HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 07-08-91 Fitzpatrick
(30617)
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
July 8, 1991
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order -- Roll Call. All Present.
The invocation was delivered by Nayor Noel C. Taylor.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor.
Mr. Bowers presented a plaque, to the City of Roanoke in
appreciation for supportive efforts and services to the 1991
Commonwealth Games of Virginia.
BID OPENINGS
Bids for the management and operation of the Tower
Parking Garage and the Downtown East Parking Garage.
Five bids were referred to a coami~ee composed of
Messrs. White aa Chairman, Clark and Kiser for tabula-
tion, repots and recommendation ~o Conncil.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing on the request of the Roanoke Valley
SPCA, Inc., to amend Chapter 36, Zoning, Section
36.1-25, Definitions, and Section 36.1-271, Special
Exception Uses, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
1979, as amended, with regard to creation of a term
pertaining to animal shelters. Mr. Thomas Wright,
Executive Director, Roanoke Valley SPCA, Inc.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30617 on first reading. (7-0)
(1)
Public hearing on the request of the Trustees of First
Baptist Church that a portion of Marshall Avenue,
S. W., extending westerly approximately 750 feet from
its intersection with Franklin Road to its intersection
with an extension of the westerly line of Fourth
Street, S. W., be permanently vacated, discontinued
· and closed. Mr. Richard E. Viar, Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30618 on first reading. (6-0)
Mr. Harvey abstained from voting.
Public hearing to receive public comments on a proposed
Solid Waste Transfer Station, and on the proposed Solid
Waste Management Plan for the City of Roanoke, pursuant
to requirements of House Bill 1743, enacted by the 1989
Session of the Virginia General Assembly. Mr. John R.
Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission.
Adopted Resolution No. 30619-70891. (7-0)
C-1
C-2
C-3
CONSENT AGENDA
(APPROVED 7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN TEE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to
vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)
(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss personnel mat-
ters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
A list of items pending from July 10, 1978, through June
24, 1991.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Mrs. Marilyn C. Curtis, Ms. M. Wendy
O'Neil, and Mr. James M. Turner, Jr., as members of the Roanoke
City School Board for terms of three years each, commencing
July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1994.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
-2-
C-4 Qualification of Ms. Elizabeth K. Bernard as a member of
the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 1993.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A request of 'the Acting City Manager for an Executive
Session,to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provi-
sion of legal advice by counsel being the terms and conditions
of proposed agreements for development of a regional landfill
facility, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (7), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended. Council concurred in the request. ;'
REGULAR AGENDA
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: None.
Petitions and Communications:
A communication from Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney,
representing St. Mark's Lutheran Church, transmitting a
petition appealing a decision rendered by the
Architectural Review Board in connection with denial of
his client's request to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish certain buildings located
at 1001 Third Street, S. W.
Council adopted the following motion (6-1, Mr. Bowers
voting no):
1. Council finds:
(a)
that loss of the structure would not be
adverse to the district or the public interest
by vlrture of its uniqueness or its signifi-
cance to the district;
(b)
thec demolition would not have an adverse
effect on the character and surrounding
environment of the district; and
(c)
that the proposed new use of the petitioner
satisfies the intent and standards of the
District.
2. The decision of the Architectural Review Board is
reversed and a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be
granted.
3. The petitioner, interposing no objection, the City
Administration is directed to withhold issuing the
Certificate of Appropriateness for 90 days from July 8,
1991.
2. A report of the Architectural Review Board with regard
to the above matter. Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman.
-3-
b. A communication from the Roanoke City
mending appropriation of funds to certain
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30620-70891.
Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
School Board recom-
school accounts.
(7-0)
Briefings: None.
Items Recommended
for Action:
A report recommending award of an engineering services
reimbursement with cost ceiling contract to Mattern &
Craig, Inc., in the amount of $78,000.00, to provide
annual bridge inspection services for 1991.
Adopted Resolution No. 30621-70891. (7-0)
A report recommending that Council formally determine
that a portion of the land in S~rausa Park requi~ed for
construction and highway right-of-way is no longer
necessary for public park purposes·
Adopted Ordinance No. 30622 on first readins.
City Attorney:
(7-0)
A report recommending adoption of a Resolution
authorizing the filing of a Petition for Writ of
Election with the Circuit Court with respect to the
vacancy in the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
created by the retirement of The Ronorable Patsy
Testerman.
Adopted Resolution Ho. 30623-70891. (7-0)
A report transmitting a Resolution expressing the
City's opposition to establishment by the federal
government of a maximum contaminant level for lead at
the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke·
&~opCet ReaoluC£oa Ho. 306Z~-70891. (7-0)
A report transmitting an Ordinance amending and
restating certain provisions to an Ordinance
authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $2,000,000
General Obligation School Bonds, Series of 1991, of the
City of Roanoke, for sale to the Virginia Public School
Authority.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30625-70891. (7-0)
-4-
10.
6. Reports of Committees:
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
execution of a lease agreement with Mr. Paul Umbarger,
Eagle Valley Ranch, for lease of the approximately 140 acre
"Douthat Farm", being a portion of the Roanoke Centre for
Indnstry and Technology, for a term of five years.
Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30626 on first reading. (7-0)
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
execution of a new lease agreement with the State
Department of Health for the Health Center building located
at Campbell Avenue and Eighth Street, S. W. , for a term of
five years. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30627 on first reading. (7-0)
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
execution of a lease agreement with Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Virgiuln permitting Blue Cross and Blue Shield
to erect a new sign on the northwest corner of Key Plaza.
Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30628 on first reading.
Unfinished Business: None.
(7-0)
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
Ordinance No. 30614, on second reading, establishing a rate
schedule for certain water rates and related charges for
services provided by this City effective August 1, 1991,
July 1, 1992, and July l, 1993.
