDL
<
X
LU
CDL
0
L-
0-
CDL
0
L-
0-
x r-�
00
C)
m
(D
<
m
I>
-
'3 v
..0000 lo
Y
V
a�
0
0
U
N
U
U
N
U
r
r
/ r
r
r
r
r
r
C'7
r
r
r
U
o
O M
C)
OC) N O
o Q) U Q- r L- 0 / M i
J
� � 1 ♦^ 2 �� (a N �' E a) U L
c� V, N - 00 C !n O_ y M
y� = r U (B O O U o O E
. .
tt L O (A U ++ C: c 0-
C C O U �+ a) ai O j U m
- -- U
`,r Z o N =3 o o G-1 c� .� C/)
z CV cc) m r co N C O
o U U) (A (a r 1"' r Cl)
LL •� LL LL o • 7"S1 • O v vJ 3?
N Q o O X (D ca N
O LO Q w 0- 0 �o Q 2�
i
i'
r
r
r
r
r
N r
1..V
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
C'7
r
r
r
U
o
O M
C)
OC) N O
o Q) U Q- r L- 0 / M i
J
� � 1 ♦^ 2 �� (a N �' E a) U L
c� V, N - 00 C !n O_ y M
y� = r U (B O O U o O E
. .
tt L O (A U ++ C: c 0-
C C O U �+ a) ai O j U m
- -- U
`,r Z o N =3 o o G-1 c� .� C/)
z CV cc) m r co N C O
o U U) (A (a r 1"' r Cl)
LL •� LL LL o • 7"S1 • O v vJ 3?
N Q o O X (D ca N
O LO Q w 0- 0 �o Q 2�
i
i'
r
r
r
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. G.1 -3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2613
AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Beards
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman 1I
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District)
The following one -year term expired on August 31, 2012:
a) Becky Walter, representing the Hollins Magisterial District; Ms. Walter has
served three consecutive terms and therefore cannot be reappointed.
2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District)
The three -year term of Roger L. Falls who represents the Vinton District expired on
June 36, 2012.
3. Social Services Advisory Board (appointed by District)
The four -year term of Charles Wertalik, Vinton Magisterial District, expired July 31,
2612. Mr. Wertalik has moved from the Vinton Magisterial District and therefore
cannot be reappointed.
Page 1 of 1
H
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE
DESIGNATED AS ITEM H- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February 26,
2013, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — February 12, 2013
2. Confirmation of appointments to the Community Policy and Management Team
(CPMT); Grievance Panel (at Large) and the League of Older Americans
3. Request to approve the Health Insurance Plan and premiums for 2013 -2014
4. Request to approve the Dental Plan and premiums for 2013 -2014
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County to Doris J. Johnson upon her retirement after more than twenty -one (21)
years of service
Page 1of1
0KO��e]
ITEM NO. H -2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMIT'IfED BY:
APPROVED BY:
February 20, 2013
Confirmation of appointments to the Community Policy and
Management Team (CPMT); Grievance Panel (at Large) and
the League of Older Americans
Deborah C. Jacks
Clerk to the Board
B. Clayton Goodman�.11,,,.�
County AdministratorlJ�S�
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT)
During the closed session on February 12, 2013, the Board recommended the following
appointments:
Lisa McDowell of Braley and Thompson to be appointed with a term to expire on June
30, 2013. This term expires on June 30, 2013.
Steve Turner to be confirmed as the Roanoke County Law Enforcement representative.
This appointment has no termination date.
2. Grievance Panel (at Large)
During the closed session on February 12, 2013, the Board recommended the
reappointment of Joanne Thompson for an additional three -year term to expire
February 20, 2010.
Page 1 of 2
3. League of older Americans
During the closed session on February 12, 2013, the Board recommended the
appointment of Gloria Clark with a term to expire on March 30, 2014,
Page 2 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H -3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 20, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve the Health Insurance Plan and premiums
for 2013 -2014
SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Owens
Director of Finance
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman ,III
County AdministratorTfKT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
As reviewed in a work session held on February 12, 2013, the county of Roanoke and
Roanoke County Public Schools participate in a joint health insurance program for eligible
employees. The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) and the Western Virginia
Regional Jail Authority (WVRJA) also participate in our plan. This medical plan is self -
funded with reinsurance coverage to minimize the financial risk assumed. Reinsurance is
currently composed of specific stop loss (individual employee claims) at $200,000.
Specific reinsurance protects the plan from any catastrophic claims paid on a member
during the plan year. The plan purchases administrative services, access to the network
physicians and facilities and claims administration from Anthem.
On February 18, 2013, representatives from the County, Schools and Western Virginia
Regional Jail Authority, met to review the renewal and discuss recommendations for the
2013 -2014 plan year.
A review of paid claims experience of the county, Schools, Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority, and Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority for the most recent twelve months
projected forward to the 2013 -2014 fiscal year indicates the need for an increase in rates of
two point five percent (2.5 %), which is well below the national health trends. In comparison
to the prior year, the number of specific losses in excess of $200,000 has decreased from
eight (8) to four (4) and overall claims experience for the year was better than projected. In
Page 1 of 4
addition to actual claims experience, increases in the cost of the specific stop loss
reinsurance and provisions required by the Affordable Care Act under national healthcare
reform are contributing to the net increase in the renewal rates.
Beginning in 2013, there will be two (2) new fees charged to the plan associated with the
Affordable Care Act including:
1. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Fee —This fee is established to fund research
that evaluates and compares health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, risks and
benefits of medical treatments and services in an attempt to make health care
professional and policy makers better informed regarding treatment options. The
fee is $1 per person covered under the plan per year and will be increased to $2 in
year two and is payable directly to the Internal Revenue Service in July 2013.
2. Transitional Reinsurance Fee —This fee is intended to spread financial risk across
all health insurers for greater market financial stability. It is expected that the
state /federal health exchanges will be covering individuals with greater health risk
and these fees are intended to offset that additional cost of the exchanges. The fee
is expected to be $5.25 per member per month and will be due in January 2014 and
payable for at least the first three years of the Exchanges' operations.
In an effort to provide both choice and a lower cost option to employees, staff has been
working since the fall of 2011 to research and bring forward a consumer driven health plan.
Work sessions were conducted with the School Board and /or Board of Supervisors in
February, August and November 2012 to explore these options. A few of the options
reviewed were a Health Savings Account (HSA) and a Health Reimbursement Arrangement
(HRA). A decision was made to proceed with a high deductible health plan (HDHP) with a
HRA and this renewal includes that option.
The HDHP includes the following general provisions:
Since our medical plan is self funded, the historical claims paid on the program are used to
establish rates and employee contributions for the plan. Some cost drivers from the review
period December 2011 through November 2012 are outlined below:
Page 2 of 4
KeyCa re 200
Current Plan
HDHP with HRA
New Plan
In Network Deductible
$200/$400
$1000/$2000
Out of Pocket Maximum
$3000/$6000
$3500/$7000
Coninsurance after deductible
80 %/20%
80 %/20%
HRA Contribution
None
$500/$1000
Doctor co -pays
$20/$40
N/A - pay up to deductible
Prescription drug benefit
$10/$25/$40 or 20%
$10/$25/$40 or 20%
Preventive care
Included
Same as Keycare 200
Since our medical plan is self funded, the historical claims paid on the program are used to
establish rates and employee contributions for the plan. Some cost drivers from the review
period December 2011 through November 2012 are outlined below:
Page 2 of 4
• Mandated Health Care Reform preventive benefits.
• New fees related to Health Care Reform
• Total claims, as a cost per member, have decreased seven point three percent
(7.3 %) from 2011 to 2012.
• During the review period, there were four claimants who exceeded the $200,000
specific stop loss limit with one claimant approaching $700,000. Additionally, there
have been eleven (11) claimants with claims in excess of $100,000. The incidence
of large claims is lower than the previous year but still a significant factor in the
renewal projections.
• In- network utilization of the plan continues to be high with ninety -nine point five
percent (99.5 %) of claim dollars submitted with network providers. The use of
Anthem's network providers protects members from balance billing and lowers
out -of- pocket costs.
• Generic utilization of prescription drugs is very strong at seventy -seven point nine
percent (77.9 %) during 2012.
Wells Fargo Insurance Services, our insurance consultant, negotiated that Anthem will
continue to provide the Plan with a wellness credit of $50,000 for the 2013 -2014 policy
year. This credit is shared among the entities participating in the Plan based on employee
counts.
The County and Schools have consistently kept overall medical costs below the national
average with annual increases of zero percent (0.0 %) for 2012 -2013 (after reducing
benefits), four point eight percent (4.8 %) for 2011 -2012, four point one percent (4.1 %) for
2010 -2011, zero percent (0 %) for 2009 -2010 and three point four seven percent (3.47 %)
for 2008 -2009, while national averages have ranged from eleven percent to twenty percent
(11 -20 %) during that time period. The Insurance Committee has been successful in
maintaining favorable performance during this time through plan design changes that have
addressed the underlying cost drivers of the program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As requested by the Board at the February 12, 2013, work session, the employer and
employee contributions for the rates will be brought for approval at a later date, which will
outline the fiscal impact on both the County and School budgets for the fiscal year 2013-
2014. Below are the new premiums for KeyCare 200 and the High Deductible Health Care
Plan for 2013 -2014:
Page 3 of 4
Subscriber Only
Subscriber + 1 minor
Employee + Spouse
Family
Married School & County Couple
Subscriber Only
Subscriber + 1 minor
Employee + Spouse
Family
Married School & County Couple
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Key Care 200 Plan
519.20
732.94
1064.34
1246.28
1246.28
High Deductible Plan
496.32
698.80
1013.00
1185.48
1185.48
Staff recommends approving the health insurance plan and premiums for fiscal year 2013-
2014.
Page of
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H -4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve the Dental Plan and premiums for 2013-
2014
SUBMIT'rED BY: Laurie Gearheart
Assistant Director of Finance
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman I
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
As reviewed in a work session held on February 12, 2013, The County of Roanoke and
Roanoke County Public Schools participate in the joint purchase of dental coverage for
their eligible employees and retirees through the Roanoke Valley Regional Health care
Consortium.
Since December 31, 2012 marked the end of a five (5)- year contract with Delta Dental, a
request for proposal was prepared for the 2013 -2014 renewal. Four (4) proposals were
received and evaluated. Carriers submitting bids included Anthem; Delta Dental (the
incumbent carrier for the consortium); MetLife and Dominion Dental Services, Inc. Based
on the bids submitted, follow up negotiations, references and evaluations of each finalist,
the committee agreed Delta Dental should be awarded the contract with an effective date
of January 1, 2013.
Delta Dental presented a proposal for a three point three percent (3.3 %) increase for -fiscal
year 2 013-2 014 and rate guarantees of a six percent (6 %) capped increase for 2014 -2015
and 2015 -2016. After an independent underwriting review and negotiations with Delta
Dental, Wells Fargo Insurance Services, our insurance consultant, was able to negotiate a
two point three percent (2.3 %) increase with Delta Dental. Delta Dental included
preventive services within their renewal as follows:
• Occlusal night guards
Page 1 of 2
• Prevention First program
• Composite filling under basic at 80% coverage
The agreement is for three (3) years with the option to renew for two (2) additional one (1)
year periods.
Since the dental plan is on a calendar year basis, a blended rate is calculated for the
employee rate each year in order to avoid changing the rates in the middle of the year.
Retirees pay a premium that is based on their experience in the dental plan. The dental
premiums will need to be increased for 2013-2014 as outlined on Attachment A and would
be effective July 1, 2013.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As requested by the Board at the February 12, 2013, work session, the employer and
employee share of the new rates will be brought for approval at a later date which will
outline the fiscal impact on both the County and School budgets for the fiscal year 2013-
2014.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the dental insurance plan and premiums for fiscal year 2013-
2014.
Page 2of2
Roanoke County and Roanoke County Schools Attachment A
Dental Insurance Renewal Rates
2013 -14
Current 2012 -13
Dental Plan
Monthly
Employee
Premium
Retiree
Premium
Subscriber Only
Subscriber Only
28.96
42.93
Subscriber + 1
47.14
70.11
Family
81.58
122.09
Married School & County Couple
81.58
n/a
Renewal 2013 -14
Dental Plan
Monthly Premium
Subscriber Only
29.62
46.12
Subscriber + 1
48.24
75.31
Family
83.46
131.15
Married School & County Couple
83.46
n/a
Current Membership
Retiree Membership
County Schools
County Schools
Subscriber Only
401 802
186 324
250 520
97 394
49 232
16 9
Subscriber + 1
Family
Total Members
837 1646
162 635
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H -5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Doris J. Johnson upon her
retirement after more than twenty -one (21) years of service
SUBMIT'rED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman kq
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
- rhe Honorable Philip Trompeter, Presiding Judge of the Twenty -Third Judicial Circuit Court
of Virginia; Roanoke County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has asked that
Roanoke County prepare a retirement resolution recognizing the retirement of Doris J.
Johnson, upon her retirement after more than twenty -one years as a Clerk in the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations District Court.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution.
Page 1 of 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO DORIS J. JOHNSON UPON
HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY -ONE (21) YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS, Doris J. Johnson was hired in July, 1991 as Deputy Clerk of the
Roanoke County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (J &DR) and was promoted
to Clerk of the J &DR Court in February, 2006; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Johnson retired on January 31, 2013 , after a total of over twenty-
one (21) years of dedicated, loyal and capable service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time as in the Clerk's office, Ms. Johnson served as Lead
Clerk of Court making the Roanoke County J &DR District Court Virginia's Pilot Court for
the court case management system for the Supreme Court of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Johnson served as an active member of the Adoption Day
Celebration for six (6) years, as well as Roanoke County's Domestic Violence Program and
Best Practices Program for Abused and Neglected Children; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Johnson also oversaw renovations to the Clerk's office and the
J &DR courtroom, allowing the court to operate more efficiently and effectively; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Johnson is highly regarded as a generous, kind and highly
competent Clerk of Court by the Court Services Unit, the Roanoke County Department of
Social Services, the Roanoke County Police Department and the Roanoke County Sheriff's
Office, as well as Adult Probation Services and the Roanoke County Administrative staff;
and
WHEREAS, Doris Johnson is cherished as a colleague and friend to the Judges and
Page 1 of 2
court staff of the Roanoke County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke
County to DORIS J. JOHNSON for more than twenty -one (21) years of capable, loyal and
dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and
productive retirement.
Page 2 of 2
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Amount
Audited balance at June 30, 2012 $ 20
L -1
% of General
Fund Revenue
10.87% *
Balance at February 28, 2013 $ 20
Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to increase the Genera
Fund Unappropriated Balance incrementally over several years.
* 2011 -12 -Goal of 11 % of General Fund Revenues
2011 -12 General Fund Revenues $192,720,943
11 % of General Fund Revenues $21,199,304
** 2012 -13 - Goal of 11% of General Fund Revenues
2012 -13 General Fund Revenues $192,297,748
11 % of General Fund Revenues $21,152,752
The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County is currently maintained at 10.70 %.
The County's goal is to increase the balance over time to 11.0%
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator �
4 n -7n01 **
L -2
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL RESERVES
Minor county capital Reserve
(Projects not In the CIP, archltecturallenglneering services, and other one -time expenditures.)
Audited balance at June 30, 2012
October 2012 Fire Truck loan payment for 2012 -13
Addition of 2011 -12 operations
Balance at February 25, 2013
Major County Capital Reserve
Amount
$1,674,126-06
300,000.00
1
$3
(Projects In the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects Identified In CIP, and land purchase opportunities.)
Audited balance at June 30, 2012 $938,181.00
Balance at February 25, 2013
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator?!�z
$938,151.00
L -3
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Amount
From 2012 -13 Original Budget $ 100
June 25, 2012 Appropriation for Legislative Liaison (32,400.00)
August 14, 2012 Appropriation for relocation of three Roanoke County polling precincts (3
December 11, 2012 Appropriation for retiring debt of the Veteran's Monument at the Vinton (5,000.00)
War Memorial
Balance at February 25, 2013 $ 59,350.00
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator 1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER L -4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER.
