8/12/1986 - Regular
50
--- .--..... -
R__._"'~"_'_~'__'_'.__~___'_____~"_'___
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Cente
3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
August 12, 1986
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the
first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August, 1986.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Brittle called the meeting to order at 3:00
p.m. The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Alan H. Brittle; Vice-Chairman Bo
Johnson; Supervisors Steven A. McGraw,
Harry C. Nickens, and Lee Garrett
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Lind
S. Lehe, Assistant County Attorney; John R
Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of
Public Facilities; James T. Nininger,
Acting Assistant County Administrator of
Community Development, Arnold o. Covey,
Director of Development Review; Brent
Sheffler, Department of Development; Wanda
Riley, Department of Public Facilities;
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer; Reta R.
Busher, Director of Management and Budget;
D. Keith Cook, Director of Human Resources
Clifford Craig, Director of utilities
Department; John A. Peters, Roads
Coordinator; Sally J. Turner, Public
Information Officer; Bobbie L. Hall,
Deputy Clerk; Mary H. Allen, County
Administrator's staff
IN RE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by the Reverend Bob Alderman.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
51
August 12, 1986
IN RE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hodge announced that the printed budget document
has been received by the Department of Management Services. Reta
R. Busher presented the printed documents to the Board and
explained that it contains only the summary sheets and that the
individual departments have already received the line item pages.
She also reported that this document has been submitted to the
GFOA for budget awards but the results of this competition will
not be received for several months.
Mr. Hodge also announced that the 1985 bond brochure
has also received an award. Ms. Sally Turner, Public Information
Officer reported that last year's brochure on the bond referendum
received a merit award from the National Association of County
Information Officers Convention.
It was also announced by Mr. Hodge that Joe Moran of
WFIR Radio is leaving the Valley to attend Ohio University to
obtain his Masters Degree. Mr. Hodge and the Board expressed
best wishes to Mr. Moran and also thanked him for his news
coverage of Roanoke County.
IN RE:
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge requested that an Item F8 concerning the
renovation of Southview Elementary School and an Item F9
concerning the establishment of a Roanoke County Commission for
the Constitution's bicentennial be added under the New Business
portion of the agenda.
IN RE:
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for Support of the 1986 United Way
PACESETTER Campaiqn - Mr. Hodge reported that the PACESETTER
52
August 12, 1986
-_.~----_._----~.~_.~~~'....
_u_~,._.~._....~ .__..
campaign is conducted earlier than the regular United Way
Campaign and includes local governments and business. This
campaign helps set the goals for the regular United Way campaign
Wanda Riley, Coordinator of the PACESETTER Campaign for United
Way, introduced the employees assisting her on the committee.
Chairman Brittle directed staff to prepare the
appropriate resolution expressing the Board's support of this
campaign.
2. Industrial Revenue Bond Allocation of $4 Million
for Southpark Limited Partnership I - Mr. Brent Sheffler of the
Department of Development presented a request from Southpark
Limited Partnership I for industrial development bonds in the
amount of $4 million. The funding for this request will be
obtained from the State Reserve.
Supervisor Johnson inquired about remaining funding if
Items F2 and F3 on the agenda are approved. Mr. Sheffler
reported that the County originally received $5.5 million for ID
bond allocations. However, House of Representatives Bill 3838,
recently passed, requires that 50 percent of these funds be used
for IDA bonds and 50 percent be used for urban housing. Since
the County does not participate in an urban housing program, 50
percent of the $5.5 ($2.75 million) must be returned to the Stat
Reserve. Of the $5.5 million originally obtained, $1.8 million
has been issued to Seaboard Farms, $600,000 has been issued to
the Town of Vinton, and if approved this evening, $325,000 issue
to Dunmar (Item F3). Since $2.5 million must be returned to the
State, there is not enough funding for the Southpark request of
$4 million. That is why the funding for this project must corne
from the State Reserve. If the IDA bonds are approved by the
Board tonight, the Department of Development will request this
funding from the State Reserve.
Supervisor Nickens questioned the allocation to the
Town of vinton. He understood that Vinton did not use the
::'3
August 12, 1986
$600,000 allocated to them and had already returned it to the
State Reserve. He inquired if this $600,000 that vinton had
returned could be counted with the $2.75 million Roanoke County
must return.
Supervisor Johnson requested that fiscal impact
statements as the one included with this IDA bond request be
included in the rezoning packets.
Supervisor Nickens moved to concur with staff's
recommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw.
RESOLUTION 8-12-86-167 APPROVING THE
ISSUANCE OF IDA BONDS FOR SOUTHPARK
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, I
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the
application of Southpark Limited Partnership I (the Company),
a Virginia limited partnership, requesting the issuance of the
~uthority's industrial development revenue bond in an amount
estimated at $4,000,000.00 (the Bond) to assist in the financing
of the Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of three
professional and general purpose office buildings (the Project>
at the northeast intersection of Route 419 and Mcvitty Road,
in Roanoke County, Virginia, and has held a public hearing
thereon on August 5, 1986.