Adopted Ordinance No. 30614-70891. (7-0)
9. Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City
Council.
b. Vacancies on various authorities, hoards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
Certification of Executive Session. (7-0)
Reappointed those persons listed in a communication from the
City Clerk under date of July 3, 1991.
Reappointed Kit B. Kiaer to the Roanoke Valley Regional Solid
Waste Management Board.
-5-
11:30COuncil p.m. unanimously agreed to extend the
Certification of EXecutive SeSsion. (?-0)
meeting
time
until
-6-
Office of the City Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #255-298
Mr. William White, Sr., Chairman )
Mr. Kit B. Kiser )
Mr. ~illiam F. Clark )
Committee
Gentlemen:
I am attaching a bid tabulation for management and operation of
the Tower Parking Garage and the Downtown East Parking Garage,
which bids were opened and read before the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~onday, July 8, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the bids were
referred to you for tabulation, report and recommendation to
Council.
Sincerely, ~0~
~ary F. Parker, C~4C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. ~ilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~y C~erk
July 11, 1991
File #144
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30619-70891 adopting the
Solid Waste Management Plan for the City of Roanoke, and
authorizing you to take such actions as are required to meet
State submission and approval requirements, and implement said
Plan. Resolution No. 30619-70891 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8,
1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
pc:
Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning
Administrator
Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman, City Planning Commission
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th Day of July, lggl.
No. 30619-70891.
A RESOLUTION regarding the adoption of
Management Plan for the City of Roanoke.
the Solid Waste
WHEREAS, the Virginia Waste ~anagement Board (hereinafter the
"State") has been authorized by the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, to promulgate and enforce such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out its duties and powers and the intent of the
Virginia Waste Management Act and related federal acts;
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State to require each city,
county, and town to develop a comprehensive and integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan ("Plan") that, at a minimum, considers all
components of the following hierarchy: (1) Source Reduction,
(2) Reuse, (3) Recycling, (4) Resource Recovery (Waste-to-Energy),
(5) Incineration, (6) Landfilling, aud (7) Plan Implementation;
WHEREAS, the State has mandated that all localities meet recy-
cling goals of ten percent (10%) by December 31, 199I, fifteen per-
cent (15%) by December 31, 1993, and twenty-five percent (25%) by
December 31, 1995;
WHEEEAS, the State has set penalties for localities not comply-
ing with the Plan and recycling regulations;
WHEREAS, the Plan shall be approved or disapproved by the State
by July 1, 1992;
WHEREAS, any Plan disapproved must be revised as the State
requires no later than-October 1, 1992;
WHEREAS, the responsibility for preparing a Solid Waste
Nanagement Plan was delegated to the City Planning Commission's
Long-Range Planning Subcommittee in December of 1990;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has developed and adopted a
Plan meeting the objectives and performance criteria outlined by
the State in its "Regulations for the Development of Solid Waste
Nanagement Plans" (Nay 15, 1990, Virginia Department of Waste
Nanagement); and
WHEREAS, public participation has been integrated into the
Plan's development, and a public hearing has been held to receive
comments on the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that this Council does hereby adopt the Solid Waste
Nanagement Plan for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and authorizes
the City Nanager to take such actions as are required to meet the
State submission and approval requirements, and implement the
Plan.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY CLE (K' OFF)CE
'gl JUN 11 Ag:34
Roanoke City Planning Commission
July 8, 1991
'['he Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, VA.
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Recommendation - Solid Waste Transfer Station
Site
I. Background:
Existing Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill is
scheduled to close in late 1993.
New landfill being sited in the Bradshaw Road area of
Roanoke County is expected to be operational by
December, 1993.
As part of a Valley-wide approach to solid waste
management, Roanoke City Council has agreed to
consider the siting of one (1) non-hazardous solid
waste transfer facility within the City.
In December, 1990, the City administration requested
the Planning Commission's assistance with providing
citizen input into the development of siting criteria
for any future solid waste transfer station in the
City.
Citizens Advisory Committee consisting of
representatives from the following neighborhood
organizations was appointed by the subcommittee's
chairman to provide additional citizen input: Cherry
Hill Park Watch Group, Greater Deyerle Neighborhood
Association, Southeast Action Forum, Wildwood Civic
League, and Williamson Road Action Forum.
Long-Range Planning Subcommittee/Citizens Advisory
Committee have met seven (7) times since December
1990.
Room 355 Municipal Building 245 Church Avenue. S'~ Roonoke, Virginio 24011 (703) 981-2344
Committee members have developed siting criteria
(attached) which served as guidelines in identifying
the following three (3) potential sites for the
proposed solid waste transfer station (maps
attached).
Hollins Road South Site - Official Tax Nos.
3030402 and 3030405.
Hollins Road North Site - Official Tax Nos.
3041207, 3040901, 3040917, 3040918, 3040412,
3040413, 3040407, 3040408, 3042001 and 3110501.
Baker Avenue Site - Official Tax Nos. 2510306,
2510301, 2510303, 2510111, 2510110, 2510109,
2510104, 2510105, 2510106, 2510107, 2510108,
2510112, 2510113, 2510114, 2510115, 2510116,
2510117, 2510102, 2510129, 2510103, 2510131,
2510132.
Ail three sites are currently zoned HM, Heavy
Manufacturing District or a combination of HM and LM,
Light Manufacturing District. City's Zoning
Administrator has determined that a solid waste
transfer station is a permitted use in the HM and LM
zones.
Deanwood East Redevelopment Plan would have to be
amended to permit the use of the Hollins Road North
site for a proposed solid waste transfer station.
Legal Council to the Housing Authority has rendered
an opinion that existing redevelopment plan could not
be amended without the consent of previous
purchasers or condemnation of previous purchaser's
property interest (see attached letter for Daniel F.
Layman to H. Wesley White, Jr., dated 4, 1991).