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of
January 31, 2013.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
CASH INVESTMENT:
SUNTRUST CON 5 5
GOVERNMENT:
SMITH BARNEY CONTRA
42,388.08
SMITH BARNEY
49
WELLS FARGO
20
WELLS FARGO CONTRA
(1 69
LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL:
GENERAL OPERATION
17 17
CD:
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST
2 2
MONEY MARKET:
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST 1
MORGAN STANLEY - JAIL 1
SMITH BARNEY 19
STELLAR ONE 3
WELLS FARGO 2 26
TOTAL 120
02/26/2013
M
O
N
� O
�n
o �
C7 °�
C
1L
CV
CV
sir'
07 LSD CY) N to 00 O (3) r O r 00 � LO N 00 CD 00 O N 00 f` (3)
00 ti 'IT 'IT N f` f` (D (D O 00 (D O (D � p (D O (D r N d)
O LO 6 M O O (D Lid O f` O r 6 r o0 co f` O (D r O O
i N i i r i i i r N 00 r N r M
i i i
M M f` N LO CF) r O D) CA O f` r M (D O 07 N (D M 00 N M 'IT
M 00 (3) M 00 w d7 � M d7 N 00 LO LO 0") N r N 00 O (fl 'IT 'IT
d) 00 O N M r f` N CA N 00 (D O � 'IT O LO M r r
LO LO r � M CD (D r r (D (D r 0 M M p N L0 O
M LO (D r M N LO r f` (D LO (D N M r
V - 00
M
I
CA
�
�
r
N
f`
r
C
r
CA
N
CA
LO
LO
p
M
M
(D
O
r f`
LO (D
f`
4-
O
a�
a
M
N
M
M
CA
O
LO
0)
It
(D
It
N
M
LSD
(D
(D
' L
(D (D
O N
6
(D
o0
p
6
1`
o0
o0
O
_N
r
1`
M
00
(D
O
N
O
00
V
a
4 CD
LO
4)
o
'IT
00
p
LO
=
a
r
N
LO
r
LSD
N
LO
q;T
d
N m
1-
M
LO
LO 'IT
00 f`
r
0
�
07
M
L6
C
N
r
>
>
M
L
�
� r
L
U
r
N
V M
M
N
CD
�
a�
r
r
LO
M
O
(D
LO
q*
N
r
(D
�
0) 00
d7 �
00
O
r
M
N
N
M
M
m
N
(D
O
00
00
O
_
r
(D
O
O G)
W
N
r
r
LA
�
00
(D
f`
O
.O
CA
m
o
O
r
t4
E -
�
f`
+�
0)
>
m
N
CC
1`
q;T
O
C
♦"� ti
f`
M
U
Cl) p
r
r
O
LO
4) 0
f`
00
(D LO
S
Z
O
00
N
LO
L O
LL
L
'IT
CV
M
CL
LO
f`
CV
a
Lo
E
N
�+
} '
O
.O
L.
0
q;T
�..�
a.
(D
r-
r
cn
M
(D
r
M
(3)
r
N
U
r
M
N
I
m
M
O
N
� O
�n
o �
C7 °�
C
1L
CV
CV
sir'
07 LSD CY) N to 00 O (3) r O r 00 � LO N 00 CD 00 O N 00 f` (3)
00 ti 'IT 'IT N f` f` (D (D O 00 (D O (D � p (D O (D r N d)
O LO 6 M O O (D Lid O f` O r 6 r o0 co f` O (D r O O
i N i i r i i i r N 00 r N r M
i i i
M M f` N LO CF) r O D) CA O f` r M (D O 07 N (D M 00 N M 'IT
M 00 (3) M 00 w d7 � M d7 N 00 LO LO 0") N r N 00 O (fl 'IT 'IT
d) 00 O N M r f` N CA N 00 (D O � 'IT O LO M r r
LO LO r � M CD (D r r (D (D r 0 M M p N L0 O
M LO (D r M N LO r f` (D LO (D N M r
V - 00
N
I
CA
co
r
O
f`
r
O
r
CA
N
CA
LO
LO
p
M
M
(D
O
r f`
LO (D
f`
N
00
M
�
M
M
CA
O
LO
0)
It
(D
It
N
M
LSD
(D
(D
O
(D (D
O N
6
(D
o0
p
6
1`
o0
o0
O
6
r
1`
M
00
(D
O
N
O
00
O
4 CD
LO
O
LO
'IT
00
p
LO
'IT
'IT
r
N
LO
r
LSD
N
LO
q;T
LO
M
to
1-
M
LO
LO 'IT
00 f`
r
0
�
07
M
L6
N
r
C
>
M
(1) (n
Lf�
00 M
r
N
00
M
N
CD
M
O
r
LO
M
O
(D
LO
q*
N
r
(D
�
0) 00
d7 �
00
O
r
M
N
N
M
M
M
N
(D
O
00
00
O
00
r
(D
O
O G)
r 00
N
r
r
LA
�
00
(D
f`
O
N
CA
(D
00
r
r
t4
CO
00
f`
(D
0)
I` 00
lq
N
co
1`
q;T
N
00
f`
M
f`
LO
r
r
O
LO
LO
f`
00
(D LO
T
O
00
LO
LO
07
f`
'IT
M
N
LO
f`
N
Lo
q*
N
It
} '
O
(D f-
0
q;T
00
O
(D
r-
r
cn
M
(D
r
M
(3)
r
N
U
r
M
N
I
N
V
r
O
(D
a) L
cn
+r
O
�
m
O
�
LL
c
a)
r
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
LO
O
1` O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
f`
f-
M r
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
07
M
CU
(D N
O O
LO
LO
O
p
M
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
O
LO
O
LO
r
p
LO
00
N
L
CY)
(D f`
00
r
f`
p
r
N
(D
f`
N
f`
O
1`
O
(D
0)
CD
M
r
N
+r
r
q;T M
r-
I`
r
LO
I`
CY)
(D
O
LO
r
N
LO
f-
(3)
CD
c-
It
1--
s=
00
N
E
u)
M
0)
M
(D
N
r
H
_
M
cn
M
O
O
U
w O
U
_
(D N
E
—
r
a
U
L
cn
cn
L
(a
(�
+ r
CLn—
O r
o0
N
M
r
q;T
(D
N
O
O
(fl
N
r-
00
00
00
00
f`
q;T
O
O N
r N
00
1`
r
M
CA
00
N
LO
O
O
N
r
00
r
N
Lt's
00
;T
r
O
O (D
O N
O
O
6
O
LSD
(D
o0
f`
O
r`
4
(D
O
r
1`
O;
f`
L!s
(D
O
O f`
LO
O
r
(D
It
I*
It
It
It
r
r
(D
N
'IT
LO
'IT
M
LO
It
(D
r CA
�
(D
f`
1`
N
M
f`
O
f`
0
LO
LO
1`
(D
N
r
00
f`
(D
(D N
M LO
o0
M
d7
O
M
LO
a)
M
LO
O
r
d7
LO
G)
r
N
LSD
(fl
(D �
r CA
r
M
�
r
N
O
M
f`
It
00
M
ti
(D
f`
r
N
M N
M
(D
M
CD
00
00
(fl
M
O
d)
(D
ti
f`
p
N
M
N
0)
00
O O
00
r
00
00
N
M
(D
f`
�
CA
LO
r
LO
r
N
CO
N
r
N
07
r (D
f`
q;T
M
C)
�
�
f`
�
O
M
(D
r
M
o0
O
Ln
O
O
N
O
O
�
N
O
O
�
r
O
r
r
N
�
r
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I*
O
O
Ltd
ti
Ldp
N
O
O O
r
O O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
CY)
It
N
O O
O
LO
O
Ltd
O
lq
O
LSD
Lo
O
LSD
O
Lo
O
r
Lf)
(D
00
CD
M �
O M
(D
f`
o0
(D
f`
r
00
p
O
N
1`
�
Lid
(D
f`
LO
N
LO
N
O
f`
O
r
(D
f`
f`
M
(D
O
r
M
to
LSD
LO
(D
00 f`
N
0
�
07
M
L6
N
r
C
>
M
(1) (n
00 N
r
cn
c
a)
LL
0 6
X
U
A
L
a)
cn
CL
—>>
O
a-
a)
>
(1) (n
cn
c
a)
LL
0 6
X
U
m
C:
(�
m
O
~
m
a)
ch
O
O
a)
Cn
4--
X
C:
} '
LL
a)
LL
cn
cn
>'
O
O
U
�
X
O
Q)
O
(D
a) L
cn
+r
O
L
m
O
�
LL
c
a)
L
a)
m
O
O
X
N
U
Q)
ca
O
—_
i-a
v
�
4.0
N /
06
c
>,
CU
c n
c�
J
c�
�
O
0
0
m
O
4-a LL
L
L
U
'
a)
L
a)
a)
L
X
X
O
U
>1
4
Q)
N
+r
C)
E
w
a)
U
a_
to
M
U
c-
1--
s=
E
u)
.-
>
O
.
J
H
_
s=
cn
O
O
U
w O
U
_
a)
E
—
�
a
U
L
cn
cn
L
(a
(�
+ r
CLn—
a
E
0
'cn
°
x=
�
X
L-
�
o
a) a)
O
O
O
:3
O
to
+r
O
to
+r
o
J
C
to
a)
a)
a)
�
U
U
m
U-
2
0
L
Q
J
a-
LL
U
a-
CV
�
0
O
O
'IT
CA
O
r
N
M
It
LO
(D
ti
00
0)
O
O
r
N
�
ti
00
r
�
�
V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M_
O
N �
� O
o �
LL
L
a)
sir'
M M M f` f` oo M � ti r (D 00 LA O M It O LO O M 1- O O
1` O p 00 r ti M (D N (D O � M N O O it r O O ti O O
r O O r cl j Lt) O O r 4 4 r Ln N N O Ln O r 1` O O
r N N N LO ' ' O f` (D p f` N � ' � O N
' M
i
N LO
M
f`
O
�
�
(D
N
ti
O
O
O
N
M
ti
�
N
�
LO
M
G)
O O
O I>
1`
LO
4-
O
a�
bi)
a
N
N
r
00
LO
00
M
(D
N
�
I`
00
N
I`
Lt)
O p
' L
1`
00
N
CD
r
r
O
�
O
M
p
_N
(D
N
O
LO
f`
LO
00
O p
O 00
V
a
�
co
M
4)
O
LA
O
N
=
a
�
(D
LO
�
00
O
N
d
N m
00
N
M
N
r
N
00
00
LO
N
N
N
r-
'
O
'
ti
O Q)
M O
O
'
O
CD
r
I.L
L
O
r
LO
�
� r
L
U
LO
N
r
00
V M
O
O
Lt)
�
a�
r
r
O
f`
00
N
f`
p
LO
N
O
ti
M
N
r
(D
M
r
co
N
Lt) N
m
00
�
N
N
f`
O
_
LO
r
co
r
W
(D
f`
M
CD
00
1`
L
00 Lr)
O
OC
.°
O �,
r
m
o
O
0
ti
O
d
(D
E
N
>
U) +�
m
N
Q' O
M
a0
O
♦"' ti
Lt)
(D
r
U
Cl) p
N
p
r
O
4) d
N
N
O
S
ti
O
N
q*
L O
LL
L
d
CL
00
U
>
r
E
L
O
�•�/
�+
00
O
.
00
�
U
a
O
r
d
r
!
N
r
r
r
U
U
P.:
c i
m
M_
O
N �
� O
o �
LL
L
a)
sir'
M M M f` f` oo M � ti r (D 00 LA O M It O LO O M 1- O O
1` O p 00 r ti M (D N (D O � M N O O it r O O ti O O
r O O r cl j Lt) O O r 4 4 r Ln N N O Ln O r 1` O O
r N N N LO ' ' O f` (D p f` N � ' � O N
' M
i
N LO
Lt)
f`
O
00
(D
O
ti
O
O
O
N
M
ti
�
N
�
LO
M
G)
O O
O I>
1`
LO
M
r
N
O
r
00
LO
00
M
(D
N
�
I`
00
N
I`
Lt)
O p
0o f`
1`
00
N
CD
r
r
O
�
O
M
p
N
(D
N
O
LO
f`
LO
00
O p
O 00
00
�
co
M
(D
M
LA
O
N
co
M
�
(D
LO
�
00
O
N
N N
Ln O
00
N
M
N
r
N
00
00
LO
N
N
N
r-
'
O
'
ti
O Q)
M O
O
'
O
CD
r
N
M
O
r
LO
N
N
LO
N
r
00
r
r
O
O
Lt)
O O
T" f`
ti
O
M
p
O
O
1�-
It
O
'IT
p
00
CD
�
CA
ti
O
ti
p
O p
M 00
pp
�
N
p
O
O
M
O
00
O
d'
O
N
Ln
O
r
O
O
p
O p
Op O
p
4
O
cy;
Ln
O
W;
(D
O
00
N
f`
r
r
N
f`
O
LO
w
O p
1` LO
Ln
M
r
M
LO
M
Ln
r
O
N
M
�
(D
�
LO
LO
O
w
N N
Ln O
00
N
M
N
r
N
(D
r
it
M
r
LO
00
cA
f`
t4
O Q)
M O
O
f`
O
CD
r
N
M
O
r
LO
Lt)
r
(D
It
00
ti
O
O
1`
O O
1` r
r
O
f`
00
N
f`
p
LO
N
O
ti
M
N
r
(D
M
r
co
N
Lt) N
N
00
�
N
N
f`
p
r
LO
r
co
r
r
(D
f`
M
CD
00
1`
L
00 Lr)
Ln
c
r
LCD
LO
N
ti
O
r
(D
co
N
M
�
N
N
M
a0
00 Ln
Lt)
(D
r
1`
ti
N
p
r
O
co
N
N
O
r
ti
O
N
q*
0
M
00
U
00
r
r
r
LO
00
(D
O
00
�
U)
O
r
r
!
N
r
r
r
U
U
P.:
c i
1- O
O
O
O
O
M
V
ti
LO
00
M
LO
O
f`
(D
00
O
O
LO
(D
N N
CF) O
O
O
O
O
M
00
r
00
N
O
O
O
O
(D
O
O
�
r
M M
r
�=
O
f`
f`
I
p
M
O
ti
r
O
It
(D
r
O
Q
O
Cl)
cn
O
p
LO
M
O
M
ti
M
O
Lt)
LO
00
00
�
LO
Lf)
co
r r
p (D
CD
00
N
00
LO
f`
N
O
00
00
ti
LO
O
(D
�
rte
a
N
tD
r r
ti
r
r
M
N
U)
CD
M
(D
M
O
N
U
00
f`
M
p
M
M
N
r
N
r
M
+r
T
N
LL
°
`~
E
0
(1)
`~
`~
L)
'a
N
N (D w N f` .4 N LO p (D M LO M O M I` N O O 1` O O
le O O 00 U) ti (D ti qe M M M O ti ti r N ;T O O r O O
O L6 Lt'; O f` cy; 00 O 00 4 L6 f` 1� (9 O f` N O O O O O
tD � le M it N LO NT Lt) I` r r (D LO f` LO N It)
i i
T" LO Lt) � O d' � r Lt) O f` (D M 00 00 00 r � m � 1` O O
1` M M (D (D O O 00 ti � (D O le (D O LO It LO N 00 N
1` (D f` p O 00 G) (D 00 G) 00 � 00 00 ti ti M C)
1` (C) co r r p O M N O (3) N r I` (D O (D M O LO
P,- ti 00 ' ti (D N CD N O 00 N O O (D r (D M ti
M M M 00 00 r N N N O O � M
r r N N r ti
O O
O
O
O
O
M
O
M
O
O
LO
Lt)
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
Lt)
LO Lt)
T" O
CD
O
O
O
O
f`
O
1`
M
LO
O
O
M
Lt)
O
00
N
M
O
M
N
O
O
O
00
O
O
r
N
O
O
O
r
O p
r r
Ln LO
Lt)
LO
M
00
00
00
(6
O
LO
f`
M
O
O
O
LO
O
(6
Lo Ln
ti c'7
M
(D
o
CD
00
q-
M
00
'T
ti
p
�
N
LO
�
�
r
N N
Ln O
00
N
a-
N
r
N
(D
r
it
M
�
LO
00
cA
f`
t4
O Q)
M
U
'>
M
cn
O
r
M
r
M
r
N
�
E
O
•L
U
•>
N
4
N
N
N
4-j
0
o
cn
(n
U
a-
Q
cn
U
'>
cn
O
Cn
N
cn
�
E
O
•L
U
•>
N
cn
O
O
N
U
CD
- 0
L
N
d N
N
+�+
cn
co
O
O
• L
O
d
O
N
N
U
EM
O
>
(/)
0)
C/)
O
Q
0
0
U
(1)
Q
�
U)
O
!