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code
þf1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and
)ver the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
'ndustrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance
)f bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of
~oanoke County, Virginia (the County), the Project is to be
ocated in the County and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
54
August 12, 1986
--.-.--
-------_._-----_._-
__ '_"".~"__ M_ ._._.~._.
_.,-,~----~-_._-,--~---_.-
County, Virginia, (the Board) constitutes the highest elected
governmental officials of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board of
Supervisors approve the issuance of the Bond; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approvin
the issuance of the Bond, subject to the terms to be agreed upon
and a certificate of the public hearing has been filed with the
Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia:
1. The Board of Supervisors approves the issuance of
the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the Company, as
required by Section 103(k), to permit the Authority to assist in
the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bond, as
required by Section 103(k), does not constitute an endorsement t
a prospective purchaser of the Bond or the creditworthiness of
the Project or the Company, and, as required by Section 15.1-138
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Bond shall
provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be
obligated to pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs
incident thereto except from the revenues and moneys pledged
therefor and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power 0
the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged
thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw,
and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Garrett, and Brittl
NAYS: None
3. Industrial Revenue Bond Allocation of $325,000 for
Dunmar Moving Systems - Mr. Sheffler reported that Dunmar Moving
55
August 12, 1986
ßystems, a division of Allied Van Lines, is requesting IDA bonds
in the amount of $325,000. He reported that the funding for
~hese bonds will corne out of the present allocation and will not
have to be requested from the State Reserve.
Supervisor McGraw moved to concur with staff's
~ecommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson.
RESOLUTION 8-12-86-168 APPROVING THE
ISSUANCE OF IDA BONDS FOR DUNMAR
ENTERPRISES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
þounty, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority for the
'ounty of Roanoke, Virginia (the Authority), has considered the
pplication of Dunmar Enterprises, a Virginia general partnership
(the Partnership), 2602 Deepwater Terminal Road, Richmond,
Jirginia, 23234, requesting issuance of the Authority's
'ndustrial development revenue bond in an amount estimated at
>325,000.00 (the Bond) to assist in the financing of the
~cquisition, development, construction and equipping of an office
~nd warehouse facility for a moving and storage business on
:ommonwealth Drive, State Route 1723 in the Starkey area of
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Project) on property to be acquired
by the Partnership and has held a public hearing thereon on
¡\ugust 5, 1986.
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of
954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having
'urisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and
)ver the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
ndustrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance
)f the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of
oanoke County, Virginia (the County), the Project is to be
ocated in the County of Roanoke and the Board of Supervisors of
56
August 12, 1986
------.-------«---.--------..----------..-,-
- -'-'.'.-'. _. -.- .~. ~- --.._-_.
Roanoke County, Virginia (the Board) constitutes the highest
elected governmental body of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board of
Supervisors approve the issuance of the Bond; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approvinc
the issuance of the Bond subject to the terms to be agreed upon,
and a certificate of the public hearing has been filed with the
Board of Supervisors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that:
1. The Board of Supervisors approves the issuance of
the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the Partnership as
required by Section 103(k) to permit the Authority to assist the
Partnership in the financing of the project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bond as
required by Section 103(k) does not constitute an endorsement to
a prospective purchaser of the Bond or the creditworthiness of
the Project or the Partnership, and, as required by Section
15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Bond
shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority shall be
obligated to pay the bond or the interest thereon or other costs
incident thereto except for the revenues and monies pledged
therefore and neither the faith nor the credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McGraw, seconded by Supervisor Johnson
and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Garrett, and Brittl
NAYS: None
4. 1985 Delinquent Real Estate List and 1986
Delinquent Personal Property List and Approval to Publish 1983
57
August 12, 1986
)elinquent Real Estate List - Mr. Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
)f Roanoke County, was present to request approval to publish in
he newspaper the 1983 Delinquent Real Estate Tax List in
)ctober, 1986. He reported that the delinquent real estate lists
or previous years have been prepared and are on view in the
Preasurer's office.
Supervisor Garrett moved that the Board accept the
~ecommendation of the Treasurer. The motion was seconded by
ßupervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
5. Request to Accept Additional State Fundinq for the
)epartment of Social Services - Mrs. Reta R. Busher, Director of
1anagement and Budget, reported that the Department of Social
,ervices requested additional funding from the state in the
mount of $168,000 for a new Social Worker position,
rriscellaneous purchase services, auxilIary grants, and general
elief. She also reported that the Department of Social Services
1as been notified that a portion of this amount has already been
ìwarded. Ms. Busher recommended that the Board accept this
dditional funding, which would not constitute a fiscal impact on
he County.
Supervisor Garrett moved to accept this recommendation.