Committee have also developed criteria (attached) to
serve as guidelines in design and operation of the
proposed solid waste transfer station. The proposed
criteria are intended to address such issues as
access/ internal circulation, landscaping/ buffering,
outdoor storage, architectural compatibility, result
of dust, noise, and pest, site security, off-site
access roads, and property value protection.
Lon~-Ran~e Plannin~ Subcommittee, at its April 9,
1991, meeting recommended that the Planning
Commission schedule a public hearing to receive
additional public input on the three sites under
consideration as possible sites for the proposed
solid waste transfer station· Planning Commission
scheduled recommended public hearing on May 22, 1991.
Ultimate action required is a resolution by Roanoke
City Council to approve the siting of a solid waste
transfer station at a particular site or sites, which
resolution is a requirement of the Part A application
which must be submitted to the Virginia Department of
Waste Management in order to get site approval.
Four (4) informational meetings have been conducted
by the Planning staff with property owners (April
26), adjacent property owners (May 17) and
surrounding neighborhoods (May 2 and 9). In
addition, staff has met informally with residents in
their homes on a number of occasions.
Informational meetings focused on four objectives:
(1) explaining the project; (2) describing the
process and criteria which were used in identifying
the three sites currently under consideration; (3)
describing the advantages/disadvantages of each site
(see enclosed matrix comparing sites); and (4)
responding to citizens concerns and suggestions.
Staff also summarized the anticipated steps and
timetable for selecting the final site for the
proposed facility.
Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 22
at 7:00 p.m. in the auditorium of William Flemming
High School (minutes attached). Approximately 70
citizens attended the hearing. Mr. John Marlles,
Chief, Office of Community Planning presented a brief
slide presentation summarizing the history of the
project and the advantages and disadvantages of each
site. Seventeen citizens addressed the Commission
(see attached minutes). Major concern expressed by
citizens at the hearing included: (1) traffic impact
of the proposed facility on Hollins Road and Route
460 if the Hollins Road North site were selected; (2)
safety of school children in the vicinity of the
proposed transfer station sites; (3) potential odor,
noise and pest problems; (4) liquid residue from
collection vehicles; (5) chemicals; (6) impact on
economic development in the Deanwood Redevelopment
Area; (7) aesthetics; and (8) impact on residential
property values. Correspondence (attached) from the
Chesapeake Packaging Company dated May 20, 1991 and
from GLS Leasco Co. dated May 22, 1991 opposing the
selection of the Hollins Road North site was read
into the record by Mrs. Franklin.
The following petitions were submitted to the
Planning Commission for consideration: Six (6)
petitions with a combined total of 301 signatures
opposing a "landfill" on Hollins Road; four (4)
petitions with a combined total of 234 signatures
II.
opposing a "landfill" on all three proposed sites;
One (1) petition with 31 signatures opposing the
building of a "solid waste plant" on all three
proposed sites; one (1) petition with 18 signatures
opposing a "trash train loading site" on Hollins Road
north of U.S. 460; and one (1) petition with 47
signatures opposing the "trash sites of the Roanoke
Valley."
Discussion of issues raised at the May 22 Planning
Commission public hearing are as follows:
Traffic impact on Hollins Road/Route 460/ Shenandoah
Avenue.
Proposed solid waste transfer station in projected to
generate a maximum of 300 vehicle trips per day which
is consistent with the amount of traffic which would
be generated by a light industrial use of the site
and is considerably less than the traffic which would
be generated by other currently permitted uses in
the HM zone. Based on existing traffic data from the
Roanoke Regional Landfill (see attached memo from Kit
B. Kiser, dated 1/17/91), vehicles traveling to and
from the transfer station would be distributed
throughout the day minimizing the impact on existing
traffic, including peak traffic periods. Average
peak hour traffic generated by transfer station is
projected at 30 vehicles, which averages to 1 vehicle
every 2 minutes. The addition of 1 vehicle to the
adjacent traffic stream in a 2 minute period has
minimal impact. The City's Traffic Engineer has
indicated with selected improvements, all three major
access routes (Route 460, Hollins Road and Shenandoah
Avenue) are capable of safely accommodating the
projected traffic from this facility. However, the
Hollins Road North site and the Hollins Road South
site are more accessible to the City's principle
arterial highway system.
Safety of School Children in the vicinity of the
DroDosed transfer station sites.
At the present time there are two (2) existing school
bus stops on Hollins Road east of the proposed
Hollins Road North site. There are no school bus
stops on Hollins Road in the vicinity of the Hollins
Road South site or on Shenandoah Avenue in the
vicinity of the proposed Baker Avenue site. Safety
of school children in the vicinity of the Hollins
Road north site would be enhanced by relocating
existing school bus stops one block to the east on
10th Street. Future traffic studies should also
evaluate need for sidewalks in the vicinity of the
proposed transfer station site. The proximity of
Fairview Elemintary School (648 Westwood Boulevard)
should also be considered if the proposed Baker
Avenue site is selected.
Potential noise, order and pest problems.
Proposed Design and O~erating Criteria include the
following specific criteria to address these
potential problems; (1) All solid waste with the
exception of brush and wood items prior to mulching
will be removed from the site on a daily basis; (2)
transfer of solid waste will occur in an enclosed
structure; (3) all tipping floor areas will be washed
down at the close of operations each day; (4) noise
generated by transfer station machinery may not
exceed specified performance standards (80 dbs. on
site; 65 dbs off-site); (5) all leachate must be
handled in closed system; (6) if problem odors occur,
deodorizing agents shall be used; and (7) in the
event that a problem should occur from pests due to
the proposed facility, the Transfer Station Operating
Agency will be required to provide extermination
services at the expense of the operating agency.
Liquid residue from collection vehicles.