(D
m
U
U
>
c i
v )
N
L
N
ca
• v
�
• U
'L
m
C
J L
a)
L
O
a
O
cn
O
U
'�
C:
U
O
�
• U O
O
LL
�=
U-
v
�>
N
�
O
U
0
O
O
U)
O
O
co
Q
@
cn
O
O
t6
ca
N
m
�
�
N
�
u j
�2S
�S
a
a)
N
U)
CD
ca
U
M
p
N
N
(n
N
+r
IL t)
LL
°
`~
E
0
(1)
`~
`~
L)
'a
m
CD
>
>
m
co
N
'
L)
L)
_
m
N
�
N
�
C
C
N �_
O
O
N
O
O
+r
�--�
�- j
U-
N
0�
c
E
a
U-
U
cn
O
O O
O
O
r
O
N
00
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
co
O
N
(D
O
N O
H M
H
'T
H
'T
'
H
Li)
Lt)
Lt)
H
co
(D
(D
I�-
00
00
00
H
0) H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
N
� O
O �
C) O a)
C "?
M 00
LO W) r
N N 00
M M N
M
r
LO LO M
r M
M M CF)
I` r` M
(D to
~ f` N co
N
f`
00 00 I*
N N M
pp 00 f`
c
r
(3) a) w
(D w r
ti ti c6
r M
r` ti N
CY) W)
C � N
r r t0
O
f`
, I - I* N
O O r
(D CD O
N N M
p O 00
pp 00 r
CO
O
r
fA
W
N
L
r N
F-
F
(3) F- f►
C)
LL
a)
i
M
�
N
�
(Q
4-
O
a�
a
N
' L
_N
V
Q
4)
O
1
=
a a7
�Nm
L
�
� r
L
U
V M
�
Q �
r
m
O
_
W
O
.O
m
o
O
E-
�
m
Q' O
U
Cl) O
4) d
S
L O
LL
L
d
CL
E
�+
O
.O
L.
U
a
d
m
M
O
N
� O
O �
C) O a)
C "?
M 00
LO W) r
N N 00
M M N
M
r
LO LO M
r M
M M CF)
I` r` M
(D to
~ f` N co
N
f`
00 00 I*
N N M
pp 00 f`
c
r
(3) a) w
(D w r
ti ti c6
r M
r` ti N
CY) W)
C � N
r r t0
O
f`
, I - I* N
O O r
(D CD O
N N M
p O 00
pp 00 r
CO
O
r
fA
W
N
L
r N
F-
F
(3) F- f►
C)
LL
a)
i
N
01
C
U-
L
d
i
l--
t�
M
a1
M
kn
�
00
O
N
�
kn
oo
O (�
01
01
oc
.--i
t�
INC
I�t
a •L
N
I
N
C�
C1
O
!t-
>
00
I�t
O O
N
W
N
a�
--a
v
O
00
t�
M
O
N
a
�
N
• L
INC
N
O
N
00
-
_N
r-
00
kn
01
In
\O
I�t
N
N
V
a
t�
\O
00
O
00
01
O
M
J
01
r-
O
D\ 00
O
�n
O
01
l�
00
o�
---a
r-
O
O
O
M
N
kn
r
N
00
N
X _
W W m
kn
L
l�
lrj
0
�
�
to
O
O
O I�t
In
N
M
01
t-
.--
.--
N
_
V
o0
00
N
� V
N
N
00
00
L
M
l�
M
M
kn
N
01 00
p
'=
L
r_
x C
W W
d1
M
L
00
\c
T
N
I�t
M
Iz 01
an
V
r
r
W
M
C
w
♦,
•�
'�
w
U
.�
C5 a w
•�
a
rn a
/
L
�
0
�
W
0
0
O
W
a
O
=
O
X m
W W fA
O
v
o
ca
�,
U)
LJL
O
O
W
�
• L
W
a
E
c
�+
m
L
E
O
u
N
01
C
U-
L
d
i
l--
t�
M
a1
M
kn
o0
00
O
00
M
�
kn
oo
-
r--a
01
01
C1
C1
.--i
t�
INC
I�t
O
�
N
I
01
N
C�
C1
O
!t-
N
00
I�t
O O
kn
N
r-
--a
^-a
O
00
t�
M
O
N
N
M
N
kn
INC
N
O
N
00
-
O
r-
00
kn
01
In
\O
I�t
N
N
`O
---a
\O
00
O
00
01
O
M
01
01
r-
O
D\ 00
O
�n
O
01
l�
00
N
N
---a
r-
O
O
O
M
N
kn
00
00
N
00
kn
01
M
l�
lrj
t
�
M
kn
O
O
O I�t
In
N
M
01
t-
.--
.--
N
N
r-�
o0
00
N
00
00
M
M
l�
M
M
kn
N
01 00
p
'=
M
d1
M
00
\c
kn
N
I�t
M
Iz 01
o0 `O `O \z � I�t In ---a N kn r--a C1 t� M kn \c \c M o0
o0 M `O •--O 01 `O •--O `0 01 t� N 00 kn r- I�t M r- N
M M r- M a1 N N a1 r- `O N o0 O r- kn 01 N O a1
I�t kn kn k kn k `o kn � kn kn kn \c I�t \c M kn kn `0 00 kn
l--
O
M
`O
N
M
l-
M
00
---a
N
kn
N
O
I-
�
kn
00
In
kn
O
M
00
00
OC
00
t
---a
Ic
�
O
�--I In
kn
N
r-
M
O
\O
--o
O
00
t�
o0
01
M
N
00
\c
N
kn
01
N
O
N
00
-
O
r-
01
.-�
O
\O
M
00
t-
N
M
O
O
N
�
00
1 1
kr
a1
M
O
00
M
00
.-�
00
o0
O
N
N
N
---a
r-
01
kn
rl
M
r-�
00
In
kn
N
kn
N
M
O
N
N
`O
01
kn
o0
M
N
O
M
t
M
M
�
r-
00 �c
M
t-
.--
.--
N
N
r-�
o0
00
N
N
N
.-�
.-�
l�
M
N
Q\ N
l--
O
M
`O
N
M
l-
M
00
kn
a1
00
t-
kn
N
O
kn
00
I�t
M
00
O
kn
kn
O
oo
kn
�
o0
kn
�
\z
t-
O
kn
I�t
�
O
O
Q\ 01
� O
00
O
l--
l--
M
00
M
O
\O
M
O
M
t�
o0
00
00
I�c
N
00
\c
M
O
M
00
00
kn
o0
00
-
O
O
00 ---a
01
M
00
O
�
..c
t-
00
r
kn
a1
N
�
00
1 16
00
`O
M
�
In
O
In O
N
M
�
N
I�t
M
In
C\
N
M
�O
kn
01
00
a1
kn
�10
`O
kn
a1
In
r-
N
`C
`O
kn
r
o0
M
O
N
00
oo
--�
kn
1 1.0
--�
oo
--�
N
Q\
M
t-
.--
.--
N
N
r-�
M
r-�
00
In
M
N
.-�
N
IF
kn
N
Q\ N
M N 00 O o0 C1 rm� t O 01 M t t to N N t-
M M 00 00 N N oc 41 M N 00
00
kn kn to to kn `c `c kn kn kn INC to INC kn M �lc 00 M �lc
In
00
`O
00
In
N
\O
t-
00
O
oo
I�t
r-
o0
QO
In
�
I�t
00
In
Kj
In
N
I�t
O
O M
00
O
l--
l--
M
00
M
O
N
00
00
I�
T-.�
O
00
01
I�
1 10
kn
N
-
Q1
N
I�c
N
00
\c
M
O
01
00
00
kn
o0
00
-
O
O
O 00
t�
\O
O
\C
N
^-
t-
00
r
kn
a1
N
�
00
1 16
00
`O
\1
kK
01
kn
ri
.-�
00
00
r-
.-�
O
N
N
01
M
t-
kn
.-�
�10
`O
o0
N
a1
In
r-
N
kn
to
N
kn
O
N
o0
\O
In
O
01
r-
r-
In
M
M
t-
.--
.--
N
N
r�
00
o0
N
N
rl
M
N
N
!�
O
O
kn
t�
M
o0
00
In
N
\O
`0
I�t
00
O
M
`O
00
�
M
-
N
o0
l-
M
�
O
�
t
l--
�
M
00
M
N
O
O
O
O
T--I N
00 00
In
N
O
�10
t-
.--a
O
---a
N
I�O
M
N
00
M
cn , ..
kn
N
�D
l�
\C
N
In
t-
In
kr�
00
N
M
U
01
In
01
N
M
a1
N
M
00
O
M
O
M
O
I�t
M
N
M
O
kn
In
kn
to
r-
to
O
N
t
`O
t-
�z
O
N
`O
O
-
N
en
O N
t�
t-
.--
.--
N
N
r�
M
r�
o0
T
M
N
rl
N
!�
l-- N M N M N M 't kn O M I�t 1 1.0 00
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
.-� .-� •-� N N N M M M M M It It It I�t In `O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
p
p
cn , ..
U
r--
p
'=
�,
cr
tD
U
3
an
i
w
6 0
U O
'�
w
U
.�
C5 a w
•�
a
rn a
a
l-- N M N M N M 't kn O M I�t 1 1.0 00
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
.-� .-� •-� N N N M M M M M It It It I�t In `O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N
M
T.-O
l-
00
O
�
kn
N
N
'IT
`O
•--a
4 _
O
01
O
00
O
O
O
O
a •L
00
\O
N
O
00
M M
rl kn
>
01
N
�
N
W
00
a�
l�
.--a
v
M
M
\O
M
a
�
� r••�
• L
M
N
kn
N
1
�
CO
k
O
In
00
00 rl
OO
oc
01 r-
V
a
t�
M
l-
N
�c
M
---a
r-
00
In
O
J
01
It
\O
!--
kn
M
N \C
o0 'IT
o�
I�t
01
01
' C1
M
\O
\O
M
l-
r
N
It
\O
\O
O
X _
W W m
00
L
`O
O
CO
0
�
o0
to
N
00
'IV
a1
M
_
V
C)
`,�
N
� V
`O
N
o0
N
L
N
M
tf
00
00 C1
01
01
a\
01
N
L
r_
x C
W W
It
It
�
'
L
kn
T
y
V
r
r
W
M
C
♦,
•�
'
L
�
0
�
W
0
0
O
W
a
O
=
O
L
X m
W W fA
U
ct
A-a
U
W U
O
V
W Q
o
N
U
rA
N
LJL
O
O
W
�
• L
W
a
E
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O O
00 00
c
O
o0
O
00
O
OD
O
o0
O
00
O
01
O O
01 C\
O
O
♦+
O
O
m
O
L
O
O
O
O
tQ
O
O
O O
E
O
u
N
01
M
INC
I�t
N
T.-O
l-
00
O
�
---a
kn
M
N
'IT
`O
•--a
kn
r-
01
O
N
\O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
\O
�
01
O
00
M M
rl kn
�
01
N
�
�
00
�
l�
.--a
M
M
M
\O
M
�
r--a
� r••�
00
M
N
kn
N
1
�
CO
k
O
In
00
00 rl
OO
oc
01 r-
N
01
N
M
l-
N
�c
M
---a
r-
00
In
O
't
O
01
It
\O
!--
kn
M
N \C
o0 'IT
M
I�t
01
01
' C1
M
\O
\O
M
l-
o0
N
It
\O
\O
O
O
M
00
N
OO
`O
O
CO
O
M
o0
M 00
00
N
00
'IV
a1
M
C)
`,�
o
`O
o0
N
N
M
tf
00
00 C1
01
01
a\
01
N
W
l�
M
.--a
It
It
�
'
kn
00 00 C1
I i i
01 N 04 ---a ---a a1 a1 M 00 a1 M o0 O O O M kn � M
M O lrj 00 Q1 O kn 00 O O O 00 kn O �••�
\O o0 00 M O a1 r a1 M t kn
\O
01
O
O
rl
M
t�
`O
N
-
c
`0
O
O
�
'IV
01
01
O
-
M
kn
�
�
O O
O
O
00
N
\O
O
kn N
`O t-
01 N
I�t r••0
N
\O
O
M
`O
a1
00
kn
a1
00
r-
O
O
\O
M
1 1.0 r••�
M
01
r--a
M
00
M
N
kn
N
1
�
CO
k
O
In
N
00 rl
OO
oc
01 r-
O
M
01
N
M
l-
N
�c
M
---a
r-
00
In
In
't
O
\O
I�t
N
M 04
M lrj
!--
kn
M
N \C
o0 'IT
M
I�t
01
kn
•--I
.-�
M
•-�
N
�'
O
N N
OO
kn
M
N
O
01
\O
N
o0
kn
00
O
O
IO
M
O
`O
M
00
kn
kn
O
O
O
OO
\C
M
\O
01 N
I�t r••0
N
\O
O
M
01
r--a
`O
r••�
---a
O
01
O
O
\O
M
kn
O
M
r--a
M
00
M
�
kn
01
In
`O
O
kn
O
O
N
N
\O
oc
01 r-
O
M
01
N
M
l-
N
OO
N
�t
M
M
�
�
kn
't
O
O
l--
N
I
t�
kn
M
\c
N \C
o0 'IT
M
I�t
01
kn
O M
M �O
M
lrj
•-�
N
�'
N
N
N
M
o0
M 00
00
M N C1 01 N k-n - O M of N O O O N N � O
M 00 O kn M kn O M OC r- O r- `O 00
�n 00 k I�t I�t oo I�t N to to r+ M to M
M
00
C1
N
N
t-
M
N
N
N
N
M
\O
00
\C
N
CO
�
kn
M
M
O
M
.--a
I�t
�
N
N
1 1C
INC
O
O
O
O
�
M
I�t
\O
I�t
00
00 C1
C1
00
�
\O
01
�
\O
C1
O
M
O
I
O
01
M
\z
N
r--a
N
M
M
\O
\O
01
r
lzl
00
kn
N
ot
llc
k�K
o0
N
r-
M M
a1
N
N
lrj
�t
M
M
M
a1
00
N
.--a
N
I
o0
kn
kn
O
04
I�t
01
kn
M
O M
M �O
M
lrj
•-�
�'
N
N
kn
':;
M
M O
01
�
c0
INC
C\
N
O
oo
�
N
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
OC
oo
N
t�
I�t
N
.-- N
'IV
r--�
o0
�
�
O
M
O
O
O
O
01
M
OO
r--a
C1 C1
N
\O
N
o
r
lzl
M
kn
r-�
N
O
O
o0
N
OO
M M
a1
N
CO
M
00
00
�t
M
CO
M
kn
00
O
o0
I�t
M
OC
to
kn
l--
C1 00
M
lrj
•-�
�'
N
N
kn
':;
C)
`,�
o
�
N
M
oc
00 C1
C
LL
L
d
i
O
O~
�
�'
ri
':;
C)
`,�
o
�
O
)
W
4
W
�
7=
y
r--
L
l
U
ct
A-a
U
W U
W Q
N
U
rA
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O O
00 00
O
OD
O
o0
O
00
O
OD
O
o0
O
00
O
01
O O
01 C\
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. L -7
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2613
AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -- January 2613
SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman III
County Administrator'
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Direct Deposit Checks Total
Payments to Vendors $ - $ - $ 8
Payroll 01/64/13 1 80 1
Payroll 01/18/13 1 61, 515.56 1,237, 668.54
Manual Checks - - -
Grand Total $ 11,162,532.26
A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of supervisors.
i■ ■i
ITEM NO. N -1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Work session on transferring title to the real estate in the
Center for Research and Technology from the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors to 'the Roanoke County
Economic Development Authority
SUBMITTED BY: Paul Mahoney
County Attorney
Jill Loope
Acting Director of Economic Development
APPROVED BY: B. Clayton Goodman I I I
County Administrator's
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Board of Supervisors currently owns 430.27 acres of real estate in the Center for
Research and Technology (CRT). The remaining four (4) developable parcels are being
actively marketed for economic development purposes. The Roanoke County Economic
Development Authority (EDA) owns thirteen (13) acres in the CRT.
