HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/13/2003 - Regular
May 13, 2003
401
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
May 13, 2003
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May, 2003.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Joseph McNamara, Supervisors Michael W.
Altizer, Joseph B. “Butch” Church, H. Odell “Fuzzy” Minnix
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Supervisor Richard C. Flora
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; John
M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt,
Chief Financial Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge introduced Tarah Holland from the Roanoke Times, who was
substituting for Tim Thornton, and Joel Shelton, County Intern. He also requested that
May 13, 2003
402
items C-1 and C-2, resolutions of appreciation to Senator Trumbo and Delegate
Thomas, be held until later in the meeting to allow time for the recipients to arrive.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to the Honorable Malfourd W. Trumbo
for his service to the residents of Roanoke County and the
Commonwealth of Virginia as a member of the Virginia House of
Delegates and the Senate
This item was presented following Item C-5
R-051303-3
Chairman McNamara presented the resolution and a brass paperweight to
Senator Trumbo. The Board members, Mr. Hodge, and Mr. Mahoney expressed their
appreciation to Senator Trumbo for his years of service.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-3 OF APPRECIATION TO THE HONORABLE
MALFOURD W. TRUMBO FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AS A
MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES AND SENATE
WHEREAS, Malfourd W. “Bo” Trumbo served in the Virginia House of Delegates
from 1990 until 1992, was elected to the Virginia Senate in 1992, and represents the
May 13, 2003
403
nd
22 Senate District which includes the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, Cities of
Salem and Radford and portions of the County of Montgomery; and
WHEREAS, Senator Trumbo has served his constituents on many Senate
committees including Courts of Justice, Finance, Rehabilitation and Social Services,
Transportation, and as Chair of the Rules Committee; and
WHEREAS, Senator Trumbo has also been active in his community serving on
many organizations such as the Botetourt County Bar Association, Botetourt County
Heart Association, Bath County Education Association, and Botetourt County Chamber
of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, Senator Trumbo, through his tenure in the House and Senate, has
always been willing to provide assistance to the County, and was instrumental in the
formation of Pulaski Park, a regional industrial development park, and in securing
legislation that would allow Roanoke County to obtain an ownership interest in Explore
Park; and
WHEREAS, the County is very appreciative of Senator Trumbo’s support through
the years and wishes to recognize his invaluable service to the citizens of Roanoke
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
MALFOURD W. TRUMBO
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its appreciation to for
his many years of service to the residents of Roanoke County as a member of the
Virginia House of Delegates and Senate, and as an active citizen in the Roanoke Valley
community; and
FURTHER, the Board expresses its best wishes to Senator Trumbo for success
in all of his future endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. Resolution of appreciation to the Honorable A. Victor Thomas for
his service to the residents of Roanoke County and the
Commonwealth of Virginia as a member of the Virginia House of
Delegates
This item was presented following Item C-3
R-051303-2
May 13, 2003
404
Chairman McNamara presented the resolution and a brass paperweight to
Delegate Thomas. The Board members expressed their appreciation to Delegate
Thomas for his years of service.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-2 OF APPRECIATION TO THE HONORABLE A.
VICTOR THOMAS FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AS A
MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
WHEREAS, A. Victor “Vic” Thomas was elected to the House of Delegates in
th
1974 and represents the 17 House District which includes portions of the Counties of
Roanoke and Botetourt, and the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, Delegate Thomas has served his constituents on many House
committees including Agriculture Chesapeake and Natural Resources, Appropriations
and Rules; and
WHEREAS, Delegate Thomas has been active in his community serving on the
Chamber of Commerce, Civitan Club, American Legion and Woodmen of the World;
and
WHEREAS, Delegate Thomas has been a supporter of the County’s legislative
initiatives which include adoption of the Roanoke County Charter and formation of the
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission; and
WHEREAS, Delegate Thomas has also been actively involved in many of the
highway projects that affect the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the County is very appreciative of Delegate Thomas’ support
through the years and wishes to recognize his service to the citizens of Roanoke
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
A. VICTOR THOMAS
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its appreciation to for his
many years of service to the residents of Roanoke County as a member of the Virginia
House of Delegates and as an active citizen in the Roanoke Valley community; and
May 13, 2003
405
FURTHER, the Board expresses its best wishes to Delegate Thomas for success
in all of his future endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
3. Resolution of appreciation to the Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum
for his service to the residents of Roanoke County and the
Commonwealth of Virginia as a member of the Virginia House of
Delegates
R-051303-1
The resolution was read by the Clerk and Chairman McNamara accepted
the resolution on behalf of Delegate Woodrum who was unable to attend. Chairman
McNamara and Mr. Hodge will deliver the resolution and a brass paperweight to
Delegate Woodrum.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-1 OF APPRECIATION TO THE HONORABLE
CLIFTON A. WOODRUM FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AS A
MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES
May 13, 2003
406
WHEREAS, Clifton A. “Chip” Woodrum was elected to the House of Delegates in
th
1980 and represents the 11 House District which includes portions of the County of
Roanoke and the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, Delegate Woodrum has served his constituents on many House
committees including Commerce and Labor, General Laws, and Privileges and
Elections; and
WHEREAS, Delegate Woodrum has been active in his community serving on the
Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley, Roanoke College Community Advisory
Committee, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce; State Crime Commission, State
Water Commission, Commission on Family Violence Prevention, Freedom of
Information Advisory Council, and Legislative Transition Task Force-Electric Utility
Deregulation; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the numerous projects that he has supported for all of
the localities in his district, Delegate Woodrum was instrumental in securing legislation
which allowed for adoption of the Roanoke County Charter; and
WHERAS, Delegate Woodrum has been a strong supporter of schools and was
instrumental in the establishment of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission; and
WHEREAS, the County is very appreciative of Delegate Woodrum’s support
through the years and wishes to recognize his service to the citizens of Roanoke
County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
CLIFTON A. WOODRUM
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its appreciation to for
his many years of service to the residents of Roanoke County as a member of the
Virginia House of Delegates, and as an active citizen in the Roanoke Valley community;
and
FURTHER, the Board expresses its best wishes to Delegate Woodrum for
success in all of his future endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
4. Certificate of recognition to Jan McLeod for being named
Administrator of the Year by the Virginia Association of
Vocational Education for Special Needs Personnel
Chairman McNamara presented the certificate of recognition to Jan
McLeod. Also present was Dr. Lorraine Lange, Assistant Superintendent of Schools.
May 13, 2003
407
5. Proclamation declaring May 11 – 17, 2003 as Business
Appreciation Week in Roanoke County
Chairman McNamara presented the proclamation to Doug Chittum,
Director of Economic Development. Also present were Will Davis, Director of Economic
Development, American Electric Power Company; Don Robb, Vice-President/Division
Director, RR Donnelly; and Melinda Cox, Existing Business Program Manager.
Chairman McNamara challenged the County to evaluate the possibility of
eliminating the Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) tax on the first
$100,000 in business revenues by 2004.
Mr. Chittum recognized the following County businesses which recently
received awards from the New Century Technology Council: Leon Harris, President of
Keltech – High Tech Leadership award; and RR Donnelly, High Tech Corporation of the
Year award. He presented a framed photograph to Don Robb.
The Board members and Mr. Hodge expressed their appreciation to the
businesses in Roanoke County.
6. Proclamation declaring May 18 – 24, 2003 as Emergency Medical
Services Week in Roanoke County
Chairman McNamara presented the proclamation to Rick Burch, Chief of
Fire and Rescue; Adam Fleming, Volunteer Chief; Jim Short, Assistant Chief; and
Dustin Campbell, EMS Captain.
May 13, 2003
408
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting procedures for the implementation of the
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002.
(Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
R-051303-4
Mr. Mahoney reported that the 2002 session of the Virginia General
Assembly adopted the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
(PPEA). The Act was designed to allow creative opportunities for local governments to
engage in public-private partnerships and to encourage innovative funding of public
facility projects. One aspect of the legislation provides that prior to implementation of
the provisions of this Act, local governing bodies must first adopt procedures for use in
evaluating proposals and implementing the provisions set forth under the PPEA. Mr.
Mahoney stated that the procedures he has submitted will guide the County if it
considers proposals under the PPEA, and indicated that they were based upon the
model procedures developed by the Division of Legislative Services and the procedures
recently adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Several elements that were highlighted include: (1) The procedures
establish a two-part proposal submission process consisting of an initial conceptual
phase and a detailed phase. (2) Due to the fact that proposals can be very complex
and involve unique approaches to financing, the General Assembly included a provision
that would enable localities to hire outside experts to assist in the process of reviewing
May 13, 2003
409
proposals. The procedures include a proposal review fee that the County can charge to
cover the costs of hiring outside professionals that may be required to evaluate a
proposal. Unspent portions of the proposal review fee are refunded to the proposers.
(3) The procedures establish an outline for the terms of the “comprehensive
agreement” between the County and any selected proposers/operators.
Supervisor Minnix stated that public-private enterprise will increase what
the County is able to accomplish due to an infusion of funds that will enable the County
to do things more quickly than otherwise would be possible. He indicated that he would
embrace the opportunity to see how this would benefit Roanoke County, but also
stressed caution in proceeding in this new direction. He requested that a work session
be scheduled in the near future to evaluate the positive aspects of this process as well
as the potential pitfalls.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-4 ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE
EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT
OF 2002
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has determined that it
is in the best interest of the County to adopt procedures for the implementation of the
May 13, 2003
410
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 pursuant to the
provisions of Section 56-575.16.4 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby adopts the following:
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure
Act of 2002
County of Roanoke
Procedures
April 2003
Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
May 13, 2003
411
Roanoke County Procedures
Table of Contents
I.Introduction
...................................................................................................p. 1
II.General Provisions
........................................................................................p. 2
A.Proposal Submission................................................................................p. 2
B.Affected Jurisdictions..............................................................................p. 3
C.Proposal Review Fee...............................................................................p. 3
D.Virginia Freedom of Information Act ....................................................p. 4
E.Applicability of Other Laws....................................................................p. 5
III.Solicited Proposals
........................................................................................p. 5
IV.Unsolicited Proposals
...................................................................................p. 6
A.Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice..............p. 6
B.Initial Review by the Responsible Public Entity......................................p. 7
Review of Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals
V..........................................p. 8
Proposal Preparation and Submission…….
VI...............................................p. 8
Format for Submissions at the Conceptual Stage…................................p. 8
Format for Submissions at the Detailed Stage...................…...............p. 13
VI. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria
..............................................p. 15
A.Qualifications and Experience...............................................................p. 15
B.Project Characteristics...........................................................................p. 15
C.Project Financing...................................................................................p. 16
D.Public Benefit and Compatibility..........................................................p. 16
Comprehensive Agreement
VII..........................................................................p. 17
Appendix
VIII.…………………………………………………………………..p. 20
May 13, 2003
412
I. Introduction
The Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (the “PPEA”)
allows responsible public entities to create public-private partnerships for development of a wide
range of projects for public use if the public entities determine there is a need for the project and
that private involvement may provide the project to the public in a timely and cost-effective
fashion. For purposes of the PPEA, the County of Roanoke, is a "responsible public entity" that
“has the power to acquire, design, construct, improve, renovate, expand, equip, maintain, or
operate the applicable qualifying project.” Individually negotiated comprehensive agreements
between an operator and the County will define the respective rights and obligations of the
parties. This document sets forth the procedures to guide the private partner(s) and the County in
the application of PPEA. The approval of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County is
required for the County to enter into a comprehensive agreement pursuant to the PPEA.
In order for a project to be considered under the PPEA, it must meet the definition of a
"qualifying project." The PPEA contains a broad definition of “qualifying project” that includes
public buildings and facilities of all types; for example:
(i)An education facility, including, but not limited to, a school building, any
functionally-related and subordinate facility (a stadium, for example), land
appurtenant to a school building, and any depreciable property provided for use in
a school facility that is operated as part of the public school system or as an
institution of higher education;
(ii)A building or facility for principal use by any public entity;
(iii)Improvements, together with equipment, necessary to enhance public safety and
security of buildings to be principally used by a public entity;
(iv)Utility, telecommunications and other communications infrastructure; or
(v)A recreational facility; and
(vi)Certain service contracts.
The PPEA establishes requirements that the County shall adhere to when considering
proposals received pursuant to the PPEA. The County Administrator may receive and consider
proposals in strict accord with the procedures specified in this document. In addition, the PPEA
specifies the criteria that must be used to select a proposal and the contents of the comprehensive
agreement detailing the relationship between the County and the private entity.
May 13, 2003
413
II. General Provisions
A. Proposal Submission
A proposal may be either solicited by the County or delivered by a private entity on an
unsolicited basis. Proposers will be required to follow a two-part proposal submission process
consisting of an initial conceptual phase (Part 1) and a detailed phase (Part 2). The initial phase
of the proposal should contain specified information on proposer qualifications and experience,
project characteristics, project financing, anticipated public support or opposition, or both, and
project benefit and compatibility. The Part 2 detailed proposal must contain specified
deliverables.
The PPEA allows private entities to include innovative financing methods, such as the
imposition of user fees or service payments, in a proposal. Such financing arrangements may
include the issuance of debt instruments, equity or other securities or obligations, including, if
applicable, the portion of the tax-exempt private activity bond limitation amount to be allocated
annually to the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to the federal Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 for the development of education facilities using public-
private partnerships, and to provide for carryovers of any unused limitation amount.
Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a concise description
of the proposer's capabilities to complete the proposed qualifying project and the benefits to be
derived from the project by the public. Project benefits to be considered are those occurring
during the construction, renovation, expansion or improvement phase and during the life cycle of
the project. Proposals also should include a comprehensive scope of work and a financial plan
for the project, which contains enough detail to allow an analysis by the County of the financial
feasibility of the proposed project. For specific applications, the County may request, in writing,
clarification to the submission.
The PPEA is intended to encourage proposals from the private sector that offer the
provision of private financing in support of the proposed public project and the assumption of
commensurate risk by the private operator, but also benefits to the operator through innovative
approaches to project financing, development and use. However, while substantial private sector
involvement is encouraged, qualifying facilities will still be devoted primarily to public use and
typically involve facilities critical to the public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, the
County shall continue to exercise full and proper due diligence in the evaluation and selection of
operators for these projects. In this regard, the qualifications, capabilities, resources and other
attributes of a prospective operator and its whole team should be carefully examined for every
project. In addition, operators proposing projects shall be held strictly accountable for
representations or other information provided regarding their qualifications, experience or other
contents of their proposals, including all specific aspects of proposed plans to be performed by
the operator.
May 13, 2003
414
B. Affected Local Jurisdictions
Any private entity requesting approval from, or submitting a conceptual or detailed proposal to,
the County must provide other affected units of local government with a copy of
the private entity's request or proposal by certified mail, express delivery or hand
delivery, after the County determines whether to accept such proposal. Affected
local jurisdictions shall have 60 days from the receipt of the request or proposal to
submit written comments to the County at either or both the conceptual and
detailed phases. Comments received within the 60-day period shall be considered
in evaluating the request or proposal, however no negative inference shall be
drawn from the absence of comment by an affected local jurisdiction.
C. Proposal Review Fee
No fee will be charged by the County to process, review or evaluate any solicited
proposal submitted under the PPEA, other than what are considered reasonable and incidental
permit, utility, and related fees during the construction stage of the project. The County may
seek the advice of County staff or outside advisors or consultants with relevant experience in
determining whether to enter into an agreement with the private entity.