Liquid residue may leak onto streets from municipal
collection vehicles if on-board reservoirs become
filled. Reservoirs are currently emptied on a daily
basis. Problems can be partially addressed by
increasing public education efforts directed toward
encouraging residents and businesses to use covers on
trash receptacles. Proposed Operating Criteria have
been amended based on citizen concerns expressed at
information meetings to: (1) require the Transfer
Station Operator to keep all designated access roads
and adjoining rights-of-way and properties free and
clear of any liquid residue originating from public
or private collection vehicles; and (2) perform
street cleaning whenever needed, weather permitting.
Chemicals.
The proposed Operating Criteria stipulate that only
properly approved solid waste may be accepted and
transported from the proposed solid waste transfer
station. No hazardous waste will be received or
stored at the facility. Deodorizing agents may be
used to wash down the tipping areas if odors become a
problem but may not be necessary based on the
experience of existing transfer station operations in
other parts of the State. All fluids used in wash
down operation will be disposed of in the City's
sanitary sewerage system.
F. Economic Development Impact.
City's Economic Development staff has indicated that
the Hollins Road North site has the highest economic
development potential of the three sites under
consideration followed by the Hollins Road South and
Baker Avenue sites, respectively. Economic
Development staff and some businesses in the Deanwood
Redevelopment area have expressed concern that the
selection of the Hollins Road North site and to a
lesser extent the Hollins Road South site would
discourage continued investment in the Deanwood
Redevelopment Area and the Route 460 corridor.
Potential impact on the Shaffer's Crossing
Redevelopment Area should also be considered if the
Baker Avenue site is selected. Planning staff have
not been able to locate any information which would
support or dispute such opinions.
G. Aesthetics.
The proposed Design Criteria include a number of
measures intended to insure that the proposed solid
waste transfer station is compatible with surrounding
development including: (1) minimum setback and open
space requirements; (2) use of existing natural
buffers; (3) required landscaping of all yards and
open space not used for parking, driveways or outdoor
storage; (4) restrictions prohibiting outdoor storage
of solid waste; (5) buffering; and (6) architectural
compatibility.
H. Impact on Residential Property Values.
Planning staff has not found any evidence that a
solid waste transfer station would decrease
residential property values in mixed residential,
commercial and industrial areas. Proposed Operatinq
Criteria have been amended in response to citizen
concerns expressed at information meetings to require
Transfer Station Operating Agency to compensate
residential property owners within 1,000 feet of the
transfer station site for any loss in property value
attributed to the facility.
III. Current Situation:
Regular Meeting of Planning Commission was held on June 5,
1991. Mr. Price, Chairman, noted that this portion of the
meeting was not a public hearing but was an opportunity
for Commission members to discuss and debate the proposed
sites. Mr. Price noted that the formal public hearing on
this matter was held on May 22. Mr. Price stated that
public comments would be allowed at the end of the
Commission's discussion. Mr. Price asked that the time
for public comments be reserved for those who did not have
an opportunity to be heard previously or who have new
information. Mr. Price asked Mr. Marlles if he had any
comments at this time.
Mr. Marlles noted that this matter had been under study by
the Commission's Long Range Planning Subco~u~ittee and
Citizen's Advisory Committee for over five months before
they recommended the three sites for further consideration
in April. Mr. Marlles stated that following the
subcommittee's recommendation, staff had conducted four
informational meetings with property owners and
surrounding residents to explain the proposed project, the
site selection criteria and process, and the proposed
design and operating criteria. Finally, Mr. Marlles noted
that staff has tried to address the issues that were
raised by citizen's at the Planning Commission's Public
Hearing on May 22, 1991.
Mr. Price noted for the record that the Commission has
received a copy of a map showing the sites from a Mr. C.A.
Bradford and a letter from Victory Baptist Church, dated
May 1, 1991 (attached) stating their opposition to the use
of the proposed Hollins Road North site for a "garbage
dump".
Mr. Price opened up the meeting for comments by the
Commission. Mr. Buford, noting that he was the Chairman
of the Subcor~aittee which studied this issue, stated that
solid waste was a problem facing the whole Valley. Mr.
Buford stated that the existing landfill was scheduled to
close in 1992 and that the City had to have a transfer
station. He noted that the subcommittee tried to impact
the fewest number of residents.
At this time, Mr. Price asked if anyone in the audience
had any comments or wished to speak to this issue. There
being no one, Mr. Price closed the public comment portion
of the meeting. Mr. Price asked if any other Commission
members had any comments. Mr. Ferguson stated that he
wanted the audience to realize that the Commission members
were not City employees, and they were not paid to do
this. He also noted that the Commission was only an
advisory board and that the ultimate decision for this
matter would be with City Council. Mr. Ferguson noted
that in addition to the sixteen sites considered by the
Subcommittee, staff have reviewed another six or seven
sites identified by citizens. Mr. Ferguson noted that
four of the sites were already on the list considered by
the Subcommittee, one was outside the City limits and two
7
others were smaller than the minimum 10 acres required to
construct the facility.
Mr. Bradshaw stated that the people studying this project,
including himself didn't feel the facility would smell,
attract rodents or reduce property values. Mr. Bradshaw
stated that he believed the transfer station would be an
industrial looking facility, similar to the new Valley
Metro Bus Terminal. He further stated that the facility
will be maintained and landscaped and noted that no trash
will be stored overnight in the facility. Mr. Bradshaw
noted that the facility will be nothing like a landfill.
Mr. Bradshaw noted that the Long Range Planning
Subcommittee had tried to incorporate the issues and
concerns raised by citizens into the criteria by which the
City is going to select the proper site, design the proper
site and hopefully operate the proper site. Mr. Bradshaw
stated that the Commission has not received any comments
on the proposed siting, design or operating criteria other
than residents don't want the facility in their back yard.
Mr. Price asked if there were any other comments.