The Roanoke County Charter requires the Board to authorize the sale of real estate only by
the adoption of an ordinance. Adoption of an ordinance requires two (2) readings at two
(2) regular meetings. Also no property shall be sold at public or private sale until a public
hearing has been held. These procedural requirements could delay the transfer of real
estate to an economic development prospect, and perhaps this delay could jeopardize the
overall transaction.
It has been the Board's practice to enter into a performance agreement with an economic
development prospect. This performance agreement is a three -party agreement along with
Page 1 of 2
the EDA. In order for the Board to transfer real estate to a prospective business, it must
first convey the property to the EDA, then in turn from the EDA to the prospect. This has
been the Board's practice in the past, and allows for confidential negotiations to continue
without jeopardizing the project.
This proposal would shorten the time period involved in concluding an economic
development transaction, while still complying with the statutory procedural requirements.
Conveying this real estate to the EDA now will satisfy the initial procedural requirements for
any subsequent transaction.
This proposal will allow - the County and the EDA to move more quickly to conclude
economic development transactions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the title transfer by deed other than required legal documents
and recordation fees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board favorably consider transferring by deed the title to the
CRT property from the Board of Supervisors to the EDA. This conveyance would be
approved by the Board upon the adoption of an ordinance in March 2013.
Page 2 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM N -2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE February 28, 2013
AGENDA ITEM Work session to discuss the 1 -81 Corridor Improvement
Study, Tier 2 Environmental Assessment
SUBMITTED BY : David Holladay
Planning Administrator
APPROVED BY : B. Clayton Goodman,, III
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINIs'rRATOR'S COMMENTS
The Board of Supervisors is asked to provide the County Administrator with the Board's
desired response or comments regarding the Tier 2 Environmental Assessment, in
order that Roanoke County may provide VDOT with the concerns of the County as this
process moves forward.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is preparing an Environmental
Assessment for proposed highway improvements on I -81 between Exit 118 in
Christiansburg to Exit 143 (I -581) in Roanoke County. VDOT held a Citizen Information
Meeting on February 7, 2013 at Fort Lewis Elementary School. VDOT is anticipating
comments from Roanoke County following this work session.
At this scoping phase of the project, VDOT is seeking input on the following elements:
• Purpose and Need: Confirm transportation problem(s) to be solved.
• Alternatives: Offer ideas for implementing the proposed improvement concept or
suggestions for additional improvement concepts.
• Environment: Report important natural, cultural, and human environmental
considerations.
The 1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study, Tier 2 Environmental Assessment is the second
phase of a 2007 Environmental Impact Statement that was conducted for the entire 1 -81
corridor in Virginia. The initial phase was a broad scope study that called for more
thorough analysis of independent sections of the interstate that could be undertaken as
Page 1 of 3
a stand -alone project. The project under review would involve construction of no more
than two general purpose lanes in each direction.
From 1998 through 2008, Roanoke County has commented on planned improvements
to 1 -81, through letters from the Chairman of the Beard, and adopted resolutions. These
communications addressed the following issues:
2008 letter commenting on the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement
•
Encourage the use of an improvement concept with a variable number of lanes to
address the varying traffic demands and capacity needs.
Oppose local toll options that would assess County residents merely commuting
in the immediate area.
• Support separated lanes for segments if 1 -81, especially in urban and high traffic
areas.
• Request that improvements to Route 11 precede any wide -scale improvements
to 1 -81
2003 Resolution 082403 -6.d Supporting Rail Alternatives
Support for the development and promotion of rail freight and passenger service
parallel to 1 -81, to complement limited highway - widening and to move a large
volume of the long- distance freight traffic from trucks on 1 -81 to freight trains on
dual track, high -speed rails parallel to 1 -81.
1998 Resolution 071498 -1 Expressing Support for Proposed Improvements to 1 -81
and Requesting county Participation in the Planning and Design Stages of the
Project
• Support for the project to improve traffic flew, increase capacity, and interstate
access.
• Request that VDOT and County staff work together to address the fiscal impacts
on the County tax base, budget and financial resources, especially with respect
to the following:
• Utility crossings
• Stormwater management facilities
• Frontage and access roads, in particular, access to the Roanoke County
Center for Research and Technology
• Emergency services response during construction
• Location and costs for noise control 1 sound barrier measures
• Request VDOT assurance that County staff and citizens will participate in the
early planning and design stages to address the following:
• The basic widening approach to be utilized (inside vs. outside lanes)
• Development and growth
• Frontage roads
• Utility crossings
• Interchanges
• Public safety during construction
• Tourist re- routing
Page 2 of 3
• Stormwater management facilities
• Sound barriers
• Zoning and local land use
In conclusion, planning for proposed improvements to 1 -81 has raised many issues that
will continue to need evaluation and consideration as this project moves forward. The
Board of Supervisors is asked to provide the County Administrator with the Board's
desired response or comments regarding the Tier 2 Environmental Assessment, in
order that Roanoke County may provide VDOT with the concerns of the County as this
process moves forward.
Attached for your reference are the following documents:
• VDOT flyer and comment sheet from February 7, 2013 Citizen Information
Meeting
• January 8, 2013 letter from VDOT regarding the upcoming Tier 2 Environmental
Assessment
• 1 -81 Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Executive Summary, 2007
• 1998 — 2008 Roanoke County communications and resolutions regarding
improvements to 1 -81
Additional information about the 1 -81 Tier 2 Environmental Assessment is available on
the Virginia Department of Transportation website at:
htto: www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/i-81 tier 2 nepa- environmental study.asp
To learn more about the 2007 Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement, please
follow this link: http:llvirpiniainterstates .oral/- 81- FEIS.asp
Page 3 of 3
C171ZEN, INFORMATION MEETING
XV ��� Virgin rtm
Vir Depaent
o f Transportation
Tier 2 Environmental Assessment
1-81 Corridor improvement Stud SIU #4
Mo-at g omer y & Roanoke Counties
Cit of 5alem & Town of CIS risti-anisbur
Wednesda Februar 6, 2013
5 - 7 p.m.
Fallin Branch Ellennentar
735 Fallin Branch Read
Chr i5tiansbti r VA 21073
IF 1W W 1§F
Thursda rebruar 7, 2013
5 - 7 p.m.
Fort Lewis Elementar
3115 West Main Street
Sal em VA 24153
Welcome to the Vir Department of Transportationrs (VDOT) Citizen Information Meetin on the
Environmental Ass essment (E A) f or i mprovements to 181 f rom Exit 118 (US 460) in Christian sour g 10
Exit 143 (1-581) 'in IlRoartoke Count
This Citizen Information Meetin is bein held to
provide an opportunit for citizens and or
to g ive VD OT cornments and /or a su an the
proposed project. VD OT strives to -ensure that a I I
members of the communit have the opportunit
to participate in public decisions on transportation
P ro j ects arid pro affectin thern.
V DOT represeritatives are present to discuss the project
a ri d a n steer~ y ou r q ue sti a ins.
VDOT, in cooperation -Lruith the Federal
H i h y Ad i ni stmt ion (F HWA), is p repari n
an Environmental Assessment for proposed
hl Igo improvements on 1-81 between Exit
118 (US 4W in tho Town of Christiansbur
a nd E it 143 (1 -581) in Roa nuke Cou rat. Th e
proposed improvements alon this 25-mile
corridc r are the r u It of f i nd 1 ri in the
broader Ter 1 Final Environii-nental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the- Entiffe 325 -arils 181
corride- r- in V r that was completed in
March 200-1 acid approved with a Ftecord of
Decision (ROD) ifl June 2007. The concept
bein into Tier 2 would involve the.
constructio n of no m o re tha n two g e neral
purpose lanes in each direction.
A cornment sheet 'is i ncl wded in the handouts f or
this meetin and y ou r in ul is encoura Please
provide su on the p roposed" pro and the
scope of issues to be ad d rased i r the En vi rainmental
Assessment with respect to the pirpose and need,
allernatives, and environmental 1;SU1?S_
All verbal and written comments received on this stud
vufilli be i n-cluded in a summar report for con5ideration
b VD OT personnel, citizens, and other interested
parties and veil be made available upon re
S
tats Project: 0081' -962-1 ? 6, P 10 1: UPC 6 7588
Federal Proiecl.- NH-000S If 183�
Tierin is a sta approach to the National
Environmental Polic Act of 1969 (ICJ EPA) whereb
the assessme nt of '"broad pro s a nd issues is
carte eted i n in iti al (Tiler 1) or s eve I a nal
and, the anal of site - sp,eclific proposalls and impacts
is con cted i n su h-se ti er st ud les. Accord in l
the 2007 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for 1-81 allovued for docision-ma in on corridor-
I e n g th ca pa cit a n d saf et i s s u es assn c't ated vv ith 1 -81
in Vir and deferred desi and location decisions
and the e lu ati on Of site-specific cond itions and
impacts+
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CT B)
iswed a reso I ution i n October 2006 and the rede ra I
Hli Administration (FHWA) subse
a Record of Decision (ROD) for the 1-81 Tier 1 EIS in
J u ne 2007 statin that i m provements to existi ri 1-81
would includer construction of not more than two
g e ne ra I p'urpc5e lanes in each d 1 rection, on l w h ere
needed to address 2015 travel demands.
The EIS indicated that the vast majorit of 1-81 needs
additilona I hi capacit b 2035i but that no
consistent corrildor- len solution meets the future
travel demand needs without P rovidin g excess or
insufficient capacit Furthermore, the anal
indicated that a var number of g eneral purpose
highwa la nes; -wou Id most ef f icieqtl add ress the
f uture 1,ravel demand.
Based upon the 2035 travel dernand forecasts, ei
sections of independent uti I it (5 IV) were identified
for subse Tier 2 anal
The Tier 2 Environmental Assessment (EA) for SlU
#4 covers the 25-rni'le 5ection of 1-81 between Exit
r
118 W5 460) [n t he Town of Christiansbur and
Exit 143 (1-581 in Roanoke Count as shown in the
fi beliow and the concept advanced includes
the add itiarn of no more -than two lanes in both the
northbound G-Ind southbound directions of 1-81 within
this SIU_
Ll
P I
Am
Mink-P
H
F
m ROT,
1 - 1 0 r, r a
J
4xk curp
4
W Tj gi j
tv
I
"M F 1.
k K
M Ja X
E
'S
o V4 a -eE 5
0 4
IV
KSGURG (IN rim 4*0- 1
Cave
Sprin
JOKE
IP, I
I Ll
ffL- 2ZI
@
W fly
Rr
WAKI'l 5 g! Bum I
h I ire-r
iF
4 1r ra lid
0
4�
lei "n
3 MuLtni.
L
F
L
!!L' A
1?1 K
IrmikalL
221 5 , 11
6 1
Qmm An*is SW# BMMWU kin, Am - P 24 M -4 f — .4 M
: 3 ' ,I �k �slry W %TV lg�_j I
Th National Environmental Polic A-ct(NFPA) re
consideration c)f potential environmental conse
of t ra n s p o ral I o n i mp rove m ents, docu menta t io n of the
aria l and makin the information available for
comment before a decision is made.
Toni meetin is a critical element in th stud
initial scup iri process whereb public input is
g athered to help identif viable caur5es of action for
meetin the identified travel needs and to reco
the area's environmental context.. Durin this sta
vve "Pelcorne y ou r in litial 'Input on these i rn A orta rat
stud ellements:
0 Purpose and Need: Confirm transportation
problem (s) to be solved-
a Alternatives: Offer ideas for implementin the
proposed improvement concept or su
for additional improvement concepts.
Environment: Report jMLportarat natural, cultural,
and human environmental considerations.
WE ARE HERE
Odober Februar April Ma October Sprin Sprin
2012 =4 2013 =* 2,013 2013 4 2813 =21)13 2014 2014 =* 2014
Represent at-Ives f rorn VID OT a re pre-sent to d-I$CU 5$
the pro and answer y our q uest'lons. It is the
weapons i b i Ii-L of V[SOT to e nsu re that a I I me rnbers
of the cornrri u nit y are afforded th e oppo r n it to
pa rti ci pate i n p.A b I i c decisions o n tra nsportatio n
s and projects a,ff(--_,,-rtin them- VD OT ensures
n ors diis cry mina tic n in all pro and activities in
accordance livith Title VI of the Civi. I Ri Act of 1964,
Inlormati o n abo L. t r i h t of wa pu rc has@ is d iscussed
in VDOT's brochure, "Ri of Wa and Utilities: A
Guide for Propert Cvvners and Tenants." (:0 of
th is brochu re a re avai lable here f rom a VDOT ri ht of
wa a rat_
Than You!
Than y ou for takin the time to reviev�r the
mater ilaIs present at this public meetin Your
comments a n valuable and g reatl y appreciated,
VD OT wi 11 caref ull cons der a I I comments rece ived
at this meet in g and du ri n th-e! comm ent period.
Written comments must be postmarked or sent
ellectronica I l no later th -an Fehr ua r 21, 201 -a Ind
r
ma be submitted in three vva-
y5
At this Meetin
Put written com me nFts in the desi box or
make an oral comment to the court reporter.
A
B MaRm
Submit written comments too.
NIs, An Deere
Environmental Division
Vir Depa rtrne nt of Transportation
14,01 E. Broad Street
Richmondor VA 23219
w I ilkwi
Primar Contact:
An Deer
Jaen Bond
Project Mana
Salern District
Corgi rnunica ton
s
B E-mail:
An
Please reference "'1-81 Tier 7 EA" in the e subject line.
Additional information can also be found on the
P Fo webs ito, wh ich wi I I be u plated period Ica I l
durin the course of the stud
htt p.-/,'wvvw. vir g i n i a d ot. or r,o e cuts a I e rn/i -3, 1
tier —2—nepa—environmenta I—stud
140-1 E. Broad Street 804-371.6756
Richton d VA 2�219
731 Harrison Avenue
SaleMr VA 24153
Vir Oupartment
D Tof Transportation 0 2013 Cc m - n a nwea I t h of Vii i n ia
CITIZEN INFORMATION MEETING
'd
COMMENT SHEETA
�
Tier 2 Environmental Assessment
1-81 Corridor Improvement Stud SIU#4
Mont & Roanoke Counties, GIP of Sale rin & Town of Christiansbi-I(Irj-
Wednesday, Feuruar 6. 2D13 Thursda Februar 7, 201 a
5 - 7 p.m. 5 - 7 p.m.
Fallin B-ranrch Flernealar Fort Lem ,% Flernentar
735 Fahiri Branch Road 3115 West Main Sireet
Christionsbur VA 24073, Salern VA 24153
Stale Pro P101: UPC $7508
Federall Frciject: NH,QQ0S
All corn men-.s 5;ubmitted will become a part of the p blic meet l n transcript and will be ava ilable to the public
upon re
Narne ( optic nal
FIXTITUXIN
1. Do y ou a that transportation improvements are needed to irn prove tra ' ffic conditions �on 1-81 between
Exit 118 (US 460) in the Town of Chris-tiansbur and Exit 143 ( 1-5151 ) in Roanoke Count ( Please circle
YES or NO and prov further details below.)
YES or,
2, The 1-81 Ter 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS'l and ReQurd of Decision (ROD,) recommended the
ad di [ion of two la nes in both the, norlhbou nd and southbou rid d irer"%tic n s of 1-61 within the stud Iii mits. Do
%a I I I
y ou h ave 1 n put n n the variations of the concept under oonsideration ( widen tc the inside of existin lanes,
to the outside, or a combination of both)"� (Please circle YES or NO and provide further details below.)
YES orl\10
3. What additional improvement concepts, if a-i you lid y ou like to see considered in the etud and wh
4. Are aware of an human, cultural, or naturall resouroes [ri the stud area that should be considered as
part of 1h is stud (Please circle YES or NO. If y our answer is y es, plea provide further d8taik hol-ow.)