The County shall charge a fee of one-half of one percent (0.5%), not to exceed $50,000,
of the estimated present value cost to the County of the proposal, but not less than $5,000, to
cover the costs of processing, reviewing, and evaluating any unsolicited, Part 1 proposal or
competing unsolicited Part 1 proposal submitted under the PPEA, including a fee to cover the
costs of outside attorneys, consultants and financial advisors. This fee shall not be greater than
the direct costs associated with evaluating the proposed qualifying project. “Direct costs”
include (i) the cost of staff time required to process, evaluate, review, and respond to the
proposal, and (ii) the out-of-pocket costs of attorneys, consultants, and financial advisors. For
purposes of initial processing of the proposal, the County shall accept the $5,000 minimum fee
with the balance due and payable prior to the proposals proceeding beyond the initial review
stage. Such sums shall be paid with certified funds, and shall be deposited with the Treasurer of
Roanoke County in a special fund known as the PPEA Fund. The fund shall be established for
such purpose, and deposits to the fund shall be apportioned to defray the direct cost of proposal
review(s).
? If the cost of reviewing the proposal is less than the established proposal fee, the
County may refund to the proposer the excess fee.
? If during the initial review the County decides not to proceed to publication and
conceptual-phase review of an unsolicited proposal, the proposal fee, less any direct
(itemized) costs of the initial review, shall be refunded to the private entity.
May 13, 2003
415
? If the County chooses to proceed with evaluation of proposal(s) under the PPEA, it
shall not do so until the entire, non-refundable proposal fee has been paid to the
County in full.
D. Freedom of Information Act
Generally, proposal documents submitted by private entities are subject to the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). In accordance with § 2.2-3705 A 56 of the Code, such
documents may be released if requested, except to the extent that they relate to (i) confidential
proprietary information submitted to the County under a promise of confidentiality or (ii)
memoranda, working papers or other records related to proposals if making public such records
would adversely affect the financial interest of the Commonwealth or the private entity or the
bargaining position of either party.
Subsection 56-575.4 G of the PPEA imposes an obligation on the County to protect
confidential proprietary information submitted by a private entity or operator. When the private
entity requests that the County not disclose information, the private entity must (i) invoke the
exclusion when the data or materials are submitted to the County or before such submission, (ii)
identify the data and materials for which protection from disclosure is sought, and (iii) state why
the exclusion from disclosure is necessary. A private entity may request and receive a
determination from the County as to the anticipated scope of protection prior to submitting the
proposal. The County is authorized and obligated to protect only confidential proprietary
information, and thus will not protect any portion of a proposal from disclosure if the entire
proposal has been designated confidential by the proposer without reasonably differentiating
between the proprietary and non-proprietary information contained therein.
Upon receipt of a request that designated portions of a proposal be protected from
disclosure as confidential and proprietary, the County shall determine whether such protection is
appropriate under applicable law and, if appropriate, the scope of such appropriate protection,
and shall communicate its determination to the proposer. If the determination regarding
protection or the scope thereof differs from the proposer's request, then the County will accord
the proposer a reasonable opportunity to clarify and justify its request. Upon a final
determination by the County to accord less protection than requested by the proposer, the
proposer will be accorded an opportunity to withdraw its proposal. A proposal so withdrawn
should be treated in the same manner as a proposal not accepted for publication and conceptual-
phase consideration as provided in section IV.A.2 below.
E. Applicability of Other Laws
The applicability of the Virginia Public Procurement Act (the "VPPA") is as set forth in
the PPEA. In soliciting or entertaining proposals under the PPEA, the County shall also comply
with all applicable federal laws and applicable state and local laws not in conflict with the
May 13, 2003
416
PPEA. Likewise, in submitting proposals and in developing, executing or operating facilities
under the PPEA, operators shall comply will all applicable federal laws and applicable state and
local laws. Such laws may include, but not necessarily be limited to, contractual obligations
which require Workers Compensation insurance coverage, performance bonds or payment bonds
from approved sureties, compliance with the Virginia Prompt Payment Act, compliance with the
Ethics in Public Contracting Act and compliance with environmental laws, workplace safety
laws, and state or local laws governing contractor or trade licensing, building codes and building
permit requirements.
Expenditure of County funds in support of a comprehensive agreement requires an
appropriation in the County budget or other appropriation(s).
The PPEA process should not be used to create County-supported debt. Comprehensive
agreements involving any form of County-supported debt, require specific,
project-level approval by the Board of Supervisors.
III. Solicited Proposals
With the written authorization of the County Administrator a Request for Proposals
(RFPs) on an invitation for competitive sealed bids may be issued, inviting proposals from
private entities to acquire, construct, improve, renovate, expand, maintain or operate qualifying
projects or to design or equip projects so constructed, improved renovated, expanded, maintained
or operated. The County shall use a two-part proposal process consisting of an initial conceptual
phase (Part 1) and a detailed phase (Part 2). The RFP shall invite proposers to submit proposals
on individual projects identified by the County. In such a case the County shall set forth in the
RFP the format and supporting information that is required to be submitted, consistent with the
provisions of the PPEA.
The RFP should specify, but not necessarily be limited to, information and documents
that must accompany each proposal and the factors that will be used in evaluating the submitted
proposals. The RFP shall be posted on the County’s electronic procurement website. Notices
shall also be published in the Roanoke Times and World News, a newspaper of general
circulation. Pre-proposal conferences may be held as deemed appropriate by the County. Any
proposal submitted pursuant to the PPEA that is not received in response to a RFP or invitation
for sealed bids shall be an Unsolicited Proposal under these procedures, including but not limited
to (a) proposals received in response to a notice of the prior receipt of another Unsolicited
Proposal, and (b) proposals received in response to publicity by the County concerning particular
needs when the County has not issued RFP or invitation for sealed bids, even if the County has
encouraged the submission of proposals.
IV. Unsolicited Proposals
May 13, 2003
417
The PPEA permits the County to receive, evaluate and select for negotiations unsolicited
proposals from private entities to acquire, construct, improve, renovate, expand, maintain, or
operate a qualifying project or to design or equip projects so constructed, improved, renovated,
expanded, maintained or operated.
From time to time the County may publicize its needs and may encourage interested
parties to submit proposals subject to the terms and conditions of the PPEA. When such
proposals are received without issuance of an RFP, the proposal shall be treated as an unsolicited
proposal. Unsolicited proposals should be submitted to the County Administrator by delivering
six complete copies, together with the required review fee. A working group may be designated
by the County Administrator to review and evaluate all unsolicited proposals.
A. Decision to Accept and Consider Unsolicited Proposal; Notice
1. The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals at any time.
2. Upon receipt of any unsolicited proposal, or group of proposals, and payment of
the required fee by the proposer or proposers, the County should determine
whether to accept the unsolicited proposal for publication and conceptual-phase
consideration. If the County determines not to accept the proposal, it shall return
the proposal, together with all fees and accompanying documentation, to the
proposer.
3. a. If the County chooses to accept an unsolicited proposal for conceptual-phase
consideration, it shall post a notice on the County’s electronic procurement
website, and in such other public area(s) as may be regularly used for posting of
public notices, for a period of not less than 45 days. The County shall also
publish, at least once, the same notice in the Roanoke Times and World News, a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, providing notice of pending or
potential action in not less than 45 days. The County may provide for more than
45 days in situations where the scope or complexity of the original proposal
warrants additional time for potential competitors to prepare proposals.
b. The notice shall state that the County (i) has received and accepted an unsolicited
proposal under the PPEA, (ii) intends to evaluate the proposal, (iii) may negotiate
a comprehensive agreement with the proposer based on the proposal, and (iv) will
accept for simultaneous consideration any competing proposals that comply with
the procedures adopted by the County and the provisions of the PPEA. The
notice will summarize the proposed qualifying project or projects, and identify
their proposed locations. Copies of unsolicited proposals shall be available upon
request, subject to the provisions of FOIA and § 56-575.4 G of the PPEA.