~he motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by a
µnanimous roll call vote.
6. Request for Amendment to the Employee Handbook
~oncerninq Anniversary Dates - Mr. D. Keith Cook, Director of
uman Resources, presented a request to the Board of Supervisors
equesting an amendment to the Roanoke County Employee Handbook
egarding anniversary dates. Under the current system, when an
mployee is reclassified, promoted, or receives another type of
'ompensation change, his/her anniversary date changes to the date
>f that event. Under the proposed system, the anniversary date
¡ill remain the same regardless of upgrading, reclassification,
58
August 12, 1986
------,".--.
~---~-_."-_._.,"'--_..__.-
--..-.~.---. ----,-_.--q ~
"___'·__'~'_.a_'..___~_.__,__._.__..______._._...,~___
or other compensatory changes. He also recommended an effective
date of September 1, 1986.
Supervisor Johnson recommended that anniversary dates
be completely eliminated. Mr. Cook responded that the
anniversary dates are necessary because they are used as a date
for merit review and that if there were no anniversary dates, an
employer would have to review all the employees in his/her
department at one time.
Supervisor Nickens concurred with Supervisor Johnson's
recommendation. He expressed a concern that costs are being
submitted in a "piece-meal" fashion. Mr. Cook responded that
total cost would be impossible to determine since future
promotions and vacancies are unknown.
Mr. Hodge reported that it is necessary to keep
anniversary dates since it is used as a date to review the
previous year's performance of an employee and to set goals for
the corning year. He also reported that the anniversary date
system in operation presently omits some employees from
additional pay when they are promoted.
Supervisor Nickens asked about the total costs to be
reflected against departmental budgets for implementing the
staff's recommendation.
Mr. Hodge reported that the costs were given to the
Supervisors in the budget and in the Pay and Classification Plan
He also reported that this proposed system has been taken to the
Employee Advisory Committee and Department Heads and it has been
accepted by everyone.
Supervisor Nickens moved to deny staff's recommendatio .
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Supervisor Johnson requested a work session on this
subject.
Mr. Hodge explained that if the anniversary, date syste
remains as it is presently, employees will be missing pay. For
59
August 12, 1986
Employee A and Employee B are in the same position at
rate of pay and are eventually promoted to the same
If Employee A has an anniversary date of August 30 and
promotion on July 30, his anniversary date changes to
30, and he will not be reviewed again until July 30 of the
year. If Employee B has an anniversary date of September 1,
is reviewed on that date and is given the next step increase,
then on October 30 he/she is promoted, he/she will receive
nother increase. This system will give Employee B more of an
'ncrease than Employee A when the two employees are supposed to
same rate of pay.
Supervisor Nickens moved to table action on this issue
ntil such time as the Board can have a more in-depth work
ession showing the pros and cons as to why the County should not
o to an anniversary date of the fiscal year. The motion was
by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous roll
vote.
The Board established a work session for the first
in September (September 9, 1986).
Chairman Brittle directed all Board members to express
heir concerns in writing to Mr. Cook prior to the scheduled work
7. North Lakes Connection to the City of Roanoke Water
- John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Public
acilities, reported that he has investigated the possibilities
nd costs of connecting the North Lakes well system to the City
He reported that the lines are available for
a pump station will be necessary. He also
that under the current allocations of the 1979 contract
City of Roanoke, the County is limited to a maximum
of water that can be purchased. The County is already in
of that maximum amount. In order to connect North Lakes
o these lines, the County would have to add more than 400,000
60
August 12, 1986
-----....--.-.--.-
___·_·______~___h~__ _.' ___,_,_'_.___~___
gallons of water per day more than is currently used. The cost
for the interconnection would be approximately $36,000 which
includes the cost of a pump station. He reported that staff
recommends that upon approval of the bond issue in November, if
permission is granted to proceed with the reservoir, that his
staff be allowed to request additional allocation from the City
so that the hard wells in North Lakes can be eliminated and make
that connection to the City to supply that area with softer and
better quality water.
Supervisor Johnson inquired if the line going up North
Lakes Drive is a 4 inch line and if it is adequate for fire
protection. Mr. Hubbard reported that that line is a 4 inch linE
and that it is not sufficient for fire protection from one
direction. However, there are several interconnecting loops and
a grid system which provides sufficient water flow for fire
protection.
Supervisor Johnson also inquired about the location of
the pump storage facility, if approved. Mr. Hubbard responded
that hopefully a site would be donated and that he does not see
that as a major cost and it could be covered in the contingency
account.
Supervisor Johnson also inquired if there were any
other areas i n the County that are as close to the City
connection as North Lakes that also have hard water. Mr. Hubbar(
reported that there is a system in Deer Run, off Barrens Road.
The County is currently softening the water but since the
drought, the well has been lost. with the loss of that well, th4
County is pumping water from an existing connection in the City
at Plantation Road,known as the Friendship Lane Pump Station.