Mr. Marlles stated that he wanted the audience to realize
that regardless of which site was eventually sited, the
Planing commission would still have to approve the
Comprehensive Site Plan.
Mr. Price noted that the Commission has received an
additional petition (attached) from the tenants in the
Deanwood Redevelopment area opposing the selection of the
Hollins Road North site.
IV. Recommendation
By a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Sowers absent) the Planning
Commission approved a motion to forward the proposed
siting, design and operating criteria to City Council
recommending their utilization and to recommend the
Hollins Road South site as the most suitable site for the
proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station and the Hollins Road
North site as the least suitable site due to the need to
amend the existing Deanwood Redevelopment Plan.
CAP:avs
attachments
Respectfully submitted,
Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman/r
Roanoke City Planning Commission
8
CC:
Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
City Engineer
Building Co~nissioner
9
i
II
WOODS, ROGERs 8c HAZLEGROYE
Io5 FRANKLIN ROAD, S.~'. P 0. BOX 7EO
~OANOKE, VI~tGINIP. 24004-07g0
(703) 982-4253
June 4, 1991
Mr. H. Wesley White, Jr.
City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority
P. O. Box 6359
Roanoke, VA 24017
In re:
Deanwood Redevelopment Project Area -- Proposed
Garbaqe Transfer Site
Dear Wesley:
You have asked our opinion concerning the possible effect of
the Redevelopment Plan for Deanwood Community Development Project
on the City's proposal to locate the planned garbage transfer
facility at the "Hollins North" site, which lies within the
Deanwood Redevelopment Project Area.
Your concerns arise out of the fact that the land uses
prescribed for the Project Area by the Redevelopment Plan
apparently would not permit a garbage transfer facility. The
Plan would therefore have to be amended if such a facility were
to be established. Section G of the Plan provides, however, that
if the Plan is modified after property within the Project Area
has been sold or leased by the Authority, modification of the
Plan "shall be conditioned upon the approval of the owners,
lessees, or successors in interest of any property adversely
affected by such modification, and in any event shall be subject
to such rights at law or in equity as a lessee or purchaser, or
his successor or successors in interest may be entitled to
assert." You believe that several of the owners of other tracts
in the Deanwood Project Area vehemently oppose location of the
garbage transfer facility at the Hollins North site and would
object to any amendment of the Redevelopment Plan to permit that
operation there.
The Deanwood Redevelopment Plan was last amended in July
1985 to add the area east of the Norfolk & Western right of way,
which additional area includes the Hollins North site. Since
M#56834
Page 2
June 4, 1991
that amendment, four (4) tracts within the Redevelopment Project
Area as expanded have been sold: to Alan and Janice Hoover
(Azimuth), by deed dated July 28, 1987; to Foot Levelers, Inc.,
by deed dated September 14, 1987; to Scott and Kathy Bauman
(Abal), by deed dated October 12, 1987; and to Roanoke Apple
Products, Inc., by deed dated March 28, 1988. (The other
conveyance in the Deanwood Project Area was to Center Properties
I, by deed dated December 1, 1984, which was prior to the
expansion of the Area to include the Hollins North site. This
deed contained the same terms, hereafter described, concerning
use of the property.)
Each of these deeds stated that the transfer was made
subject to certain restrictions, reservations, conditions,
easements, which included the following:
and
4 .... IS]aid property shall be devoted to
commercial or light industrial use in accordance with
the Redevelopment Plan for the Deanwood Redevelopment
Project [effective until January 19, 2001].
9. It is intended and agreed that the agreements
and covenants herein provided shall be covenants
running with the land, and, except as otherwise
specifically provided in this deed itself, to the
fullest extent permitted by law be binding on and inure
to the benefit of all successors in interest to the
Grantee and the Grantor ....
These restrictions were placed in these deeds and
specifically made covenants running with the land by the
Authority pursuant to Section 36-53 of the Code of Virginia.
This statute requires housing authorities to obligate purchasers
of redeveloped land to, among other things, "use the land for the
purpose designated in the conservation or redevelopment plan,"
and provides that "[a]ny such obligations by the purchaser shall
be covenants and conditions running with the land where the
authority so stipulates."
The Authority has thus imposed on every purchaser of
property in the Deanwood Project Area the obligation to adhere to
the Redevelopment Plan in use of the purchased property, and has
done so in a way that makes that obligation attach to the
property itself and thus bind future owners as well as the
immediate purchasers.
M#56834
Page 3
June 4, 1991
The Supreme Court of Virginia has held as follows concerning
restrictions imposed by a seller o~ various lots in a tract under
development:
[Al general scheme of development may be established
when a common grantor pursues a course of conduct which
indicates that he intends to inaugurate a general
scheme of improvements for the benefit of himself and
the purchasers of the various lots. If, by numerous
conveyances, he inserts in the deeds substantially
uniform restrictions, conditions and covenants
affecting the use of the property, the grantees
acquire, by implication, an equitable right to enforce
similar restrictions against that part of the tract
retained by the grantor or subsequently sold without
restriction to a person with actual or constructive
notice of the restriction and covenants.
Cline and Son v. Cavalier Buildinq, 213 Va. 557, 560 (1973),
citing Minner v. City of Lynchburq, 204 Va. 180 (1963).
We believe that the Authority has, by formulation of the
Redevelopment Plan as outlined above and by its insertion of
identical restrictive provisions in every deed conveying property
in the Deanwood Project Area to redevelopers, established a
general scheme of development for the Project Area which, under
the principle quoted above, would give those purchasers of
property the right to have the same restrictions enforced against
unsold property within the Project Area. If that is true, then
it would follow that these property owners should be able to
prevent an amendment of the Redevelopment Plan which would
effectively destroy that general scheme of development.
That said, we assume that the City of Roanoke would have the
power to condemn property for use as a garbage transfer facility.