May 13, 2003
418
c. Prior to posting of the notices provided for in this subsection the County shall
receive from the private partner or partners the balance due, if any, of the required
project proposal review fee.
B. Initial Review by the County at the Conceptual Stage (Part 1)
After reviewing the original proposal, and any competing proposals submitted during the
notice period, the County Administrator may recommend to the Board of Supervisors:
(i)not to proceed further with any proposal,
(ii)to proceed to the detailed (Part 2) phase of review with the original proposal,
(iii)to proceed to the detailed (Part 2) phase with a competing proposal, or
(iv) to proceed to the detailed (Part 2) phase with multiple proposals.
In the event that more than one proposal will be considered in the detailed (Part 2) phase of
review, the County Administrator shall determine whether the unsuccessful private entity, or
entities, shall be reimbursed, in whole or in part, for costs incurred in the detailed phase of
review. In such case reasonable costs may be assessed to the successful proposer as part of any
ensuing comprehensive agreement.
V.Review of Solicited and Unsolicited Proposals
1. Only proposals complying with the requirements of the PPEA that contain sufficient
information for a meaningful evaluation and that are provided in an appropriate format will be
considered by the County for further review at the conceptual stage. Formatting suggestions for
proposals at the conceptual stage are found at Section V A.
2. The Board of Supervisors will determine at the initial review stage whether it will
proceed using:
a.Standard procurement procedures consistent with the VPPA; or
b.Procedures developed that are consistent with procurement of other than
professional services through "competitive negotiation" as the term is defined in §
2.2-4301 of the Code of Virginia (competitive negotiation). The Board of
Supervisors may proceed using such procedures only if it makes a written
determination that doing so is likely to be advantageous to the County and the
public based upon either (i) the probable scope, complexity or urgency of need, or
May 13, 2003
419
(ii) the risk sharing, added value, increase in funding or economic benefit from
the project would otherwise not be available.
When the County elects to use competitive negotiations, its written determination
should consider factors such as risk sharing, added value and/or economic
benefits from the project that would not be available without competitive
negotiation. In addition, the written determination should explain how the scope,
complexity, and/or urgency of the project are such that competitive negotiation is
determined necessary.
VI. Proposal Preparation and Submission
A. Format for Submissions at Conceptual Stage (Part 1)
The County requires that proposals at the conceptual stage contain information in the
following areas: (i) qualifications and experience, (ii) project characteristics, (iii) project
financing, (iv) anticipated public support or opposition, or both, (v) project benefit and
compatibility and (vi) such additional information as may seem prudent which is not inconsistent
with the requirements of the PPEA. Suggestions for formatting information to be included in
proposals at the Conceptual Stage include:
1. Qualification and Experience
a.Identify the legal structure of the firm or consortium of firms making the
proposal. Identify the organizational structure for the project, the management
approach and how each partner and major subcontractor ($100,000 or more) in
the structure fits into the overall team. All members of the operator/offeror’s
team, including major subcontractors known to the proposer must be identified at
the time a proposal is submitted for the Conceptual Stage. Identified team
members, including major subcontractors (over $500,000), may not be substituted
or replaced once a project is approved and comprehensive agreement entered into,
without the written approval of the County. Include the status of the Virginia
license of each partner, proposer, contractor, and major subcontractor.
b.Describe the experience of the firm or consortium of firms making the proposal
and the key principals involved in the proposed project including experience with
projects of comparable size and complexity. Describe the length of time in
business, business experience, public sector experience and other engagements of
the firm or consortium of firms. Describe the past safety performance record and
current safety capabilities of the firm or consortium of firms. Describe the past
technical performance history on recent projects of comparable size and
May 13, 2003
420
complexity, including disclosure of any legal claims, of the firm or consortium of
firms. Include the identity of any firms that will provide design, construction and
completion guarantees and warranties and a description of such guarantees and
warranties.
c.For each firm or major subcontractor ($100,000 or more) that will be utilized in
the project, provide a statement listing all of the firm’s prior projects and clients
for the past 3 years and contact information for same (names/addresses /telephone
numbers). If a firm has worked on more than ten (10) projects during this period,
it may limit its prior project list to ten (10), but shall first include all projects
similar in scope and size to the proposed project and, second, it shall include as
many of its most recent projects as possible. Each firm or major subcontractor
shall be required to submit all performance evaluation reports or other documents
which are in its possession evaluating the firm’s performance during the
preceding three years in terms of cost, quality, schedule maintenance, safety and
other matters relevant to the successful project development, operation, and
completion.
d.Provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons within the firm
or consortium of firms who may be contacted for further information.
e.Provide a current or most recently audited financial statement of the firm or firms
and each partner with an equity interest of twenty percent or greater.
f.Identify any persons known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify
themselves from participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to
the project pursuant to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of
Interest Act, Chapter 31 (§ 2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2.
g.Identify proposed plan for obtaining sufficient numbers of qualified workers in all
trades or crafts required for the project.
h.Provide information on any training programs, including but not limited to
apprenticeship programs registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or a State
Apprenticeship Council, in place for employees of the firm and employees of any
member of a consortium of firms.
i.Provide information on the level of commitment by the firm or consortium of
firms to use Department of Minority Business Enterprise firms in developing and
implementing the project.
May 13, 2003
421
j.For each firm or major subcontractor that will perform construction and/or design
activities, provide the following information:
(1) A sworn certification by an authorized representative of the firm attesting
to the fact that the firm is not currently debarred or suspended by any federal,
state or local government entity.
(2) A completed qualification statement that reviews all relevant information
regarding technical qualifications and capabilities, firm resources and business
integrity of the firm, including but not limited to, bonding capacities, insurance
coverage and firm equipment. This statement shall also include a mandatory
disclosure by the firm for the past three years any of the following conduct:
(A) bankruptcy filings
(B) liquidated damages
(C) fines, assessments or penalties
(D) judgments or awards in contract disputes
(E) contract defaults, contract terminations
(F) license revocations, suspensions, other disciplinary actions
(G) prior debarments or suspensions by a governmental entity (H)
denials of prequalification, findings of non-responsibility
(I) safety past performance data, including fatality incidents,
“Experience Modification Rating,” “Total Recordable Injury Rate”
and “Total Lost Workday Incidence Rate”
(J) violations of any federal, state or local criminal or civil law (K)
criminal indictments or investigations
(L)legal claims filed by or against the firm
k. Worker Safety Programs: Describe worker safety training programs, job-site
safety programs, accident prevention programs, written safety and health plans,
including incident investigation and reporting procedures.
2. Project Characteristics
a.Provide a description of the project, including the conceptual design. Describe
the proposed project in sufficient detail so that type and intent of the project, the
location, and the communities that may be affected are clearly identified.
b.Identify and fully describe any work to be performed by the public entity.
c.Include a list of all federal, state and local permits and approvals required for the
project and a schedule for obtaining such permits and approvals.
May 13, 2003
422
d.Identify any anticipated adverse social, economic and environmental impacts of
the project. Specify the strategies or actions to mitigate known impacts of the
project. Indicate if an environmental and archaeological assessment have been
completed.
e.Identify the projected positive social, economic and environmental impacts of the
project.
f.Identify the proposed schedule for the work on the project, including the
estimated time for completion.
g.Identify contingency plans for addressing public needs in the event that all or
some of the project is not completed according to projected schedule.
h.Propose allocation of risk and liability for work completed beyond the
agreement's completion date, and assurances for timely completion of the project.
i.State assumptions related to ownership, legal liability, law enforcement and
operation of the project and the existence of any restrictions on the County’s use
of the project.
j.Provide information relative to phased or partial openings of the proposed project
prior to completion of the entire work.
