The URL can be used to link to this page

6/28/2005 - Regular June 28, 2005 707 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 28, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Richard C. Flora, Joseph McNamara MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Diane Scribner-Clevenger, Unity Church of Roanoke Valley. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. June 28, 2005 708 IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing regarding the termination of the Orange and Yellow Line transportation service on June 30, 2005. (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) Mr. Chambliss reported that the Orange Line and Yellow Line service operated by RADAR lost its state and federal funding and will be discontinued as of June 30. The program was originally funded as a 50/50 matching grant using funds from the Federal Transit Administration with a match by the Virginia Department of Social Services as part of the welfare to work program. The federal funds were part of a reverse commute program whereby riders were provided transportation assistance to travel to job opportunities and hopefully be removed from welfare. The cost of the service to the riders was free and it primarily served two corridors in Roanoke County: (1) The Orange Line service ran from Tanglewood Mall along Route 419 to Lewis Gale Hospital. It also had a branch which served Brambleton Avenue near the Coffee Pot where it met the Valley Metro connector. (2) The Yellow Line service ran from Spartan Square in Salem to R. R. Donnelly on Route 460 West. Mr. Chambliss stated that the program had been averaging approximately 30 trips per day or the equivalent of $27 per one-way trip. The monies from the federal government were earmarked funds which are requested a year in advance and are not guaranteed each year. The state funds have also been reallocated to other programs. The total cost to continue the program would be approximately $233,376 annually. It has been suggested that the County June 28, 2005 709 consider offsetting the cost of the program and for purposes of comparison, Mr. Chambliss noted that the County’s CORTRAN program for seniors and individuals under the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) costs $273,000 annually. CORTRAN is a curb-to-curb service whereas the Orange Line and Yellow Line service was a limited, deviating route and for those who qualified for services, they could go off the main route up to ¾ of a mile. The service was primarily for the purpose of connecting to a normal Valley Metro route. Many of the riders utilizing the Orange Line and Yellow Line service are those who might qualify for the CORTRAN service in Roanoke County or the STAR service operated by RADAR. Mr. Chambliss indicated that the primary difference between CORTRAN and STAR is that CORTRAN will take a rider to any point inside the outer perimeter of Roanoke County, including destinations which may be within the City of Roanoke. The STAR service stays within the boundaries of Roanoke City or within ¾ of a mile of the Valley Metro route if they go outside of the City routes. Mr. Chambliss noted that it is difficult to find alternatives to services being used by residents and in some cases, riders use this service for transportation to work, doctor’s appointments, or shopping. He advised that funds for this service have not been included in the 2005-2006 budget and the County has not contributed funds to the program in the past. Supervisor Wray noted that it was stated that several adult home complexes and businesses are involved in seeking other transportation solutions. Mr. Chambliss stated that the Fairington Apartments on Route 419 has individuals who June 28, 2005 710 have attempted to sign up for the STAR service. Other complexes have discussed whether to acquire a van or transportation system of their own or to contract with RADAR to provide the needed service. He stated that he is not aware of the final outcome of any of these discussions, and noted that many organizations such as the League of Older Americans (LOA) and area churches provide limited transportation opportunities, particularly for medical appointments. He stated that this is an expensive proposition and one such service which had been very active in the area was discontinued within the last year. The cost of $25 per trip is not uncommon for this type of service. Supervisor Wray inquired if the LOA would be willing to extend their services to cover transportation for purposes other than medical. Mr. Chambliss stated that due to limited funding, transportation is normally limited to appointments of a medical nature or which are a necessity. Supervisor Wray further questioned how this service can be extended until an alternative is found. Mr. Chambliss responded that to do so, it would be necessary to assume 100% of the cost for the time period needed to arrive at an alternative. Supervisor Church referenced a letter which was sent to Roanoke City Mayor Nelson Harris and inquired if Mr. Chambliss has a breakdown of the number of individuals, both in the County and the City, who will be affected. Mr. Chambliss advised that this information is not available because the service was not subscription June 28, 2005 711 based and it was dependent upon who used the service on any given day; therefore, there is no accurate record of the ridership. Supervisor Church questioned how difficult it would be to arrive at an estimate. He questioned if something could be worked out on a shared basis with Roanoke City, and stated that we need to recognize the needs of the individuals who are affected by the change and try to assist them. Mr. Chambliss stated that for those who have qualified for the CORTRAN or STAR programs, these programs continue to be available. He reported that there is a cost of $3.50 per one-way trip for the CORTRAN service and $2.50 per one-way trip for the STAR service. He stated that some individuals preferred the Orange Line and Yellow Line service because there was no cost and while this is a beneficial service, it was limited to the populations being served along Route 419 and Route 460 West. The Orange Line and Yellow Line service did not cover Route 460 East, Peters Creek Road, or the Mount Pleasant area, and these communities have had to continue to rely on other transportation options. Supervisor Church requested that Mr. Chambliss elaborate on the qualifications for CORTRAN ridership. Mr. Chambliss stated that CORTRAN serves senior adults age 60 or above or persons who have disabling conditions and qualify under the ADA. The applications for CORTRAN service are reviewed by the County and if qualified, individuals make reservations to ride on the CORTRAN system which operates Monday thru Friday. Reservations for service must be made one day in advance. June 28, 2005 712 Supervisor Church noted that the cost of $2.50 or $3.50 can be a major expense to some individuals. Supervisor McNamara inquired if one bus served both the Orange Line and Yellow Line. Mr. Chambliss responded that there were two buses. Supervisor McNamara stated that this situation emphasizes one of the worst things the state and federal government can do which is to offer a service and then take it away when citizens become accustomed to using it. He stated that the County is not in a position to continue every program that is started and stopped, but we have an obligation to the citizens. He stated that the CORTRAN and STAR services appear to be far more cost effective and environmentally friendly operations, and he noted that the Board has continually increased funding to CORTRAN. He inquired if the CORTRAN service is meeting 100% of the need. Mr. Chambliss responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara stated that the CORTRAN budget has basically been tripled in the last several years, and this is likely the most appropriate way to service this population. He encouraged staff to have CORTRAN pamphlets available on the Orange Line and Yellow Line buses for the remaining days of service to make riders aware of the availability of the CORTRAN service as an alternative. Supervisor Altizer questioned how many trips are made per week. Mr. Chambliss stated that each bus runs a complete route approximately every two hours. The Orange Line was running 12 hours per day, five days per week; the Yellow Line was running six days per week. This translates to approximately six trips each per day. June 28, 2005 713 Supervisor Altizer questioned how many people used the service per day. Mr. Chambliss responded that there is not a reliable estimate of ridership. Supervisor Altizer stated that this service was provided to both City and County residents and the Mayor of Roanoke City has sent a letter to the County. He inquired if Roanoke City has expressed an interest in pursuing this matter further. Mr. Chambliss stated that to his knowledge, Roanoke City has not taken any affirmative action to extend the service because both routes were outside of the City of Roanoke. He noted that Roanoke City citizens may have benefited from the service by being able to travel to the areas that were served, but to his knowledge the City has not taken any action to extend the service. Supervisor Altizer recommended that staff confer with Roanoke City to determine if they are interested in pursuing this on a shared cost basis and report back to the Board. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed amendment to the budget for fiscal years 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 in accordance with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) Ms. Hyatt stated that this time has been set aside for a public hearing to receive citizen comment regarding proposed budget amendments. She advised that when budget amendments exceed $500,000 per meeting, State Code requires that a June 28, 2005 714 public hearing be held. She reported that no action is required on these items at this time, and each will be acted upon individually during the meeting. The items included in the public hearing are as follows: (1) Request to appropriate $729,849 to various public assistance programs in the Department of Social Services; (2) Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $8,000 for the Gates Foundation “Staying Connected” grant program; (3) Request to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $225 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts; (4) Request to appropriate a donation in the amount of $1,520.42 from the Hand in Hand Committee for the annual Parent Fair; (5) Request from schools to appropriate funds in the amount of $307.98 from Virginia Western Community College for dual enrollment revenues; (6) Request from schools to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $36,581 from Learn and Serve Virginia K-12; and (7) Request to renew a contract to provide Commonwealth Attorney services to the Town of Vinton for $6,000 and appropriation of funds. The public hearing was held and there were no citizens present to speak on this item. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate $729,849 to various public assistance programs in the Department of Social Services. (Dr. Betty McCrary, Director of Social Services) A-062805-1 June 28, 2005 715 Mr. Chambliss advised that that this is a request to recognize and appropriate monies to the Department of Social Services for the current fiscal year. He stated that in many public assistance programs, the locality is notified of a base amount of funding at the beginning of the fiscal year and throughout the year, applications for additional funding can be made for purposes such as day care, assistance for foster care children, etc. He reported that $729,849 of supplemental grants have been received and noted that these are not matching funds. The appropriations are as follows: federal IV-E ($288,000); adoption subsidy ($45,000); transitional day care ($158,437); auxiliary grants ($55,000); special needs adoption ($40,000); eligibility administration ($24,292); adult services ($25,480); VIEW work and transition ($18,615); head start day care ($20,438); and non-VIEW day care ($54,587). These are federal pass-through funds used for direct services. Supervisor Flora noted that the appropriation is for the current fiscal year which only has two days remaining. He inquired how the funds can be spent in two days or is the funding simply a reimbursement. Mr. Chambliss stated that this is a reimbursement of funds and he noted that in the prior fiscal year, this appropriation was handled in three separate actions by the Board over the course of the year. Supervisor Flora further inquired who has been providing the funds up front if this is a reimbursement. Mr. Chambliss responded that the funding has been appropriated by the Social Services Department via state funding. June 28, 2005 716 Supervisor Wray noted for the record that the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003-2004 was $751,000. He inquired if this will change any funding from Roanoke County. Mr. Chambliss responded in the negative and stated that this is simply the recognition of the federal funds so that they can be claimed for reimbursement. Supervisor Church moved to approve staff recommendation (appropriate $729,849 to the 2004-2005 Social Services budget and appropriate the same revenues from the state, to be distributed in the following manner: $288,000 for federal IV-E (602000-5730); $45,000 for adoption subsidy (602000-5771); $158,437 transitional day care (602000-5749); $55,000 auxiliary grants (602000-5710); $40,000 special needs adoption (602000-5770); $24,292 for eligibility administration; $25,480 for adult services (602000-5756); $18,615 VIEW work and transition (602000-5749); $20,438 head start day care (602000-5785); and $54,587 non-VIEW day care (602000-5749). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Change order for public safety building: foundation/auger piles due to unsuitable soils. (Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) A-062805-2 June 28, 2005 717 Mr. O’Donnell advised that Warren Walker, construction management consultant with Construction Dynamics Group, was present at the meeting to answer technical questions regarding design changes. He stated that as discussed at the work session held on June 14, Northrop-Grumman has submitted a proposed change order for revised foundation construction due to soft soils under the dispatch wing of the new Public Safety Building. With the guidance of the County’s construction management firm, Construction Dynamics Group, staff rejected the original change order proposals and instructed Northrop-Grumman to identify alternative methods of ensuring a sound foundation and to absorb all redesign costs. He stated that Northrop-Grumman has agreed to absorb the redesign cost and has presented three options for consideration. The alternatives presented are maximum prices and could be lower if the depths of the additional foundation supports are less than estimated or if fewer piles are required. Conversely, if the depths of the piles need to be deeper than estimated or more piles are required, Northrop-Grumman will absorb any additional cost. Mr. O’Donnell noted that staff agreed to bring all proposed change orders above $100,000 to the Board for approval; therefore, this item is on the agenda for consideration by the Board. He stated that the original change order proposals came from Northrop-Grumman with one design only which was for a micro-piles system and revised foundation design. The original proposal was priced at $528,685 plus design costs of $11,463 for a total proposed change amount of $540,148. This amount included all costs for redesign of the foundation. Mr. O’Donnell advised that staff June 28, 2005 718 rejected this proposal and instructed Northrop-Grumman to submit another proposal with several options for alternative structural systems. Northrop-Grumman was also notified that the County would not pay for engineering and redesign costs as the unsuitable soils should have been discovered prior to the original foundation design being completed. Northrop-Grumman has agreed with this concept and sent an alternative proposed change order with the following alternatives: Option 1: a geopiers system which consists of 250 30” diagonal geopiers at a depth of 9 to 13 feet. This option has a cost not to exceed $408,328. Option 2: an auger cast piles system which consists of 172 12” diameter auger cast piles at an average depth of 21 feet. This option has a cost not to exceed $319,034. Option 3: a micropile design which consists of 172 8” diameter micropiles at an average depth of 21 feet. This option has a cost not to exceed $510,629. Mr. O’Donnell stated that all three alternatives have been analyzed by Construction Dynamics Group (CDG) for cost and effectiveness. With respect to fiscal impact, he advised that an amount not to exceed cost of $319,034 would be deducted from the current project contingency account of $811,245, leaving a balance of at least $492,211 in the contingency. These funds are already in the project budget and no additional appropriation is necessary. Mr. O’Donnell advised that staff recommends that Option 2, auger cast piles, be approved as it is the lowest cost method and has been deemed by CDG to be an effective method of ensuring a sound foundation. June 28, 2005 719 Supervisor Wray stated that the contingency amount is $811,000; the project is just getting started; and almost half of the contingency amount has been used. He noted that when this site was first examined, he inquired about the possibility of uncovering any unknowns and requested that the site be thoroughly evaluated. He questioned where are the original geotechnical studies and why did they not reflect the soil problem. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the preliminary concern in the Phase I and Phase II studies were environmental issues and the only problem found was a minor diesel spill which has been addressed. Preliminary borings were conducted throughout the site to search for rock and none was found. Northrop-Grumman advises that more thorough geotechnical work was not conducted up front because until the position of the building structure was known, it would not be cost effective to do detailed borings and analysis over an entire 10 acre parcel. He advised that the detailed geotechnical work was conducted in late winter because the building location needed to be determined first. Mr. Walker stated that in March, the footprint of the building was determined and it is common practice at that point in the design to conduct additional borings. He indicated that approximately 20% of the borings showed soft soils, which were not present in earlier tests or in 80% of the other borings. He stated that these types of conditions do occur on many construction projects and it was necessary to examine alternatives to overcome the soft soils. Supervisor Wray questioned if there is a need to bore deeper. Mr. Walker responded in the negative and advised that the borings went down to rock and the June 28, 2005 720 average boring went down approximately 40 feet until it hit rock. The original design and costs were based on common spread footings which would sit three to four feet below grade; however, the earth below one section of the building was too soft and could result in differential settlement that could lead to cracks in the building. In order to stabilize this situation, it will be necessary to install piles below the footings to provide a firm foundation. Supervisor Wray inquired if the footings will be poured concrete. Mr. Walker stated that three alternatives were examined. Mini-piles were originally proposed by the construction team; however, they were deemed too expensive. They then proposed looking at geo-piers which drill a 12” diameter or larger hole into the ground, take out the earth, and put in compacted rock. The other approach, which is the one which appears to be the most cost effective, is to drill a 12” diameter pier, remove the earth, and pour concrete. The proposed solution at this time is a concrete pier. Supervisor Wray stated that we do not know if there will be any more unknowns, but he would like to have some confidence that we will not uncover something else. Mr. O’Donnell stated that as noted in the work session two weeks ago, staff is anticipating an additional change order that will be in excess of $100,000 for placement of the sewer line. He further stated that other costs will be incurred, one of which will be to obtain a redundant E-911 loop from Verizon into the facility so that if one set of E-911 lines is cut, service will still be available. The cost to obtain the redundant E-911 service to the dispatch center will have to be negotiated with Verizon. June 28, 2005 721 He advised that these are the only large change orders that are known at this time. He requested that Mr. Walker comment regarding the fact that once the building is out of the ground, any changes should be limited to scope changes. Mr. Walker stated that with a project of this size, there are three areas of risk that will impact the contingency: (1) roads – he advised that a solution has been worked out with VDOT for the roads in the area at no additional cost. (2) soils – he stated that this is usually the biggest risk and he advised that what is being presented to the Board today represents the solution to the soils problem. (3) utilities – he advised that they are working on the final utility costs and the change order for sewer improvements will be coming to the Board in the near future. Mr. Walker stated with these facts in mind, he feels that the biggest risks to the project contingency are under control. Supervisor Church questioned how often a situation such as this occurs. Mr. Walker stated that in his 30 years of experience, he has only had one project that did not have this type of issue with soils. He stated that the most cost-effective approach to a project is to develop the design, conduct test borings, and determine what the actual costs will be. He stated that had we required the builder to put these costs in the proposal up front, the costs would have been highly inflated due to the unknown risk factor. He indicated that this is a common occurrence and prudent steps have been taken to minimize the costs. Supervisor Church questioned how something like this could have been prevented. Mr. Walker stated that the only way to know up front would have been to do June 28, 2005 722 $50,000 - $100,000 worth of geotechnical tests across the entire site and it is possible that this would not have provided the information that was needed. He stated that when dealing with sub-surface conditions until you determine where you plan to build and conduct explorations in that location, it is very difficult to forecast what the risks and costs will be. Supervisor Church inquired if this would be true regardless of the type of building being constructed. Mr. Walker stated for a multi-story building with the weights being placed on this foundation, yes. Supervisor Church referenced a statement he made several weeks ago that a handyman who was working in the area told him months ago that he did not know how a public safety building could be built on this site. He stated that perhaps this person has more knowledge regarding the site than anyone else. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the contingency was 3%. Mr. O’Donnell stated that it was 3% but because of the change order to decrease the contract cost to the guaranteed maximum price, it has actually been increased slightly. It started out at $780,000 and now it is approximately $811,000. Supervisor Altizer stated that with a contingency, we know there will be unexpected costs. He indicated that if you start building in things up front in anticipation of possible risks, you can inflate the costs. He stated that it was wise for the Board to have decided to keep a low contingency in order to prevent any firm who was awarded the contract from viewing a large contingency as an opportunity for cost overruns. He concurred that the greatest area of risk is below June 28, 2005 723 ground and he anticipated that part of the contingency would have to be used during the course of the project. Supervisor Church questioned if this means that $811,245 is the maximum and that no matter what happens, the County will not pay anymore. Mr. O’Donnell stated that he certainly hopes so. He indicated that if other unknowns are found, it would be necessary to negotiate to take things out of the scope. Supervisor Church questioned who is handling the hauling away of materials from the site. He requested that staff should advise them not to stop in the middle of Cove Road and converse with one another. He noted that he almost ran into the back of one of the vehicles when it was stopped in the road. Chairman Altizer noted that several citizens were signed up to speak and advised that this matter is not a public hearing. He inquired if Mr. Steve Noble would like to speak under citizens’ comments and Mr. Noble responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church moved to approve staff recommendation (approve Option 2, auger cast piles – 172 12” diameter; auger cast piles at an average depth of 21 feet; cost not to exceed $319,034). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None June 28, 2005 724 3. Request to authorize an agreement between the Sheriff of Montgomery County and the Police Department of Roanoke County to allow the Roanoke County Police Department to respond to E-911 law enforcement calls on Patterson Drive in the Copper Hill portion of Montgomery County. (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police) A-062805-3 Chief Lavinder reported that for a number of years, E-911 calls for a small number of homes in the northeastern part of Montgomery County have been coming into the County’s dispatch center. He stated that he has discussed this issue with Sheriff Whitt and has been advised that this would be a very difficult problem for Verizon to correct and to do so would be very expensive. Sheriff Whitt has inquired if the County would be willing to transfer these calls immediately to the Montgomery County dispatch center when they are received. He further requested that if it appears to be an emergency situation, the County respond until Montgomery County officers arrive. Chief Lavinder advised that he is agreeable to this arrangement and the matter has been discussed with the County Attorneys for both localities, who drafted the proposed agreement. Supervisor Wray questioned what happens if Roanoke County can not respond to this area when a call is received. Chief Lavinder stated that the agreement indicates that the County will notify Montgomery County immediately and he noted that June 28, 2005 725 there will be some circumstances under which the County will not be able to respond. Supervisor Wray further inquired if this has been done in the past. Chief Lavinder stated that the County has a similar, but more extensive agreement, with the City of Roanoke. Supervisor Church stated that this is a difficult area to access and he questioned if the County responds and is the first on the scene, do we leave when their officers arrive. Chief Lavinder advised that this decision will be at the discretion of the shift supervisor. Supervisor Church commended Chief Lavinder for his efforts with this reciprocal agreement. Supervisor McNamara questioned how many households will be served. Chief Lavinder advised that it will be approximately six. Supervisor McNamara stated that this is a great step that will help a neighboring jurisdiction. He noted that Police and Fire and Rescue are how we typically start these cooperative agreements with neighboring jurisdictions, and he expressed hope that this may be the first step in future cooperative agreements with Montgomery County. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (approval of the agreement authorizing the Roanoke County Police Department to provide assistance to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office for residents on Patterson Drive in the Copper Hill area of Montgomery County). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 28, 2005 726 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. Memorandum of Understanding with Virginia Department of State Police for 800 MHz repeater installation, Poor Mountain. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) A-062805-4 Ms. Green advised that Roanoke County maintains two tower sites on Poor Mountain. She stated that one of them is property that the County owns and the County also owns the tower itself on the I-81 side. She advised that we have a second site on the back of Poor Mountain which covers a small area of Bent Mountain down into the Route 221 area. Currently the tower is on property that is owned by a private landowner and on a tower that is also owned by that same landowner on the property. She advised that at this time, the County does not have a current lease. At one time, the County had a lease with a sub-lessee who was on the tower but we have not been able to reach an agreement with the current landowner. She indicated that staff has negotiated an alternative agreement with the Virginia State Police who have a tower site that is close by and they have agreed to enter into a memorandum of understanding. This agreement will allow the County to place an antenna on their tower at a one-time cost not to exceed $2,000. Ms. Green reported that this issue was reviewed and approved by the Public Safety Team who have authorized payment from the E-911 fund. June 28, 2005 727 Supervisor Wray questioned how long it has been since the County’s lease agreement. He noted that we evidently do not have a lease at the present time. Ms. Green advised that Bell-Atlantic had a lease with the landowner and they sub- leased space on that tower to the County. Bell-Atlantic subsequently became Verizon, who abandoned the tower and gave it to the landowner. The time on the lease expired and the tower was then owned by the landowner. She stated that at this point, the County’s lease was in limbo and we were still on the tower and had not been able to reach an agreement with the landowner. Supervisor Wray questioned if the County is the only one presently located on the tower. Ms. Green stated that there may be one additional entity on the tower. Supervisor Wray stated that this appears to be a good deal. He questioned if Mr. Mahoney sees any potential pitfalls to the agreement. Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative. Ms. Green advised that the only potential problem would be if the State Police determine that they no longer want the County on the tower, and the County would have to then relocate on another site. She indicated that provisions for such an occurrence are covered in the agreement. Supervisor Church moved to approve staff recommendation (approve the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Virginia Department of State Police by the County Administrator or his designee). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 28, 2005 728 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 5. Request to approve amendments to the Public Private Partnership Policy. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) A-062805-5 Mr. Chittum reported that at the Board’s request, a work session was held on June 7 to discuss the County’s Public Private Partnership (PPP) policy. At that work session the staff was directed to amend the existing PPP Policy in five different areas, and Mr. Chittum stated that a copy of the amended policy was provided in the agenda packet as a draft document. He stated that there were several housekeeping items which were noted following the work session and he reviewed the amended policy page by page, highlighting the changes requested by the Board and the changes being recommended by staff. Page 1 (Guiding Principles): He advised that Supervisor Church felt it was important to emphasize that when we discuss quality jobs, that we indicate jobs that are created and retained. He requested that the word “or” be changed to the word “and”. Also on page 1, it was stated that the policy would be administered by the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority (IDA). Mr. Chittum advised that this has always been the case, and staff added this language to clarify how the process operates and to highlight that the grants are administered by the IDA. June 28, 2005 729 Page 2 (Targeted Industries): He advised that Supervisor McNamara requested the removal of the language relating to target industries. This request was based on the premise that any business that was a quality operation, paid good wages and benefits, was friendly to the environment, and had community acceptance is one that the County would want to attract regardless of whether it was listed as a target industry. Mr. Chittum noted that in both the County’s economic development strategy and the regional economic development strategy, target industries are mentioned; but for the purpose of this policy, staff was asked to remove this language. Page 3 (Review): He advised that when staff examined the policy, it was noted that there were two work sheets used by staff. The first was used to determine the amount of taxes from new projects and the amount of infrastructure reimbursements being requested. The second was an arithmetic equation based on various criteria to analyze the worthiness of a project. He advised that staff began using the work sheets in 1996 when the policy was first adopted. The work sheets functioned well in assisting with the guiding principles for analyzing each project. He stated that the work sheets have been deemed no longer beneficial and since all projects are submitted to the Board for funding approval, staff felt that the work sheets no longer serve a useful purpose. Mr. Chittum noted that the County Administrator previously had authority to approve up to $50,000 of economic development grants. Since so few have been June 28, 2005 730 handled in this manner (he noted that of 11 projects, only two have been handled administratively), it was decided that all requests will be sent to the Board for approval. Page 4 (Criteria): He noted that there was mention of the applications of the payments up to $50,000 that would be handled by the County Administrator and this language was removed as noted above. Page 5: He indicated that there was mention of the intent of the County to continue the maintenance of a fiscally responsible utility enterprise fund. He advised that since the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) now handles public utilities, this language was removed. Mr. Chittum distributed copies of the work sheets described earlier for the Board’s review. Supervisor McNamara referenced language which was removed on Page 4 stating “all application of payments of costs up to $50,000 for physical improvements and/or fees, which comply with the above criteria, will be approved by the County Administrator upon a positive recommendation by the Department of Economic Development.” He indicated that he feels it may be sufficient to just change the language to say “may be approved by the County Administrator”. He stated that the County may not want to slow down the process and if the County Administrator has strong direction from the Board, he could poll the Board regarding smaller projects. He noted that a small project can happen very quickly and he did not want to delay the June 28, 2005 731 process. He stated that it was his intention that the Board be aware of all possible incentives and be offered an opportunity to voice an opinion regarding all projects. Supervisor Wray stated that he recalled that the discussion indicated that all incentives would come back to the Board for approval. He advised that it is not the Board’s intent to slow down the process. Supervisor Church stated that it was his understanding that all incentives would be approved by the Board. Supervisor Altizer indicated that he recalled that it was the consensus of the Board that all projects would be approved by the Board. He stated that the Board could, after being polled, give approval to the County Administrator to proceed. Supervisor McNamara stated that it was not his intention to circumvent the Board’s approval of the smaller projects; but rather than having them go through all the channels of first and second readings, he felt that the County Administrator could poll the Board and the policy will be worded to provide the County Administrator with that authority. Supervisor Flora indicated that the Board wants to be the one making the decision when it comes to economic development incentives. He stated that the question is whether it is possible for the County Administrator to poll the Board and get verbal approval to handle incentives under $50,000. Mr. Mahoney advised that normally the Board can undertake this type of action by resolution. He indicated that Supervisor McNamara may be thinking of some of the larger projects where there is a June 28, 2005 732 conveyance of real estate owned by the County, where a first and second reading is required. He advised that with smaller projects where there is no conveyance of real estate, this matter can be approved by the Board with a performance agreement in one action. He further stated that there are several different approaches. If it is the desire of the County to make a grant to a private business, that grant can only go through the IDA. He noted that this is different from the County authorizing certain public improvements which will be owned by the citizenry (i.e., a road or traffic signal). These activities can be authorized by the Board through minor capital or other initiatives. He stated that we need to distinguish between actions where the Board has authorized improvement to a public asset versus an incentive going to a company, which has to go through the IDA. He stated that the intent is not to take away the polling of the Board for a quick decision. Supervisor Flora stated that given all this information, the value of incentives under $50,000 is typically not the result of an emergency situation. He stated that a better approach would be for the County Administrator to poll the Board to determine if there is a possible objection to the incentives, but not make an offer until the issue comes to the Board for a decision. He indicated that this would not likely slow down the process since meetings are held at least twice per month. Supervisor McNamara questioned if you have a small organization receiving a $30,000 incentive, does this request currently come to the Board for approval under the existing policy. Mr. Chittum stated that in the past, Mr. Hodge has June 28, 2005 733 generally discussed these with the Board before proceeding with an agreement. The Board is then notified by a letter outlining the terms of the agreement. Mr. Mahoney concurred that this information was accurate. Supervisor McNamara noted that this is his basic point: in the past, the Board still knew about the incentives even if there was no actual vote. In this scenario, we are creating an additional step but he indicated that he can support the policy either way; he was just trying to avoid having an additional step. Supervisor Wray referenced Item F (Review) on Page 3, which states “all applications are subject to the amount of the County’s annual budget appropriation for this purpose” and questioned if it would be appropriate to add the phrase “subject to Board approval” at the end of this statement since all projects are to be reviewed by the Board. There was a consensus of the Board to add this language. Supervisor Wray noted that the IDA is changing its name to the Economic Development Authority (EDA), and he inquired if this will exempt them from any state requirements associated with the IDA. Mr. Mahoney requested clarification of the question. Supervisor Wray inquired if the EDA comes under any other regulations as a result of changing their name. Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative and advised that they are still operating under the enabling legislation in Title 15.2 of the State Code. Supervisor Wray questioned, with respect to the name change, whether other localities call themselves a County Authority or if they go through the IDA. Mr. Chittum stated that there has been a move in recent years for localities to change the June 28, 2005 734 name of their Authority to the EDA. He noted that when IDA’s were first enacted, their main focus was industrial development and industrial revenue bonds. As the business changed and IDA’s became more involved in downtown development and renovation of neighborhoods, the rationale was that the IDA no longer was focused solely on industrial development work. He advised that it is not unusual for them to change their name to more accurately reflect their mission. Supervisor Altizer stated that two citizens have signed up to speak and he noted that this item is not a public hearing. He questioned if Ms. Waugh and Mr. Noble wished to speak under citizens’ comments. Both responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation with the change recommended by Supervisor Wray to Item F on Page 3. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None Supervisor Altizer stated that when Roanoke County provides an incentive, no one gets money up front; it is done on a reimbursement basis. He stated that until everyone decides that no one is going to offer incentives, this is the only way that it becomes a level playing field and these are the types of determinations that must be made by the Board. He stated that there has been discussion regarding retail incentives, and he advised that you must keep the door open and not have a mandatory policy against offering incentives for retail. He stated that you must maintain the June 28, 2005 735 flexibility to attract certain retail which will benefit the County in terms of jobs or tax base. Supervisor Flora commented that the newspaper article regarding this topic generated thought and discussion. He stated that individuals must understand how incentives came into being. He indicated that for many years, Virginia kept getting beat out by North Carolina because they were providing large incentives and tax breaks to recruit businesses. He stated that this practice snowballed and other communities began offering incentives; therefore if you weren’t offering incentives, you were trying to recruit industries and going nowhere. He stated that as those policies began to develop, you began to see far more competition between jurisdictions and states. He stated that it has taken him many years to buy into the idea of incentives but he stated that he has come to realize that you can be left at the starting gate if you do not offer them. He advised that what we are talking about is an investment in future revenues; we are paying incentives for public improvements so that we will get revenue in return from that industry forever. He stated that there is a net gain in revenues and jobs; and without incentives, there are a number of jobs that would never have come to Roanoke County. He stated that incentives may be considered obnoxious by some people, but they are necessary. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (amend the PPP Policy as outlined in the 2005 draft document) with the change to Item F, Page June 28, 2005 736 3, as recommended by Supervisor Wray. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for July 26, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. First reading of an ordinance concerning proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance – private kennels, by changing the title of this use, increasing the number of dogs, eliminating the minimum lot size standard, and deleting this use from the R-2 zoning classification, upon the petition of the Board of Supervisors. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to expand a religious assembly facility on 15.24 acres located at 6011 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Church of the Holy Spirit. June 28, 2005 737 IN RE: FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an easement to Roanoke Gas Company through property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at Merriman/Starkey Park to provide for the extension of natural gas service to the Mason’s Crest Subdivision, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) Mr. Haislip advised that this is an ordinance requesting conveyance of an easement to Roanoke Gas Company through Merriman and Starkey Park to serve the Mason’s Crest subdivision. He stated that staff met onsite with Roanoke Gas representatives and are able to accommodate the easement through the park at a location that would not interfere with the operation or future development of facilities at Merriman Park. Mr. Haislip noted that utilizing the standard formula, the value of this easement is $1,917.75 and the funds will be placed in the parks and recreation capital maintenance account for improvements at this facility. Supervisor Wray requested clarification that the value was determined using the same equation based on 40% and the amount is less due to the square footage involved. Mr. Haislip responded in the affirmative and advised that the easement involves 7,359 square feet. Supervisor Altizer inquired if Roanoke Gas Company will be the party paying for the easement. Mr. Haislip responded in the affirmative. June 28, 2005 738 Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for July 12, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an easement to Cox Communications through property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at Merriman/Starkey Park to provide for the extension of cable television, internet, and telephone service for the benefit of Cox Communications and the Mason’s Crest Subdivision, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) Mr. Haislip stated that this is a similar request from Cox Cable for an easement to provide services to the Mason’s Crest subdivision. He stated that the water line easement will be in the vicinity of the creek and this easement will run along the road. It will not cross any of the athletic facilities at the site and the Cox easement will converge with the Roanoke Gas easement near the parking lot area. This easement is a total of 3,936 square feet with a value of $1,025.72. Supervisor Wray questioned if the existing utilities are adjacent to the present location. Mr. Haislip advised that they will be picking up north of the entrance to the park. He stated that normally these easements would go in a VDOT right-of-way; June 28, 2005 739 however there is a small road shoulder and then it goes straight into the park. The VDOT right-of-way is too narrow to accommodate the easement request. Supervisor Wray inquired if this will affect any of the activities of the park. Mr. Haislip responded in the negative. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for July 12, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance amending and repealing sections of Chapter 18. Sewers and Sewage Disposal and of Chapter 22. Water of the Roanoke County Code. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) O-062805-6 Mr. Mahoney advised that this is a second reading of an ordinance that repeals substantial sections of two chapters in the Roanoke County Code as a result of the creation of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). He stated that since the first reading, he has had further discussions with representatives of the WVWA and they have requested several minor amendments. The amendments are not substantive but these have been highlighted. Mr. Mahoney referenced Item 13 on Page 3, and stated that he has requested that Sections 22-31 through 22-41 be repealed. The WVWA has June 28, 2005 740 requested that Sections 22-31 and 22-32 be retained as they deal with an expansion of a public or private water supply system in the County. Mr. Mahoney stated that upon further discussion, all parties have agreed that it might be good to retain this in the County Code to provide an additional tool for the Board of Supervisors to examine a situation where a developer may want to create a public or private water system in the County. This affords the Board, as well as the WVWA, an opportunity to review such a request. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 062805-6 AMENDING AND REPEALING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18. AND OF CHAPTER SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL 22. OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WATER WHEREAS, the creation of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) transferred many of the duties and responsibilities for the regulation of public sewer and water systems from the County to WVWA; and WHEREAS, this transfer of responsibility and authority rendered numerous provisions of the County Code unnecessary; therefore, this ordinance amends and repeals many provisions in Chapter 18. Sewers and Sewer Disposal and Chapter 22. Water of the Roanoke County Code; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2005; and the second reading was held on June 28, 2005. June 28, 2005 741 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following sections of Chapter 18. Sewers and Sewage Disposal of the County Code are hereby amended and/or repealed as follows: ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL * * * * Sec. 18-2. Sanitary facilities for circuses, shows, exhibitions, etc. No person shall be permitted to exhibit in the county any side show, dog and pony show, trained animal show, carnival, circus and menagerie or any other show, exhibition or performance similar thereto until such person shall have provided adequate sanitary facilities for the personnel of the show, meeting with the approval of the county health officer. The sheriff is hereby authorized not to permit the performance of any of the shows above referred to in the county until after a certificate from the county health officer, showing that the above requirements have been complied with, has been secured. Sec. 18-3. Adoption of manual of regulations and policies. The board of supervisors of the county adopts a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer Facilities" to ensure uniform design and construction standards and to assist the county and the public in the clarification of review, construction, and inspection of sanitary sewer facilities. ARTICLE II. SEWER CONSTRUCTION Sec. 18-31. Compliance with article; interpretation of plans, specifications, etc. All work under this article shall be done in accordance with plans and specifications on file in the office of the department of engineering and inspections. Any questions, doubt June 28, 2005 742 or misunderstanding of the plans, profiles or specifications shall be interpreted and decided by the utility director, and his decision shall in all cases be final. In order to effectuate the provisions of this chapter, the board of supervisors shall, by resolution, adopt a manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards for Sanitary Sewer Facilities," which shall have the force of law. This manual shall include, inter alia, standards for the implementation of the various sections of this chapter and may include other policies, criteria, standards and regulations to implement the provisions of the sewer and sewage disposal ordinance. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the board from considering and adopting amendments to such manual at any time it is deemed appropriate. Sec. 18-32. Inspections. The utility director or his duly authorized representatives shall inspect all work and materials necessary for the completion of the work under contract and the contractor shall furnish him and his inspectors with all needed facilities for the carrying out of such inspection. Sec. 18-33. Contractor responsible for safety of public. The contractor shall bear full responsibility for safety of the public in carrying out his work and shall provide all safeguards and lights necessary. ARTICLE III. PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS* DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 18-61. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: June 28, 2005 743 An approved method of disposal of human excrement: (a) A flush toilet installed according to the county Plumbing Code and connected to an approved, properly installed septic tank system. (b) A standard pit privy of concrete or double wood construction. Health department. The county health officer or his duly authorized representative, the sanitation officer or plumbing inspector. Install, repair, approved and standard. In accordance with the specifications and standards established within this article. * * * * Sec. 18-64. Connections to public or private sewers; compliance with article; inspection of septic tank systems; when permits under article become null and void. It shall be unlawful for any septic tank system to be installed or repaired in the county except upon a permit as required in this article. If a public or private sewer is within three hundred (300) feet of the buildings for which the septic tank is to be installed or repaired, or as required by the concurring resolution under § 15.2-5137 of the Code of Virginia, the owner shall be required to connect to the public or private sewer, if the owner of the latter and the elevation permits such connection. No septic tank system shall be installed or repaired in this county except upon such permit as required in this article. All materials used shall strictly comply with all of the specifications required by this article. No septic tank system or any part thereof shall be covered until it has been inspected and approved as complying with the approved plans of the health department. The health department shall not approve the installation of a septic tank system unless so installed, nor permit it to be covered up unless it complies with the plans and specifications as set forth in this article. All permits automatically become null and void six (6) months after date of issue unless they are renewed in writing by the health department. Sec. 18-66. Misuse or neglect of systems prohibited. June 28, 2005 744 It shall be unlawful for any owner or any tenant or lessee of any premises properly supplied with a sanitary privy or flush toilet or other approved device for the disposal of human excrement to misuse or neglect the same, so as to allow or cause it to cease to be sanitary. Sec. 18-67. Approval of subdivision systems. It shall be unlawful for any person to start any new subdivision or housing development before furnishing in triplicate plans and specifications of the sewer system or sewage disposal system to be used together with plans for the anticipated water system to be used in the structure or structures. These plans and specifications shall be approved by the health department before construction is started. * * * * DIVISION 2. SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS Sec. 18-91. Generally. All septic tanks installed or repaired in this county shall consist of a cast iron soil pipe, transite pipe or Orangeburg pipe, an approved septic tank, approved concrete or vitrified clay pipe distributing sewers and drain tile seepage system, consisting of the materials specified in this division, and constructed and located as required by the plans and specifications as shown on or accompanying the permit, and as directed by the health department. Sec. 18-92. Excavations. All excavations and trenches shall be of sufficient dimensions as to permit sewers, tanks and other structures of the size shown, specified to be properly placed therein, according to the plans and specifications as required by this article, and to permit the June 28, 2005 745 removal of any obstructing material within the purification field or trees located closer than ten (10) feet to any part of the septic tank system. Sec. 18-93. Procedure when unsuitable foundation encountered. Where unsuitable foundation is encountered at the depth of any excavation shown on the drawing or specified by the health department, further excavation and refilling of excavated spots with such foundation material as may be directed by the health department, is hereby required. Sec. 18-94. Inspection; backfilling. A representative of the health department shall inspect septic tank construction after completion. Septic tank systems shall be backfilled immediately after inspection and approval by the health department and care shall be taken not to disturb the pipes, grades, joints or alignment by backfilling, or otherwise. Sec. 18-95. Pipes and jointing materials; grade of house sewer pipes. The house sewer for individual homes shall be constructed of four-inch or larger cast iron pipe, transite pipe, Orangeburg pipe or equivalent. All house sewer pipes shall be laid complete with all jointing materials and oakum as required in joints of concrete or vitrified clay pipe if same is a part of a sewer line. All house sewer cast iron pipe shall be jointed with lead and oakum or similar jointing material. All house sewer pipe shall be laid accurately and shall have a grade of not less than one-fourth inch to the foot, or as otherwise specified by the health department and all right angle bends in the house sewer shall be made with long sweep soil pipe ells. Sec. 18-96. Location; lot size. June 28, 2005 746 Location and installation of the sewage disposal system and each part thereof shall be such that, with reasonable maintenance, it will function in a sanitary manner and will not create a nuisance nor endanger the safety of any domestic water supply. In determining a suitable location for the system, consideration shall be given to the size and shape of the lot, slope of natural and finished grade, depth of ground water table, proximity to existing or future water supplies and possible expansion of the system. No part of the sewer other than iron pipe with leaded joints, the septic tank or the seepage lines shall be located so that it is nearer to any water supply than fifty (50) feet or so that drainage of the system may reach any domestic water supply. The lot size shall be sufficient to permit proper location, installation and operation. Sec. 18-97. Type and composition of system. (a) Type of system shall be determined on a basis of location, permeability and ground water level. (b) The system shall be designed to receive all sanitary sewage from the dwelling. (c) Footing or roof drainage shall not enter any part of the septic tank system. (d) The sewage disposal system shall consist of a house sewer and a septic tank system not closer than five (5) feet outside of foundation wall. (e) The septic tank system shall consist of a septic tank with effluent discharging into a subsurface disposal field, or into sand filter trenches. Every septic tank shall be provided with a distribution box. Sec. 18-98. Design generally. Design of the septic tank shall be rectangular in shape and the length shall not be less than twice nor more than three times the width. The liquid depth shall be not less than four (4) feet and the free board or airspace shall not be less than one foot. Sec. 18-99. Liquid capacity. June 28, 2005 747 Liquid capacity of all septic tanks shall be based upon the number of potential bedrooms in the building served and shall conform to Table I, herein shown: TABLE I--CAPACITY OF SEPTIC TANK TABLE INSET: Potential Capacity of Capacity Septic A B C D Home-- Tanks Length Width Air Liquid Number Gallons Space Depth of Bedrooms 3 or less 720 7'0" 3'6" 1'0" 4'0" 4 1000 8'0" 4'0" 1'0" 4'0" 5 1250 9'0" 4'6" 1'0" 4'3" 6 1480 9'6" 4'8" 1'3" 4'6" 7 1720 10'0" 5'0" 1'3" 4'8" No additional building may be connected to any existing septic tank without securing a septic tank permit. Sec. 18-100. Construction generally. June 28, 2005 748 Construction of the tank shall be such as to assure its being watertight and prevent the entrance of rain water or surface drainage. (a) The tank shall be constructed of sound and durable material not subject to excessive corrosion or decay. (b) Adequate access to each compartment of the tank, for inspection and sludge removal, shall be provided by manholes or removable covers. (c) Inlet and outlet connections shall be submerged or baffled as required by the health department to assure the least possible disturbance in the tank. (1) The inlet pipe shall be two (2) inches higher than the outlet and baffle shall extend approximately six (6) inches below and six (6) inches above the water surface, and the outlet shall extend approximately two (2) feet below and six (6) inches above the water surface. (2) Satisfactory venting of the tank shall be provided through the inlet and main building stack. The outlet shall be similarly vented to provide proper ventilation of the disposal field or seepage pits back into the septic tank and thence through the main building stack. (d) Septic tank shall be poured-in-place concrete, or precast concrete, or properly coated metal, except as permitted by the health department. (1) Concrete septic tanks, if poured in place, shall be poured with concrete mixture of 1-2-3 or 1-2-4 mix, that is one part cement, two parts sand and three or four parts gravel, so as to produce a dense and plastic concrete. Where the excavation is subject to caving, or where the water table is objectionably high, outside forms and pumping will be required in order to assure a watertight tank. The walls, top and bottom of tank are to be not less than four (4) inches thick as shown on plans. Top and manhole cover shall be reinforced with steel, as shown on plans. (2) Precast concrete tanks shall be of size as stated on permit, and made with 1-2-3 mixture, that is one part cement, two parts sand and three parts gravel. The wall shall not be less than three (3) inches in thickness. The precast tank may be made in two (2) June 28, 2005 749 sections or more with a horizontal half lap joint, cement grouted. The bottom, or top, and portion of the side walls shall be poured monolithicly. (3) If permitted by the health department, but not recommended, septic tanks of brick or cinder block may be constructed and shall be located with safety in relation to water supplies; and provided further, that they conform in detail to tanks of concrete poured in place; and further, that the bricks or cinder blocks shall be laid in a workmanlike manner, with cement mortar, and the inside plastered with one inch of cement mortar, over which a coat of waterproofing shall be applied and tanks and fields located on lower side or ten feet from building. (e) The following requirements shall apply to the subsurface disposal field: (1) For the location of the disposal field, the distance given shall be the minimum which the disposal field can be located from the following: a. Any water supply (except as noted below) . . . 50 feet b. Streams . . . 25 feet c. Dwellings . . . 10 feet d. Trees . . . 10 feet e. Property lines . . . 3 feet It is recommended that seepage pipe be in an unobstructed and unshaded area. Any exception to the above distances shall have the written consent of the health department. Note: When existing wells are involved or exceptionally coarse soil formations are encountered, the fifty (50) feet distance from any water supply shall be increased and the ditches shall be deeper as specified by the health department. (2) A distribution box of sufficient size to accommodate the necessary field lateral lines shall be installed at the head of each disposal field. a. Each field lateral line shall be connected separately to the distribution box and shall not be subdivided. June 28, 2005 750 b. The invert of all outlets shall be level and the inlet shall be at least one (1) inch above the outlets. c. The level of the outlet inverts shall be four (4) inches above the floor. (3) Minimum seepage area, total flat area bottom of trenches, of the disposal field shall be determined by one of the following methods. a. Results of actual percolation test conducted on the site as determined by and under supervision of the health department. b. Recommendation of the health department based upon experience data or percolation test, in which case requirements shall be stated on a basis of square feet of absorptive area per potential bedroom rather than lineal feet of tile. (4) Construction of disposal trenches in filled ground shall not be permitted except when acceptable to the health department. Construction shall be in accordance with recommendations of the health department. a. All trenches in a disposal field shall be the same width and length or square footage equalized in each trench under seepage pipe, and the following standards shall be required: 1. Minimum number of lines per field, three (3). 2. Maximum length of individual lines, one hundred (100) feet if gravity fed; two hundred twenty-five (225) feet if automatic siphon is utilized. 3. Minimum bottom width of trench, twenty-four (24) inches. 4. Maximum depth of cover of tile lines, thirty (30) inches. 5. Preferred depth of cover of tile lines, sixteen (16) inches. 6. Grades of seepage lines, two (2) inches to four (4) inches per one hundred (100) feet or three-eighths ( 3/8) inch to twelve and one-half (12 1/2) feet. 7. Spacing of trenches, at least six (6) feet apart. 8. Minimum coarse filter material under tile, eight (8) inches. 9. Minimum fine filter material beside pipe, four (4) inches. 10. Filter material over pipe only when and as ordered by the health department. June 28, 2005 751 11. In no case shall less than four hundred (400) square feet of filtration material under seepage pipe be installed. b. Pipe used for the line between the septic tank and distribution box, under paved areas and on all main laterals from distribution box in fields constructed on sloping ground, shall be bell and spigot type of vitrified clay or concrete with watertight joints. Pipe used under driveways or other areas subject to heavy loads shall be bell and spigot cast iron with leaded joints. Such sections laid in the disposal field shall not be considered in determining the effective absorption area, and filter material shall not be in ditches for feeder pipes from distributing box unless permitted by health department. c. Field tile used in the disposal field shall be not less than four (4) inches in diameter and shall be laid with one-fourth ( 1/4) inch open joints. 1. All open joints shall be protected on top by strips of asphalt-treated building paper at least ten (10) inches long and three (3) inches wide. 2. All bends in the disposal field shall be water-tight joints at upper end of each bend. d. Filter material shall be crushed stone, gravel, slag, screened cinder or similar material having sufficient voids and shall be acceptable to the health department. 1. Such material may vary from one-fourth ( 1/4) to two and one-half (2 1/2) inches in size under seepage pipe and shall be approximately one-fourth inch beside seepage pipe. 2. Stone, gravel and slag shall be free of dust, sand or clay, and the cinder shall be free of ashes or excessively fine material. 3. Material used on top of the tile shall be sufficiently fine or shall be graded so as to prohibit filtering of backfill material into the tile lines. 4. The filter material shall be level with top of the seepage pipe. e. Grade boards, securely staked in the bottom of the trench shall be provided for all lines except where bell spigot pipe is used. The grade boards shall be nailed to stakes in center of the trench, as shown on the plans, or grade stakes at intervals of not less June 28, 2005 752 than six and one-fourth (6 1/4) feet. The grade boards are to be given a grade of three- eighths ( 3/8) inch to twelve and one-half (12 1/2) feet. Sec. 18-101. Final inspection. The health department shall be notified within eight (8) hours after completion of a septic tank disposal system and the distribution box shall be filled with water and a container with additional water shall be provided for inspector to make tests. Sec. 18-102. Sand filter trench. Use of sand filter trenches in lieu of subsurface disposal trenches shall be permitted only when topography will permit surface discharge of filtered effluent and when the surface discharge of the effluent is satisfactory to the health department. A distribution box shall be required where sand filter trenches are used. The design of the sand filter trenches shall be in accordance with the recommendation of the health department but in no case shall the depth of the filter sand be less than twenty-four (24) inches. DIVISION 3. PIT PRIVIES Sec. 18-131. Compliance with health department plans and specifications. It shall be unlawful for any person to install a pit privy in the county except in accordance with the plans and specifications of the health department, which shall be furnished by the same upon application. Sec. 18-132. Vaults. Every private sanitary privy or toilet shall contain a vault without a bottom and shall be at least three (3) feet six (6) inches wide by four (4) feet long and five (5) feet high, inside measurements, constructed of one inch sound lumber, or concrete four (4) inches June 28, 2005 753 thick, or brick evenly jointed together with mortar, which vault shall be sunk in the ground to a depth of four (4) feet, the long way of the top of the vault being from front to rear of the house to be placed over it. If built of lumber, it shall be encased around the top outer edge with 2" × 8" timber set on edge and nailed to the vault. The dirt taken from the excavation on which the vault is sunk shall be evenly mounted around the top of the vault. Sec. 18-133. Flooring. The house covering the vault shall be placed on a floor, which floor shall be the exact size of the outside of the vault, including the timber fastened around the top, and in which floor shall be a rectangular opening twenty-six (26) inches long from front to rear and sixteen (16) inches wide, the rear end of the rectangular opening to begin four (4) inches from the outside of the rear of vault. The floor shall be made of a slab of properly reinforced pre-cast concrete, not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) inches thick, or reinforced concrete poured in place, not less than four (4) inches thick or of double wood construction with a subfloor of two-inch timber running across the short way of the vault to and even with its outer edge, and covered across the long way to and even with its outer edge with sound, seasoned tongue and groove flooring. June 28, 2005 754 Sec. 18-134. Seat box and hole. The outside measurements of the seat box shall be in width and length the size of the inside opening in the floor, and constructed of tongue and groove planks, with tongue up and shall extend through the floor an inch below the bottom of the floor, supported on the floor by strips not less than 1" × 2", securely nailed to the seat box on all sides at the level of the top of the floor. The top of the seat box shall be made of sound, seasoned tongue and groove lumber, and shall contain a hole 12" × 10", lengthwise of the seat; the hole shall begin two and one-half (2 1/2) inches from the outside front of the box, which hole shall be covered by a lightly framed self-closing lid with two (2) hinges at the rear; the top shall also have a vent hole four (4) inches square cut two (2) inches from the outside at the back and center of the seat box, which hole shall be covered with 16 mesh copper wire. There shall be a 2" × 4" timber placed across seat box to support the top two (2) inches to the rear of the seat hole. Sec. 18-135. House. The seat box, vault and floor shall be covered by a house built of upright boards or other suitable materials securely nailed to 2" × 4" timbers. The house shall be provided with a leak-proof roof. ARTICLE IV. SEWER USE STANDARDS* Sec. 18-151. Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the words and phrases set out in this section shall have the following meanings: * * * * Control authority for purposes of this article only shall mean the county administrator or his duly authorized representative. Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). June 28, 2005 755 * * * * Plant means the City of Roanoke Western Virginia Water Authority Regional Sewage Treatment Plant. * * * * P.O.T.W. means a publicly owned treatment works; a "treatment works" as defined by Section 212 of the Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1292) which is owned by the county WVWA. This definition includes any devices or systems used in the collection, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature and any conveyances which convey wastewater to a treatment plant. Public sewer means pipe or conduit carrying wastewater or unpolluted drainage in which owners of abutting properties shall have the use, subject to control by the county or control authority. * * * * User charge means the charge made to those persons who discharge normal wastewater into the county's WVWA’s sewage system. This charge shall include a proportionate share of any capital improvements to the system (capital costs). * * * * Utility director means that official of the Western Virginia Water Authority that is authorized to enforce its water and sewer rules and regulations, and the provisions of the sewer use standards. * * * * Sec. 18-153. Prohibited discharges generally. (a) No person shall discharge into public sewers any waste which, by itself or by interaction with other wastes, may: (1) Injure or interfere with wastewater treatment processes or facilities; (2) Constitute a hazard to humans or animals; or (3) Create a hazard in receiving waters of the wastewater treatment plant effluent. (4) Generate heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the plant resulting in interference, and in no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the plant exceeds forty (40) degrees Celsius (one hundred four (104) degrees Fahrenheit) unless the approving authority approves alternate temperature limits. June 28, 2005 756 (b) Discharges into public sewers shall not contain: (1) Antifreeze from vehicle servicing operations. Discharge of glycols must be approved. (2) Fluoride other than that contained in the public water supply greater than twelve (12) mg/l. (3) Benezene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) greater than five (5) mg/l. (4) Pollutants which create a fire or explosive hazard in the P.O.T.W., including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closedcup flashpoint of less than one hundred forty (140) degrees Fahrenheit sixty (60) degrees Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21. (5) Strong acid or concentrated plating solutions, whether neutralized or not. (6) Fats, wax, grease or oils, from restaurants or other facilities as deemed necessary by the county WVWA, whether emulsified or not, in excess of 100 mg/l or containing substances which may solidify or become viscous at temperatures between thirty-two (32) degrees and one hundred fifty (150) degrees Fahrenheit (0° and 65° Centigrade). (7) Total petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of 200 mg/l. (8) Obnoxious, toxic or poisonous solids, liquids, or gases, vapors, or fumes in quantities sufficient to violate the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. (9) Waste, wastewater or any other substance having a pH lower than 5.0, or greater than 12.5, or any other substance with a corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment and personnel at the wastewater facility. (10) Waste, wastewater or any other substance containing phenols, hydrogen sulfide or other taste and odor producing substances that have not been minimized. After treatment of the composite wastewater, effluent concentration limits may not exceed the requirements established by state, federal or other agencies with jurisdiction over discharges to receiving waters. (11) Antimony and beryllium greater than 1.0 mg/1. (12) Hazardous wastes. June 28, 2005 757 (13) Trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the control authority. Companies that truck or haul pollutants to the county WVWA sanitary sewer are subject to inspections of their facilities including but not limited to offices, garages, and buildings used to house the trucks. (14) Trucked or hauled industrial wastewater, without prior approval and not meeting all local limits, with the exception that wastewater pumped from restaurant grease traps may only be trucked or hauled and discharged only at a designated area at the wastewater treatment plan. (15) Wastes pumped from oil/water separators. (16) After treatment of the composite wastewater, effluent concentration limits may not exceed the requirements established by state, federal or other agencies with jurisdiction over discharges to receiving waters. (c) Prohibited toxic materials include, but are not limited to: (1) Herbicides. (2) Fungicides. (3) Pesticides. * * * * Sec. 18-156.2. Determination by utility director. (a) The utility director, or his designee, shall be vested with the authority and responsibility to enforce the provisions of this ordinance and to make determinations with respect to the actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, inflow or infiltration of stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage into the public sanitary sewer system. (b) A determination with respect to an actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, inflow or infiltration of stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage into the public sanitary sewer system from the property of a sewer user or any other person shall be based upon the following: (1) "Category I defects" are defined as: June 28, 2005 758 a. Direct connections (inflow) to the public sewer of sump pumps (including overflows), holes in floor drains, downspouts, foundation drains, and other direct sources of inflow (including but not limited to visible evidence of ground/surface water entering drains through doors or cracks in floors and walls) as noted during field inspections by the county utility department. WVWA. b. Failure to allow or complete required inspection(s) to determine compliance. (2) Category II defects are defined as leaking or sheared laterals or any other sources of infiltration as noted during field inspections by the Roanoke County Utility Department. WVWA. (3) Category III defects are considered to be potential or minor defects that do not adversely affect the sanitary sewer system at the present time. (c) The utility director, or his designee, shall provide written notice by certified mail to the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person of any violation of this ordinance or of section 18-156 of this Code. This notice shall describe the nature of the violation, the corrective measures necessary to achieve compliance, the time period for compliance, the amount of the monthly surcharge until corrected, and the appeal process. Sec. 18-156.3. Surcharge; disconnection. (a) For structures or property with actual or potential discharge, considered to be a Category I defect, the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be given six (6) months to correct the illegal or improper activities or facilities contributing to the discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system. If corrective measures to eliminate the illegal or improper discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system are not completed and approved by the utility director, or his designee, within six (6) months from the date of the notice provided in section 18- 156.2(c), then the county WVWA shall impose upon the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person a monthly surcharge in the amount of one hundred dollars June 28, 2005 759 ($100.00) per month until the required corrective measures are completed and approved. If the property owner or responsible party fails to pay the monthly surcharge when due and payable, then the county WVWA shall terminate the water and sewer connections and service to the property, and disconnect the customer from the system. During and after periods of heavy rainfall resulting in actual or potential inflow or infiltration in excess of two hundred (200) gallons per day, the utility director may in his discretion temporarily terminate the sewer connection to protect the public sewer system and other sewer users. (b) For structures or property with actual or potential discharge, considered to be a Category II defect, the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be given six (6) months to correct the actual or potential illegal or improper activities or facilities contributing to the discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system. If corrective measures to eliminate the actual or potential illegal or improper discharge, infiltration or inflow into the public sanitary sewer system are not completed and approved by the utility director, or his designee, within six (6) months from the date of the notice provided in section 18-156.2(c), then the county WVWA shall impose upon the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person a monthly surcharge in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) per month until the required corrective measures are completed and approved. If the property owner or responsible party fails to pay the monthly surcharge when due and payable, then the county WVWA shall terminate the water and sewer connections and service to the property, and disconnect the customer from the system. During and after periods of heavy rainfall resulting in actual or potential inflow or infiltration in excess of two hundred (200) gallons per day, the utility director may in his discretion temporarily terminate the sewer connection to protect the public sewer system and other sewer users. (c) For structures or property with actual or potential discharge considered to be a Category III defect, the sewer user, property owner or other responsible person shall be notified of the results of the inspection. Repairs of these defects will be considered June 28, 2005 760 voluntary at this time. Properties with Category III defects will continue to be monitored and if the utility director, or his designee determine that the condition changes, the responsible person shall be so notified. Sec. 18-156.5. Appeals. (a) Any sewer user, property owner, or responsible person may appeal a determination of the utility director or his designee by submitting a notice of appeal to the county administrator within fourteen (14) days from the receipt of the written notice as provided in section 18-156.2(c). (b) The county administrator shall conduct a hearing on this appeal within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of this notice of appeal. The county administrator shall render a decision with five (5) business days of the date of the hearing. (c) The notice of appeal shall state the technical grounds and objections for the appeal. At the hearing the county administrator shall hear and investigate any objection that may be raised and take such action as may be appropriate under the facts and circumstances established. (d) The sewer user, property owner, or other responsible person may appeal the decision of the county administrator to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by submitting to the clerk of the board a written notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of the county administrator's written decision. This notice of appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal. (e) In all other respects the substantive and procedural requirements for this appeal shall comply with the provisions of section 15.2-1245, et seq. of the State Code. * * * * Sec. 18-163. Measurement, sampling, etc., and report of discharges. June 28, 2005 761 (a) The owner of each facility discharging other than normal wastewater or discharging Group A wastewater shall upon the written request of the control authority submit monthly, or at such other frequency as may be required by the control authority, to the county control authority, on forms supplied by the county control authority, a certified statement of the quantities of its wastes discharged into the sewers and sewage works of the county WVWA or into any sewer connected therewith. Copies of pertinent water bills may be required to be submitted with the above statement. Such documents shall be filed with the county WVWA not later than the tenth day of the following month. A separate statement shall be filed for each industrial plant. The total quantities of wastes to be measured and certified by the person so discharging shall be established by the control authority and shall, as a minimum, include: (1) Liquid in gallons. (2) Five-day BOD in pounds. (3) Suspended solids in pounds, on a dry solids basis. (4) Total phosphorus in pounds. (5) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen in pounds. (6) COD in pounds. (b) Unless otherwise provided, each measurement, test, sampling, or analysis required to be made hereunder shall be made in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 136, as amended. (c) In order to provide for accurate sampling and measurement of industrial wastes, each person discharging Group A wastewater, or other regulated wastewater if deemed necessary by the control authority shall provide and maintain, on each of its industrial waste outlet sewers, a large manhole or sampling chamber to be located outside or near its plant boundary line, where feasible. If inside the plant fence, there shall be a gate near the sampling chamber with a key furnished to the county. There shall be ample room provided in each sampling chamber to enable convenient inspection and sampling by the county. In order to meet the intent of this chapter, and to minimize June 28, 2005 762 disruption of developed property, all non-residential users or facilities shall be required to install a sampling chamber on its outlet sewer for all new facilities, remodeling of existing facilities, change in use, or upon the control authority detecting any violation of this article. (d) Each sampling chamber shall contain a Parshall flume, accurate weir or similar device, with a recording and totalizing register for measurement of the liquid quantity; or the metered water supply to the industrial plant may be used as the liquid quantity, where it is substantiated that the metered water supply and waste quantities are approximately the same, or where a measurable adjustment can be made in the metered supply to determine the liquid quantity. (e) Composite samples shall consist of samples taken at least every hour for the time period required by the facility's permit using flow proportional or timed composite sample collection methods. Such samples shall be properly refrigerated. For oil and grease, pH, phenols, cyanide, volatile toxic organic and other appropriate pollutants, property grab sampling shall be performed. Such sampling shall be repeated on as many days as necessary to insure representative quantities for the entire reporting period. Industrial plants with wide fluctuations in quantities of wastes shall provide an automatic sampler paced automatically by the flow-measuring device. (f) Minimum requirements for representative quantities under this section shall include reevaluation during each twelve-month period. The determination of representative quantities shall include not less than seven (7) consecutive days of twenty-four (24) hour composite samplings, taken during periods of normal operation, together with acceptable flow measurements. The frequency of sampling, sampling chamber, metering device, sampling methods and analyses of samples shall be subject, at any time, to inspection and verification by the county. Sampling and measuring facilities shall be such as to provide safe access for authorized personnel of the county for making such inspection and verification. June 28, 2005 763 (g) Plans for sampling chambers, with their locations shown on a site plan, shall be submitted to the county for approval. (h) All owners of facilities governed by this section shall also comply with any applicable monitoring requirements and regulations established by the control authority which are hereby incorporated by reference. (i) All owners of facilities governed by this article shall comply with the applicable requirements of 40 C.F.R. 403.12, as amended, which is incorporated by reference herein, as amended including, without limitation, the signatory, certification and record keeping requirements of 40 C.F.R. 403.12(c), (d), (i), and (l). All records shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years and this retention period shall be extended during litigation or upon request of the control authority. (j) Sampling for discharge limit compliance shall be taken at the sampling chamber without any dilution factor except for properly classified categorical or significant users. (k) Sampling for prohibited materials may be collected at either the sampling chamber or end of process to determine the absence of Sec. 18-166. Charges generally. Persons making discharges of industrial waste shall pay a charge to cover the cost of collection and treatment in addition to capital costs. When a permit application for industrial waste is approved, the county or its authorized representative control authority shall issue a permit stating: (a) The the terms of acceptance by the county control authority. ; and (b) The basis of payment. June 28, 2005 764 Sec. 18-167. User charges and added costs. (a) If the volume or character of the waste to be treated by the plant meets the requirements of other provisions of this article and does not cause overloading of the sewage collection, treatment or disposal facilities of the county, the control authority shall require that the discharger pay a charge to be determined from the schedule of charges which shall include capital costs. (b) If a proposed discharge of waste is responsible for exceeding the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities and the wastewater treatment plant must be upgraded, expanded or enlarged in order to treat the wastewater, the control authority shall require that the discharger pay in full all added costs which shall include capital costs the county WVWA may incur due to acceptance of the wastewater. (c) The schedule of charges pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Capital costs, including debt retirement and interest on debt, of the county's WVWA’s cost on all capital outlays for collecting and treating the waste, including new capital outlay and the proportionate part of the value of the existing system used in handling and treating waste. (2) Operation and maintenance costs (capitalized), including but not limited to, salaries and wages, power costs, costs of chemicals and supplies, proper allowances for maintenance, depreciation, overhead and office expense. Sec. 18-168. Schedule of charges. (a) Persons discharging wastewater shall pay a charge to cover the capital cost and the cost of collection and treatment of all wastewater discharged. (1) All Class I users discharging normal wastewater or Group B wastewater shall pay a user charge computed upon cost per volume of wastewater discharged. (2) All Class II users discharging Group A wastewater shall have their user charge computed upon a cost per unit volume basis for the base amount plus the unit cost of June 28, 2005 765 treatment for all over the base amount for volume, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), phosphorus (P) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). In computing the contaminant loading, the parameter concentrations for normal wastewater will be considered as standard strength in determining the base amount in the effluent discharge flow. Initially, the responsibility for determining the contaminant loading for each category of establishment will be that of the control authority. However, each establishment must verify its own contaminant loading monthly by initiating a sampling and analytical program at its own expense and with the approval of the control authority. (b) The unit costs to be used to compute the charge for Class I and II users shall be established by the approving authority. The unit costs for all users and the allowances for normal wastewater for users may be revised as necessary to correspond to current costs and experience. Revisions may be made, no more often than once a year, upon approval of the control authority. The user charge for users shall be computed as follows: Class I Users: C u = V u × V d Class II Users: C 8 = V d + V s V c + B s B c + S s S c + P s P c + N s N c And: C u = Charge for Class I users C s = Charge for Class II users V u = Unit cost of treatment chargeable to normal wastewater ($/1,000 gal.) V d = Volume of wastewater from normal wastewater (1,000 gals) V s = Volume of Class II wastewater (1,000 gals) in excess of Class I wastewater V c = Cost of treating 1,000 gals. of Class II wastewater ($/1,000 gal.) B s = Class II wastewater BOD contribution in excess of Class I wastewater limit (lbs.) B c = Cost of treating Class II BOD contribution ($/lb.) S s = Class II wastewater SS contribution in excess of Class I wastewater limit (lbs.) June 28, 2005 766 S c = Cost of treating Class II SS contribution ($/lb.) P s = Class II wastewater phosphorus contribution in excess of Class I wastewater limit (lbs.) N s = Class II wastewater unoxidized nitrogen contribution in excess of Class I wastewater limit (lbs.) N c = Cost of treating Class II phosphorus contribution ($/lb.) (c) The following schedule of base charges and volume charges for residential, commercial and industrial customers of the county shall apply for sewer service. The volume charge per one thousand (1,000) gallons will be based on water used. The volume charge is added to the base charge to determine the total sewer bill. SCHEDULE OF BASE CHARGES Volume Based SEWER RATES TABLE INSET: BASE CHARGE PER Water Supplied 1000 Gallons Per MONTH Month Effective 9-1-2002 0--10 $ 9.00 11--14 13.51 15--17 22.52 18--28 37.39 June 28, 2005 767 29--39 52.23 40--54 72.05 55--69 92.76 70--111 149.94 112--153 207.14 154--210 284.13 211--267 361.13 268--440 594.83 441--613 828.52 614--853 1,152.73 854--1,093 1,476.94 1,094--1,400 1,891.21 June 28, 2005 768 1,401--1,707 2,305.47 1,708--2,087 2,818.80 2,088--2,467 3,332.12 Volume charge per 1000 gallons 1.52 (d) Connection fees. The total sewer connection fee shall consist of costs and considerations associated with (i) a basic connection fee; (ii) an off-site facilities fee; (iii) a pump station maintenance fee; and (iv) an off-site and oversized line credit policy: (1) Basic connection fee. The basic connection fee for all applicants is to recover the cost of the service connection or service tap. The basic connection fee shall be assessed all connectors and the payment shall accompany the application for connection to the sewer system. (2) Off-site facilities fee. The off-site facilities fee for all applicants is to recover the cost of all present and future capital facilities and improvements to the sewer system constructed by or on behalf of the county. Up to one-half of the off-site facilities fee will be subject to the off-site and oversized line credit policy. The off-site facilities fee shall be assessed all connectors and the payment shall accompany the application for connection to an existing or proposed establishment of a sewer system. (3) Pump station maintenance fee. The pump station maintenance fee is to recover the additional costs associated with county maintenance of a sewage pump station, including but not limited to daily monitoring, electrical expenses, and periodic replacement of pumps and other equipment. The pump station maintenance fee shall be assessed all connectors to be served by a sewage pump station maintained or to be maintained by the county and the payment shall accompany the application for connection to an existing or proposed establishment of a sewer system. June 28, 2005 769 (4) Off-site and oversized line credit policy. A credit will be allowed against the off-site facilities fee for off-site extensions of a sewer line in excess of three hundred (300) feet and/or installation of line size in excess of minimum line size required by the county. For any off-site extensions in a public right-of-way or easement adjacent to the owner's/applicant's property, credit will be allowed against the off-site facilities fee only for sewer line size in excess of the minimum diameter required by the county. No credit will be allowed where a line size greater than the minimum diameter size is required to adequately serve the owner/applicant. Credits shall be limited to a maximum of twenty- five (25) percent of the amount assessed for the off-site facilities fee and are subject to funds being appropriated and available for credits within the sewer off-site facilities fee fund. Credits shall be computed based upon the most recent bids received by the county for construction of similar sewer facilities. (5) The board of supervisors may authorize the utility director to enter into a reimbursement agreement with an