YES or K10
5. Additional comments:
k a r.
COMMONWEALT'J e `�1,Ir�, �I�I�A
61
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23219 -2000
Gregory A. 'hirley
Commissioner
January 8, 2013
B. Clayton Goodman III
Roanoke County Administrator
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018 -0798
SUBJECT: Tier 2 Environmental Assessment
Section of Independent Utility #4, I -81 Corridor Improvement Study
State Project No.: 008 1 - 961 -116, P 101; UPC No. 675 88
From: Exit 118 (US 460) in Town of Christiansburg
To: Exit 143 (I -5 81) in Roanoke County
Montgomery and Roanoke Counties; City of Salem and Town of Christiansburg
Dear Mr. Goodman:
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed highway
improvements between Exit 118 (US 460) in the Town of Christiansburg to Exit 143 (I -581) in
Roanoke County. The attached map shows the location of the proposed project. The proposed
improvements along this 25 -mile corridor are the result of findings in the broader Tier 1 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the entire 325 -mile I -81 corridor in Virginia that was
completed in March 2007 and approved with a Record of Decision (ROD) in June 2007. The
project corridor encompasses Section of Independent Utility (SIU) #4 as identified in the Tier 1
EIS and ROD, and would involve the construction of no more than two general purpose lanes in
each direction.
As part of the study effort, VDOT and FHWA are seeking input to assist in determining the
scope of the EA and to clarify issues relative to this study. Any comments and suggestions your
agency may have regarding important factors that should be considered would be appreciated.
Please feel free to solicit and submit input from other branches and departments within your
agency or organization. We would appreciate receiving your agency's written . comments or
suggestions by February 21, 2013.
V
►Arc V�C:a k/10r-`1ti11A ftAn%/1n1r-
1-81 SIU #4, Tier 2 EA
Page 2
Please be advised that we are planning to hold two meetings with interested agencies; please
attend the meeting that is most convenient for you geographically.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
2 -3p.m.
Salem District Office Auditorium
731 Harrison .Avenue
Salem, VA 24153
Monday, February 11, 2013
10 a.m.
VDOT Central Office Auditorium
1201 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
VDOT also is hosting two citizen information meetings on February 6 and 7, 2013 to seek public
input at the locations noted below and you are welcome to attend those as well.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
(snow date February 13, 2013)
5 - 7 p.m.
Falling Branch Elementary School
735 Falling Branch Road
Christiansburg, VA 24073
Thursday, February 7, 2013
(snow date February 14, 2013)
5 - 7 p.m.
Fort Lewis Elementary School
3115 west Main Street
Salem, VA 24153
Additional information about the 1 -81 Tier 2 study is available on VDOT's website at:
lit - tp : / / . c tsl salem /i -R 1 tier 2 ne pa env imnineiital sft idy.asp . However,
if you have questions or need additional information about the project, please email me at
Angel.Deeni(a'j,VDOT.Vi_rginia.gov or call me at (804) 371 -6756.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
A0 �to'v-�
Angel Deem
Project Manager
cc: John Sirnkins, FHWA
Anne Booker, VDOT Salem District
VirginiaDGT.org
WE DEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
1 '
Lw P .,a : ,r.,. N
InAw ...
.'LUI
ask ,
C*
h„om,I 7 � _ NOT TO SCALE
Area
M' nei
I, LOU
Raw
Newt .0
�JW LINO A10
- ,n ,
ee�r.
1
. ..yR
9 Jr
Aklb 16
fincasile
W �
,-" - ,a _ p Wd't 'Re
7 F _i
V?Sink
Creek
r
-i 1 311
42 -,
841 n Blue
1
Ridge
411
"
ale
000'
i b
M 13 f =
412 Q
v
4
�iaus
C
i aAe 4 Sprin
Fr: 16 A M
,
ord ,fi _
..__� 11 M tn.
ac All Adne Bw�ft 4
Gap
177 Cn hristiansburg 7 1 10111 Chimne
14 Ill
61' 1 ' 2N
Ri 03 riff - ,� 4
�� p
_ .Iot Ma 122
Lheck
PWP '", _ e 4
oop �-
1 _ calf ay
"�
r 2 ; G Lade
13 a nt
-� - di - U
�A 5 a
L - f
Val" 4 ry
.
F R A N K N
_16
.10 F
Source: Virginia State Trans ortaUon Ma - 2092 -2014 1 ` P Henry 5 �s,Tier� o�
PROJECT LOCATION
SIU #4, I - Corridor Improvement Study
State Project No.. 0081- 961 -116, P101; UPC No. 67588
Montgomery and Roanoke Counties; City of Salem. and Town of Christiansburg
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Executive Summary
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) signed a process streamlining agreement in 2003 that defined the
decision - making and approval process to be followed for a tiered environmental study of the
Interstate 81 (I -81) corridor in Virginia (see Appendix A). In accordance with the agreement,
FHWA and VDOT have prepared a Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for
the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study. The Tier 1 FEIS, prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), identifies needs, develops solutions, and
evaluates potential impacts associated with conceptual -level improvements along the entire
325 -mile I -81 corridor in Virginia, as well as improvements to Norfolk Southern's
Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines in Virginia. The actual impacts of individual projects
will be analyzed in detail during Tier 2 as they are advanced.
ES,1 NEPA Tiering Process
Tiering is a staged approach to NEPA referenced in the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ's) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act and in FHWA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures. Tiering addresses
broad programs and issues in initial (Tier 1) or systems level analyses, and analyzes site -
specific proposals and impacts in subsequent tier studies. The tiered process supports
decision - making on issues that are ripe for decision and provides a means to preserve those
decisions. This Tier 1 FEIS is the vehicle for fact-based analyses that supports informed
decision - making on corridor - length issues. In accordance with the Process Streamlining
Agreement Between the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration on the Interstate 81 Corridor National Environmental Policy Act Process, upon
completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions will be made on:
■ The improvement concepts to be advanced;
■ Advancing I -81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA -21);
Executive Summary ES -i
1� Oil 1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
VIP
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studied in Tier 2;
• The types of Tier 2 NEPA document(s);
• The location of the corridor for studying alignments in Tier 2; and
• Possible purchase of certain right -of -way parcels on a case -by -case basis.
In addition to these decisions, the Tier 1 FEIS documents existing and future needs along the
corridor.
ES, 2 Study Area
I -81 in Virginia extends 325 miles in a southwest to northeast direction in Western Virginia
from the Tennessee border north to the West Virginia border, passing through 21 cities and
towns and 13 counties. Conceptual -level improvements to the entire 325 -mile length of I -81 in
Virginia were evaluated based on the Purpose and Need (see below) . For purposes of
characterizing the affected environment, the I -81 study area ranges in width depending on
the environmental resource considered, but generally extends 500 feet from either side of the
I -81 outside edge of pavement. This width was used because, based on the needs, it is
believed to represent the maximum area within which potential highway improvements may
be developed.
In addition to addressing the needs with highway improvements, the study evaluates the
effectiveness of four rail improvement concepts in meeting the identified needs. Potential
improvements to Norfolk Southern's Shenandoah and Piedmont rail lines were evaluated.
Since the Piedmont rail line is geographically distant from I -81, a separate rail study area was
also created. The rail study area consists of 13 discrete sections along Norfolk Southern's
existing Piedmont and Shenandoah rail lines in Virginia. The length of the rail improvement
sections range from less than 1 /2 mile to 10 miles long, but most of the sections are between 1
and 2 miles long. For each rail section, environmental resources were generally identified
within 500 feet on either side of the rail centerline. This width includes the limits of where
potential rail improvements might occur.
Figure ES -1 shows the I -81 and rail study areas.
ES, 3 Purpose and Need
I -81 is relied upon for local and regional travel and interstate travel in the Eastern United States.
Virginia's portion of I -81 is critical to overall national system linkage. For interstate travel, its
location provides a connection between the more densely populated Northeastern United States
and the mid- Southern states, as well as to other routes that connect to the Mexican border.
Executive Summary ES -ii
co
do, 0�� b
z
E. Lei
r
'0
0
VN
cm)
C14
C)
O
M
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
The 325 -mile stretch of I -81 within Virginia was originally constructed as a four-lane limited
access highway. Since its completion, sections in Bristol, Wytheville and Christiansburg have
been widened and reconstructed to accommodate the large increase in traffic. Truck climbing
lanes also have been added in some sections.
The Purpose and Need chapter evaluates both existing travel conditions and future needs in
the year 2035. Because the potential improvements are on the interstate system, they should
have a useful life of at least 20 years from the time that construction is completed. Detailed
information on existing and 2035 transporation conditions are provided in the I -81 Corridor
Improvement Study Transportation Technical Report. Existing and future transportation
deficiencies on I -81 are summarized below:
■ Capacity
❑ Traffic volumes have doubled and, in some cases, tripled since 1978.
❑ 2004 traffic volumes are expected to almost double by 2035.
❑ Truck traffic is projected to grow at a faster rate than general traffic.
❑ Over 90 percent of I -81 is projected to operate below the level of service standard in
2035 (see Figure 2 -6 in Chapter 8, Figures).
■ Safety
❑ 24 northbound miles and 21 southbound miles (6 percent) experience crash rates
more than 25 percent higher than the statewide weighted average.
❑ Eight of these miles have crash rates more than twice the statewide weighted crash
average.
❑ Trucks constitute 29 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled on I -81 between 2000
and 2002, and trucks were involved in 29 and 30 percent of all crashes and fatal
crashes, respectively.
❑ Safety is a problem at some locations today and will likely worsen by 2035, as traffic
volumes increase and existing geometric conditions remain.
The geometric conditions of the highway, when combined with the traffic demands
placed on I -81 (including substantial truck traffic), speeds, and weather conditions, may
contribute to the safety problems along I -81. Some sections of I -81 in Virginia are more
than 40 years old and do not meet current American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) geometric design criteria. As part of previously
completed studies, a review of I -81 showed that geometric conditions that do not meet
current AASHTO geometric design criteria include:
❑ More than two - thirds of I -81 in Virginia have inside shoulder widths that do not
meet current AASHTO geometric design criteria, based on the volume of heavy
vehicles using the corridor.
❑ More than 100 locations have sight distances that do not meet current AASHTO
geometric design criteria because of the alignment of the highway.
Executive Summary ES -iii
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
❑ Ten locations have steep grades that slow truck traffic to speeds below the minimum
for interstate travel.
❑ Approximately 53 bridges (42 percent) have vertical clearances less than the criterion
of 16.5 feet established in the VDOT Road Design Manual.
ESA Improvement Concepts
A broad range of reasonable improvement concepts was considered within the guidelines of
the Process Streamlining Agreement between FHWA and VDOT. Some concepts emerged
from the scoping process, some came from previous studies, and others were developed by
the study team. The No -Build Concept and 211 combinations of Transportation System
Management (TSM), highway improvements, rail improvements, and various toll scenarios
were considered as described below. Additional information is also available in the
I -81 Corridor Improvement Study Concept Development and Analysis Technical Report.
Improvement Concepts
No -Build - The No -Build Concept is defined as the I -81 roadway as it exists in 2005 plus
16 construction projects included in the Virginia Transportation Six -Year Improvement Program
for Fiscal Years 2006 -2011 and Metropolitan Planning Organizations' Long Range Plans that
are fully funded through construction. It was assumed that these projects with funding
commitments would be completed by 2035.
Transportation System Management (TSM) -The TSM concept includes
safety improvements (e.g., lengthening acceleration lanes at interchanges), truck climbing
lanes, Intelligent Transportation System elements, and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures.
Rail Concepts - Four rail concepts were studied, all which involved rail lines owned by
Norfolk Southern Railroad.
■ Rail Concept 1 - Minor improvements to the Norfolk Southern Piedmont Line from the
West Virginia state line to Manassas, including improvements to one of the most
congested sections of the Piedmont Line, the section from Front Royal to Manassas.
■ Rail Concept 2 - Improvements to the Norfolk Southern Piedmont Line within the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including major improvements to nine sections (e.g., the
section from Front Royal to Manassas and others). Proposed in the Northeast-Southeast-
Midwest Corridor Marketing Study as the Virginia -based investment scenario.
■ Rail Concept 3 - All improvements to the Norfolk Southern Piedmont Line included in
Rail Concept 2, as well as minor improvements to the Norfolk Southern Shenandoah
Line.
Executive Summary ES -iv
v
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
■ Rail Concept 4 - Full -level improvements to the Norfolk Southern Shenandoah Line and
new rail freight hauling technology that interfaces with intermodal centers at strategic
locations along I -81. This concept was proposed during the scoping process by
Rail Solution, a rail advocacy group.
The effects of rail improvements on the diversion of freight from I -81 to rail was modeled.
This analysis is detailed in the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study Freight Diversion and Forecast
Report. The results indicate that the construction of rail improvements alone would only
slightly reduce the number of lane miles needed on I -81 in Virginia. Table ES -1 illustrates the
percent of trucks that are projected to divert from I -81 in 2035.
Table ES -1 Rail Truck Diversion Percentages
Rail Concept # % Truck Diversion
Rail Concept 1 0.7
Rail Concept 2 2.9
Rail Concept 3 3.5
Rail Concept 5.8
Roadway Concepts - Roadway concepts were evaluated as consistant corridor -lenth
concepts, which meant they are either made the number of lanes in each direction equal for
the entire length of I -81 in Virginia, or added an equal number of lanes to the existing lanes
for the entire lenth of I -81 in Virginia. Each roadway concept was evaluated with five
different toll scenarios: 1) no toll, 2) low toll for all vehicles, 3) high toll for all vehicles, 4) low
toll for commercial vehicles only, and 5) high toll for commercial vehicles only.
■ Add 1 Lane -One additional lane in each direction (two lanes total) the entire 325 miles
and upgraded shoulders.
■ Add 2 Lanes -Two additional lanes in each direction (four lanes total) the
entire 325 miles and upgraded shoulders.
■ Add 3 Lanes -Three additional lanes in each direction (six lanes total) the
entire 325 miles and upgraded shoulders.
■ Uniform 6 Lanes - Additional lanes, where necessary, to make the entire corridor a
consistent three lanes in each direction and upgraded shoulders.
■ Uniform 8 Lanes - Additional lanes, where necessary, to make the entire corridor a
consistent four lanes in each direction and upgraded shoulders.
Combination Concepts - Each of the five roadway concepts described above were combined
with Rail Concept 3 to produce a total of five combination concepts. Rail Concept 3 was
chosen as the rail concept to use in combination with highway improvements because it
provides the most diversion of freight from truck to rail per dollar of investment. Each
combination concept was also evaluated with five different toll scenarios.
Executive Summary ES -v
v
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Separated Lane Concepts - Five concepts that involve the separation of lanes (in the same
direction of travel) were considered and were divided into two types: those involving
exclusive separated lanes and those involving non - exclusive separated lanes. Exclusive lanes
are barrier - separated lanes with separate interchange ramps to all the interchanges along the
roadway. Non - exclusive lanes provide a rumble strip between the separated lanes and the
other lanes, which allow vehicles in the separated lanes to merge into the other lanes and also
to use the existing interchange ramps. Separated lane concepts were evaluated with five toll
scenarios, with Rail Concept 3, and without Rail Concept 3. In addition, these concepts were
considered in combination with the addition of zero, one, and two general purpose lanes in
each direction.
Table ES -2 summarizes costs for each of the concepts described above. The I -81 Corridor
Improvement Study Concept Development and Analysis Technical Report provides a more detailed
breakdown of the costs for each improvement concept. These costs may change during Tier 2,
based on more site - specific information.