3. Project Financing
a.Provide a preliminary estimate and estimating methodology of the cost of the
work by phase, segment, or both.
b.Submit a plan for the development, financing and operation of the project
showing the anticipated schedule on which funds will be required. Describe the
anticipated costs of and proposed sources and uses for such funds. Include any
supporting due diligence studies, analyses or reports.
c.Include a list and discussion of assumptions underlying all major elements of the
plan.
d.Identify the proposed risk factors and methods for dealing with these factors.
May 13, 2003
423
e.Identify any local, state or federal resources that the proposer contemplates
requesting for the project. Describe the total commitment, if any, expected from
governmental sources and the timing of any anticipated commitment.
4. Project Benefit and Compatibility
a.Identify community benefits, including the economic impact the project will have on
the County and local community in terms of amount of tax revenue to be generated
for the Commonwealth and the County, the number jobs generated for Virginia
residents and level of pay and fringe benefits of such jobs, the training opportunities
for apprenticeships and other training programs generated by the project and the
number and value of subcontracts generated for Virginia subcontractors.
b.Identify any anticipated public support or opposition, as well as any anticipated
government support or opposition, for the project;
c.Explain the strategy and plan that will be carried out to involve and inform the
general public, business community, local governments, and governmental agencies
in areas affected by the project;
d.Describe the compatibility of the project with local, regional, and state economic
development efforts.
e.Describe the compatibility with the County’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinances,
local infrastructure development plans, capital improvements budget and annual
budget.
B. Format for Submissions at Detailed Stage (Part 2)
If the County decides to proceed to the detailed phase of review with one or more
proposals, the following information, where applicable, shall be provided by the private entity
unless a waiver of the requirement or requirements is agreed to by the County:
1.A topographical map (1:2,000 or other appropriate scale) depicting the location of the
proposed project;
2.Conceptual site plan indicating proposed location and configuration of the project on
the proposed site;
3.Conceptual (single line) plans and elevations depicting the general scope, appearance
and configuration of the proposed project;
May 13, 2003
424
4.Detailed description of the proposed participation, use and financial involvement of
the County in the project;
5.A list of public utility facilities, if any, that will be crossed by the qualifying project
and a statement of the plans of the proposer to accommodate such crossings;
6.A statement and strategy setting out the plans for securing all necessary property.
The statement must include the names and addresses, if known, of the current owners
of the subject property as well as a list of any property the proposer intends to request
the County to condemn;
7.A detailed listing of all firms that will provide specific design, construction and
completion guarantees and warranties, and a brief description of such guarantees and
warranties;
8.A total life-cycle cost specifying methodology and assumptions of the project or
projects and the proposed project start date. Include anticipated commitment of all
parties; equity, debt, and other financing mechanisms; and a schedule of project
revenues and project costs. The life-cycle cost analysis should include, but not be
limited to, a detailed analysis of the projected return, rate of return, or both, expected
useful life of facility and estimated annual operating expenses.
9.A detailed discussion of assumptions about user fees or rates, and usage of the
projects.
10.Identification of any known government support or opposition, or general public
support or opposition for the project. Government or public support should be
demonstrated through resolution of official bodies, minutes of meetings, letters, or
other official communications.
11.Demonstration of consistency with the comprehensive or infrastructure development
plans or indication of the steps required for acceptance into such plans.
12.Explanation of how the proposed project would impact local development plans of
each affected local jurisdiction.
13.Description of an ongoing performance evaluation system or database to track key
performance criteria, including but not limited to, schedule, cash management,
quality, worker safety, change orders, and legal compliance.
14.Identification of any known conflicts of interest or other disabilities that may impact
the County's consideration of the proposal, including the identification of any persons
May 13, 2003
425
known to the proposer who would be obligated to disqualify themselves from
participation in any transaction arising from or in connection to the project pursuant
to The Virginia State and Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, Chapter 31 (§
2.2-3100 et seq.) of Title 2.2.
15.Detailed analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed project, including its
impact on similar facilities operated or planned by the County. Include a detailed
description of any financing plan for the project, a comparison of that plan with
financing alternatives available to the County, and all underlying data supporting any
conclusions reached in the analysis of the selection by the private entity of the
financing plan proposed for the project;
16.Additional material and information as the County may reasonably request.
VI. Proposal Evaluation and Selection Criteria
Some or all of the following items may be considered in the evaluation and selection of
PPEA proposals. In selecting proposals, all relevant information from both the Conceptual
Stage and the Detailed Stage should be considered. The County reserves the right at all times to
reject any proposal at anytime for any reason.
A. Qualifications and Experience
Factors to be considered in either phase of an agency or institution’s review to determine
whether the proposer possesses the requisite qualifications and experience may include, but are
not necessarily limited to:
1.Experience, training and preparation with similar projects;
2.Demonstration of ability to perform work;
3.Demonstrated record of successful past performance, including timeliness of
project delivery, compliance with plans and specifications, quality of
workmanship, cost-control and project safety;
4.Demonstrated conformance with applicable laws, codes, standards, regulations,
and agreements on past projects;
May 13, 2003
426
5.Leadership structure;
6.Project manager's experience;
7.Management approach;
8.Project staffing plans, the skill levels of the proposed workforce, apprenticeship
and other training programs offered for the project, and the proposed safety plans
for the project;
9.Financial condition; and
10.Project ownership.
B. Project Characteristics
Factors to be considered in determining the project characteristics may include, but are
not limited to:
1.Project definition;
2.Proposed project schedule;
3.Operation of the project;
4.Technology, technical feasibility;
5.Conformity to laws, regulations, and standards;
6.Environmental impacts;
7.Condemnation impacts;
8.State and local permits; and
9.Maintenance of the project.
C. Project Financing
Factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed project financing
May 13, 2003
427
allows adequate access to the necessary capital to finance the project may include, but are not
limited to:
1.Cost and cost benefit to the County;
2.Financing and the impact on the debt or debt burden of the County;
3.Financial plan, including overall feasibility and reliability of plan; operator’s past
performance with similar plans and similar projects; degree to which operator has
conducted due diligence investigation and analysis of proposed financial plan and
results of any such inquiries or studies.
4.Estimated cost; and
5.Life-cycle cost analysis; and
6.Identity of any third party that will provide financing for the project and the
nature and time of its commitment.
D. Project Benefit and Compatibility
Factors to be considered in determining the proposed project's compatibility with the
County’s comprehensive or development plans and zoning ordinance include:
1.Community benefits, including the economic impact the project will have
on the County and local community in terms of amount of tax revenue to
be generated for the Commonwealth and the County, the number jobs
generated for Virginia residents and level of pay and fringe benefits of
such jobs, the training opportunities for apprenticeships and other training
programs generated by the project and the number and value of
subcontracts generated for Virginia subcontractors.
2.Community support or opposition, or both;
3.Public involvement strategy;
4.Compatibility with existing and planned facilities; and
5.Compatibility with local, regional, and state economic development
efforts.
May 13, 2003
428
VII. Comprehensive Agreement
The Board of Supervisors shall approve any comprehensive agreement entered into
pursuant to the PPEA between the County and a private provider. The County shall accept no
liability for acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, renovating, expanding, equipping,
maintaining, or operating the qualifying project prior to entering into a properly executed
comprehensive agreement. Each comprehensive agreement shall define the rights and
obligations of the responsible public entity and the selected proposer with regard to the project.