This well could be eliminated totally. It is very costly to
soften the water and it would be much cheaper to purchase the
water from the City of Roanoke.
61
August 12, 1986
Supervisor Johnson inquired if there were other uses
or this water in the well instead of drinking water. Mr.
ubbard reported that it could be used to fill up tankers,
~onstruction water, and swimming pools.
Supervisor McGraw inquired if there is a drought, and
he City of Roanoke reduced the amount of water they were willing
o supply, if we could get this well back in operation by leaving
~ome type of interconnect there. Mr. Hubbard reported that the
~ell will remain connected and that the County would continue to
ave electrical power to that well so that it could be started
anually and pump water into our system.
Supervisor Johnson moved that the Board consider
unding this particular project as resources are available. The
lotion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a
nanimous roll call vote.
8. Renovation of Southview School for Data processinq
nd Emerqency Communications Facilitv - Mr. John Chambliss,
ssistant County Administrator of Management Services, reported
hat the School Administration has relinquished a certain portion
þf the old Southview School on Peters Creek Road to be used as
he County's Emergency Communications Center and Data Processing
acility. He reported that the staff has received proposals for
he installation of the specialized equipment necessary for the
þata Processing Center. After reviewing the proposals received,
ßtaff recommends that the proposal of S. Lewis Lionberger Co. in
he amount of $545,565 be authorized. This money has been
ncluded in the 1985 bond referendum.
Supervisor Johnson moved to approve staff's
ecommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw.
Supervisor Nickens inquired if there were other bids
eceived. Mr. Chambliss responded that a total of four proposals
ere received. Of the total amount of work, approximately 75
ercent of the work and the cost is involved in the specialty
1)2
August 12, 1986
-...------..--
-.. ._,..._---~--- ...~..~.-..-.--- -- .~-_.".
~--~~-_._._._.....~
" ,·_·"__..··__.·H'·_~__.__,_,._.___._.__~_.___
equipment for the installation of a communications and data
processing facility. The proposals were primarily received from
specialty companies that deal with the heat, ventilating, and
power equipment. The group that is working with Mr. Lionberger
is Virginia Data Products who specializes in the power
conditioning of equipment and also the backup of air conditionin
equipment as well.
Supervisor Nickens also inquired about the number of
bids received from general contractors. Mr. Chambliss responded
that two bids were received from general contractors and two fro
specialty companies.
Supervisor Johnson inquired about the amount of square
footage that will be utilized by next year. Mr. Chambliss
reported that approximately 6,000 to 7,000 square feet will be
used by next year.
Supervisor Nickens inquired about the procurement
process. Mr. Chambliss responded that the Director of
Procurement Services followed all of the proposal processes.
Supervisor McGraw also expressed a concern over the
lack of bid response.
Chairman Brittle inquired if the procedure followed to
obtain the bids on this project were in accordance with the Stat
Code and the County Code. Mr. Chambliss responded that the Code
were followed.
Supervisor McGraw requested that the Board consider
further review of the bidding process.
Supervisor Nickens inquired if there was a problem to
hold this matter over to the August 26, 1986, Board of
Supervisors meeting.
Chairman Brittle reminded Dr. Nickens that there is
currently a motion on the floor to approve the staff
recommendation.
63
August 12, 1986
Supervisor Nickens offered a substitute motion to defer
this matter until the next meeting in August and that in the
interim the Board members may be briefed on the bid procedure
that was followed which resulted in a company being elected by a
specialty company to serve as the general contractor for the
total project. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw.
Supervisor McGraw asked about the problem in delaying
this matter for two weeks. Mr. Hodge responded that if delayed,
the deadlines for E911 will not be met, Fire and Rescue will have
to sign another annual lease to rent their office space if the
deadline is not met, shipment of equipment has already been
scheduled, and computer equipment must be installed in order to
proceed with the annual assessment.
Supervisor Nickens called for questions on the
substitute motion. The motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: None
NAYS: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Garrett, and Brittle
Supervisor McGraw called for questions on the original
~otion to approve staff's recommendation. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Garrett, and Brittle
NAYS: None
Supervisor McGraw requested a work session to review
the bidding procedures. Chairman Brittle requested that staff
inform the Board on the number of bids distributed and received.
9. Establishment of a Roanoke County Commission to
Mark the Constitution's Bicentennial - Supervisor Nickens moved
to concur with staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded
by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous roll call vote.
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
64
August 12, 1986
_.~---,--_._,-----_...__._, ~..'--"-"'-'-'-'-'-".'-'~---"---'-'
.'. '. ..-"",. ~,-".._~. ._.~ --- --~~.