owner/applicant for off-site facilities which may be required by the county, and which are not addressed by the off-site and oversized line credit policy. (6) The total connection fee shall be paid as follows: twenty-five (25) percent at time of plan approval, seventy-five (75) percent (balance) upon the earlier of either the application for building permit or prior to occupancy or sewer use by the facility. When the off-site facilities fee is increased, the applicant may pay the remaining balance of the prior fee before the effective date of the new fee. Thereafter, the remaining balance shall be calculated on the fee that exists at the time the balance is paid. (e) Installation payments. Any landowner may, at his option, request in writing on forms provided by the county, to be allowed to make payment on the off-site facilities fee portion of the connection fee, in thirty-six (36) monthly installments, provided that: (1) The amount of such fee shall be increased by twenty (20) percent. (2) The landowner shall execute a contract with the county for aforesaid installment payment a note evidencing such obligation in a form approved by the county attorney June 28, 2005 770 setting forth the amount and number of payments to be made together with other such terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate by the parties thereto. Such contract shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of circuit court of the county. (3) The county shall have the right to collect such payments in the same manner as provided for collection of sewer service charges together with other means as set out in the sewer contract. (4) Such note shall be paid in full prior to the transfer of title to any land for which sewer service was provided, and if the same are not paid in full by the date of transfer, the county shall have the right to discontinue service and remove all of its facilities and require payment of the full amount of the connection fees prevailing at that time, as if service had never been installed (f) Authority of board of supervisors to waive connection fees. (1) The board of supervisors may, by resolution, waive a portion of the connection fees for sewer facilities installed under federal or state funded sewer projects. The portion of the fee that is waived shall be indicated as county financial participation in the sewer project. (2) The board of supervisors may, by resolution, authorize all or a portion of the off- site facilities fee to be paid from the general fund for those commercial or industrial owners (applicants) which the board of supervisors determines would be in the best interest of the county's economic development and which would generate significant employment. (g) Minimum connection fee. The minimum connection fee for any connection will be that established for a five-eighths-inch water meter. (h) Schedule of connection fees. The total connection fee is the sum of the basic connection fee (which is based upon sewer service to one equivalent residential connection or "ERC") plus the off-site facilities fee (which is determined by ERC, type of service and effective date), as indicated in tables I and II, and the pump station maintenance fee, if applicable. June 28, 2005 771 Basic Connection Fee: The basic connection fee is one hundred dollars ($100.00) and includes county personnel installing the physical tap to the sewer main after excavation by the customer. Table I Off-site Facilities Fee TABLE INSET: Effective Type of Service 9-1-2002 Single-family and multifamily (per dwelling unit) $2,000.00 Table II The off-site facilities fee for all other applicants will be based on meter size as follows: TABLE INSET: Water Meter Size (inches) ERC Effective 9-1-2002 3/8 1.00 $ 2,000.00 3/4 1.44 2,880.00 1 2.56 5,120.00 1 1/2 5.76 11,520.00 June 28, 2005 772 2 10.24 20,480.00 3 23.04 46,080.00 4 40.96 81,920.00 6 92.16 184,320.00 8 63.84 327,680.00 10 256.00 512,000.00 12 368.64 737,280.00 Pump station maintenance fee: The pump station maintenance fee is five hundred dollars ($500.00) per one equivalent residential connection or "ERC" served or to be served by a sewage pump station that requires or will require county maintenance. (i) The director of finance is authorized to adjust utility charges arising from filling swimming pools with water when such water is not introduced into the sanitary sewer system. Any such adjustment shall be limited to once per year, and be for sewer charges only. The director of finance may promulgate regulations to implement this adjustment procedure. (j) For those customers that are sewer customers only and do not have water meters, sewer is billed at an estimated usage of thirty thousand (30,000) gallons per month for commercial customers and eighteen thousand (18,000) gallons per quarter for residential service. Such rates or charges shall be based on the schedule of charges established in this chapter. June 28, 2005 773 (k) The provisions of this section, and the rates and fees established hereby, shall be effective from and after September 1, 2002. Sec. 18-169. Adjustment of charges. (a) The county may adjust charges at least annually to reflect changes in the characteristics of wastewater based on the results of sampling and testing. This adjustment will correspond to charges established by the operating authority for the treatment plant. (b) The county shall review at least annually the basis for determining charges and shall adjust the unit treatment cost in the formula to reflect increases or decreases in wastewater treatment costs based on the previous year's experience. Sec. 18-170. Billing and payment of charges. (a) The county may bill the discharger by the month or by the quarter and shall show waste charges as a separate item on the regular bill for water and sewer charges. The discharger shall pay in accordance with practices existing for payment of sewer charges. (b) In addition to sanctions provided for by this article, the county is entitled to exercise sanctions provided for by the other ordinances of the county for failure to pay the bill for water and sanitary sewer service when due. Sec. 18-172. Authority to disconnect service. (a) The county Western Virginia Water Authority reserves the right to terminate water and wastewater disposal services and disconnect a customer from the system and revoke any discharge permit issued under this article when: June 28, 2005 774 (1) Acids or chemicals damaging to sewer lines or treatment process are released into the sewer causing rapid deterioration of these structures or interfering with proper conveyance and treatment of wastewater; (2) A governmental agency informs the county Western Virginia Water Authority that the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant is no longer a quality permitted for discharge into a watercourse, and it is found that the customer is delivering wastewater to the county's Western Virginia Water Authority’s system that cannot be sufficiently treated or requires treatment that is not provided by the county Western Virginia Water Authority as normal domestic treatment; or (3) The customer: a. Discharges industrial waste or wastewater that is in violation of the permit issued by the approving authority; b. Discharges wastewater at an uncontrolled, variable rate in sufficient quantity to cause an imbalance in the wastewater treatment system; c. Fails to pay bills for water and sanitary sewer services when due; or d. Repeats a discharge of prohibited wastes into public sewers. (4) The permittee has engaged in fraudulent reporting to the control authority or failed to report adequately as required changes in discharge. (b) If the service is disconnected pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of this section, the county Western Virginia Water Authority shall: (1) Disconnect the customer; (2) Supply the customer with the governmental agency's report and provide the customer with all pertinent information; and (3) Continue disconnection until such time as the customer provides additional pretreatment or other facilities designed to remove the objectionable characteristics from his wastes. * * * * June 28, 2005 775 Sec. 18-173. Notice of violations. The county Western Virginia Water Authority shall serve persons discharging in violation of this article with written notice stating the nature of the violation and requiring immediate satisfactory compliance. The control authority shall have the authority to publish annually in the Roanoke Times and World News Newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the Roanoke area a list of persons which were not in compliance with the terms of this article at least once during the twelve (12) previous months. * * * * 2. That the following sections of Chapter 22. Water of the County Code are hereby amended and/or repealed as follows: Sec. 22-1. Existing provisions continued in effect. Nothing in this Code or the ordinance adopting this Code shall affect the provisions of Ordinance No. 3128, adopted on May 3, 1982, which added chapter 8.3, entitled "Water Impoundment Safety Code," to the 1971 Roanoke County Code, or any amendment thereto; and all such provisions and ordinances are hereby recognized as continuing in full force and effect to the same extent as if set out at length in this Code. Sec. 22-2. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: * * * * Director. The county utility director or designated representative. * * * * June 28, 2005 776 Utility director means that official of the Western Virginia Water Authority that is authorized to enforce its water and sewer rules and regulations, and the provisions of the sewer use standards. * * * * Sec. 22-3. Utility director. The utility director shall have the general management and control of the water works and the properties appertaining thereto. The director shall be responsible for maintenance of plans and existing records. * * * * Sec. 22-5. Applicability. This chapter shall not apply to any water system serving twenty-five (25) or less individuals or, in the case of residential consumers, to fifteen (15) or less connections at the time of the adoption of the chapter. Sec. 22-6. Reduction of rates. (a) The finance director is hereby authorized to develop, publish and implement rules and regulations to provide for the reduction of rates imposed by the county for the delivery of water service by the county. The reduction of rates shall be based upon demonstrable hardship and inability to pay and shall be consistent with this section. (b) The finance director shall, upon application made and within the limits provided in this section, grant a reduction of the water rate for dwellings occupied as the sole dwelling house of a person (utility customer) holding title or partial title thereto or a leasehold interest who is not less than sixty-five (65) years of age or totally and June 28, 2005 777 permanently disabled. A dwelling unit jointly owned or leased by a husband and wife may qualify, if either spouse is over sixty-five (65) years of age or is permanently and totally disabled. (c) Reductions provided for in this section shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner or lessee of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not exceed the amounts provided in section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code. (2) That the owner and his spouse or lessee and spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including all equitable interests, exceeding the amount provided in section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one acre of land. (3) That the amount of water used is less than nine thousand (9,000) gallons per quarter. (d) Any person granted an exemption from the tax on real property as provided for under Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 21 of the Roanoke County Code shall be granted a reduction in water rates. That any other person seeking a reduction of water rates under this section shall utilize the forms and follow the procedures under Division 3 of Article III of Chapter 21 of the Roanoke County Code, except as modified by the finance director. (e) The amount of the reduction provided for in this section is that portion of the water rate which represents an increase in rates since the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991, or the year the person reached age sixty-five (65) years or became disabled, whichever is later. (f) Changes in respect to income, financial worth, ownership or leasing of property or other factors occurring during the year for which an affidavit or application is filed pursuant to this section, and having the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations June 28, 2005 778 and conditions provided in this section, shall nullify any reduction for the then current year and the year immediately following. (g) A change in water usage exceeding the limitations of this section shall nullify any reduction for the then current quarterly billing cycle. (h) The utility enterprise fund shall be reimbursed annually by the general fund for the amount of rate reduction in excess of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) under the authority of this section. (i) An eligible person (utility customer) applying for a reduction on or before December 1, 1991, shall utilize the rate in effect June 30, 1991; for applications received after December 1, 1991, the rate utilized shall be the rate in effect at the time of application. ARTICLE II. WATER SYSTEMS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 22-31. Expansion and establishment--Approval; connection and conveyance to county. (a) No applicant shall supply water in the county until the water system has been approved by the director. Should any water system be disapproved by the director, written notice of the reasons therefor shall be given to the applicant. If no action is taken within ninety (90) days from the date the application is filed with the county and WVWA, then such application shall be deemed to be approved. (b) (1) Where an applicant has previously established a water system and proposes to expand such system in the county, the applicant shall, prior to approval, agree to either: a. Where an existing supply exists, sell water to the county WVWA for a specified rate; convey to the county WVWA the new system, exclusive of any supply or storage facility together with appurtenant real estate, at no cost to the county WVWA; convey at June 28, 2005 779 the cost of construction the expanded supply and storage facility together with the appurtenant real estate and pay a connection fee in accordance with the schedule of current charges for initial water connections; or b. Where a new supply is to be developed, build and convey to the county WVWA at no cost, the complete internal distribution system within the area to be served; convey to the county WVWA at cost all well lots on which are located existing wells utilized in the system, wells or other supply, treatment plant, storage facilities and all appurtenant real estate. The county WVWA shall have the option to participate with the applicant in developing a new supply by paying one-half the cost of drilling, test pumping and chemical analysis, such costs to be reimbursed to the applicant from connection fees if the supply is determined by the director to be adequate for county WVWA use. The county WVWA shall pay all costs in developing storage facilities. The applicant shall pay a connection fee in accordance with the schedule of current charges for initial water connections. In either a. or b. above, the applicant shall convey the established water system to the county WVWA if the parties can concur on a fair market value for such system. Should the parties be unable to agree on such value, the county WVWA reserves the right of condemnation of the established water system. c. In lieu of a. and b. above, the applicant may convey, at no cost to the county WVWA, the existing water system, the original supply, and the new water system which will serve the expanded area and pay a connection fee equal to the actual cost of the meters. (2) Where an applicant desires to establish a new water system for areas within the county which are served by the county WVWA or not served at all, the applicant shall, prior to approval, agree to either: a. Extend mains and laterals to connect with the existing county WVWA-owned water system at no expense to the county WVWA and provide sufficient storage for his purposes, which storage facility shall meet state standards; or provide a complete water June 28, 2005 780 system to serve the new area, convey the water distribution system within such new area to the county WVWA at no cost, and convey all supply and treatment facilities and other appurtenances to the county WVWA at cost and pay the existing connection fee. b. Construct and convey at no cost to the county WVWA, the water distribution system within the area to be served, convey all supply and treatment facilities and other appurtenances to the county WVWA at cost, and participate with the county WVWA in developing a new well by paying one-half the cost of drilling, test pumping and chemical analysis, such cost to be reimbursed to the applicant from connection fees if the supply is determined by the director to be adequate for county WVWA use, and pay connection fees in accordance with the schedule of current charges for initial water connections. The county WVWA shall pay all costs incurred in developing storage facilities. c. In lieu of a. and b., the applicant may convey, at no cost to the county WVWA, the new water system which will serve the expanded area and pay a connection fee equal to the actual cost of the meters. The requirements contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) above may be waived by the board. Sec. 22-32. Same--Application; compliance with provisions. Except as hereafter noted, the application for a new water system or for the extension of an existing water system shall be made in writing, shall state in detail the type of water supply, the number, nature and location of connections proposed to be served and shall be accompanied by scale drawings showing location and capacity of pumping stations, treatment plants and storage facilities, and pipe sizes and materials of the proposed water distribution facilities; including mains, valves, fire hydrants and other appurtenances together with such other information as the director may require. It shall be unlawful for any person to begin construction of a water system in a new subdivision or expansion of a water system in an existing subdivision, housing development or complex prior to submission and approval of the plans for the water June 28, 2005 781 system therein having been obtained from the director. No new water system or extension of an existing water system in the county serving or being capable of serving three (3) or more living units shall be operated until all provisions of this chapter are complied with by the applicant, except when such system is in an agricultural zone where the total development will consist of less than fifteen (15) units or in residentially zoned areas with lot minimums of forty thousand (40,000) square feet and one hundred fifty (150) feet of road frontage, and the total development will be less than fifteen (15) lots. Sec. 22-33. Same--Fees; bond; as-built plans. All applications for a new water system or an extension of an existing water system as defined in section 22-2 of this chapter shall comply with the following requirements: (a) At the time of the filing of plans for approval of a water system, the applicant shall pay a filing fee as established by the board of supervisors. (b) The applicant shall furnish to the board a certified check in the amount of the estimated cost of construction or a bond, with surety satisfactory to the board, in an amount sufficient for and conditional upon the construction of such water system, or a contract for the construction of such water system and the contractor's bond, with like surety, in like amount and so conditional. (c) Upon completion of the water system, two (2) sets of as-built plans shall be furnished to the director showing sizes and locations of all water lines, valves and accessories. A defect bond amounting to ten percent of the cost of construction of the water system shall be provided to cover the first full year of operation of the water system. Sec. 22-34. Minimum standards. The water system shall have the following minimum of standards: June 28, 2005 782 (a) Pressure. The system shall maintain a minimum pressure of not less than twenty- five (25) pounds per square inch at all points of delivery, without reducing service to any other customer below these requirements. The maximum pressure shall not exceed eighty (80) pounds per square inch, unless authorized by the director. (b) Quantity. The water supply shall be capable of providing a minimum of 0.5 gallons per minute per equivalent residential connection, in accordance with state regulations. (c) Quality. The water shall be potable water and meet state regulations. Sec. 22-35. Wells. Wells shall meet state and American Waterworks Association (AWWA A-100-84) regulations/standards existing as of the date of well construction. In addition to the state regulations, the following shall also be required: Location of all wells shall be shown on a plan of the water system. A minimum of two (2) wells must be constructed and placed in service for all public water supply systems. Performance testing of wells shall be in accordance with AWWA A-100-84 Standard for Water Wells, Section 10. The step- drawdown and constant-rate test shall be used to determine the maximum safe yield for thirty (30) days of continuous use. The forty-eight-hour pump test required by the state shall be performed after the AWWA test. The actual well capacity used to determine the maximum equivalent residential connections shall be the lesser of quantity determined by the AWWA step-drawdown/constant rate test or the forty-eight-hour state requirement test. All well pump tests shall be scheduled with and observed by the utility director or his designated representative. Sec. 22-36. Storage. Storage shall be in accordance with the state regulations. Storage tanks shall be located as shown on a plan of the system. June 28, 2005 783 Sec. 22-37. Design of mains; valves and hydrants. All mains, valves, hydrants, fittings and accessories shall be designed to withstand a normal working pressure of not less than one hundred fifty (150) pounds per square inch and shall conform to the specifications of the American Water Works Association, state regulations and county specifications and standards adopted by the board and in effect at the time of approval. Sec. 22-38. Permits for use of hydrants. A permit shall be required prior to taking any water from a fire hydrant owned, maintained and serviced by the county. The permit may be obtained at the utility office. The fee for such permit shall be as established by the board of supervisors, and each load shall not exceed five thousand gallons. Any violation of this section will be grounds for revoking the permit. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to require an established fire company to secure such permit. Sec. 22-39. Installation of mains, meters, etc. All installations and materials shall be in accordance with the American Water Works Association specifications, state regulations and county specifications and standards together with any special supplementary instructions issued by the manufacturers of the equipment being installed. Mains shall be installed with a minimum of three (3) feet of earth cover. Each meter one inch or less in size shall be installed in a yoke or meter setter with a valve at the supply and discharge end, and branch pieces for double meter settings shall be used wherever possible. Meter boxes shall be set at least twenty-four (24) inches deep and shall be level with the top of the finished grade. Sec. 22-40. Testing of water mains. June 28, 2005 784 All water main joints, valves and fittings shall be tested under normal operating water pressure and all leaks corrected before the joints, valves and fittings are covered. If the director determines it is necessary to cover any such mains or portions thereof before such test, he shall prescribe an acceptable test which shall be made by the holder of the permit. Disinfection and bacteriological testing shall be in accordance with state regulations. Sec. 22-41. Notice of construction of main. The applicant shall notify the utility office of the proposed installation of any water main or facilities at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to commencement of construction of such main or facilities. Division 2. County WVWA Water System * * * * Sec. 22-71. Connection required. Except as provided below, all occupied buildings located within the county on lots having less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet, less than one hundred fifty foot road frontage where the county WVWA owned water system is at the lot line, or within a street or easement adjoining such lot line, or as required by the concurring resolution under § 15.2-5137 of the Code of Virginia, shall be connected with such system. The connection fee shall be in accordance with the current schedule of charges for initial water connections. The owner or tenants occupying such buildings shall use the county owned system for water consumed or used in and about the premises on which such buildings are located. The provisions of this section shall not apply to occupied buildings located on lots utilizing a water supply in existence at the time this chapter is adopted. Should the owner of the water system desire to replace such water supply or should he June 28, 2005 785 desire to make repairs exceeding twenty-five (25) percent of the replacement cost of the entire water system, such owner shall conform to the requirements of this chapter. * * * * Sec. 22-73. Water shortages--Authority of director. The director is hereby authorized to declare emergencies in any or all areas supplied by the county affecting the use of water during any period in which, in his opinion, there is a water shortage. In declaring such emergency, the director shall immediately post a written notice of emergency at the front door of the courthouse and at three (3) prominent places in the affected areas. Sec. 22-74. Same--Limitations on use. It shall be unlawful for any person whose water supply is furnished from a county owned or county operated water system, during any declared emergency, to water or sprinkle lawns, gardens or to use water for any purpose not reasonably essential to health during the period of time for which such emergency has been declared. Sec. 22-75. Right of entry of service man. Every person occupying any parcel of land served by a county water system shall permit authorized agents of the county to enter upon such parcel of land at reasonable hours to read meters, examine the service pipe, meter or other apparatus and to take up, repair or remove the same. Sec. 22-76. Use of other taps when occupant lacks service. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the occupant of a parcel of land supplied by a county water system from having, when his service pipe is in disrepair, the use of water from another parcel of land supplied by a county water system with the permission of the occupant thereof. Access to other taps of the county water system shall be limited to June 28, 2005 786 seven (7) days. The director may, at his discretion, extend this period of time if necessary. Sec. 22-77. Meters generally. All connections shall be metered. Except as noted below, all meters shall be located in the public right-of-way. Meters, when not located in the public right-of-way, shall in all cases be set in locations approved by the director. Should the location of the meter on public or private property be changed at the request of the owner, the entire cost of making such change shall be paid by such owner. Sec. 22-78. Interruption of service. No person shall be entitled to a refund for any interruption of water service. The director shall have the right to interrupt water service to make repairs or additions to pipes and meters. Sec. 22-79. Disconnection, etc., of meters. No person shall disconnect the pipe or move or disturb a water meter without authorization from the director. Sec. 22-80. Meter replacement and repair. The cost of replacements or repairs of a meter, resulting from damage caused by hot water or steam from a boiler, shall be paid by the owner of the premises. If the cost is not paid within ten (10) days from the date of mailing the bill, the director shall cause the water service for the premises to be turned off. It shall be the duty of the director to investigate and determine in each case the responsibility for the damage and the cost of the renewal or repairs. Sec. 22-81. Setting of meters; connection fees. June 28, 2005 787 All meters shall be set by the director and shall be the property of the county. No meter shall be set until proper application has been made and approved by the director. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all charges. The connection fee shall be payable prior to the county setting the meter. Sec. 22-82. Rates and fees. (a) Water service rates. The following rates and charges as established by the board of supervisors for water service shall apply where water service is provided by the county: The volume charge per one thousand (1,000) gallons will be based on water used. The volume charge is added to the base charge to determine the total water bill. SCHEDULE OF WATER RATES TABLE INSET: Water Supplied 1000 Gallons Per Month Base Charge Per Month 0--10 $ 12.03 11--14 18.05 15--17 30.08 18--28 49.91 29--39 69.76 June 28, 2005 788 40--54 96.21 55--69 123.86 70--111 200.24 112--153 276.60 154--210 379.43 211--267 482.25 268--440 794.33 441--613 1,106.40 614--853 1,539.35 854--1,093 1,972.27 1,094--1,400 2,525.49 1,401--1,707 3,078.69 1,708--2,087 3,764.17 June 28, 2005 789 2,088--2,467 4,449.67 Volume charge per 1000 gallons 2.05 (b) Connection fees. (1) Generally. The total water connection fee shall consist of costs and considerations associated with (a) a basic connection fee; (b) off-site facilities fee; (c) off-site and oversized main credit policy. a. Basic connection fees. The basic connection fee for all applicants is to cover the cost of the service tap, the service line, meter setter, and the water meter. The basic connection fee shall be assessed all connectors and the payment shall accompany the application for connection to the water system. Where a developer is required to install water facilities as part of a subdivision, the developer shall install the water service and place the meter setter for each connection. In such cases, the basic connection fee will be limited to the actual cost of the water meter. b. Off-site facilities fee. The off-site facilities fee for all applicants is to cover the cost of present and future capital facilities constructed. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, water source, raw water storage, treatment facilities, transmission lines, pump stations and major finished water storage facilities. Up to one-half of the off-site facilities fee will be subject to the off-site and oversized mains credit policy. The off-site facilities fee shall be assessed all connectors and the payment shall accompany the application for connection to an existing or proposed establishment of a water system. c. Off-site and oversized main credit policy. Credits will be allowed against the off-site facilities fee for off-site extension in excess of three hundred (300) feet and/or line size in excess of minimum size required by the county. For any off-site extensions, on a public right-of-way or easement adjacent to owner's (applicant) property, credit will be allowed against the off-site facilities fee only for line size in excess of the minimum June 28, 2005 790 diameter required by the county. No credit will be allowed where a main size greater than minimum size in diameter is required to adequately serve the owner (applicant). Credits will be limited to a maximum of one-forth the amount assessed for the off-site facilities fee and are subject to funds being available for credits within the water off-site facilities fees fund. Credits will be computed based on recent bids taken for construction of similar water facilities. Installation of a well and/or storage facilities in excess of sixty thousand (60,000) gallons to provide a water source, and pumpage required to supply the storage facility where county facilities are not available, are considered off-site facilities for purposes of this paragraph. d. The board of supervisors may by separate agreement with a developer enter into a reimbursement agreement for off-site facilities which may be required by the County and which would not be covered by the off-site and oversized main credit policy above. e. The total connection fee shall be paid as follows: Twenty-five (25) percent at time of plan approval, seventy-five (75) percent (balance) prior to occupancy or water use by the facility. When the off-site facilities fee is increased, the applicant may pay the remaining seventy-five (75) percent of the prior fee within one (1) year after the effective date of the new fee. Thereafter, the remaining seventy-five (75) percent shall be calculated on the fee that exists at the time the balance is paid. (2) Installation payments. Any landowner may, at his option, request in writing on forms provided by the county, to be allowed to make payment on the off-site facilities fee portion of the connection fee, in thirty-six (36) monthly installments, provided that: a. The amount of such fee shall be increased by twenty (20) percent. b. The landowner shall execute a contract with the county for aforesaid installment payment a note evidencing such obligation in a form approved by the county attorney setting forth the amount and number of payments to be made together with other such terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate by the parties thereto. Such contract shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of circuit court of the county. June 28, 2005 791 c. The county shall have the right to collect such payments in the same manner as provided for collection of water service charges together with other means as set out in the water contract. d. Such note shall be paid in full prior to the transfer of title to any land for which water service was provided, and if the same are not paid in full by the date of transfer, the county shall have the right to discontinue service and remove all of its facilities and require payment of the full amount of the connection fees prevailing at that time, as if service had never been installed. (3) Authority of board of supervisors to waive connection fees. a. The board of supervisors may by resolution waive a portion of the connection fees for water facilities installed under federal or state funded water projects. The portion of the fee that is waived shall be indicated as county financial participation in the water project. b. The board of supervisors may, by resolution, authorize the off-site facilities fee to be paid from the general fund for those commercial or industrial owners (applicants) which the board of supervisors determines would be in the best interest of the county's economic development and which would generate significant employment. (4) Minimum connection fee. The minimum connection fee for any connection will be that established for a 5/8-inch meter. (5) Fire service. All separate fire services shall be properly metered and protected against backflow with a check valve. The meter vault, meter and backflow device shall be furnished and installed by the county. The total connection fee for separate fire service connections will be equal to the basic connection portion of the connection fee plus the off-site facilities fee as established for the size fire service requested. The separate fire service fee is as follows: SEPARATE FIRE SERVICE FEE TABLE INSET: June 28, 2005 792 Fire Service Line Size Basic Off-Site Total (Inches) Connection Facilities $4,722.00 2 $2,600.00 $2,122.00 3 3,800.00 4,774.00 8,574.00 12,987.00 4 4,500.00 8,487.00 26,696.00 6 7,600.00 19,096.00 44,448.00 8 10,500.00 33,948.00 65,543.00 10 12,500.00 53,043.00 91,382.00 12 15,000.00 76,382.00 The utility director may reduce the cost of the basic connection for fire service when the fire service meter is placed in the same vault as the domestic service. June 28, 2005 793 (6) Schedule of connection fees. The total connection fee is the sum of the basic connection fee (which is determined by meter size) plus the off-site facilities fee (which is determined by meter size, type of service, and effective date), as indicated in Tables I, II, and III. TABLE I BASIC CONNECTION FEE TABLE INSET: Meter Size Inches ERC Basic Connection 5/8 $1.00 $500.00 3/4 1.44 525.00 1 2.56 700.00 1 1/2 5.76 1,800 2 10.24 2,600.00 3 23.04 3,800.00 4 40.96 4,500.00 6 92.16 7,600.00 June 28, 2005 794 8 163.84 10,500.00 10 256.00 12,500.00 12 368.64 15,000.00 The 5/8-inch meter is equal to service to one equivalent residential connection or "ERC." Service and meters larger than 5/8-inch are sized as their volume ratio to the 5/8-inch meter or ERC. TABLE II OFF-SITE FACILITIES FEE TABLE INSET: Types of Service Effective 9/1/2002 Single-family (per dwelling unit) $2,690.00 Multi-family (per dwelling unit) 2,690.00 The off-site facilities fee for all other applicants will be based on meter size as follows: TABLE III TABLE INSET: Meter Size (inches) Effective 9/1/2002 June 28, 2005 795 5/8 $ 2,690.00 3/4 3,874.00 1 6,886.00 1 1/2 15,494.00 2 27,546.00 3 61,978.00 4 110,186.00 6 247,910.00 8 440,730.00 10 688,640.00 12 991,642.00 (7) Miscellaneous charges. In addition to sale of water, the following charges and fees shall be imposed upon all customers for water, water and sewer, and sewer only utility services, as applicable: a. Re-check reading of meter . . . $10.00 (No charge if original reading was in error) June 28, 2005 796 b. Investigation/verification of leakage in customer's line . . . $20.00 c. Meter accuracy test . . . $25.00 (No charge if meter fails accuracy test) d. Disconnection fee, per trip, for non-payment . . . $20.00 e. Reconnection fee (escalating), per trip, for nonpayment: 1. First reconnection . . . 45.00 2. Second reconnection . . . 70.00 3. Third reconnection . . . 95.00 4. Fourth reconnection and each reconnection thereafter . . . 120.00 In the event that the utility service customer has maintained a good payment history as defined in § 22-82(c)(2), with the county for utility service at any address within the county, for five (5) full years prior to the current charge, the reconnection fee shall be deemed a first reconnection and thereafter escalate again in accordance herewith. f. Reset meter if pulled due to non-payment . . . $25.00 g. Special request to discontinue or turn on service for other than nonpayment . . . 10.00 (8) Reconnection fee account. The reconnection fees, charged and paid under § 22- 82(b)(7)e. in each fiscal year, will be segregated in a special account from which sufficient funds will be allocated to cover the estimated uncollectible debts for the previous fiscal year. Any funds remaining in such special account after the adjustment for uncollectible debts will be accounted for as revenue for that fiscal year. (c) Security deposits. (1) Initial security deposits shall be imposed, when request for service is made, upon all utility service customers as follows: a. Residential. 1. Water . . . $25.00 2. Water and sewer . . . 25.00 3. Sewer only . . . 50.00 June 28, 2005 797 b. Commercial. 1. Water . . . 100.00 2. Water and sewer . . . 100.00 3. Sewer only . . . 50.00 (2) Any additional security deposits previously paid by a utility service customer, other than the initial security deposit provided for in subparagraph (c)(1) above, is to be refunded without interest to said customer after one full year of good payment history. Good payment history shall mean: (i) all charges, fees, and bills payable under this chapter of the county code are paid on or before the due date; (ii) the customer has not been subject to penalties or fees for nonpayment; (iii) the customer has not been subject to disconnection or discontinuance of service due to nonpayment; and (iv) the customer has not been subject to placement of a lien or any other action or proceeding by the county or the treasurer due to nonpayment of a utility service bill or account. One (1) full year shall mean one (1) full year from the date of the last payment of an additional security deposit. The director of finance, or designee, will periodically review the security deposit records to determine any deposits that are refundable; otherwise, refunds shall be made only upon written request made by the utility service customer to the director of finance. Refunds shall be made as a credit to the customer's utility service account unless directed otherwise by the director of finance, or designee. (3) The security deposit balance of each utility service customer shall be continually maintained, unless refunded as provided in subparagraph (c)(2) above, until final discontinuance of service to the customer in the county. If, at any time, the director of finance deems it necessary, the director of finance is authorized, but shall not be required, to make payment of a customer's outstanding bill or delinquent utility account from his security deposit fees. In the event that a customer discontinues service in one location within the county and initiates service at a new location within the county, the security deposit shall be transferred to and maintained in the utility customer's new account. Any remaining security deposit balance will be credited to the customer's final June 28, 2005 798 billing in the county, without interest, within sixty (60) days of final discontinuance of service; the balance, if any, will be refunded to the utility customer. Sec. 22-83. Inspection and reading of meters; bills; refunds. (a) The director shall cause all utility service meters to be inspected and read at least once every three (3) months for residential customers and at least once every month for commercial customers. The director shall have the authority to estimate usage if he determines that a meter reading is not or cannot be obtained. Each utility customer shall be billed for water, water and sewer, or sewer only service on a monthly basis, and bills shall be due and payable no later than the twentieth day of each month. The monthly bill, for months when a service meter is not read, shall be in an amount equal to the average of the customer's billings for the previous quarterly cycle based upon an actual reading. Adjustments for actual usage shall be made in the months when a reading of the utility service meter is obtained. (b) Utility service bills shall be paid at the utility billing office or at such other places designated by the director. All deposits or advance payments for water, refunds to depositors of advance payments, or other refunds on account of errors shall be made at the utility billing office. Sec. 22-84. Calculation of charges--Generally. All water passing through a meter shall be charged for, whether or not used; provided, where leaks occur in water pipes or metered services, and the owner, agent or tenant shall have promptly made all necessary repairs, the director may rebate the amount in excess of double the amount of the average monthly bill for the premises. Such average monthly bills shall be determined by averaging monthly bills for the preceding six (6) months. Sec. 22-85. Same--When meter fails. June 28, 2005 799 In the event a water meter fails to register properly for any cause, and the consumer has received the usual or necessary supply of water during the time of such failure of the meter to register, the consumer shall be billed for such amount as is shown to be the average monthly amount of water consumed on his premises for the preceding six (6) months or a longer period, as determined by the director. Sec. 22-86. Unpaid bills. (a) Any utility services bill which has not been paid by the due date of the bill, resulting in a past due balance, shall be subject to a late payment penalty of ten (10) percent of the amount of the bill. The late payment penalty shall be added to the past due balance immediately following the date that said bill was due. (b) The county shall be authorized to disconnect utility services if the utility customer fails to make full payment of all past due balances and the aforesaid penalties on or before the fifteenth day of the month following the due date; provided, however, that disconnection of services for nonpayment shall be made only after the county has obtained an actual reading of the utility service meter and made any necessary adjustments for actual usage during the previous quarterly cycle. Payment of all past due balances, the late payment penalties, the disconnection fee, the applicable reconnection fee, and any other charges or fees shall be made prior to service being restored to the premises or initiated at any other location in the county. Sec. 22-86.1. Lien for water and sewer charges. Taxes or charges hereafter made, imposed or incurred for water or sewers or use thereof in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, shall be a lien on the real estate served by a such waterline or sewer; provided, however, that where residential rental real estate is involved, no lien shall attach (i) unless the user of the water or sewer services is also the owner of the real estate, or (ii) unless the owner of the real estate negotiated or June 28, 2005 800 executed the agreement by which such water or sewer services were provided to the property. Sec. 22-86.2. Collection of unpaid bills and liens. Any delinquent utility service account shall be subject to any and all legal remedies, process, and procedures available to the county for the collection of such account or accounts, all as made and provided by law; subject, however, to the utility customer appealing such account, in writing, before the due date of the bill, to the utility billing supervisor for the purpose of making any adjustments in said account as may be needful or necessary to make the amount of such account proper and/or in cases of extreme hardship, to make equitable payment arrangements. Sec. 22-87. When water may be turned off. The water shall be turned off when necessary for the protection of the water system or when a recognized cross connection is discovered and corrective action is not taken in accordance with the director's instructions. Sec. 22-88. Connector's responsibility when moving from premises. When the connector using water intends to move, he shall give the director at least three (3) days' notice. Any person vacating any premises without paying his utility service bill shall not have utility service initiated or continued at any new premises within the County of Roanoke until the amount so due from him shall have been paid. * * * * ARTICLE IV. WATER SUPPLY EMERGENCIES AND CONSERVATION MEASURES Sec. 22-200. Generally. June 28, 2005 801 (a) Purpose. The purpose of this division is to establish water conservation reduction measures to be imposed when drought, water shortage and low flows in the Roanoke River require water conservation measures to be in effect for public water supply use. It shall also apply to water supplied from private groundwater sources and to surface water withdrawals. (b) Exemptions from application. The provisions of this article shall not apply to any governmental activity, institution, business, residence, or industry when it has been determined by the county administrator that an exemption is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare, for the prevention of severe economic hardship or the substantial loss of employment, or for the health of any person. Recycled water shall also be exempt from the provisions of this article. Sec. 22-201. Definitions. As used in this division: Fountain shall mean a water display where water is sprayed strictly for ornamental purposes. Paved areas shall mean streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios, parking lots, service station aprons, and other surface areas covered with brick, paving, tile, or other material through which water cannot pass. Person shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership or other legal entity in the county. Recycled water shall mean