The terms of the comprehensive agreement shall include but not be limited to:
1.The delivery of maintenance, performance and payment bonds or letters of credit in
connection with any acquisition, design, construction, improvement, renovation,
expansion, equipping, maintenance, or operation of the qualifying project;
2.The review of plans and specifications for the qualifying project by the County;
3.The rights of the County to inspect the qualifying project to ensure compliance with
the comprehensive agreement;
4.The maintenance of a policy or policies of liability insurance or self-insurance
reasonably sufficient to insure coverage of the project and the tort liability to the
public and employees and to enable the continued operation of the qualifying project;
5.The monitoring of the practices of the operator by the County to ensure proper
maintenance;
6.The terms under which the operator will reimburse the County for services provided;
7.The policy and procedures that will govern the rights and responsibilities of the
County and the operator in the event that the comprehensive agreement is terminated
or there is a material default by the operator including the conditions governing
assumption of the duties and responsibilities of the operator by the County and the
transfer or purchase of property or other interests of the operator by the County;
8.The terms under which the operator will file appropriate financial statements on a
periodic basis;
9.The mechanism by which user fees, lease payments, or service payments, if any, may
be established from time to time upon agreement of the parties. Any payments or fees
shall be set at a level that is the same for persons using the facility under like
conditions and that will not materially discourage use for the qualifying project;
May 13, 2003
429
a.A copy of any service contract shall be filed with the County.
b.A schedule of the current user fees or lease payments shall be made available by
the operator to any member of the public upon request.
c.Classifications according to reasonable categories for assessment of user fees may
be made.
10.The terms and conditions under which the County may contribute financial resources,
if any, for the qualifying project;
11.A periodic reporting procedure that incorporates a description of the impact of the
project on the Commonwealth and the County; and
12.Such other terms as the County may find necessary and convenient, that are agreed to
by the private partner(s).
Any changes in the terms of the comprehensive agreement as may be agreed upon by the
parties from time to time shall be added to the comprehensive agreement only by written
amendment.
Parties submitting proposals understand that representations, information and data
supplied in support of, or in connection with proposals plays a critical role in the competitive
evaluation process and in the ultimate selection of a proposal by the Commonwealth.
Accordingly, as part of the Comprehensive Agreement, the prospective operator and its team
members shall certify that all material representations, information and data provided in support
of, or in connection with, a proposal is true and correct. Such certifications shall be made by
authorized individuals who have knowledge of the information provided in the proposal. In the
event that material changes occur with respect to any representations, information or data
provided for a proposal, the prospective operator shall immediately notify the County of same.
Any violation of this section of the Comprehensive Agreement shall give the County the right to
terminate the Agreement, withhold payment or other consideration due, and seek any other
remedy available under the law.
May 13, 2003
430
2. Request for authorization and appropriation of funds for
renovations to the Read Mountain Fire Station. (Richard Burch,
Fire and Rescue Chief)
A-051303-5
Chief Burch reported that the Read Mountain Station was created as a
joint venture between Roanoke County and Botetourt County in 1991. In 1992, the first
responder/EMS program was added and in 1997, the station assumed full EMS
responsibilities as a transport agency. The station currently has two ambulances in
addition to the fire truck fleet and a first responder vehicle. While this is good news,
Chief Burch indicated that it has led to a need for expansion of the bay area. Following
the direction of the Board at the December 2, 2002 meeting, staff proceeded with the
bid process and is now ready to move forward with the project. Chief Burch displayed a
rendering of the proposed renovations.
Chief Adam Fleming thanked the Board for working with the volunteers on
this project. He stated that while the fleet has expanded over the years, the building
has not. He noted that the number of members has grown from 20 to 60, and calls
have increased from 200 to over 1,300 per year. He stated that the station has
experienced great success in many areas including community involvement and
governmental cooperation. He stated that he is presenting funds to the County for use
in the station renovation which have been acquired from both community and business
May 13, 2003
431
donors. Some of the major business contributors included Wal-Mart, Fralin & Waldron,
American Electric Power Company (AEP), and Dynax.
Supervisor McNamara stated that the Board should be thanking the
volunteers for their work in doing such an outstanding job of running the station.
Supervisor Minnix stated that the volunteers at this station have
outstanding community relations and noted that due to their location in a high growth
area, their work load will continue to increase. He stated it would be unwise for the
County not to invest $187,400.40 to get a facility that costs $468,501.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation as
follows:
1. Approve the total renovation project to include the following:
(a) Construction and associated site work (bid) $440,701
Project Contingency (5% of construction) $ 22,000
Material Testing Services $ 4,000
Telephones (equipment/wiring-install) $ 1,050
PA System $ 750
Total Project $468,501
(b) Acceptance and appropriation of $281,100.60 from Read Mountain
Volunteer Fire and Rescue to cover 60% of the cost to renovate the
Read Mountain Fire and Rescue Station.
(c) Appropriation of Roanoke County funds in the amount of
$187,400.40 from the Fire and Rescue Capital Account to cover
40% of the total renovation project.
(d) Awarding of the bid to Payne Constructions Co., Inc. for a project
total of $440,701.00 for the renovation of the Read Mt. Fire and
Rescue Station Renovation Project.
May 13, 2003
432
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
Following approval of the project, Chief Fleming presented two checks to
Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance, totaling $281,100.60 from the Read Mountain
Volunteer Fire and Rescue which will cover 60% of the project’s costs.
3. Request to approve the Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEO)
Charter Agreement for Workforce Investment Area III. (Joe Sgroi,
Director of Human Resources)
A-051303-6
Mr. Sgroi stated that in accordance with the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), the mayors of the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem, and the Chairmen of
the Board of Supervisors of the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, and
Roanoke have agreed to continue to work together through a consortium to be called
the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Consortium (CLEO). He
noted that the action to approve a new Charter is an administrative mandate, and it
replaces the original Charter agreement which is being brought into compliance with the
WIA.
Mr. Sgroi stated that Roanoke County will benefit from its relationship with
Workforce Investment Area III in the following ways: (1) The workforce training program
May 13, 2003
433
funds are provided by the federal government and the County has had a long-standing
relationship through the Consortium with these federal programs. (2) The Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 provides for streamlined and flexible job training, adult
education, and literacy, and vocational rehabilitation. (3) Federally funded agencies are
compelled under the Act to work together in a One Stop Center to provide services to
customers. He indicated that the three funding streams from the federal government
that the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board oversees are: (1) The Adult
Program which assists with career counseling, job searches, educational opportunities
and GED attainment. (2) The Dislocated Worker Program which provides job referral,
career counseling and job re-training available at the Virginia Employment Commission
(VEC). (3) Youth Programs which provide year round mentoring and summer programs
for disadvantaged youth.
Mr. Sgroi reported that these services are provided to Roanoke County
residents at no cost because they are federally funded programs. Eligible County
residents make use of the Virginia Employment Commission, Roanoke County Schools,
and Virginia Western Community College, to name a few, under these federally-funded
programs.
Mr. Sgroi introduced Bruce Wood, Executive Director of the Workforce
Development Board. Mr. Wood reported that workforce development is very important
to economic development because the quality of an area’s workforce is one of three
major factors businesses evaluate when selecting a site location. Various programs
May 13, 2003
434
have been used to increase the quality of the workforce and in 1998, the government
decided to include businesses in the process and the CLEO Board was created. The
CLEO Board is responsible for ensuring that federal funds are spent to increase the
quality of the workforce. By law, the CLEO Board must be comprised of 51% business
representatives. Mr. Wood indicated that the action before the Board of Supervisors is
an agreement which states that the County is willing, along with 7 other municipalities,
to collectively work together to increase the strength of the workforce and develop a
system which allows this to happen.
There was no discussion on this matter.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation, approval
of the CLEO Charter Agreement for the Workforce Investment Area III. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
4. Request for authorization to execute a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, the Roanoke County Industrial
Development Authority, and Fink’s Jewelers, Inc. (Doug Chittum,
Director of Economic Development)
A-051303-7
May 13, 2003
435
Mr. Chittum stated that the proposed site is located at the corner of
Colonial Avenue and Route 419 and is an 11 acre tract across from Promenade Park.
He indicated that for some time, the County has been concerned about how this major,
undeveloped parcel of land would be developed. He stated that there are numerous
challenges involved in developing the site such as the need for public infrastructure
(water and sewer, road improvements), rock content, etc. He emphasized the County’s
desire to see development on this parcel which would fit well with the adjacent school
and reflect the other type of retail shops which have developed along Route 419. Fink’s
Jewelers is a company which will provide the desired type of development.