1. Public Hearinq to Amend the Ordinance Establishina
New Connection Fees for Water Services (Deferred from July 22,
1986) - Clifford Craig, Director of utilities, reported that the
increase in connection fees has been calculated using cost to
provide services necessary for domestic use and fire protection
which totals $1,036. When this is reduced by the amount of
benefit it would be to existing customers and general benefit to
residents of the County, it is an increase of $636 over the
current connection fees. The current connection fee has not beer
amended for over ten years. This has been discussed in two work
sessions with the Roanoke Valley Horne Builders Association. They
basically concur that fees must increase but question whether thE
full increase should corne at one time and at what period of time
it should become effective, and at what stage in a plan review iI
the building permit process should it become effective. Staff
recommended that the connection fees should be established at thE
full cost to provide services but that if some phase method is
desired by the Board, they recommend that the phasing in of the
complete fee be done in a couple of steps. The current
recommendation is that the fees go to $750 effective August 13,
1986, and in a year from now on August 12, 1987, the fees go up
to $1,036. Staff also recommends that fees become effective at
the time of the issuance of the building permit. He reported
that credits will be given to the developer for offsite
facilities installed since County facilities were not there.
There is also a provision to allow a property owner to sign an
agreement with the County to pay the connection fee in 36 equal
payments over a three year period (this requires an increase of
20 percent in the fee). The only other change from the current
connection fee, is that there is a separate fee for fire service
Supervisor Johnson inquired if the citizens of Roanoke
County have been defraying the expenses of all these connections
Mr. Craig reported that the facilities that have been installed
65
August 12, 1986
re financed from the utility Fund which is made up of user fees.
ut of the current connection fee of $400, the County only
retains approximately $166 after reimbursement. For a period of
three to four years the general utility fund has been subsidizing
r supporting the facilities which would be required to allow
future connections.
Mr. Steve Strauss, substitute Chairman for the
ommittee that worked with the County on the water connection fee
increase from the Roanoke Valley Homebuilders. He commended the
for having the foresight to work in the direction of
adequate water for the growth of the County. He expressed
concern about the time the system would be implemented along
ith the established fee structure and some of the language in
he ordinance. He requested that the first change in fees of
go into effect for all plats that are recorded as of this
and that any plats that have been recorded before this date,
e charged the old fee of $400, and at the end of a one year
eriod, any lots that are recorded as of this date that have not
built on, charge the $1,036 fee. All plats recorded after
date, the $750 fee will be charged and one year from now,
fee will be charged. Mr. Strauss also requested that
ollowing changes in the language of the ordinance: In paragraph
(b) concerning off-site facility fees, change "may" be subject
"will" be subject; provisions for an annual audit of the cost
supply water in the future to see if the increase should be
to the full $1,036 should also be included. Mr.
ubbard reported that this information is always open to the
ublic and does not need to be stated in the ordinance. Mr.
trauss also felt that a written policy should be established to
etermine where, when, and what the connection fee funds are
spent on to expand the water supply system and that it
ould be used for expansion of the system instead of improvements
o the existing system. Chairman Brittle determined that this
66
August 12, 1986
-~--_·_~'~·-~-·-----··__··__~·_·__·_.__~"_~'·'·~_m__'___.....__" _____..__..".,"" ~._"
"'---'-~-'~"., <.,-----~._--_._------
--,.-..,--.--------."~.-"..,,.. "" ········'············'_h.._. _'~_,_..__..._.._W_.,_,._..~"..'_.___T_
matter is an administrative function. Also, Mr. strauss
presented the following change, under paragraph l(c) concerning
off-site extension, a period should be placed after "300 feet"
and the remainder of the sentence be struck and then pick up wit
the next sentence concerning the oversized lines instead of
lumping the two together. Staff recommended that instead of the
period the "and" be changed to "and/or".
Supervisor Nickens felt that the $1,036 fee should be
implemented from the beginning instead of phasing in the fees.
IN RE:
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES PURSUANT TO ROANOKE COUNTY
CHARTER, SECTION 18.4
Chairman Brittle read the first reading concerning the
amendment of Chapter 22.
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the 1985 Roanoke
County Code "Water" establishing certain procedures and
increasing connection fees and charges for water service.
Supervisor Brittle noted that the changes in the
ordinance were made during the public hearing.
Supervisor Brittle moved that the Board dispense with
the second reading of this ordinance. The motion was seconded b
Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Garrett, and Brittle
NAYS: Supervisor Nickens
Supervisor Brittle moved to adopt the ordinance
recommended by staff as amended with the noted semantical change
and under item 6 in the ordinance, there is an amendment which
will read "Effective 13 August, 1986" with the new connection
fees in effective. There will also be an amendment to read
"Effective July 1, 1987" with the new connection fees effective
that date. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw.