Table ES -2 Concept Costs
Concept
2005
Cost
2015
No -Build
$7.8 billion
$11.4 billion
TSM
$0.08 billion
$0.1 billion
Rail Concepts
$4.9 billion
$7.2 billion
Rail Concept 1
$0.1 billion
$0.14 billion
Rail Concept 2
$0.5 billion
$0.7 billion
Rail Concept 3
$0.5 billion
$0.7 billion
Rail Concept 4
$3.7 billion
$5.4 billion
Roadway Concepts
Add 1 Lane
$5.1 billion
$7.5 billion
Add 2 Lanes
$7.8 billion
$11.4 billion
Add 3 Lanes
$11.2 billion
$16.4 billion
Uniform 6 Lanes
$4.9 billion
$7.2 billion
Uniform 8 Lanes
$7.5 billion
$11.0 billion
Executive Summary ES -vi
M
Table ES -2 Concept Costs (Cont'd)
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Concept
2005
Cost
2015
Combination Concepts
Add 1 Lane + Rail Concept 3
$5.6 billion
$8.2 billion
Add 2 Lanes + Rail Concept 3
$8.3 billion
$12.2 billion
Add 3 Lanes + Rail Concept 3
$11.7 billion
$17.1 billion
Uniform 6 Lanes + Rail Concept 3
$5.4 billion
$7.9 billion
Uniform 8 Lanes + Rail Concept 3
$8.0 billion
$11.7 billion
Separated Lane Concepts'
Add 1 Exclusive Truck Lane + Add 1 or 2 GP Lanes $11.2 -12.7 billion $16.4 -18.6 billion
Add 2 Exclusive Truck Lanes + Add 0, 1, or 2 GP Lanes $11.2 -13.0 billion $16.4 -19.0 billion
Add 2 Non - Exclusive Truck Lanes + Add 0, 1, or 2 GP Lanes $ 9.3 -10.8 billion $13.6 -15.8 billion
Add 2 Exclusive Car Lanes + Add 0, 1, or 2 GP Lanes $11.2 -13.0 billion $16.4 -19.0 billion
Add 2 Non - Exclusive Car Lanes + Add 0 1, or 2 GP Lanes $11.2 -13.0 billion $16.4 -19.0 billion
* The costs necessary to build those improvements (each of which are programmed for construction) can be found in the Virginia
Transportation Six - Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2006-2017.
1 Separated lane concepts were evaluated with and without Rail Concept 3.
The concepts' ability to address the capacity portion of the Purpose and Need was identified
in the form of the number of miles of I -81 that would continue to operate below level of
service standards (described in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need) after the concept was built and
the number of miles where excess capacity would be provided. Excess capacity was defined
as the provision of at least one more lane than the number of lanes required to provide level
of service at or above the level of service standards.
Key conclusions reached based on the analysis were as follows:
■ The No -Build Concept does not satisfy the Purpose and Need.
■ The TSM Concept, as a stand -alone concept, does not satisfy the Purpose and Need.
■ As stand -alone concepts, rail improvements only slightly decrease the capacity needs on
I -81 in 2035. As such, they do not satisfy the Purpose and Need and do not preclude the
need for road improvements.
■ No single consistent corridor - length concept satisfies the needs of I -81 in Virginia
without providing more lanes than are needed.
■ The addition of one lane in each direction satisfies the Purpose and Need for
approximately 37 to 64 percent of the corridor, depending upon the toll scenario.
Executive Summary ES -vii
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
■ No concept with two separated lanes in each direction, whether with or without a barrier
or designated lane for truck or passenger vehicles, satisfies the Purpose and Need for the
entire corridor without providing more lanes than are needed.
■ Based on the varying traffic demands, a concept with a variable number of lanes between
interchanges of the corridor most efficiently addresses the needs of the roadway. The
variable concepts would minimize the social, economic, and environmental impacts from
consistent lane concepts, and provide an opportunity to limit cost by not providing more
lanes than are needed.
X10
Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21) established a
toll pilot program to allow conversion of a free interstate highway into a toll facility. The Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA -LU) made no revisions to this toll pilot program. A toll impact study was
conducted for the purpose of determining the effect of tolls on the I -81 corridor and the effects
of traffic diversion to other facilities. The study was not conducted to establish toll rates on I -81.
The effect of tolls on trucks and cars, or on just trucks, was estimated by modeling diversions of
these vehicles from I -81 to other transportation facilities. The study evaluated tolls for all
vehicles, as well as tolls for trucks only. Five toll scenarios were considered: 1) no tolls, 2) low
toll for all vehicles, 3) high toll for all vehicles, 4) low toll for trucks, and 5) high toll for trucks.
The low and high toll rates were derived from national research and represent a reasonable
rate that could be charged. Detailed information is provided in the I -81 Corridor Improvement
Study Toll Impact Study.
Generally, the higher the toll, the fewer the number of additional lanes required on I -81.
However, the inclusion of tolls would only have a slight effect on the I -81 cross - section
necessary to meet the 2035 traffic demands. Also, trucks are less likely to divert from I -81
than passenger cars because a commercial trucker's value of time is higher than that of a
passenger car. In other words, the additional time a trucker would need to travel on another
facility may be more costly to the trucker than the toll itself. A summary of the average
diversion estimates caused by tolls is shown in Table ES -3. These diversion estimates
represent the percentage of vehicles diverting from an improved I -81 because of tolls.
Table ES -3 Summary of Diversion Estimates Caused by Tolls
Executive Summary ES -viii
Tolls for All Vehicles
Low Toll High Toll
Tolls for All Commercial Vehicles
Low Toll High Toll
All Vehicles
Average Diversion from 1 -81
8% 16%
2% 9%
Trucks
Average Diversion from 1 -81
3% 11%
12% 25%
Executive Summary ES -viii
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Between 2005 and 2035, under the No -Build condition, improvements along U.S. Route 11 in
Virginia would likely be necessary as traffic volumes are expected to double along a majority
of roadway. An expanded I -81 without tolls would generally improve conditions on
U.S. Route 11 and other local roadways in the I -81 study area by diverting traffic from these
local roadways to the interstate. This is especially true in the more populated and
urban areas.
As tolls are introduced, traffic would begin to shift back to the local roadway network as
vehicles divert to their original route choices to avoid additional costs. Nearly 50 percent of
the traffic diverted from I -81 would be absorbed by U.S. Route 11. The remaining traffic
diverted from I -81 would be distributed among other local roads, as well as other interstates
(e.g., I -64 and I -95).
The impact of tolls on traffic operations relative to the No -Build condition would not be
substantial. Even though about half of the traffic would divert to U.S. Route 11, the resulting
increase is slight for this type of roadway (a rural principal arterial) and the overall impact
would be low. This is because, while some level of diversion from I -81 to U.S. Route 11 is
expected, some local traffic would also divert from U.S. Route 11 to an improved I -81. Under
the low toll scenario, in most locations, traffic volumes on local roadways would still be
below 2035 No -Build predictions. Areas with a high potential for local roadway impacts
would be sporadic throughout the corridor. Implementation of higher tolls on I -81 would
slightly increase traffic volumes on U.S. Route 11 as compared to the No -Build condition.
However, the actual traffic impact on U.S. Route 11 and other roads from the number of
additional vehicles would be low. See the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study Toll Impact Study
for the estimated impacts to localized sections of U.S. Route 11.
If all vehicles are tolled, an expanded I -81 would decrease truck traffic on local roadways to
levels below what are projected under 2035 No -Build conditions.
In accordance with Section 1216(b) of TEA -21, improvements would need to be made to I -81
in order to toll the facility. In addition, the use of tolls collected on I -81 in Virginia to make
improvements to other modes of transportation (e.g., railroads) is prohibited under
Section 1216(b) of TEA -21. Therefore, concepts that considered tolls, but did not include
highway improvements, are not considered viable.
Executive Summary ES -ix
ES, 5 Environmental Consequences
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
The potential impacts of the improvement concepts on the natural and human environment
were analyzed at a level of detail appropriate for Tier 1.
As previously stated, 211 combinations of concepts were evaluated for their ability to meet
the needs on I -81. Because this number is so large, the study evaluated potential impacts
associated with the narrowest highway footprint (i.e., the "Minimum Width footprint" and
the widest highway footprint (i.e., the "Maximum Width footprint ") that would be required
to meet the needs. This methodology is consistent with the tiered approach to this study and
captured the range of potential impacts from the various combinations of roadway concepts.
Both impact footprints have a variable number of additional lanes for the length of I -81
(ranging from two additional lanes to eight additional lanes) depending on the transportation
needs along the corridor.
On sections of I -81 that need one additional lane in each direction, both footprints add a total
of two lanes (one lane in each direction). On sections of I -81 that need two lanes in each
direction, the need can be met by different means: 1) atotal of four additional lanes can be
added, or 2) various operational scenarios can be implemented (e.g., separation of
general purpose lanes and truck lanes) that would meet the needs, but would require the
construction of up to eight additional lanes to operate efficiently. Where at least four lanes
are needed, the Minimum Width footprint provides a total of four additional lanes
(two lanes in each direction), and the Maximum Width footprint provides a total of
eight additional lanes (four in each direction).
When evaluating the number of lanes needed to address the needs along I -81, a "no toll" and
"no rail" base condition was assumed for the purpose of developing the footprints. This
base condition represents the highest traffic volumes and, therefore, the greatest number of
lanes that may be needed on I -81. The width of the variable Minimum Width footprint ranges
from roughly 240 feet (where a total of two lanes are added) to 430 feet (where a total of
four lanes are added) depending on the location. In comparison, the variable Maximum
Width footprint ranges from 240 feet (where a total of two lanes are added) to 540 feet (where
a total of eight lanes are added). These widths include existing pavement and new pavement.
For the Minimum Width footprint, widening occurs in the median of I -81 to the extent
possible. Conversely, the Maximum Width footprint widens to the outside right edge of I -81.
The concept proposed to be advanced is a non - separated highway facility that involves
constructing no more than two general purpose lanes, where needed, to address 2035 travel
demands. This concept is, in essence, a combination of the Add 1 Lane and
Add 2 Lanes concepts. The Minimum Width footprint is representative of the potential
impacts associated with the proposed Tier 1 decision.
Executive Summary ES -x
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
In addition, a footprint was developed to assess potential impacts associated with
Rail Concept 3. The footprint, generally 100 feet wide, represents the limits of potential rail
construction for the 13 rail sections that comprise Rail Concept 3.
Potential direct impacts were calculated by superimposing the footprints over
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data available for each resource. Each footprint
represents the potential limits of construction. Where the footprint and GIS data overlapped,
an impact was assumed.
It should be noted that the potential impacts in this Tier 1 study are preliminary, since they
are based largely on available GIS resource data and concept -level analyses. The
potential impacts may decrease or even be eliminated during Tier 2 as a result of more
detailed field investigations, highway design refinements, and avoidance and minimization
measures. A reduction or elimination of impacts is especially possible for sensitive resources
(e.g., historic properties and wetlands) for which consideration of avoidance and
minimization are required pursuant to Federal regulations.
Overall, potential impacts for the "Build" concepts on I -81 are similar and, in many cases, do
not vary substantially. The primary reason for this is that a large percent of impacts occur
within the 91 interchange areas, and the footprints at interchanges do not vary substantially
between "Build" concepts. The Minimum Width footprint generally has less potential
impacts than the Maximum Width because the Minimum Width template is
slightly narrower in those areas where more than two additional lanes are needed. Some
potential effects, however, such as air quality, noise, energy, and economics, may be
influenced by other considerations than just the physical footprint of the "Build" concepts. As
a result, the Minimum Width footprint has slightly higher potential negative impacts to
air quality, energy consumption, and economics because there are fewer travel lanes,
resulting in more congestion and less efficient travel. The potential impacts associated with
Rail Concept 3 are substantially less than either the Minimum Width or Maximum Width
footprints on I -81.
The economics analysis factored in the potential effects of various toll scenarios. Although
tolls have slight negative impact on the economy, this is offset by the potential benefits of an
improved facility, resulting in a net improvement in the economic conditions in 2035. Even
with tolls, the economic conditions are better in 2035 with the "Build" concepts than without
the "Build" concepts.
Approximately 50 percent of traffic diverted off of I -81 as a result of tolls would use
U.S. Route 11. Based on a qualitative evaluation of the potential effects on the environment
from traffic diverting to U.S. Route 11 and other local roads, the impacts are not anticipated
to be substantial because the number of vehicles traveling on U.S. Route 11 would not be
substantially changed from future No -Build conditions because some local traffic would
divert to an improved I -81. About 14 percent of freight traffic diverted off of I -81 would use
Executive Summary ES -xi
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
I -95 as an alternate route, and approximately 15 percent would use
1-65/1-64/1-79. These diversions are not expected to have a measurable impact to
traffic operations on parallel interstates. Therefore, the environmental impacts on
parallel interstate facilities as a result of toll diversion would be inconsequential.
Table ES -4 summarizes the potential environmental consequences associated with the
No -Build Concept and "Build" concepts as described. Detailed information on
historic properties and wetlands and water resources is also available in the I -81 Corridor
Improvement Study Historic Properties Technical Report and the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Wetlands and Water Resources Technical Report, respectively.
Executive Summary ES -xii
Elm
7;*
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table ES -4 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences'
1 The potential effects in this Tier 1 study are preliminary since they are based largely on available GIS resource data and concept -level analyses. The actual numbers may
decrease during Tier 2 as a result of more detailed investigations and highway design. Additionally, the numbers presented above do not include the impacts from potential
corridors on new location.
2 NE = Not Evaluated for Tier 1. Each roadway improvement project included in the No -Build has either completed or is currently undertaking the NEPA process independent of
the I -87 Corridor Improvement Study. All impacts to resources either have been or will be addressed through those separate documents.
3 While economic effects from the range of "Build" concepts differ, the range of economic effects is extremely small. Therefore, potential economic effects are only reported for the
No -Build and the Minimum Width template (with a No Toll scenario and with Rail Concept 3) because it can be considered to be representative of the economic effects from the
"Build" concepts in general.
4 Change in emissions from 2035 No -Build highway condition.
5 Change in emissions from 2035 No -Build rail condition. These emissions are based on rail improvements only.
Executive Summary ES -xiii
Minimum
Maximum
Rail
Resource 1 Issue
No -Build
Width
Width
Concept 3
Consistency with Local Plans
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Developed Land Use (acres)
N /E
7
7
45
Prime Farm Impacts (acres)
N /E
1
1
51
Agricultural /Forestal District Impacts (acres)
N /E
31
141
21
Residential Displacements ( #)
N /E
926
1,595
0
Business Displacements ( #)
N /E
662
763
1
Community Facilities Impacted ( #)
N /E
5
5
0
Minority Population Impacts (# of block groups affected)
N /E
20
20
0
Low - Income Population Impacts (# of block groups affected)
N /E
27
27
0
2035 Employment Growth (increase from 2005)
0%
4.7 %
---
---
2035 Gross Regional Product Growth (increase from 2005)
0%
4.2 %
---
---
Parks and Recreation Area Impacts (acres)
N /E
119
165
2
Open Space Easement Impacts (acres)
0
12
29
0
Visual Impacts (# of visual resources with view of the road /rail)
N /E
28
28
5
Potential Contamination Sites ( #)
N /E
9
9
0
Battlefield Impacts (acres)
N /E
1
1
13
Impacts to NRHP Listed /Eligible Historic Districts (acres)
N /E
51
58
1
Impacts to NRHP Listed /Eligible Historic Structures ( #)
N /E
19
20
2
NRHP Listed Archaeological Sites Impacted ( #)
N /E
1
1
0
Wetland Impacts (acres)
N /E
33
51
8
Stream Impacts (miles)
N /E
23.1
29.1
1.4
100 -Year Floodplains Impacted (acres)
N /E
361
458
50
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacted (# of species)
N /E
12
12
0
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (tons /day)
7.43
+0.36
-1.24
+0.28
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (tons /day)
8.78
+0.81
-1.15
+5.13
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (tons /day)
0.33
+0.02
-0.05
+0.17
Noise Sensitive Receptors Impacted (# increase over No- Build)
---
+4,015
+5
+137
1 The potential effects in this Tier 1 study are preliminary since they are based largely on available GIS resource data and concept -level analyses. The actual numbers may
decrease during Tier 2 as a result of more detailed investigations and highway design. Additionally, the numbers presented above do not include the impacts from potential
corridors on new location.
2 NE = Not Evaluated for Tier 1. Each roadway improvement project included in the No -Build has either completed or is currently undertaking the NEPA process independent of
the I -87 Corridor Improvement Study. All impacts to resources either have been or will be addressed through those separate documents.
3 While economic effects from the range of "Build" concepts differ, the range of economic effects is extremely small. Therefore, potential economic effects are only reported for the
No -Build and the Minimum Width template (with a No Toll scenario and with Rail Concept 3) because it can be considered to be representative of the economic effects from the
"Build" concepts in general.