The right of the other property owners within the Deanwood
Project Area to enforce the Plan and deed restrictions against
the Hollins North site constitutes an interest in land which
could be condemned by the City, with payment of the "just
compensation" required by the Virginia Constitution. Meaqher v.
Appalachian Power Co., 195 Va. 138, 146 (1953).
In summary, then, it is our opinion that the Deanwood
Redevelopment Plan could not be amended in a manner that would
adversely affect previous purchasers of property within the
Deanwood Project Area, without the consent of those purchasers.
However, the right to block such an amendment is a property
M#56834
Page 4
June 4, 1991
interest that could be taken by condemnation (assuming that
condemnation for this purpose is within the City's power), with
payment of whatever value is established for the right of those
prior purchasers to have the Hollins North site used in
accordance with the Redevelopment Plan in its present form.
Yours truly,
Daniel F. Layma~_,j Jr.
DFLJr:gfw
M#56834
Solid Waste Transfer Facility
Draf= Site Selec=ion Criteria
Janu&r~ 10, 1991
III.
I. Location
A transfer facility needs to be located in
the ¢1t¥ of Roanoke.
Proposed =ransfer facility needs
have direct rail access.
II. Transportation Access
Proposed sate should have proximity
to the center of solid waste generation.
Proposed sate should be adjacent to or
have direct access to a paved or sur-
faced roads capable of withstanding
anticipated loads.
C. Proposed site should be supported by
an existing network of non-residential
roads adequate to handle up to 300 extra
a sedan to a tractor trailer.
D. PrOposed sate should be equally accessible
for both rail and truck hauling of solid
E. ..Proposed site should have convenient
Proposed sate should consist of
approximately 10 acres or better.
Topography of proposed si'e
(natural screening/buffering).
Topography of proposed site
relative to facil£ty design.
IV.
VI.
D. Proposed sire should be free of
any significant environmen=al con-
s=rain=s which would preclude
development.
Affordabili=y
A. Cos= of land (assessed value).
B. Accessibili~¥ of u=ili~ies.
C. Sl~e develop~en= cos=s.
D. Impac= on adjoining pr.percy values.
E. Value of al=cma=ire land uses
(loss of developmen= oppor=un£=ies)
Land Use Compa~ibili=y
A. Compa=ibili=y of proposed use
wi=h surrounding developmen=.
B.Compa=ibili~¥ of proposed use-I'
wi=h exis=ing zoning.
C. Compa~ibili=y of proposed use
wi=h comprehensive plan.
Minimum Dep&r~men~ of Was=e Managemen= (D~M) S~andards
A. Proposed sire should have sufficien=
on-sire queuing capaci=¥ so Ch&=
wai=ing collec=ion vehicles do no=
back up .nco public roads.
B Proposed sire (fa=iii=y) should no= be
.loc&ced in ~n area su~ec= ~o biSe
floods or lo=aced closer =hah
screams.
Pr.posed =ransfer s~a~on should
no= extend closer :nan f£fC¥ (50)
fee= =o ~n¥ property ~ne or ololer
=hah 200 fee~ ~o any home, school
or recre&=ional par~ area.
Addl=ional draf= c=i=er£a requl&=£ng .per&=ion and
design of =he =he proposed solid wu=e =r&nsfer
facill=¥ will be developed by =he com~==ee.
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY
DESIGN CRITERIA
MARCH 19, 1991
II.
Approval Process
A. City Council approval
B. Comprehensive Site Plan Review
1. Staff review/approval
2. Planning Commission review/approval
C. Department Waste Management Review/Approval
Access/Internal Circulation
ae
Site shall have sufficient on-site queuing
capacity to prevent waiting collection vehicles
from backing up onto public roads.*
Be
Site access should be controlled to limit access
and to prevent unauthorized entry.*
Ail facilities shall be surrounded on all
sides by natural barriers, fencing, or an
equivalent means of controlling vehicles
and pedestrian access. Required fencing
shall be set back from the property line.
Gates shall be provided at the main
entrance as well as the entrance to
additional service areas.
Adequate directional signage shall be provided
to insure safe and efficient internal traffic
circulation on the site.
De
Ail internal streets and driveways shall be
designed to adequately serve the needs of the
traffic function for both large and small
vehicles in a safe fashion.
Ee
Ail roads utilized as the main access to the
proposed transfer facility must be adequate for
the projected type and volume of traffic.
III.
IV.
Ve
Landscaping/Buffering/Open Space
No structural features should extend closer than
fifty feet to any property line or closer than
200 feet to any home, school, or recreational
area.*
Minimum open space (that part of the site,
including yards, which is not covered by
buildings, structures, or paved areas) shall be
at least ten percent of the lot.
Visual buffers created by topography or existing
vegetation shall be maintained or enhanced to
the extent possible.
Ail required yards and open spaces not used for
parking, driveways or outdoor storage shall be
landscaped.
Buildings, equipment storage areas, and other
facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner
as to enhance their visual appearance from
adjoining properties.
Adequate on-site parking shall be provided for
transfer station employees preferably from a
separate entrance.
Except for any required storm water retention
basins, there shall be no above ground open
treatment facilities.
He
Consideration shall be given to providing
internal litter control fences.
Outdoor Storage
No outside storage of collected solid waste
shall be permitted with the exception of brush
and other wood items prior to mulching.
Any outside mulching operations (including
materials waiting to be mulched) shall be
screened from public view.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed transfer facility and accessory
structures shall be attractively designed to blend
in and/or enhance surrounding development.
SOLID WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY
OPERATING CRITERIA
MAY 21, 1991
II.
Types of Waste
No hazardous waste will be received or stored at
this facility.
Bo
Only properly approved solid waste may be
accepted and transported from this facility.