67
August 12, 1986
ORDINANCE 8-12-86-169 AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE 1985 ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE, "WATER" ES'mBLISHING CER'mIN PROCEDURES AND
INCREASING CCJNNEX.:TION FEES AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roonoke County, Virginia,
~s follows:
1. That Chapter 22 of the 1985 Rœ.noke County Code, "Vàter" (Chapter
20.1 of the 1971 Rœ.noke County Code) is hereby amended as follows:
(1) Generally. The total Wlter connection fee shall consist of costs and
considerations associated with (a) a ba.sic connection fee; (b) off-site
facilities fee; (c) off-site and oversized main credit policy.
(a) Basic connection fees. The l:asic connection fee for all
ß.ppliœ.nts is to cover the cost of the service tap, the service line, meter
setter, and the Wlter meter. The l:asic connection fee shall be assessed all
connectors and the p:¡.yrnent shall accompany the appliœ.tion for connection to
the Wl ter system as set forth in schedule of connection fees below. Where a
developer is required to install Wlter facilities as part of a subdivision,
the developer shall install the Wl ter service and place the meter setter for
ffich connection. In such œ.ses, the l:asic connection fee will be limited to
the actual cost of the Wl ter meter.
(b) Off-site facilities fee. The off-site facilities fee for all
appliœ.nts is to cover the cost of present and future œ.pi tal facilities
constructed. Capital facilities include, but are not limited to, water
source, raw Wlter storage, trffitment facilities, transmission lines, pump
stations and major finished Wlter 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 p:¡.yrnent shall accompany the appliœ.tion for connection to an existing
or proposed establishment of a Wlter system as set forth in schedule of
connection fees below.
(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 feet and/or line size in excess of minimum size required by
the County. For any off-site extensions, on a public right-of-WlY or ffisement
adjacent to owners' (appliœ.nt) property, credit will be allowed against the
off-site facilities fee only for line size in excess of the minimum diameter
required by the County. No credit will be allowed where a main size grffiter
than minimum size in diameter is required to adequately serve the owner
(appliœ.nt). Credits will be limited to a maximum of one-half the amount
assessed for the off-site facilities fee. Credi ts will be canputed l:ased on
recent bids taken for construction of similar Wlter facilities. Installation
of a well and/or storage facilities in excess of 60,000 gallons to provide a
æter source, and pumpage required to supply the storage facility where County
facilities are not available, are considered off-site facilities for purposes
of this p:¡.ragraph.
(d) The Board of Supervisors may by separate agreement with a
developer enter into a reimbursement agreement for off-site facilities which
my 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 p:¡.id as follows: 25 % at time of
plan approval, 75% at time of building permit.
(2) Same -Installation Payments. Any landowner may, at his option, request
in writing on forms provided by the County, to be allowed to make p:¡.yrnent on
the off-site facilities fee portion of the connection fee, in thirty-six
roonthl y installments, provided that:
68
August 12, 1986
-------.--.-- ~~
'___M'~O___ _."_.,~_
~~._.~"" -, "+'----"-.- _.-,--
(a) '!he amount of such fee shall be increased by twenty percent.
(b) The landowner shall execute a contract with the County for
aforesaid installment p:¡.yrnent a a note evidencing such obligation in a form
approved by the County Attorney setting forth the amount and number of
p:¡.yrnents to be made together with other such terms and conditions deemed
necessary and appropriate by the p:¡.rties thereto. Such contract shall be
recorded in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of the County.
(c) The County shall have the right to collect such p:¡.yrnents 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 p:¡.id in full prior to the transfer of title to
any land for which water service was provided, and if the same are not p:¡.id ir
full by the date of transfer, the County shall have the right to discontinue
service and remove all of its facilities and require p:¡.yrnent of the full
amount of the connection fees prevailing at that time, as if service had neve]
been installed.
(3) Authori ty of Beard of Supervisors to Waive Connection Fees.
(a) '!he Beard of Supervisors may by resolution waive a portion of the
connection fees for water facilities installed under Federal or State funded
\\a.ter projects. '!he portion of the fee that is \\a.ived shall be indiœ.ted as
County financial p:¡.rticip:¡.tion in the \\a.ter project.
(b) The Beard of Supervisors may, by resolution, authorize the
off-site facilities fee to be p:¡.id from the General Fund for those commercial
or industrial owners (appliœ.nts) which the Beard of Supervisors determines
would be in the best interest of the County's economic developnent and which
would generate signifiœ.nt employment.
( 4) Minimum Connection Fee. The minimum connection fee for any connection
will be that established for at 5/8-inch meter.
(5) Fire Service. All sep:¡.rate fire services shall be properly metered
using a detectorcheck. The detectorcheck and vault will be furnished and
installed by the County. Charges for fire service connections will be equal
to the 1:a.sic connection portion of the connection fee for the requested size
fire service line. The off-site facilities fee shall be charged for either
the fire service or norrral \\a.ter service, whichever is larger.