Mr. Chittum noted that the County was approached by Fink’s Jewelers
and advised of their plans to relocate their corporate headquarters and retail operations
from Downtown Roanoke to this site. The company has numerous operations with the
bulk of their business being conducted in the Greensboro/Charlotte/Raleigh area. The
company wanted to maintain their roots in the Roanoke area, and have requested
Roanoke County’s assistance in overcoming some of the obstacles to development of
this site. Mr. Chittum stated that the biggest problem is the extension of public water
and sewer to the site. In addition, VDOT officials have indicated that improvements to
the existing crossover on Route 419 will be required, as well as construction of
acceleration and deceleration lanes. The cost for these infrastructure improvements is
in excess of $250,000 and will benefit at least two to three additional commercial sites,
depending on how the property is sub-divided. Since future developments will benefit
May 13, 2003
436
from these infrastructure improvements, County staff has proposed a reimbursement
whereby the new tax revenues generated by the facility will be reimbursed for two years
to the company to offset the infrastructure costs. This proposal is acceptable to the
company, and County staff anticipates that this project will serve as a catalyst for future
development on the site. The proposed building will be 12,000 square feet, with
approximately 9,000 square feet being retail space.
Mr. Chittum indicated that Marc Fink, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Fink’s Jewelers, Inc., was present at the meeting.
Supervisor Altizer questioned whether the proposed utility upgrades would
be sufficient to handle any potential future development. Mr. Chittum indicated that
Fink’s engineers have met with the County’s Utility Department and they have been
given the requirements sufficient to handle future development.
Supervisor McNamara stated that he has been consistent in his view
regarding economic incentives for retail development. The premise is based on the
assumption that the County is forgoing revenues that will come in at a future date. He
stated that this premise holds as long as there is an expanding revenue base; however,
he feels that retail is a shifting of the revenue base and not an expansion of the revenue
base. He stated that the revenue base expands due to expansion of domestic product
sales in Roanoke, which is a function of price levels and population. He stated that in
fiscal year 2002, there were only a handful of revenue categories which declined and
retail sales was one of them. He stated that retail sales were declining but at the same
May 13, 2003
437
time Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) taxes were growing
faster than the rate of inflation and faster than the overall rate of government. His
opposition to this project is not an opposition of business. He indicated he is 100%
supportive of business, but he does not support using County taxpayer dollars for the
benefit of a few and he does not feel that this would result in substantially greater
revenues. He stated he does not recall the Board approving a retail incentive during the
past two years, and he feels that doing so is moving in the wrong direction.
Supervisor Minnix reported that retail sales run in cycles and historically,
retail sales have served the County well. In his estimation, the County cannot assume
that because they have property in a nice location eventually someone will develop the
property without any assistance from the local government. He stated that this
reluctance to invest in development is one of the reasons the County has not prospered
as well as the Triangle in Raleigh or Charlotte, North Carolina. In order to compete in
today’s market, there must be incentives to encourage establishment of businesses. He
stated that performance agreements make the use of incentives easier to justify, and
this project is something that will help Roanoke County grow, will provide job
opportunities, and will encourage growth for the future.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he feels the County needs to examine the
long-term aspect of the project which will result in a payback of $150,000 in two years.
He stated that he views this as an investment for the future of Roanoke County and the
groundwork laid today will determine the success of future revenues and the reduction
May 13, 2003
438
in the pressure on real estate taxes. He stated that short-term thinking leads to no
progress and he supports this proposal for these reasons.
Supervisor Church stated that the County supports existing businesses,
and that every decision made by the Board regarding business development has an
adverse impact on someone. He voiced his support for this matter.
Supervisor McNamara clarified that he is not against economic
development incentives or competing for businesses. He was 100% supportive of the
incentives for Integrity Windows, and he re-stated that his concern is strictly with
incentives for retail development.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve staff recommendation authorizing the
execution of a performance agreement between the County of Roanoke, the Roanoke
County Industrial Development Authority, and Fink’s Jewelers, Inc. to be approved by
the County Attorney. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisor McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of an ordinance appropriating the funds for the
fiscal year 2003-2004 budget. (Brent Robertson, Budget Director)
Mr. Robertson reported that the fiscal year 2003-04 budget was presented
to the Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2003. A budget public hearing was held on
May 13, 2003
439
April 22, 2003 to receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the
proposed budget and fiscal year 2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program. He stated
that the 2003-04 fiscal year budget appropriation ordinance is being presented for
approval.
Mr. Robertson stated that during a work session at the April 25, 2003
meeting, the Board reached consensus on the level of funding for the Social Service,
Human Service, Cultural, and Other agencies for fiscal year 2003-2004, and a finalized
listing of the contributions is included in the Board’s packet for review. The remaining
funds of $7,940 have been allocated to the Board Contingency account. This allocation
nd
can be re-directed by consensus of the Board and approved at the 2 reading of the
appropriation ordinance.
Mr. Robertson noted that the total County budget is $294,603,167 which
includes the Roanoke County School Board budget, all inter-fund and intra-fund
transfers. The budget net of transfers is $215,116,953. Staff is recommending
approval of the first reading of the 2003-04 fiscal year budget appropriation ordinance.
Staff also recommends approval of the Classification Plan for fiscal year 2003-04 which
includes 4 new positions in the Sheriff’s Office that are funded utilizing fee increases
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. The second reading and resolution
adopting the budget is scheduled for May 27, 2003.
There was no discussion on this matter.
May 13, 2003
440
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2003. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation, quit-claim
and release of an unused portion of a 20’ waterline easement and
a portion of a 15’ sanitary sewer easement and to accept in
exchange a relocated new variable width sanitary sewer easement
across property owned by Lewis-Gibbs Corporation, Tax Map. No.
27.13-4-2, Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development)
Mr. Covey stated that this request is part of the First Team Auto
expansion. He stated that the site plans have been approved, and staff is ready to
proceed with the relocation of easements in order to move forward with the project. The
Department of Community Development and the Utility Department have both reviewed
the submitted plans and approved them for construction.
There was no discussion on this matter.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for May 27, 2003. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
May 13, 2003
441
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
3. First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release two
certain portions of a 25’ public drainage easement crossing the
property of James R. Walker of Roanoke, LLC and to accept in
exchange a relocated new 25’ public drainage easement, Cave
Spring Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney reported that this is a real estate ordinance that would
release a drainage easement that the Board accepted approximately 14 months ago
and accept a new relocated drainage easement for this project. Mr. Mahoney stated
that this is the Land Rover project on Buck Mountain Road and Route 220. He noted
that there have been many changes as County staff has worked with Mr. Walker to
complete all the necessary elements of the project. At the April 8 meeting, the Board
authorized the execution of an agreement with the National Park Service and James
Walker to handle drainage issues. Mr. Mahoney stated that these relocated drainage
easements tie in with this agreement and are routine in nature.
There was no discussion on this matter.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for May 27, 2003. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
May 13, 2003
442
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance declaring a parcel of real estate
to be surplus and accepting an offer for the sale of same; namely,
the Western Hills Well Lot, Tax Map No. 68.17-2-17, Windsor Hills
Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
O-051303-8
Mr. Mahoney reported that the competitive process was successful in
selling this surplus well lot in Windsor Hills. He noted that the Board discussed
appraisal valuations in closed session and following this process, many inquiries and
two very good offers were received. The successful offerors are Calvert L. Saunders
and Patricia G. Saunders and they are offering the County $41,000 for the purchase of
the well lot.
Supervisor McNamara questioned whether the original offer is public
information, and Mr. Mahoney reported that it is the Board’s decision whether to
disclose this information. Supervisor McNamara noted that the policy of placing
property for bid once an offer has been made within 10% of the appraised value has
been successful.
Supervisor Minnix questioned whether the offerors own property
contiguous to the well lot. Mr. Mahoney reported that the Saunders live at 3466
Overbrook Drive and the well lot is located at 3559 Overbrook Drive.