water originally potable but circulated for reuse after delivery from the public water system. Swimming pool shall mean any structure, basin, chamber, or tank, including hot tubs, containing an artificial body of water for swimming, diving or recreational bathing and having a depth of two (2) feet or more at any point. Sec. 22-202. Declaration. June 28, 2005 802 The board shall declare the imposition of either voluntary or mandatory water conservation measures whenever the county is experiencing a water supply emergency or the need to avert a water supply emergency. The need to avert an emergency and to implement voluntary conservation measures shall be deemed to exist whenever the flows in the Roanoke River drop to levels that require the limitation of withdrawals for Spring Hollow Reservoir, the water level in the reservoir is below normal for that time period, and meteorological projections indicate consideration of such measures. The need to avert an emergency and to impose mandatory water conservation measures shall be deemed to exist when the reservoir contains less than a one hundred fifty-day supply at current usage patterns for the period between June 1 and October 1, or a one hundred-day supply for the period between October 1 and June 1, and very limited supplies of water are available. Notices of the implementation and termination of the water conservation measures shall be publicly announced and published in a daily newspaper for at least one (1) day. The implementation or termination of the measures shall become effective immediately upon publication of the respective notice. Sec. 22-203. Voluntary water conservation measures. When voluntary water conservation measures are in effect, the board shall request the general public, businesses and public agencies in the county to implement and comply with the following water use reduction measures: (1) Lawns and gardens. Reduce watering to only when necessary to maintain viability, and then only between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (2) Paved areas. Reduce washing. Washing paved areas for immediate health and safety is exempted. (3) Swimming pools. Reduce filling and replenishing to levels required to maintain health and safety. (4) Vehicle washing. Reduce noncommercial washing of mobile equipment. Commercial mobile equipment washing businesses are exempt. June 28, 2005 803 (5) Restaurants. Serve water to customers only upon request. (6) Public utilities. Reduce scheduled sewer and hydrant flushing by fifty (50) percent. Flushing to meet immediate health and safety requirements is exempt. Sec. 22-204. Mandatory water conservation measures. When mandatory water conservation measures are in effect, the general public, businesses and public agencies shall comply with the following water use restrictions: (1) Fountains. Operation prohibited. (2) Paved areas. Washing prohibited except for immediate health and safety requirements, or except for commercial or industrial operations using high pressure low consumption equipment. Washing for maintenance purposes one (1) time within any twelve-month period is permitted. (3) Swimming pools. Prohibit filling of outdoor swimming pools. Replenishing to maintain the structural integrity of the pool or to ensure swimmer health and safety is permitted. (4) Vehicle washing. Prohibit noncommercial washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, boats, airplanes or any other type of mobile equipment, except in commercial facilities if operating with high pressure low consumption equipment or operating with a water recycling system. The county administrator may order the curtailment of the hours of operation of such commercial facilities or operations offering such services to the public or washing their own equipment. (5) Restaurants. Serve water to customers only upon request. (6) Public utilities. Conduct sewer and hydrant flushing only for the purpose of fire suppression or other public emergency. Flushing to meet immediate health and safety requirements is exempt. (7) Lawns and gardens. Eliminate watering of shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, plants or other vegetation, except indoor plantings, greenhouse or nursery stocks and watering June 28, 2005 804 by commercial nurseries of freshly planted plants upon planting and new and replanted or resodded lawns for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. (8) Exterior washings. Eliminate the washing of the exteriors of commercial or industrial buildings, homes or apartments. Washing for maintenance purposes one (1) time within any twelve-month period is permitted. (9) Private wells and surface water withdrawals. Eliminate watering of lawns, gardens, shrubbery, trees, grass, plants or other vegetation (except indoor plantings, greenhouse or nursery stocks is permitted), washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, boats, airplanes or any other type of mobile equipment, or filling of outdoor swimming pools (replenishing to maintain the structural integrity of the pool or to ensure swimmer health and safety is permitted). Watering of freshly planted plants upon planting and new and replanted or resodded lawns for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days, tees and greens on golf courses, athletic fields and facilities, is permitted. Sec. 22-205. Violation; evidentiary presumptions; penalty for violation; appeals. (a) Violation. It shall be a violation of this article for any person to intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently use, cause the use of or permit the use of water in violation of any of the mandatory provisions of this division. (b) Evidentiary presumptions. For purposes of this article, in any case where water has been used in a manner contrary to any mandatory provision of this division, it shall be presumed that the person in whose name a water meter connection is registered with the utility department has knowingly used, caused the use of or permitted the use of water in such a contrary manner. Proof that a particular premises had a water meter connection is registered in the name of the defendant cited in a criminal complaint filed pursuant to this article shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the defendant is the person who used, caused the use of or permitted the use of water in a manner contrary to any mandatory provision of this division. June 28, 2005 805 (c) Penalty for violation. Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. In lieu of a criminal prosecution for a violation of this article, the county may impose a civil penalty for any violation. For a first offense the person will receive a written warning. On the second offense, the person will be assessed as a civil penalty a water bill surcharge fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) per violation for a residential account and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per violation for an institutional/commercial/industrial account. On the third and any subsequent offense, the person will be assessed as a civil penalty a water bill surcharge fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per violation for a residential account and two hundred dollars ($200.00) per violation for an institutional/commercial/industrial account. In addition, the utility department may suspend the service of any person violating any of the mandatory water use restrictions. All fines shall be imposed on the violator's next water bill. (d) Appeals. The person shall have the right to appeal to the county administrator upon receiving written notice of any violation or intent to discontinue service. That person may then appeal the decision of the county administrator to the county board of supervisors. The procedure to be followed in any appeal is the same procedure as set out in section 18-156.5 of this Code. (e) Separate violations. Each violation by a person shall be counted as a separate violation by that person, irrespective of the location at which the violation occurs. Sec. 22-206. Enforcement. The chief of police and the director of the utility department, through their agents or employees, shall be jointly responsible for the administration and enforcement of this article. The director of the utility department is authorized to designate qualified utility department personnel to enforce this article in the manner and to the extent allowed by law, including the filing of notices of violations of this article and the filing of complaints with the police department for such violations. June 28, 2005 806 3. That any provision of the Roanoke County Code not specifically amended or repealed above shall remain in full force and effect as adopted. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) Supervisor McNamara thanked Bill Skelton for his many years of service on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. He noted that Mr. Skelton has advised that he does not wish to be reappointed at the end of his term. Supervisor McNamara nominated Bob Schell to serve a three-year term that will expire on June 30, 2008. He requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-062805-7; R-062805-7.b June 28, 2005 807 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution with the addition of the confirmation of the appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 062805-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 28, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 9, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – June 14, 2005 2. Request from the Library to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $8,000 from the Library of Virginia, acting as administrator for the Gates Foundation “Staying Connected” grant program 3. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator and County Attorney 4. Request from schools to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $225 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts 5. Request from schools to appropriate a donation in the amount of $1,520.42 from the Hand in Hand Committee for the support of advertising efforts for the annual Parent Fair 6. Request from schools to appropriate funds in the amount of $307.98 from Virginia Western Community College for dual enrollment revenues 7. Request from schools to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $36,581 from the Virginia Department of Education 8. Approval of contract to provide Commonwealth’s Attorney services to the Town of Vinton for $6,000 and appropriation of funds for fiscal year 2005- 2006 9. Confirmation of committee appointment to Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission June 28, 2005 808 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 062805-7.b ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for fiscal year 2005-2006. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased from $134,063.47 to $139,426.01. 2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from $114,151.45 to $118,717.51, plus the County longevity supplement. 3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July 1, 2005. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request from the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism to schedule a work session on July 12 to discuss the development of a Comprehensive Master Plan. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) There was a consensus to schedule the work session on July 12. IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke: June 28, 2005 809 Janet McNair, 4214 Millcrest Court, requested the Board’s assistance because of numerous firearms violations that have been occurring in her area. She advised that she had gunfire in her home on June 19; the police arrived and discovered that there were two automobiles that were also fired upon at the same time. She stated that the police believe that juveniles who had been drinking were involved in the incident. She advised that neighbors have since found evidence of gunfire in another home in the area. She requested that the Board clarify to the public what constitutes a firearms violation. She noted that this is a densely populated area and this is extremely dangerous behavior. She asked that the Board or law enforcement “put the word out there”. She also requested that the police remind citizens to call when they observe suspicious behavior. She stated that residents have advised that they are used to the police either not coming or responding very slowly so they did not bother to call. Supervisor Church inquired if firing into an occupied dwelling is a felony in Virginia. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Linda Polhill, 4206 Millcrest Court, advised that she just discovered a hole in her garage door on Sunday afternoon. She stated that her husband is on oxygen and she presented one of the oxygen tanks which she alleged was sheared off as a result of the gunfire. She stated that this could have resulted in a significant explosion, and the individuals involved do not realize how serious this behavior is. June 28, 2005 810 Supervisor McNamara advised that this type of behavior is not acceptable and it is extremely unfortunate when it occurs. He asked Chief Lavinder to provide a briefing. Chief Lavinder stated that there are approximately 100 neighborhood crime watch groups and he indicated that these are groups of individuals who look out for each other in their neighborhood. He advised that this type of activity is encouraged by the County’s crime prevention office and is used to reduce crime in neighborhoods as a result of having more individuals who are alert to potential crime. Supervisor McNamara encouraged all citizens to contact the Police Department if they see suspicious behavior. He stated that increased patrols are occurring in this area and advised that Chief Lavinder himself has participated in some of these patrols. Supervisor Church stated that he was glad the Board was taking the time to let citizens know we hear their concerns. Ms. McNair stated that she appreciates that the Police Department press release stated that this action was a felony; however, she also understands that it was a firearms violation for the children to be shooting beer bottles, cans, etc. as targets close to occupied dwellings. She stated that she is not sure that people understand that all this behavior constitutes a firearms violation. She stated that the behavior which preceded the shooting into her home is extremely dangerous and the County should not June 28, 2005 811 leave this false impression out there that the behavior was okay until they shot into her home. Supervisor Altizer thanked Ms. McNair for attending the meeting. He stated that her actions in doing so are positive because she is increasing awareness. He stated that swift justice will result because shooting close to an occupied dwelling will not be tolerated. Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, spoke regarding Item E-2. He stated that he did not think the County should approve a change order for the Public Safety Building and advised that he visited the site on Cove Road this morning. He indicated that they are still grading and he was told it was a former fill site. He stated that he was told they are still taking soil borings because “we were in a hurry”. He further stated that this was a no bid contract and 40% of the contingency fund is gone before the site is graded. This is a problem with a no bid project. He does not believe Roanoke County should pay for Northrop-Grumman’s error. He stated that if Roanoke County refused to have the soil borings done, it is our fault. This should be Northrop-Grumman’s problem, not Roanoke County’s. Mr. Noble stated that with respect to Item E-3 (Clerk’s Notation: Mr. Noble was speaking regarding Item E-5 but he stated Item E-3), the Board should have sat on this discussion longer. When the public spoke out against retail development incentives and Supervisor Flora requested a review of the policy, he expected a more detailed review. He stated that there are contradictions in the policy statement, and he voiced June 28, 2005 812 objections to various sections in the proposed PPP Policy amendments. He stated that the revised policy should not have been approved and it does not meet the public’s expectations. Joyce Waugh, representative of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, stated that incentives are good in moderation. In most cases, Roanoke County has been a good steward. She stated that no one size fits all and Roanoke County proposes evaluating incentives on an individual basis. She indicated that it is imperative to remain competitive, and she encouraged the inclusion of language regarding a mutually beneficial, multi-jurisdictional agreement where no incentives will be given for moving a business from one jurisdiction to another unless it would result in a loss of the business to the Roanoke Valley. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid – May 2005 June 28, 2005 813 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended May 31, 2005 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report 9. Jail Study Costs Report IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to discuss pending travel arrangements for the remainder of calendar year 2005. (Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board) The work session was held from 5:20 p.m. until 5:43 p.m. Staff present included: Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane Childers, Clerk to the Board. There was general discussion regarding how travel by members of the Board of Supervisors should be handled in the future. Supervisor Wray suggested that there be a consensus of the Board regarding attendance at conferences in the future. Supervisor Flora noted that some localities provide each Board member a travel allotment for the year. Supervisor McNamara stated that he does not have a problem with the way things are currently being handled. Supervisor Church noted that there is $70,000 worth of planned travel for County staff from now until the end of 2005, and advised that this is also an expenditure of public funds. Supervisor Altizer indicated that June 28, 2005 814 the Board members are the ones who are accountable to the citizens and he has every confidence that staff travel is handled in an appropriate manner. Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to leave the procedure for determining travel unchanged. Each Board member will continue to determine which conferences to attend and will be responsible for providing justification for the planned travel. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of appreciation to Frank F. “Jack” Gee, Jr., following 31 years of service at the Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Company R-062805-8 Chairman Altizer presented the resolution of appreciation to Mr. Gee. Also present were the following individuals: Richard Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Chief Colin Gee and Firefighter Mike Gee, Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Company; and representatives from the Fire and Rescue Department. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None June 28, 2005 815 RESOLUTION 062805-8 OF APPRECIATION TO FRANK F. “JACK” GEE, JR. FOLLOWING 31 YEARS OF SERVICE AT THE MOUNT PLEASANT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY WHEREAS, Frank F. “Jack” Gee, Jr., joined the Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Company on November 17, 1973, and retired in December 2004, after thirty-one years of active duty; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gee held the rank of Captain from 1987 until 1994 when he retired and returned to active duty as a firefighter; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gee served as the Company’s Treasurer from 1994 until his retirement from active duty in 2004; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gee served on the Roanoke County Fire Chiefs’ Board as a volunteer representative with the late T. E. Wagner, Chief of the Mount Peasant Volunteer Fire Company, for many years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gee also served on the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Accident Review Board for many years before his retirement; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gee has performed a crucial role in protecting the life and property of citizens in one of the most hazardous profession, and Roanoke County is very fortunate to have benefited from his dedication and many years of experience; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gee has served with professionalism and integrity and through his volunteer efforts with the Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Company has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens FRANK F. “JACK” GEE, JR., of Roanoke County to for thirty-one years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Continued until July 26 at the request of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1, Office District, to C2, General Commercial District, and to obtain a special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food June 28, 2005 816 restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue, and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights, LLC (Bojangles). (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until July 26 at the request of the petitioner. 2. Continued until September 27 at the request of the Planning Commission. Second reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Building Commissioner. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until September 27 at the request of the Planning Commission. Supervisor Wray noted that this item is not exactly a continuation due to the fact that work is still being done on this site. He requested that Ms. Scheid provide an update on the status of this item. Ms. Scheid advised that Joel Baker, Building Commissioner, addressed the Planning Commission at their June meeting regarding the spot blight abatement house and he advised that good progress is being made and the work is 90% complete. Mr. Baker had indicated that some inspections have been requested; but since the repairs have not been fully completed, the Planning Commission wanted to leave the issue open for future review in July and September. June 28, 2005 817 3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone approximately 50 acres from AG-3, Agriculture/Rural Preserve District, to R-1, Low Density Residential District, for the construction of single family dwellings with a proffered density of approximately 1.3 dwelling units per acre, located northwest of the 5800 block of Crumpacker Drive and 6200 block of Apple Harvest Drive, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Fralin & Waldron, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Plannr) O-062805-9 Ms. Scheid reported that this 50 acre tract is a portion of a larger 203 acre tract being purchased by Fralin and Waldron (F&W). The 50 acre tract is currently vacant and a majority of the property is rolling fields with the northwestern and southern portions being wooded. Based on the slope maps of Roanoke County, the 50 acre portion of this 203 acre tract is significantly less steep than the remaining property. The 203 acre tract extends to the ridgeline of Reed Mountain and has approximately 3,000 feet of ridgeline along the northwestern border. Ms. Scheid advised that at this time, F&W has no development plans for the remaining acreage which is approximately 153 acres. The property lies adjacent to the existing Orchards subdivision, a single family residential housing development that F&W has been developing since the 1970s. It also lies to the east of the existing LaBellevue subdivision. The petitioners are proposing to build a maximum of 65 single family houses. She stated that Cider House June 28, 2005 818 Drive, a public road, would be extended into this new section of The Orchards and two new public roads constructed. All roads end in cul-de-sacs with no access through to the streets of the LaBellevue subdivision. The total new traffic generated by the proposed development is approximately 700 trips per day and Hunt Ridge Road is capable of adequately handling the proposed trips to be generated by this project. The intersection of Hunt Ridge Road and Route 460 has qualified for a signal light and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently working to obtain the funding for installation of this light. She advised that water and sewer services are available to the proposed development and no impacts are expected to police, fire, or rescue services at this proposed site. School children generated by this proposed development would attend Bonsack Elementary School and William Byrd Middle and High Schools. Bonsack Elementary currently has a capacity of 400 students and an attendance of 470 students. Ms. Scheid reported that in June 2006, construction will begin on eight classroom additions to Bonsack Elementary School. This construction project is scheduled to be completed by the end of August 2006. The proposed development of 65 homes is not anticipated to begin construction for at least one or two years. Ms. Scheid advised that a community meeting was held on this petition and several comments were made concerning drainage issues within the neighborhood and concerns about traffic flow from the proposed development. The Planning Commission heard the petition on June 7 and received citizen comments concerning drainage and traffic. The drainage concerns have been addressed by F&W since the June 28, 2005 819 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commissioners had several comments, and Mr. Jarrell and Mr. Azar asked the petitioners what their plans were, if any, for the remaining 153 acres of the Crumpacker tract that this development does not include. The petitioners stated that at this time, they have no plans to develop the remaining acreage and commented that the land use designation on that property, which is conservation, was appropriate. Ms. Scheid stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this rezoning request from AG-3 to R-1 with the following condition: (1) Total lot subdivision count will not exceed 65 lots and will be generally consistent with the submitted "Concept Plan Showing Future Sections of The Orchards" dated March 23, 2005, prepared by Lumsden Associates, PC. Ms. Scheid stated that the petitioners, the petitioner’s counsel, and the property owners were present at the meeting to answer any questions. Supervisor Church inquired if the school attendance numbers for Bonsack Elementary School were correct and noted that they have a capacity of 400 and attendance of 470. Ms. Scheid responded in the affirmative and stated that it is important to note that in one year, construction of eight new classrooms will begin and be completed. Supervisor Church further inquired how many extra children can be held in the eight new classrooms. Ms. Scheid estimated that each classroom would accommodate approximately 20 students. Supervisor Flora reported that the addition of the eight classrooms will take the capacity of Bonsack Elementary School to 560 students. June 28, 2005 820 Steve Claytor, Vice-President of Development for F&W, stated that Andy Kelderhouse, President of F&W was present, as well as Steven Lemon, Legal Counsel. He indicated that they would be glad to answer any questions. Supervisor Altizer requested information regarding plans for stormwater management. Mr. Kelderhouse advised that the proposed 65 lot development would necessitate the construction of two new stormwater management facilities. The facilities in The Orchards were not sized appropriately for this development. Supervisor Altizer inquired if there will be a Homeowners Association responsible for maintenance. Mr. Kelderhouse responded in the affirmative and stated that since 1991, all communities developed in The Orchards have been part of a Homeowners Association and the largest charge they have is the maintenance of the stormwater management facilities in perpetuity. Supervisor Altizer noted that in the past, there were situations where no one was responsible for these detention ponds. Supervisor Wray inquired if this is maxing out the land that F&W wants to develop. Mr. Kelderhouse stated that two factors were examined: (1) The Comprehensive Plan - he noted that this area is designated neighborhood conservation which is consistent with the proposed use. (2) Topography of the area - this section consists of developable land. Mr. Kelderhouse stated that beyond this boundary, the land use designation is conservation and the terrain is steeper. He stated that they are trying to make wise use of a developable piece of property. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. June 28, 2005 821 Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 062805-9 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 50-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE 5800 BLOCK OF CRUMPACKER DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 39.00-1-1) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AG-3 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R- 1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF FRALIN & WALDRON, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 26, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held May 24, 2005 and continued to June 28, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 3, 2005 and continued to June 7, 2005; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 50 acres, as described herein, and located northwest of the 5800 block of Crumpacker Drive and 6200 block of Apple Harvest Drive (part of Tax Map Number 39.00-1-1) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of AG-3, Agriculture/Rural Preserve District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Fralin & Waldron, Inc. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following condition which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) Total lot subdivision will not exceed 65 lots and will be generally consistent with the submitted “Concept Plan Showing Future Sections of the Orchards,” dated March 23, 2005, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly boundary of property of F&W Community Development Corporation, Tax Map #40.01-1-1, said point also being the northeasterly corner of property of April G. Lail, Tax Map #39.12-2-24; thence June 28, 2005 822 leaving F&W Community Development Corporation and with April G. Lail, N. 57° 11’ 19” W. passing the northwesterly corner of said property at 405.82 feet and thence with northerly boundary of Douglas R. and Karen S. Carter, in all 931.93 feet, to a point, said point being the northwesterly corner of property of Douglas R. and Karen S. Carter; thence leaving Carter and with 12 new zoning lines through the property of James M. Crumpacker, Jr., Jean C. Brown and Debra C. Moore, as follows: thence N. 19° 24’ 48” E. 995.03 feet to a point; thence N. 32° 06’ 31” W. 311.90 feet to a point; thence N. 37° 04’ 08” E. 570.32 feet to a point; thence S. 71° 29’ 13” E. 819.85 feet to a point; thence S. 49° 24’ 25” E. 85.49 feet to a point; thence S. 05° 23’ 07” E. 94.24 feet to a point; thence S. 50° 25’ 18” E. 57.49 feet to a point; thence S. 21° 29’ 23” E. 101.54 feet to a point; thence S. 43° 13’ 14” E. 142.14 feet to a point; thence S. 18° 48’ 17” W. 230.83 feet to a point; thence S. 13° 12’ 34” E. 172.58 feet to a point; thence S. 48° 34’ 02” E. 189.64 feet to a point; said point located on the northerly boundary of property of F&W Community Development Corporation; thence with F&W Community Development Corporation, S. 40° 48’ 09” W. 905.62 feet to a point, said point being the northeasterly corner of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors property, Tax Map #39.00-1-1.1; thence leaving F&W Community Development Corporation and with Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for the following 4 courses, N. 09° 11’ 29” W. 130.55 feet to a point; thence N. 39° 02’ 52” W. 151.65 feet to a point; thence S. 37° 35’ 27” W. 116.97 feet to a point; thence S. 37° 59’ 02” E. 246.85 feet to a point, said point located on the northerly boundary of F&W Community Development Corporation; thence leaving Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and with F&W Community Development Corporation, S. 40° 48’ 05” W. 375.22 feet to the place of beginning, and containing 50.1 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None June 28, 2005 823 4. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the operation of a used automobile dealership on .467 acres located at 6717 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Daniel W. Doss. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-062805-10 Ms. Scheid stated that this is a request for a special use permit to operate a used automobile dealership at the former Chopsticks restaurant site. The .467 acre site is currently zoned C-2 and is designated core in the future land use map based on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The core designation encourages high density, commercial and residential development. Ms. Scheid stated that the petitioner desires to operate a full-time used automobile business at this site. The application proposed that the lot will be used for sales only and no automobile services will be placed on the site. The site has an existing rear buffer which consists of mature pine trees and therefore no additional landscaping is required on that portion of the property. She indicated that the front of the site will need landscaping improvements and this will be addressed during the site plan review process. The Planning Commission heard this request on June 7 and there was discussion regarding the hours of operation and the number of vehicles to be placed on the site if approved. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: (1) Landscaping shall include a ten-foot planting adjacent to any public street right-of-way. June 28, 2005 824 Within this planting strip, one large deciduous, large evergreen or small deciduous tree shall be planted every thirty (30) linear feet. Such planting materials shall otherwise comply with the landscaping requirements contained in Section 30-92 of the Zoning Ordinance; (2) The maximum number of vehicles allowed on site for sale is 25; and (3) Operating hours shall be limited to Monday – Friday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and no business allowed on Sunday. (4) No changes shall be made to the existing building except those of a cosmetic nature. Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner is present at the meeting. Supervisor Flora inquired if the buffering includes Williamson Road. Ms. Scheid responded in the affirmative and stated that there will be landscaping between the site and Williamson Road. Supervisor Flora clarified that there will be the right-of- way, buffering, and then the vehicles. Ms. Scheid confirmed that this is accurate and stated that concerns were raised at the Planning Commission meeting from the residents who live in the house directly behind the site. The request was to keep the existing buffer of pine trees and the petitioner has agreed to do so. Supervisor Wray noted that the Planning Commission had recommended 20 (vehicles) and it was increased to 25. He questioned what the reasoning was behind the increase. Ms. Scheid advised that there was discussion regarding how many spaces were available on the site, it was agreed that there was enough space to increase from 20 to 25, and there was subsequent discussion regarding used car June 28, 2005 825 dealerships in the area that have considerably more than 25 cars. Therefore, the Planning Commission agreed to increase this from 20 to 25. Supervisor Wray stated that in looking at the map, there is a road on both sides. He noted the buffer in the back, and inquired if there was ever a request from the adjoining homeowners for a fence. Ms. Scheid responded that she is not aware of any such request. She advised that the property owner directly behind Mr. Doss requested that the building in the rear and the row of pine trees remain. Supervisor Wray noted that there are some car lots across the street from this site. Mr. Dan Doss, the petitioner, was present at the meeting and offered to address any questions. Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Doss if the buffer will remain intact. Mr. Doss responded in the affirmative. He further stated that the neighbor behind them was concerned that they would level the building and replace it with a smaller building, but he stated that this is not the intention and would de-value the property. The following citizen spoke: Dick Clark, 6711 Williamson Road, advised that he is an adjoining property owner, and he noted the existence of retail shops and a strip mall on the adjoining property. He stated that everything on the north side of Williamson Road has been retail. There are four car lots across the street. He stated that there are many misgivings about putting a car lot on what has previously been a retail location. He requested that the Board continue keeping this location for a use such as a restaurant. June 28, 2005 826 He noted safety concerns due to traffic in the area. He requested that this petition not be approved. Supervisor Flora inquired if access is limited to Elwood Street or if there is also access directly onto Williamson Road. Ms. Scheid stated that it is her understanding that there is access directly onto Williamson Road as well as off Elwood Street. She noted that staff calculated approximately 28 parking spaces on this site, excluding handicapped parking. Supervisor Flora stated that traffic is a problem in the area, but he can see a bigger problem if there are two access points. He indicated that it would be safer if traffic were coming off onto Elwood. He advised that he shares the neighbors concerns with respect to used car lots and this again points out the need to examine the Williamson Road corridor from the Roanoke City limits to the Botetourt County line. He indicated that until an examination is conducted, the County will continue to have rezonings that will intensify activity in the area. He stated that with the conditions in place, we are making a used car lot as attractive as it can be. He further noted that he is not sure that the market in the area would be conducive to another restaurant, but indicated that it is an excellent location for a small shop or destination business. Ms. Scheid reported that Anthony Ford, the County’s traffic engineer, analyzed this proposed use and calculated that the trips generated by the used car lot would be significantly less than the trips generated by a restaurant. June 28, 2005 827 Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None Supervisor Church commented that he is of the understanding that Supervisor Flora knows what is best for his area. Supervisor Wray concurred with Supervisor Church’s comments regarding Supervisor Flora knowing his area. He stated that it is tough to make these decisions and you see whether it will benefit or harm the neighborhood. He stated that you make these decisions based on the information you have available and the best possible outcome. Supervisor Flora advised that this neighborhood has taken two hits recently: (1) a mobile home being put into the neighborhood; and (2) this rezoning. He encouraged staff in the Planning Department to move ahead with an examination of the Williamson Road corridor based on the concerns expressed by the business community and Hollins University. Supervisor Altizer stated that he is very familiar with this area and he is not sure how long it would take to get a better use for this location. He noted that he was uncomfortable with the 25 cars and he requested that the petitioner attempt to stay in the 20 car range. He indicated that this would make it easier for people to visit the site and see what is available to purchase. June 28, 2005 828 ORDINANCE 062805-10 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DANIEL W. DOSS FOR THE OPERATION OF A USED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON .467 ACRES TO BE LOCATED AT 6717 WILLIAMSON ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 27.18-4-3) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Daniel W. Doss has filed a petition for a special use permit for the operation of a used automobile dealership on .467 acres located at 6717 Williamson Road (Tax Map No. 27.18-4-3) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 7, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on May 24, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on June 28, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Daniel W. Doss for the operation of a used automobile dealership on .467 acres located at 6717 Williamson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) Landscaping shall include a ten-foot planting adjacent to any public street right-of-way. Within this planting strip, one large deciduous, large evergreen or small deciduous tree shall be planted every thirty (30) linear feet. Such planting materials shall otherwise comply with the landscaping requirements contained in Section 30-92 of the Zoning Ordinance (2) The maximum number of vehicles allowed on site for sale is 25. (3) Operating hours shall be limited to Monday – Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no business allowed on Sunday. (4) No changes shall be made to existing building except those of a cosmetic nature. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None June 28, 2005 829 5. Second reading of an ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) O-062805-11 Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading and public hearing of a proposed ordinance that would increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors. Both State Code and the County Charter provide for a Board of Supervisors to increase its salaries by an annual inflation factor not to exceed 5%. The proposed ordinance increases the Board’s salaries by a rate of 4%, which is similar to the increase received by other County and School Board employees. Mr. Mahoney indicated that the State Code and County Charter provisions limit when this type of ordinance can be adopted and he advised that it can only be adopted between May 1 and June 30 of each year. In addition a public hearing must be held, which is being done tonight, and this has been advertised as required by State Code. He stated that the increase was 4% and totals $569.85 each. The new salary will be $14,816 and the ordinance provides for additional annual compensation of $1,800 for the Chairman and $1,200 for the Vice-Chairman. Supervisor McNamara noted that the additional compensation for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman has remained the same for many years. He questioned if June 28, 2005 830 there is a reason why this has not been changed. Mr. Mahoney advised that the statute limits the supplement to those amounts. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora remarked that he thought the supplement for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman is the same as it was in the 1970s. He noted that the salary has increased, but not the supplements. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 062805-11 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $14,246.15 by Ordinance 062204-14 and further has established the additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5%) percent; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June 14, 2005; the second reading and public hearing was held on June 28, 2005. June 28, 2005 831 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of 4% pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $14,816 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2005. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor McNamara: He thanked staff, members of the Library Board, and volunteers from the Bent Mountain community who assisted with the Bent Mountain library addition. He referenced the grand opening ceremony which was held recently, and he congratulated Ms. Joan Carver and the residents of the community on their successful efforts. Supervisor Church: (1) He referenced a letter he had received from a retired deputy in the Roanoke County Sheriff’s Office regarding her service weapon. He directed the Clerk to provide a copy of the letter to each Board member and noted this has been an ongoing dispute where a retired employee is challenging whether she can retain her service weapon. He asked Mr. O’Donnell to ensure that the Board receives a copy of the letter and to follow up on this matter. He further noted that the Attorney General’s Office requested that this matter go to the Board of Supervisors. (2) He advised that the Eller family is having some problems concerning rodents and noted June 28, 2005 832 that this is a conflict with an adjoining property owner. He requested that Mr. Covey provide assistance on this matter. (3) He requested that Mr. O’Donnell contact Mr. Rosenbloom regarding his concerns related to a private road that is to be maintained by Verizon. (4) He requested that Mr. Covey contact Mr. Bill Lee to address his concerns which were expressed in a recent email. He also expressed support for Mr. Lee’s wife who is ill. (5) He advised that the Board held a work session to respond to his request for information relating to the amount of travel planned by Roanoke County staff. He stated that the figure from now to the end of year is $70,000, and he stated that no changes were made to the way the County is currently doing business. (6) He requested that Ms. Hyatt respond to information that he has received which indicates that a request has been made to examine County finances for Supervisors Church and Wray. Ms. Hyatt stated that she was aware that Mr. Mahoney has been working with Ms. Owens in Finance to pull some records. Mr. Mahoney advised that a Freedom of Information request was received for all Board members and the County Administrator. Mr. Church stated that he was advised that staff had been asked to check for Mr. Wray and Mr. Church only. Supervisor Wray: (1) He stated that he received a letter from VDOT concerning their willingness to hold a design public hearing for the bridge replacement on Boones Chapel Road and noted that the road would be closed during construction. The proposed start date for the construction is mid-2007. He requested that Mr. Covey notify VDOT that if they are closing a road and impacting people, a public hearing needs June 28, 2005 833 to be held in order to notify the people. He further requested that all residents in the area and the Clearbrook Civic League receive a letter regarding this matter. (2) He advised that he received a call voicing concerns about another bridge in the area that is in need of repair. He requested that Mr. Covey schedule a meeting with the resident and VDOT and advised that he would provide contact information to Mr. Covey. (3) He inquired about a response regarding the request for a street light on Martinell Avenue. Mr. Covey noted that there is currently a street light at each intersection on this road and stated that he is not certain if the application has been received. (4) He inquired if there is an update regarding Raintree Road. Mr. Covey stated that Doug Burton is working on the matter and he has not been advised of any additional information that has been received from the citizens. (5) He stated that he has received concerns from citizens regarding delays encountered when they contact the Community Development Department and noted that calls are being placed on hold for extended periods of time. Mr. Covey advised that staff has been working with Novalis Technologies to convert to new land development office software. During the past week, staff has been training on the new system as well as attempting to cover the phones and handle walk-in customers at the counter. He indicated that there have been difficulties in handling call volume and changes have been made to correct this situation. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Covey advised that the new system is live and the web component is anticipated to be operational in approximately 30 days. 834 June 28, 2005 Supervisor Altizer: He reminded the Board members that they will need to leave their laptops at the Administration Center following the July 12 meeting for purposes of upgrading the GroupWise software. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: f1~~~. fiM'[)J Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board ~~Zfze/};4ff- Chairman