In the event that any hazardous waste, as
defined by the Virginia Department of Waste
Management, is discovered on the site of the
proposed Solid Waste Transfer facility, the
Transfer Station Operating Agency will
immediately contact the City's Hazardous
Material Coordinator who shall take all
necessary steps to insure that the hazardous
waste is properly contained and disposed of in
accordance with the Department of Hazardous
Waste regulations.
Any person, firm, or corporation who knowingly
transports hazardous waste, as defined by the
Virginia Department of Solid Waste Management,
into the proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station
shall be subject to prosecution under applicable
criminal statutes and shall be liable for the
full cost incurred by the Transfer Station
Operator for proper clean-up and disposal of
such material in a licensed facility.
Operating Hours
A. Normal working hours shall not exceed:
Delivery of
Waste
Operation of
Ail EquiDment
Monday-Friday 7:00 am-7:00 pm
Saturday 8:00 am-5:00 pm
7:00 am-9:00 pm
8:00 am-7:00 pm
Emergency operations shall allow for extended
hours on all days and Sundays whenever an
emergency has been duly declared by the Roanoke
City Manager.
Ce
Residential drop-off areas will operate during
the hours of normal operation.
D. Maximum operating hours can only be changed by
action of Roanoke City Council.
III. Performance Standards
A. Noise
B. Dust
Noise levels generated by transfer station
machinery and equipment may not exceed the
following amounts:
80 db (decibels) - Transfer station borders
65 db (decibels) Surrounding residences
Equipment used at the transfer station
should be as noise free as possible.
Fugitive dust emissions shall be
controlled by an authorized agent of the
City of Roanoke or by the Transfer Station
Operators for compliance with state and/or
local regulations.
C. Odor
Problem areas arising during dry seasons
shall be controlled.
Internal access roads shall be cleaned and
dust controlled if excessive amounts of
dust are generated.
Tipping areas shall be washed down at the
close of operations each day..
If problem odors exist that adversely
impact surrounding residents, deodorizing
agents should be used.
Ail leachate shall be handled in a closed
systems.
Lights
Sufficient lighting must be maintained at
all times to facilitate normal operations
and to provide adequate security over the
Transfer Station.
Lighting must be directed to keep the main
body within the transfer station site.
Adjoining property owners should be
considered as to light placement, direction
and height.
IV.
Site
A.
Be
Road
A.
Pests
A bonded, licensed pest control company
shall be retained by the Transfer Station
Operating Agency throughout the active life
of the facility to provide preventive
inspections and treatments.
Adjoining property owners who incur pest
problems that are proven to be directly
related to the Transfer Station must be
provided proper extermination at the
expense of the Transfer Station Operating
Agency.
Breeding areas for flying insects must be
treated as often as is necessary to prevent
the breeding cycle.
Litter pick-up on the site is to be performed at
least once each week or whenever needed, weather
permitting.
Security
Ail facilities shall be surrounded on all sides
by natural barriers, fencing, or an equivalent
means of controlling vehicles access and
preventing illegal disposal. All access will be
limited by gates, and such gates shall be
securable and equipped with locks.
Ail fencing utilized at the facility shall
be adequate to control unauthorized access.
Gates shall be at the main entrance as well
as the entrance to additional service
areas.
Access to the solid waste transfer facility
shall be permitted only when an attendant is on
duty and only during normal operating hours,
unless otherwise specified in the facility
permit.
Dusk to dawn lights shall be placed around
buildings and at all security gates.
Improvements and Access
The Transfer Station Operator will properly
maintain all on-site entrance roads and
driveways in good, safe repair.
VI.
The Transfer Station Operator will keep all
designated access roads and the adjoining
rights-of-way and properties free and clean of
litter and debris originating from vehicles
traveling to and from the transfer facility.
Litter pickup is to be made at least once each
week or whenever needed, weather permitting.
Government-owned refuse vehicles will be
required, and all other vehicles will be
encouraged, to use roads designated by the City
of Roanoke to access the proposed transfer
facility.
The Transfer station Operator will keep all
designated access roads and the adjoining
rights-of-way and properties free and clean of any
liquid residue originating from public or private
collection vehicles. Street cleaning is to be
performed whenever needed, weather permitting.
Appeals
A telephone number shall be provided for use of
surrounding residents to call-in complaints about
noise, dust, odor, pests, or other problems
associated with the operation. These calls shall be
recorded and corrective actions documented.
In order to provide a timely and inexpensive method
for parties that may be damaged by the transfer
station permit conditions and policies, any
disagreement between a property owner and the
responsible Transfer Station Operating Agency
concerning operating problems may be resolved through
the provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act,
Article 2 of Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia
(Section 8.01- 581.01 et seq.).
VII. Property Value Protection (new)
The Transfer Station Operating Agency will take all
necessary action as required by federal, state or
local laws or regulations, including permit
conditions to assure residents surrounding the
transfer station site that their property values will
not be adversely impacted by the facility.
Any resident owning property within 1,000 feet of the
transfer station site border on the day the site
becomes operational may be eligible for compensation
if they can prove their property was devalued as a
result of the transfer station.
The resident must establish the value of the affected
property just prior to the sale date (Appraised
value) by either obtaining an appraisal by a
"Professionally Certified Appraiser" or by use of the
current Roanoke City tax assessments. Tax
assessments must reflect 100% of fair market value.
The responsible transfer Station Operating Agency
will pay 50% of the cost of the initial appraisal up
to a total of $150. Appraisals to be made as if the
transfer station was not existing.
Any resident who sells their property for an amount
(Sale Value) which is less than the Appraised Value,
determined under paragraph C, will be eligible for
compensation from the responsible Agency for the
amount of this difference, subject to the
following conditions:
The responsible Transfer Station Operating
Agency must be given the "Right of First
Refusal" to buy any property for which a bona
fide offer to purchase has been received in an
amount below the Appraised Value.