( 6) Schedule of Connection Fees
Basic Off-Site Off-Site
Connections Facilities 'Ibtal Facilities 'Ibtal
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Type Service 8/13/86 8/13/86 8/13/86 7/1/87 7/1/87
Single Family
(per dwelling unit) $500 $750 $1,250 $1,036 $1,536
Multi-Family
(per dwelling unit) 500 750 1,250 1,036 1,536
Motel and Hotel
(per bed) 250 375 625 516 766
Hospital (per bed) 500 750 1,250 1,036 1,536
Other residential
institutions (including
nursing hames)(per bed) 300 450 750 620 920
69
August 12, 1986
All other businesses, industrial and public buildings will be based on
meter size as follows. The 5/8-inch meter is equivalent to service to one
equivalent dwelling unit (EDD). Service and meters larger than 5/8-inch are
sized as their volume ratio to the 5/8-inch meter or EDU:
Basic Off-Site Off-Site
Connections Facilities 'Ibtal Facilities 'Ibtal
Meter Size Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
(Inches) EDU 8/13/86 8/13/86 8/13/86 7/1/87 7/1/87
5/8-inch 1.00 $ 500 $ 750 $ 1,250 $ 1,036 $ 1,536
3/4-inch 1.44 525 1,080 1,605 1,492 2,017
I-inch 2.56 700 1,920 2,620 2,652 3,352
1 1/2-inch 5.76 1,800 4,320 6,120 5,967 7,767
2-inch 10.24 2,600 7,680 10,280 10,609 13,209
3-inch 23.04 3,800 17,280 21,080 23,870 27,670
4-inch 40.96 4,500 37,020 41,520 42,435 46,935
6-inch 92.16 7,600 69,120 76,720 95,478 103,078
8-inch 163.84 10,500 122,880 133,380 169,738 180,238
10-inch 256.00 12,500 192,000 204,500 265,216 277,716
12-inch 368.64 15,000 276,480 291,480 381,911 396,911
(7) Miscellaneous Charges. The following charges for service to customers
other than sale of water shall be as follows:
(1) Re-check reading of meter $10
(No charge if original reading was in error)
(2) Investigation/verification of leakage in customer's line $20
( 3) Meter accuracy test $25
(No charge if meter fails accuracy test)
(4) Round trip for meter turn-off, turn-on for non-piyrnent $25
(5) Re-set meter if pulled due to non-piyrnent $25
(6) Special request to discontinue or turn-on service for
other than non-piyrnent $10
(7) Temporary construction meter
($50 charge plus $50 deposit) $100
2. This ordinance shall be effective inmediately upon adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Brittle to adopt the recannended ordinance with the
changes as discussed, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following
recorded vote:
~YES : Supervisors McGraw, Johnson, Garrett, and Brittle
NAYS: Supervisor Nickens
Chairman Brittle announced that due to a prior
~ommittment he must leave. He turned the gavel over to
vice-Chairman, Bob Johnson.
The Deputy Clerk read the following first readings into
he record:
70
August 12, 1986
-< . -.----,., ---"~"--"---",-...
~'m.·"·_,. ..,V~__ __
--~-,---~~._-,..~.~
_._..._,·__._'n___.··_~._..~___~._____~__
2. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing
the sale of surplus real estate, 0.98 acre well lot adjacent to
the Lynn Haven Baptist Church in Vinton, Virginia.
Supervisor McGraw moved to delay this matter until the
next meeting. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
3. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing
the same of surplus real estate, a well located near Parkwood
Drive.
There was no one present to speak on this matter.
4. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code to
provide for the annual assessment of real estate for local
taxa tion.
There was no one present to speak on this matter.
5. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing
the sale of 1.72 acres in Southwest Industrial Park.
There was no one present to speak on this matter.
6. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing
sale of 3.00 acres in Southwest Industrial Park.
There was no one present to speak on this matter.
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Nickens - Supervisor Nickens inquired about
the status of the Human Services Committee. Supervisor Johnson
responded that this committee has met several times. Supervisor
Nickens also inquired about the status of the seatbelt policy.
Mr. Hodge responded that Mr. Cook is currently working on that
policy.
Supervisor McGraw - Supervisor McGraw reported that th
Blue Ridge Region has been established. The Steering Committee
is meeting currently and will have a final proposal to the Board
in the future.
71
August 12, 1986
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
~he motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw.
RESOLUTION NO. 8-12-86-175 APPROVING
AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
:ounty, virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
30ard of Supervisors for August 12, 1986, designated as Item L -
:onsent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
~hrough 6, inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes of Meeting - July 22, 1986.
2. Confirmation of Appointment to the Building Code
Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
3. Request for acceptance of Landview Drive into the
VDH&T Secondary System.
4. Request for acceptance of Snowgoose Circle into the
VDH&T Secondary System.
5. Request for acceptance of Candlelight Circle into
the VDH&T Secondary System.
6. Request for acceptance of Lantern Street and Shadow
Lane into the VDH&T Secondary System.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
~nd directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
'terns the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
his resolution.