4 Change in emissions from 2035 No -Build highway condition.
5 Change in emissions from 2035 No -Build rail condition. These emissions are based on rail improvements only.
Executive Summary ES -xiii
_ ''r 0 1
ES.6 Tier 1 Decisions
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
As mentioned previously, upon completion of the Tier 1 study, decisions will be made on:
• The improvement concepts to be advanced;
• Advancing I -81 as a toll pilot under Section 1216(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA -21);
• Projects with independent utility and logical termini to be studied in Tier 2;
• The types of Tier 2 NEPA document(s);
• The location of the corridor for studying alignments in Tier 2; and
■ Possible purchase of certain right -of -way parcels on a case -by -case basis.
FHWA's proposed decisions on each of these items are described below. These decisions will
be made with consideration of the information presented or referenced in the Tier 1 EIS and
with consideration of the comments received during the Tier 1 NEPA process. Each of these
decisions will be documented in the Tier 1 Record of Decision. In a resolution, dated
October 11, 2006 (see Appendix D), the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
endorsed a series of actions that are consistent with FHWA's proposed decisions as described
in this Tier 1 Final EIS.
Improvement Concepts
The Tier 1 study indicates that the vast majority of I -81 needs additional highway capacity by
2035, but that no single consistent corridor - length solution meets the needs of future travel
demand without providing excess or insufficient capacity in the corridor. In addition, the
study indicates that a varying number of general purpose highway lanes would most
efficiently address the future travel demand. A variable lane concept minimizes the social,
economic, and environmental impacts as compared to consistent lane concepts and provides
an opportunity to limit cost by not providing more lanes than are needed. As a result,
consistent lane concepts are not proposed to be advanced into Tier 2. Further, the addition of
general purpose lanes would cost substantially less than the separated lane concepts in order
to achieve the same level of service benefit. In addition, numerous citizens opposed the
separated lane concepts. As such, separated lane concepts are also not proposed to be
advanced into Tier 2.
The purpose and need for this study was to improve I -81 in Virginia, and as described in
Chapter 3, Improvement Concepts, rail concepts do very little to address the 2035 traffic needs
on I -81. In fact, even if 100 percent of the trucks were removed from I -81 in Virginia and their
freight put on to rail, the majority of the roadway - including seven of the eight Sections of
Independent Utility (SIUs) - would still need additional highway lanes. In addition, FHWA
has no control or responsibility over privately owned rail lines and, pursuant to Title 23 of
the United States Code (USC), cannot fund improvements to those lines. Based on the above,
FHWA does not propose to advance rail concepts into Tier 2 of this NEPA study.
Executive Summary ES -xiv
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
"Build" Concept The "Build" concept that is, therefore, proposed to be advanced into Tier 2
is a non - separated highway facility that involves constructing no more than two general
purpose lanes in each direction, where needed, to address 2035 travel demands. This concept
is, in essence, a combination of the Add 1 Lane and Add 2 Lanes concepts. Subsequent Tier 2
NEPA documents prepared for individual, independent projects along I -81 would address
site - specific details before specific design and /or location decisions are made. A
context sensitive solutions approach as well as the CTB's adopted policies pertaining to
multi -modal transportation and land use planning will be considered in the development of
the improvements. See page ES -xix for the proposed level of environmental document for
each SIU.
Along with the "Build" concept proposed to be advanced into Tier 2, there is an immediate
need for smaller, independent safety and operational improvements along I -81. These
include, but are not limited to, the construction of truck climbing lanes, the extension of
entrance and exit ramps at various interchanges, the installation and upgrading of guardrail,
and the modification of major interchanges. These short -term improvements were included
as part of the Transportation System Management Concept discussed in this Tier 1 FEIS.
FHWA proposes to advance these types of short -term improvements independently,
including truck climbing lanes from approximately Milepost 195 to Milepost 202 northbound
and Mileposts 128 to Milepost 119 southbound with funding identified in SAFETEA -LU.
It should be noted that, even if FHWA decides in Tier 1 to advance certain concepts and
improvements, those decisions do not mean that those improvements will occur. Rather, the
Tier 2 NEPA process would still need to be completed before the construction of any projects
identified in this document. In addition, even though transportation needs have been
identified along most of I -81 in Virginia, other factors may outweigh the need for
transportation improvements.
Multi -State Rail
It is important to first understand the context in which the I -81 study has been conducted.
Under the Federal -aid highway program (FAHP), Congress makes funding available to each
state for its use in improving the highway system within the state. There are several
requirements that the state has to address before Federal -aid highway funds are authorized
by FHWA. One of the key requirements is compliance with NEPA, which requires an
evaluation of the environmental impacts of Federal actions.
The Tier 1 EIS was prepared pursuant to NEPA. The Tier 1 EIS assesses the current and
future transportation needs along the entire 325 -mile corridor of I -81 in Virginia and
evaluates the effectiveness of a range of concept level improvements in addressing those
needs and the potential environmental impacts of those concepts. Because of the strong
public interest in studying rail improvements to divert freight (i.e., trucks) off of I -81 in
Virginia, FHWA and VDOT evaluated rail improvement concepts as a key part of the
Executive Summary ES -xv
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
analysis, as evidenced by the lengthy Freight Diversion and Forecast Report. Four rail
improvement concepts, including a concept proposed by Rail Solution (referred to as
Rail Concept 4), were evaluated to determine the degree to which they would meet the needs
on I -81 in Virginia.
According to Federal regulations implementing NEPA [see 40 CFR 1502.14(a)], the key factor
in the determination of whether to evaluate an alternative in an EIS is whether the alternative
is reasonable. The Council on Environmental Quality, which oversees the implementation of
the NEPA process, issued formal guidance that indicates that reasonable alternatives include
those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using
common sense. In addition, FHWA, as stewards of Federal highway funds, needs to be
cognizant of limited transportation funding and is directed by the United States Code
[23 USC 109(h)] to make decisions in the best overall public interest. It is not in the best
overall public interest to authorize Federal highway funds on the exploration of
unreasonable alternatives.
The suggestion that this Tier 1 EIS evaluate in detail a multi -state rail concept was made at
the onset of the study during the scoping process. After much research and deliberation,
FHWA determined that it was not reasonable for this Tier 1 EIS to evaluate multi -state rail
improvements. The reasons for FHWA's determination are specified in a memorandum,
dated May 4, 2004, that was included in Appendix B to the Tier 1 DEIS.
While the Tier 1 EIS does not evaluate multi -state rail improvements, the EIS does evaluate
the influence of multi -state rail traffic and committed rail improvements in other states on
future conditions along I -81 in Virginia. The freight movements considered in the Tier 1 EIS
included all movements of freight that use I -81 in Virginia regardless of their origin and
destination, including out -of -state origins and destinations. Freight diversion was examined
for two separate cases - a macro analysis for trips greater than 500 miles, and a
micro analysis for trips less than 500 miles. There was substantial coordination with
Norfolk Southern, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the
Federal Railroad Administration.
As previously stated, the traffic analysis that was conducted for the Tier 1 EIS demonstrates
that, even if 100 percent of the trucks were removed from I -81 in Virginia and their freight
put onto rail, the majority of I -81 in Virginia - including seven of the eight SIUs - would still
need additional highway lanes. In addition, FHWA has no control or responsibility over
privately owned rail lines and, pursuant to Title 23 USC, cannot fund improvements to those
lines. Based on the above, FHWA does not propose to advance rail concepts into Tier 2 of this
NEPA study.
Therefore, evaluating out -of -state rail improvements would not alter FHWA's Tier 1 decision
to advance conceptual -level improvements to the second tier of study. In the context of
FHWA's NEPA responsibilities as part of the FAHP, FHWA reaffirms that it is not reasonable
to evaluate the construction of multi -state rail improvements.
Executive Summary ES -xvi
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
As stated in its memorandum, dated May 4, 2004, FHWA encouraged states to begin a
dialogue on addressing regional rail needs along the I -81 corridor. In addition, in 2006, the
Virginia General Assembly directed that an additional study be conducted to identify
improvements and funding mechanisms needed to divert truck traffic off of I -81 and onto
rail. As a result, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, whose
responsibilities include working with the railroad companies to improve freight operations,
has initiated a multi -state rail study in cooperation with the Virginia Office of the Secretary of
Transportation and Norfolk Southern to expedite short -term rail improvements and to study
the potential long -term diversion of truck traffic along I -81 to rail. This study will be referred
to as the I -81 Freight Rail Study and is independent of this tiered NEPA process. While a rail
concept is not being proposed to be advanced to Tier 2 of this NEPA study, if funded rail
improvements emerge from the I -81 Freight Rail Study, FHWA and VDOT would evaluate
the effects of those rail improvements on the projections of future travel demand along I -81
as appropriate during Tier 2.
Tolls
The Tier 1 EIS demonstrates that the impacts on U.S. Route 11 and other roads (both local
roadways and other interstate facilities) from traffic that is diverted from I -81 as a result of
tolls are low (see Section 3.1.3 and 5.14). In addition, the environmental impacts on other
interstate facilities caused by tolling would be inconsequential. FHWA proposes to advance
I -81 as a toll pilot facility which would allow tolling to continue to be pursued as a possible
funding mechanism for improvements to I -81. If a toll option is considered for a particular
Section of Independent Utility (SIU) (see below), the localized effects of toll facilities will be
studied for the SIU during Tier 2.
The tolling application process under Section 1216(b) of TEA -21 is independent of NEPA and
requires additional Federal approval. In addition, it should be noted that tolls could not be
implemented until completion of the Tier 2 NEPA process for a particular SIU.
Sections of Independent Utility and
Tier 2 Documentation
A practical approach to improving I -81 throughout Virginia is to break the entire corridor
into sections and undertake more detailed environmental studies on a series of projects that
are consistent with the overall purpose and need in this Tier 1 EIS. Based upon
traffic exchanges and service demands, each section is independent, useful, and stands on its
own merits within the framework of this Tier 1 FEIS. Each of these sections is referred to as a
Section of Independent Utility (SIU).
Eight proposed SIUs have been identified for subsequent refinement of the improvements
and processing of the environmental documents (see Table ES -5) . In addition, smaller,
independent safety and operational improvements within these SIUs are proposed to be
advanced independently.
Executive Summary ES -xvii
I�
Table ES -5
From
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Additional General Purpose Lane Requirements in Sections of Independent Utility
SIU Termini
To
Number of Additional General Purpose Lanes Needed'
Northbound
Southbound
1. Tennessee state line
2. Exit 72 (1 -77) near
Wyth
3. Exit 81 (1 -77) near
Wytheville
4. Exit 118 (U.S. Route 460)
near Christiansburg
5. Exit 143 (1 -581) in
Roanoke County
6. Exit 221 (1 -64) near
Staunton
Exit 72 (1 -77) near
Wytheville
Exit 81 (1 -77) near
Wytheville
Exit 118
(U.S. Route 460) near
Christiansburg
Exit 143 (1 -581) in
Roanoke County
Exit 221 (1 -64) near
Staunton
Exit 247 (U.S. Route
33) in Harrisonburg
7. Exit 247 (U.S. Route 33) Exit 300 (1 -66) in
in Harrisonburg Warren County
8. Exit 300 (1 -66) in West Virginia state
Warren County line
No lanes from Milepost 0 to Exit 3
One lane from Exit 3 to Exit 5
No lanes from Exit 5 to Exit 7
Two lanes from Exit 7 to Exit 19
One lane from Exit 19 to Exit 72
One lane from Exit 72 to Exit 81
Two lanes from Exit 81 to Exit 118
Two lanes from Exit 118 to Exit 143
Two lanes from Exit 143 to Exit 162
One lane from Exit 162 to Exit 168
Two lanes from Exit 168 to Exit 221
Two lanes from Exit 221 to Exit 243
One lane from Exit 243 to Exit 245
Two lanes from Exit 245 to Exit 247
One lane from Exit 247 to Exit 251
Two lanes from Exit 251 to Exit 257
One lane from Exit 257 to Exit 269
Two lanes from Exit 269 to Exit 273
One lane from Exit 273 to Exit 279
Two lanes from Exit 279 to Exit 300
Two lanes from Exit 300 to Exit 310
One lane from Exit 310 to Exit 313
Two lanes from Exit 313 to Milepost
325
No lanes from Milepost 0 to Exit 7
One lane from Exit 7 to Exit 10
Two lanes from Exit 10 to Exit 17
One lane from Exit 17 to Exit 72
One lane from Exit 72 to Exit 81
One lane from Exit 81 to Exit 84
Two lanes from Exit 84 to Exit 86
One lane from Exit 86 to Exit 89
Two lanes from Exit 89 to Exit 96
One lane from Exit 96 to Exit 101
Two lanes from Exit 101 to Exit 105
One lane from Exit 105 to Exit 109
Two lanes from Exit 109 to Exit 114
One lane from Exit 114 to Exit 118
Two lanes from Exit 118 to Exit 143
Two lanes from Exit 143 to Exit 156
One lane from Exit 156 to Exit 167
Two lanes from Exit 167 to Exit 168
One lane from Exit 168 to Exit 191
Two lanes from Exit 191 to Exit 221
Two lanes from Exit 221 to Exit 243
One lane from Exit 243 to Exit 247
One lane from Exit 247 to Exit 251
Two lanes from Exit 251 to Exit 264
One lane from Exit 264 to Exit 277
Two lanes from Exit 277 to Exit 300
Two lanes from Exit 300 to Exit 310
One lane from Exit 310 to Exit 313
Two lanes from Exit 313 to Milepost 325
1 The traffic analysis will be updated during Tier 2; therefore, the lane requirements as identified in this document may change slightly.
Executive Summary ES -xviii
v
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
This Tier 1 EIS provides information on the nature of the "Build" concepts and the
potential impacts associated with those concepts. The significance of the actual impacts of the
individual SIUs is currently unknown. Therefore, Environmental Assessments (EAs) are
proposed as the type of Tier 2 NEPA document for each SIU. The EAs would be the means
through which the detailed analyses associated with Tier 2 would be conducted. Based on the
detailed information in the EAs, informed decisions would be made on the significance of the
impacts of each SIU. If significant impacts are identified, an EIS would be prepared. For the
smaller, independent safety and operational improvements within the SIUs, such as projects
to construct truck climbing lanes, Categorical Exclusions (CEs) are proposed provided that
significant impacts would not occur. Depending on the context of the improvements and
nature of the impacts, the Tier 2 NEPA documents may evaluate in detail one "Build"
alternative.
Location of Corridor for Tier 2 Studies
The location of the corridor for most of the Tier 2 studies will be the existing I -81 highway
corridor. However, there are two locations along I -81 where the potential impacts from the
I -81 improvement concepts, especially displacements, may rise to the level where a corridor
on new location may be prudent. These sections are the I -77 overlap section near Wytheville
(Milepost 72 to 81 (SIU #2)) and a section in Harrisonburg (Milepost 243 to 251 within SIUs
#6 and #7). At these two locations, FHWA and VDOT propose to evaluate corridors on new
location, as well as widening the existing facility during Tier 2.
Possible Right -of -Way Purchases
While this Tier 1 FEIS does not include any proposed decisions to purchase specific
right -of -way parcels, it provides information to support decisions on hardship acquisitions or
protective purchases of specific right -of -way parcels in the future on a case -by -case basis.
ES,7 Agency Coordination and Public
Participation Process
Coordination with local, state, and Federal agencies and the public was conducted during
the formal scoping process and throughout the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study. The scoping
process began at the initial stages of the study with a series of seven public scoping meetings
attended by a total of 358 people, meetings with local officials prior to each public meeting,
and an agency scoping meeting. These meetings were held in February 2004 and resulted in
approximately 1,100 comments from a total of 244 different commenters. The early scoping
process was completed in the spring of 2004 and is summarized in the I -81 Corridor
Improvement Study Scoping Summary Report.
Executive Summary ES -xix
1 -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
Meetings and correspondence continued with local, state, and Federal agencies, and
interest groups throughout the study. Additional forums for discussion throughout the
study included three formal Partnering Meetings with Federal resource agencies,
interviews with city/ county planners and administrators, coordination with the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation as well as Norfolk Southern, and
other miscellaneous meetings. Correspondence was received from approximately
16 interest groups such as Rail Solution, Virginians for Appropriate Roads, and the
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. Information about the progress of the study
was provided through press releases, newsletters, and a project Web site, which included a
direct e -mail link.