May 13, 2003
443
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
ORDINANCE 051303-8 DECLARING A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO
BE SURPLUS AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE SALE OF
SAME; NAMELY THE WESTERN HILLS WELL LOT, TAX MAP NO.
68.17-2-17, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the subject property, having been made available for other public
uses before permitting disposition by sale, is hereby declared to be surplus.
2. That an advertisement for bids for the sale of this surplus real estate and
notice of public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on April 17
and April 20, 2003; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April
22, 2003, and the second reading was held on May 13, 2003, concerning the disposition
of the following parcel of real estate identified as follows:
Western Hills Well Lot, 3559 Overbrook Drive
Lot 11A, Block 2, Section 1, Western Hills
Tax Map No. 68.17-2-17
4. That offers for said properties having been received, the offer of Calvert L.
Saunders and Patricia G. Saunders to purchase this property for the sum of $41,000.00
is hereby accepted.
5. That the purchase price for the property will be paid upon delivery of a
deed therefor and all proceeds from the sale of this real estate will be deposited into the
water fund in accordance with the trust agreements of the 1991 water revenue bonds.
6. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the sale of said property, all of which
will be on form approved by the County Attorney.
7. That this ordinance will be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
May 13, 2003
444
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. Second reading of an ordinance approving a residential lease at
the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology,
Catawba Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services)
O-051303-9
Ms. Green reported that there have been no changes in this matter since
the first reading.
There was no discussion on this matter.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
ORDINANCE 051303-9 APPROVING THE RESIDENTIAL LEASE TO
CLINT AND SANDY LAWRENCE OF THE LOG CABIN LYING
GENERALLY IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROPERTY
(TAX MAP NO. 54.00-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County is the owner of a tract of
land containing 457.60 acres, and being located in the Catawba Magisterial District and
designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No.54.00-1-2, which is
May 13, 2003
445
being developed for economic development purposes as the Roanoke County Center for
Research and Technology; and,
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 031098-7, the Board of Supervisors authorized the
continued rental of the three residences on the property until such time as construction
would begin and require termination; and
WHEREAS, the leases for 5365 Glenmary Drive and 5393 Glenmary Drive were
terminated by the County, effective November 1, 1999, to permit commencement of
construction and,
WHEREAS, the log cabin at 4958 Glenmary Drive had been rented until recently;
and
WHEREAS, it would serve the public interest for the County to have the log cabin
occupied and maintained until such time as all or portions thereof may be needed for
economic development purposes; and,
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, the Board authorized creation of a self-
balancing account entitled Glenn Mary Capital Account for acceptance of rent payments
and expenditure of the funds on maintenance of the property; and,
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 22, 2003
and the second reading was held on May 13, 2003.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement with Clint and Sandy Lawrence for the
log cabin residence having the address of 4958 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, from June 1,
2003, to May 31, 2004, thereafter continuing on a month-to-month basis, for a monthly
rental of $600.00 to be paid into the Glenn Mary Capital Account.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
authorized to execute said lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as
are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject
to the conditions approved by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-051303-10, R-051303-10.a, R-051303-10.b, R-051303-10.d, R-051303-10.f,
May 13, 2003
446
R-051303-10.g
Supervisor Minnix questioned whether the resolution for the Cave Spring
Rescue Squad had been prepared. Ms. Childers reported that the resolution had been
prepared. Mr. Hodge indicated that there was also a resolution for the Cave Spring Fire
Department, and that both Supervisor Minnix and Supervisor McNamara would be
attending both events.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-10 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE
DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 13,
2003 designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - April 22, 2003
2. Resolution of appreciation to Cave Spring Volunteer Fire Department for
service and dedication upon its 60th anniversary
3. Resolution of appreciation to the Cave Spring Rescue Squad for their service
to the community and in celebration of their 45th anniversary
4. Request to appropriate $305,000 for public assistance programs in the
Department of Social Services
5. Request to accept Bradford Circle into the State Secondary System
May 13, 2003
447
6. Request to accept water and sewer facilities serving Miller’s Landing, Hollins
Magisterial District
7. Request to accept Aarons Run Circle into the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System
8. Request to accept Kings Crest Drive, Fieldgate Road, and Avalon Circle into
the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System
That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by
law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-10.a OF APPRECIATION TO CAVE SPRING
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR SERVICE AND DEDICATION
TH
UPON ITS 60 ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Volunteer Fire Department Company 3, Cave
Spring, was founded in 1942; and
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Volunteer Fire Department, consisting of over fifty
volunteers, have provided protection for the residents and businesses of southwestern
Roanoke County for over sixty years, responding to calls for all types of emergency
situations; and
WHEREAS, the volunteers of the Cave Spring Volunteer Fire Department have
assisted Roanoke County by using donations and fund raisers to help purchase trucks
and state of the art equipment to better enable the department to protect the community
from loss due to fire and other disasters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors, on its own behalf and on behalf of the citizens of the Cave Spring area,
CAVE
does hereby extend its gratitude and appreciation to the many volunteers of the
th
SPRING VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
on the occasion of their 60 anniversary
for their service and dedication to public safety in Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-10.b OF APPRECIATION TO THE CAVE
SPRING RESCUE SQUAD FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE
May 13, 2003
448
TH
COMMUNITY AND IN CELEBRATION OF THEIR 45
ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad’s original thirteen members were
sworn in on April 24, 1958, and ran their first call on May 3, 1958, at the Vinton
Dogwood Festival; and
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad was first housed in a single car
garage next to what is now the Coffee Pot Restaurant on Brambleton Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad continued to purchase rescue
trucks, ambulances and equipment and their membership steadily increased as the
Cave Spring area experienced rapid growth; and
WHEREAS, in 1973, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad purchased the Hurst Jaws
of Life hydraulic tools and was one of the first crews in the area to have this new state-
of-the-art extrication tool; and
WHEREAS, in 1976, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad began work on a new
custom-built crash truck which was put into service in 1977 and contained a unique
feature which was the power take-off winch located in the front bumper; and
WHEREAS, in 1977, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad was one of the first crews
in the Roanoke Valley to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS); and
WHEREAS, in 1990, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad moved into their new
building on Brambleton Avenue which was a joint effort between the squad and
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad, along with Back Creek,
Bent Mountain, and Clearbrook Rescue Squads implemented a Float Medic program to
provide increased ALS coverage to South Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad has been responsible for helping
numerous injured people and saving many lives; and
th
WHEREAS, the Cave Spring Rescue Squad is celebrating its 45 anniversary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its congratulations and appreciation to
th
CAVE SPRING RESCUE SQUAD
the on the occasion of its 45 anniversary; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for many years of
continued service to the community.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-10.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
BRADFORD CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
May 13, 2003
449
WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully
incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation,
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved By:
Supervisor McNamara
Seconded By:
None Required
Yeas:
Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
Nays:
None
Absent:
Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-10.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF AARONS
RUN CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully
incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation,
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition,
May 13, 2003
450
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved By:
Supervisor McNamara
Seconded By:
None Required
Yeas:
Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
Nays:
None
Absent:
Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 051303-10.g REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF KINGS
CREST DRIVE, FIELDGATE ROAD AND AVALON CIRCLE INTO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully
incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation,
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
May 13, 2003
451
Recorded Vote
Moved By:
Supervisor McNamara
Seconded By:
None Required
Yeas:
Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
Nays:
None
Absent:
Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Future School Capital Reserve
5. Accounts Paid – March 20023
6. Statement of Expenditures and Estimated and Actual Revenues
for the month ended April 2003
7. Statement of the Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of April 20, 2003
8. Clean Valley Council
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara: (1) He stated that there has never been a meeting
May 13, 2003
452
that he can recall in which the Board did not have any reports of Board members, a
closed meeting, or work session.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________
Diane S. Childers Joseph P. McNamara
Clerk to the Board Chairman