)n motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw
nd upon the following recorded vote:
\YES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Garrett, and Johnson
~AYS: None
iBSENT: Supervisor Brittle
72
August 12, 1986
--___.___v____.<~.___.____._"_,..___._..___.."_.
- --".-'--_.~_._-_., --~--."_. .-,
..~" ._"."J_..._....
. .<' ~- .- .<~." - -~._~-
~.-~ ---~. -.-
. __·__H~._.~.. ,_
RESOLUTION 8-12-86-175.B REQUESTING
ACCEPTANCE OF LANDVIEW DRIVE INTO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter carne this day to be heard upon thE
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Landview Drive
to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under §33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia.
2. That it appears to the Board that a drainage
easement and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have
heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as
Homewood, Section 2, Subdivision, which map was recorded in Plat
Book 9, Page 171, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on June 25, 1980, and that by
reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of
Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the
abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby
guarantees said right-of-way and right for drainage.
3. That said road known as Landview Drive and shown 01
a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same
is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the
S ta te Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from
and after notification of official acceptance of said street or
highway by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw,
and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Garrett, and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Brittle
RESOLUTION 8-12-86-175.C REQUESTING
ACCEPTANCE OF SNOWGOOSE CIRCLE INTO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
73
August 12, 1986
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
þounty, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter carne this day to be heard upon the
)roceedings herein, and upon the application for Snowgoose Circle
o be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
fighways under §33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia.
2. That it appears to the Board that a drainage
~asement and fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have
1eretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as
~orthgate Subdivision, which map was recorded in plat Book 9,
'age 331, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
~oanoke County, Virginia, on July 23, 1985, and that by reason of
he recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers,
or consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting
>roperty owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
ight-of-way and right for drainage.
3. That said road known as Snowgoose Circle and shown
)n a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the
ame is hereby established as a public road to become a part of
he State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
rom and after notification of official acceptance of said
treet or highway by the Virginia Department of Highways and
t1ransporta tion .
~n motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw,
nd upon the following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Garrett, and Johnson
AYS: None
BSENT: Supervisor Brittle
RESOLUTION 8-12-86-175.D REQUESTING
ACCEPTANCE OF CANDLELIGHT CIRCLE INTO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
ounty, Virginia, as follows:
74
August 12, 1986
---~----'-"------'---~~--'---_...._,~-"----_.._-"~-"-,^',...~_...__..-..._...--.-.. .-"~..._-..._--"~..------~._'~-~
-----...-.....--.-,.-- ._~"-..~,-,-,-^._~,-.,-_._._-_._,--_._."-..^.._-,--,---.-.,,-.-,
1. That this matter carne this day to be heard upon th
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Candlelight
Circle to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of
state Highways under §33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia.
2. That it appears to the Board that a drainage
easement and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have
heretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as
Beacon Ridge, Section 1, Subdivision which map was recorded in
Plat Book 9, Page 267, of record in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on November 14, 1983,
and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from
a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from
the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby
guarantees said right-of-way and right for drainage.
3. That said road known as Candlelight Circle and
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part
of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, onl
from and after notification of official acceptance of said
street or highway by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw,
and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Garrett, and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Brittle
RESOLUTION 8-12-86-175.E REQUESTING
ACCEPTANCE OF LANTERN STREET AND SHADOW
LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter carne this day to be heard upon th
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Lantern Street
75
August 12, 1986
nd Shadow Lane to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary
~ystem of State Highways under §33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage ease-
rrents and fifty (50) foot rights-of-way for said roads have
1eretofore been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as
orthgate Subdivision, which map was recorded in Plat Book 9,
)age 323, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
'ourt of Roanoke County, Virginia, on May 14, 1985, and that by
eason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of
iewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the
butting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guaran-
ees said rights-of-way and right for drainage.
3. That said roads known as Lantern Street and Shadow
~ne and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this
esolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public
oads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways
n Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official
cceptance of said streets or highways by the Virginia Department
f Highways and Transportation.
n motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw,
nd upon the following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Garrett, and Johnson
AYS: None
BSENT: Supervisor Brittle
N RE:
REPORTS
The following reports were received by the Board of
upervisors:
1. Monthly Project Status Report.
2. Youth Haven II Project Status Report
3. Recommendations from the Governor's Commission on
rransportation into the 21st Century.
August 12, 1986
76
U' . ~.~.<._.___".._~ '""'_~___ __
-~--~._,~--_._-_._-,,_.. "._._..._-_._--_.__._-"-~.,-~_.-._.".~-_. .._-~~-_.~"'~._._,-,....,..__.._--,----,,--~--_._.
~-"~'.' ._-_._."~
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Supervisor Nickens moved to adjourn to Youth Haven II
to tour facilities at that location. The motion was seconded by
Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
þ*-- \j.. ~"*\ '-
Cha i rma n