The Tier 1 DEIS was signed on November 28, 2005. It was available for review on
VDOT's Web site for six months and was available at public hearings, numerous
VDOT offices, and libraries. Six public hearings were held in April 2006. A total of
1,055 people attended, with the largest attendance at the Bridgewater meeting. The
Tier 1 DEIS comment period was extended to May 29, 2006 based on a request from
interested parties. Approximately 2,600 written comment documents (including tolling
application comment sheets) were received during the comment period. The majority of the
comments focused on tolling, with approximately 80 percent opposing the use of tolls as a
funding source for I -81 improvements. By analyzing the I -81 Corridor Improvement Study
Public Hearing comment sheets, the public preferred Rail Improvements (58 percent),
followed by Combination of Adding Lanes and Rail (20 percent), Adding Additional Lanes
(15 percent), and Spot Improvements (7 percent).
Executive Summary ES -xx
o � aoarua�.
J a
'83a Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800
5204 BERNARD DRIVE
ROANOKE, VA 24018 -0798
Michael A. Wray, Chairman
Cave Spring Magisterial District
Joseph P. McNamara, Vice - Chairman
Windsor Hills Magisterial District
April 14, 2006
Christopher Collins
Project Manager, Environmental Division
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
1401 E. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Michael W. Altizer
Vinton Magisterial District
Joseph B. "Butch" Church
Catawba Magisterial District
Richard C. Flora
Hollins Magisterial District
Re: Roanoke County's comments on the Interstate 81 Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Dear Mr. Collins:
We are pleased to have the opportunity to express our comments and concerns on the
Interstate 81 Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and on the much
needed transportation improvement project. Roanoke County is situated along this vital
corridor and its efficient and safe operation is essential to the quality of life we enjoy.
We feel that we need to clarify some statements that we observed in the Tier 1 DEIS
pertinent to or attributable to Roanoke County. In Table 4.1 -1, Table 6.1 -1, and possibly
in other areas of the Tier. 1 DEIS, statements are made relevant to the County's
transportation objectives and potential consistency with local transportation plans. In
those tables and text, it states that Roanoke County desires to "limit widening of 1-81".
This is contradictory to numerous resolutions and Board actions that this and previous
Board of Supervisors (dating back to at least 1997) have passed that are "very
supportive of the Virginia Department of Transportation's proposed plan to increase the
number of north and south travel lanes" on Interstate 81 and that "Roanoke County
continues to support VDOT's proposed plan to widen 1 -81 from its present four lanes ".
Further, we want to reiterate some previous resolutions from the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors, in addition to the ones in support of widening that are mentioned above,
that pertain to the Interstate 81 corridor. Resolution 071498 -1 states support of the
improvements to Interstate 81 but also requests County participation in the planning and
design stages of the project. We are hopeful that this coordination and input will
continue and become even more detailed and involved as we enter into the Tier 2 phase
of this environmental study. In addition, Resolution 062403 -6.d supports rail alternatives
to complement any planned improvements to Interstate 81.
OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL:
(540) 772 -2005 (540) 772 -2193 (540) 772 -2170
E -MAIL:
bas @ roanokecountyva.gov
r
t
Interstate 81 Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page 2
County staff recently presented a summary of the information included in the Tier 1 Draft
EIS. Subsequent to review of that information and discussion amongst the Board of
Supervisors, we compiled the following list of comments for your consideration:
0 We encourage the use of an improvement concept with a variable number of lanes to
address the varying traffic demands and capacity needs.
• We oppose local toll options that would assess County residents merely commuting
in the immediate area.
• We support separated lanes for segments of the Interstate 81 corridor, especially in
urban and high traffic areas.
• We request that improvements to Route 11 precede any wide -scale improvements to
Interstate 81.
We look forward to working with you and other VDOT staff during Tier 2 of the NEPA
process and throughout this very important project. Feel free to contact the Board with
any questions or to discuss these comments. We can be reached by phone at 540 -772-
2008 or by email at bos roanokecount va. ov.
Respectfully submitted,
- Tn
Michael A. Wray
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
cc: Joseph P. McNamara, Vice - Chairman, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
Joseph B. "Butch" church, Catawba Magisterial District
Michael W. Altizer, Vinton Magisterial District
Richard C. Flora, Hollins Magisterial District
Eimer Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator
File
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003
RESOLUTION 082403 -8.d SUPPORTING RAIL ALTERNATIVES TO
COMPLEMENT PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSTATE 81
WHEREAS, the 1 -81 corridor is increasingly the route of choice for trucks
traveling between the northeast and the south and southwest because of congestion on
1 -95 and expanding shipments generated by the North American Free Trade Act; and
WHEREAS, two multi - national corporations, Halliburton and Fluor corporations,
have submitted proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to
expand the number of lanes and other appurtenances on 1 -81; and
WHEREAS, Norfolk- Southern corporation estimates that seventy percent (70 %)
of truck traffic on 1 -81 passes through Virginia to destinations south or north; and
WHEREAS, the minimal rail freight proposals included in the Star Solutions and
Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight
potential in the whole 1-81 corridor; and
WHEREAS, these same proposals provide no option for passenger rail, although
upgrading the corridor's main rail line secures the passenger rail option; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is now planning the future of the 1 -81
corridor, those decisions containing dramatic impacts for the future of western Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the commonwealth of Virginia's decision on this corridor will
determine whether 1 -81 and connecting interstates will become a multi -state 'East coast
Truck By- Pass;" and
WHEREAS, the increased use of railroads to move freight will improve safety by
reducing dangerous vehicular congestion on 1 -81, improve energy conservation by
reducing the amount of diesel fuel consumed for freight transportation, and improve the
1
f s
health of people and other forms of life in western Virginia by dampening the rate of
increase in diesel engine - generated toxic emissions along 1 -81; and
WHEREAS, the creation of additional freight rail capacity paralleling 1 -81, in
Virginia and Tennessee, may spur creation of new freight rail capacity nationwide,
resulting in more shipping options at lower cost for the Nation's businesses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its support for the development and
promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to 1 -81, to complement limited
highway - widening and to move a large volume of the long- distance freight traffic from
trucks on 1 -81 to freight trains on dual track, high -speed rails parallel to 1 -81.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
/4" < 4Q,-t
Brenda J. Holton, CMC
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Cc: File
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional
Commission
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development
K
s
�r�Cr�iPilr]
ITEM NO. '7—S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
APPROVED BY:
June 24, 2003
Resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement
planned improvements to interstate 81
Elmer C. Hodge F/f
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
I
Two multi - national corporations, Halliburton and Fluor Corporations, have submitted
proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation to expand the number of lanes and
other appurtenances on Interstate 81. The minimal rail freight proposals included in the
State Solutions and Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately
address rail freight potential in the whole 1 -81 corridor.
The Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional commission has asked local governments to
adopt a resolution of support for the development and promotion of rail freight and
passenger service parallel to 1 -81, to complement limited highway - widening and to move
large volume of the long- distance freight traffic from trucks on 1 -81 to freight trains on dual
track, high -speed rails parallel to 1 -81. The city of Roanoke approved a resolution at their
meeting on June 2, 2003.
FISCAL I M PACT:
None
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned
improvements to Interstate 81
I
2. Do not adopt the resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned
improvements to Interstate 81
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
z
i
C �
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 14 1998
RESOLUTION 071498-1 TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY FOR PROPOSED ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSTATE 81 AND REQUESTING ROANOKE
COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING AND DESIGN STAGES OF
THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, in 1996 the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) began to
plan and design improvements to Interstate 81 (I -81), as a result of an increase in traffic
volume resulting in safety problems and traffic congestion; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will improve safety, enhance travel
opportunities and provide the potential for economic growth around the Roanoke Valley;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements to 1 -81 will result in impacts upon the
citizens of Roanoke county, and upon the provision of public services by county
government; and,
WHEREAS, the construction of proposed improvements to 1 -81 will affect the
County's future budgets and fiscal resources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board supports the project to improve traffic flow, increase capacity,
and interstate access via Interstate 81 within Roanoke County.
2. That VDOT assure county staff and citizens will participate in the early
1
stages of the design and planning of the proposed improvements to 1 -81 in order to keep
affected citizens and property owners informed of the status of this project, to minimize
impacts, and to permit planning and budgeting for these impacts on the County.
3. That VDOT and the county Staff work together to address the fiscal impacts
on the County tax base, budget and financial resources, especially with respect to utility
crossings and storm water management facilities, frontage and access roads (and in
particular access to the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology),
emergency services response during construction, and the location and costs for noise
control /sound barrier measures.
4. That County staff and citizens be allowed to participate in the early planning
and design stages of this project to address the following issues: the basic widening
approach to be utilized (inside vs. outside), development and growth, frontage roads, utility
crossings, interchanges, public safety during construction, tourist re- routing, storm water
management facilities, sound barriers, zoning and local land use.
5. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to mail a certified copy of
this Resolution to VDOT Salem District Administrator, Commonwealth Transportation
Board members, Roanoke city, Salem, Botetourt, Montgomery, Governor, and local
legislators.
On motion of supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson
NAYS: None
2
a
A COPY TESTS:
Mary H. A en, CMCIAAE
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Gardner W. Smith, Deputy Assistant for Citizen Services
Fred Altizer, VDOT Salem District Administrator
Arnold covey, Director, community Development
Commonwealth Transportation Board members
Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke city Council
Forest Jones, Clerk, Salem city Council
Gerald S. Burgess, Botetourt county Administrator
Jeffrey D. Johnson, Montgomery County Administrator
The Honorable James S. Gilmore, III
The Honorable John S. Edwards
The Honorable Malfourd W. Trumbo
The Honorable H. Morgan Griffith
The Honorable Clifton Woodrum
The Honorable C. Richard Cranwell
The Honorable A. Victor Thomas
3
f
a �
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER �""' /
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1998
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of Support and Request for County Participation in the
Interstate 81 Improvement Project
[41111M IVO4111111
BACKOROIM; In 1996, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) began a major
effort to plan and design road improvements to Interstate 81(1 The increase in traffic volume
has created safety problems and traffic congestion on the four --lane I - which is 30 years old.
The traffic has nearly tripled in 25 years from 2.7 million vehicles in 1970 to more than eight
million in 1995. The 325 miles of interstate in Virginia was designed to carry only 15 percent
truck traffic; however, it now carries 19- 40 percent. The study is divided into ten areas. The
total cost for the ten steps will be $2.0 billion over 20 years. Roanoke County is in Study Area
5 covering Montgomery, Roanoke, and Botetourt counties where the plan is to widen I -81 from
four to either six or eight lanes, depending on traffic needs.
SUMMAR OF INFORMATION; Roanoke County should support these improvements to I -81
because of the need to improve safety on the interstate, and the increased economic development the
improvements might bring to the Roanoke Valley. We also have a unique opportunity to be a part
of the design process and participate in decisions that will affect our citizens. The County should also
have an opportunity for input on such issues as road access, communication, noise control, and the
potential for joint stormwater management facilities.
The widening of I -81 will require the acquisition of a significant number of properties from private
citizens. There is a long lag time between planning and construction, and many of the property
owners may not be aware of the status of the widening project when land acquisition begins.
Communication and working with the citizens and businesses who may be re- located will be
important in keeping the County responsive to its residents.
The County staff has established an I -81 widening Committee to study the impacts of the road
widening project, and to determine where the citizens and the County can profit by early proactive
involvement in the planning. Attached is a summary of issues being pursued by I -81 Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT: The staff committee believes that there may be a fiscal impact on the
County. Cost associated with County concerns may be advanced into the budgets ahead of plans
r i ,
f
•
r
■
in order to meet the time frame of the I -S 1 project. Estimates of fiscal impacts will require more
details. Examples of cost impacts anticipated are as follows:
1. Utility crossing and storm water management facilities
2. Access roads associated with the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology.
3. Emergency service response during the construction phase.
4. Businesses and homes, which may be nonconforming uses, are already identified
and within the acquisition corridor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the attached resolution be approved
supporting the VDOT project and expressing the County's desire for early participation in the
design phase.
Res ectfully submitted,
ardner W. mii
Deputy Assistant for Citizen Services
Approved by,
A & 1m C. Ho dg e
County Administrator
ACTION
Approved OMotion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To
VOTE
No Yes Abs.
Harrison
Johnson
McNamara
Minnix
Nickens
J �
1
Discussion Issues for the County I -81 Widening Committee
Below is a summary of the types of issues the committee is addressing:
WIDENING APPROACH (INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE): More than half of the widening
project can be accomplished within the existing median. However, the inside approach would
require concrete median barriers and the appearance similar to the I- 581/220 expressway. We
see the need for a combination of inside and outside expansion in certain areas of the County
to lessen the impact on citizens and to retain the natural beauty of the area.
DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH: Roanoke County has purchased and rezoned some 456
acres near exit 132 (Dixie Caverns) . The County is rezoning the property to become a
Planned Technology District. Road access is an issue and must be considered in the design of
the road widening. The master plan and design of the Roanoke County Center for Research
and Technology was prepared with the involvement of the citizens in the community. If the
scope and nature of the technology district changes, the citizens committee should participate.
FRONTAGE ROADS: There are seven frontage roads along the interstate. The staff sees
the need to study extending or relocating several of the roads to provide alternative routes for
traffic diversion, emergency traffic flow, and for future development in the area.
UTILITY CROSSINGS: The County anticipates development on both the north and south
sides of I -81. To avoid the interstate becoming a barrier for utilities extension and to
minimize the cost of crossing the interstate, casing and pipes should be installed as the
interstate is widened. County access to construction plans during the design phase is required
to take advantage of disturbed sites.
INTERCHANGES: There are six interchanges along the stretch of I -81 in or on the border of
the County. Staff feels that further study should be conducted on adding an interchange
between Dixie Caverns and Wildwood Road to support development and emergency service
access. Staff analysis indicates that traffic increases will be at the level that full or half
cloverleaf will be required at all sites. If an option for I -73 exit falls within the Area 5, then
this additional exit should be full cloverleaf also.
PUBLIC SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION: The County public safety staff must be
included in the planning for traffic diversion during construction and the traffic flow in the
event of an emergency to assure adequate response time.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: A regional storm water management
LA
I
� -r
study was recently completed. The plan identifies several locations to construct detention
ponds to reduce flooding. Staff will seek the opportunity to review the I -81 plans to identify
and propose joint facilities where possible.
SOUND BARRIER: The use of the noise control system is new to this area of I - and early
staff involvement is desired to discuss locations and visual designs.
ZONING AND LAND USE: The planning staff and development review personnel will need
to insure that accurate and up to date information is provided to the citizens. Because of the
long lag time between planning and construction, property owners will have to be kept
informed. Special care is required with those attempting to purchase or to sell within the
VDOT proposed right -of -way corridor. Nonconforming uses will be an additional problem.
Based on experiences elsewhere in the County, there will be residents and businesses seeking
to replace or rebuild buildings in areas which will constitute nonconforming use. A County
policy should be developed to address these issues.
TOURISM RE- ROUTING DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: The staff believes that
the careful handling of visitors to the valley during the construction period is very important.
The Roanoke Valley must take a proactive role in minimizing the potential loss of tourists
which may result from construction and the re-- routing of normal traffic patterns. The county
suggest the "Visitor Friendly" signs be developed to assist in retaining an acceptable level of
tourism during project construction. Early planning between VDOT, the Visitors Bureau, the
cities, and the county will be required to replace permanent signs.
Estimated timetable for I -81 Improvements
1996 -97 - All 10 widening studies underway
1997 -98 - Two citizen information meetings held in each area
Spring 1998 - widening construction has begun in Bristol area;
Construction has begun on Chri stian sburg area interchange
late 1998 - All studies completed; best widening options selected
early 1999 -- Study results reviewed by Commonwealth Transportation Board;
Preliminary construction priorities set
1 999 -2020 - Ongoing con structionlimprovements
1�
AT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance
with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements
by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution
applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the
closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
Page 1 of 1