The responsible Transfer Station Operating
Agency must exercise their rights under
paragraph D within 30 days of the date they are
notified by the resident of a bona fide purchase
offer.
Appraisal shall take into account condition of
property and whether the loss of property value
would occur for any other permitted use under
current zoning designation.
The foregoing agreement to compensate residents
for loss in property values will only apply to
properties sold before the termination date, which is
defined as 5 years after the date the transfer
station is operational. Heirs of residents
qualifying under paragraph 2 will be eligible
for compensation under the terms of this
agreement.
Eligibility for compensation will be extended
under the same terms to include any Roanoke City
resident owning residential property adjoining
any road used as the main access road to the
transfer station site.
Any resident who is eligible for compensation for
property devaluation under the foregoing terms of
this agreement will also qualify for reimbursement
for the Interest Differential between their existing
mortgage loan and any new loan assumed on any
replacement property within the boundaries of
Roanoke City. This reimbursement will be defined
as the present value of the remaining principal
payments, discounted at the difference between
the interest rates on the original loan and on
the replacement loan.
It shall be the responsibility of the resident to
carry adequate property insurance to cover any loss
hazards. In the event that a total loss does occur,
the Transfer Station Operating Agency will compensate
the resident (who qualifies under the preceding terms
of agreement for the difference between the Assessed
Value and the Insurance Settlement. However, if the
Insurance Settlement is for any amount less than the
Sale Value , the amount of compensations will be the
difference between the assessed Value and the Sale
Value. For purposes of this provision, the Sale Value
is understood to be the Replacement Value of the
property on the date of the insurance loss.
0
t>
0
q~
0
0
0
0~o
0
>,
~ 0
0
0~,
o
~o
0
0
.P
0
~4 0
0
,'044
O ~
0
PubLISItEk' 5 FEE
CII'Y uF ROANOKE
C/D M~KY r
~ITY CLm~S CFPICt
ROOM ~o MUNICIPAL ~LQG
Ru~NO~E VA 2~0tl
RECEIVED
CITY mEm~ nFF~CE
STAT~ UF ViRolNIA
CITY CF ROAN6KC
AFFIDAVIT OP PDbLiC~TiD¢~
REPReSENTaTIvE OF THE TIMEo-~OKLO COR-
PORATION, ~dlCd CdKPOKAIiON iS PuoLISHEK
UP THE KOA;4UKE TIMuS b WLKLD-NL~S~ A
DAILY NEmSPAPEK PUoLISHEC IN ROANOmE, IN
THE STATE OF V1RGI,~I~ DC ~EKTIPY tHAT
THC ANNEXED NOTICE .AS PUmLiSHEO 1N SAID
NEWSPAPERS Oi~ Tmc FOLLu~I~Nu dATE~
Ob/Zl/91 ML]R;~I;~G ~
0o/28/91 ,~ICRNIN~ & EYE,~ING
NITN[SS,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Council of the City of Roanoke will
on Monday, July 8, 1991,
the Municipal Building,
receive citizen comment
hold a Public Hearing
at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber in
215 Church Avenue, S. W., to review and
and input on the proposed Solid Waste
Management Plan for the City of Roanoke pursuant to requirements
of House Bill 1743, enacted by the 1989 Session of the Virginia
General Assembly, and a Solid Waste Transfer Site.
A copy of the proposed Plan and the proposal pertaining to
the Solid Waste Transfer Site are available for public inspection
in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building.
All parties having an interest in
above date and be heard.
GIVEN under my hand this 19th
these matters may appear on the
day of June 1991
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Please publish in full twice in the Roanoke Times & World News, Morning Edition,
once on Friday, June 21, 1991, and once on Friday, June 28, 1991.
Please send publisher's affidavit and bill to:
Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Room 456, Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS ~;iFFiCE
mo:39
Roanoke Cily Planning Commission
July 8, 1991
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Solid Waste Management Plan
I am pleased to submit for your review and approved the
proposed Solid Waste Management Plan for the City of Roanoke.
This plan was prepared in compliance with House Bill 1743
approved by the Virginia General Assembly in 1989. This bill
mandated that every city, county and town must develop a solid
waste management plan which describes how the locality will
manage its solid waste and how it will implement a recycling
program to achieve the recycling rates of 10% by 1991, 15% by
1992 and 25% by 1995 as mandated by the State.
Responsibility for preparing the plan was delegated to the
Planning Commission's Long-Range Planning Subcommittee in
December 1990. The subcommittee was chaired by Mr. Paul C.
Buford, Jr. Mr. John P. Bradshaw, Jr. and Mr. John B. Ferguson
also served on the subcommittee. Over a period of five months,
the members of the Long-Range Planning Subcommittee and its
appointed citizens advisory committee met on seven separate
occasions to discuss issues and concerns related to solid waste
management and to review draft plan elements.
A copy of an Executive Summary has also been enclosed for
your review. Key waste management needs of Roanoke City
addressed by the plan are as follows:
To maximize landfill life expectancy through a
comprehensive solid waste management program that
focuses on source reduction, reuse and recycling.
Plan envisions ultimate disposal of Roanoke City's
solid waste in a landfill located in Roanoke County
via a transfer station located in Roanoke City.
Room 355 Municipal BuilOing 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344
To educate both the public and private sectors on:
(a) the importance and benefits of recycling, source
reduction and reuse; and (b) how comprehensive solid
waste management will protect the environment and
reduce waste transport and disposal costs.
To continuously explore the market for recyclable
materials in order to find the most cost-effective
means for recycling certain materials, and to
continuously search for effective means of managing
other solid waste.
To make solid waste management as financially
feasible as possible for Roanoke City and its
residents.
The plan identifies specific goals, objectives and
recommendations to address these needs. In addition, the plan
identifies strategies for meeting the City's solid waste
management objectives, public and private sector involvement
strategies and identifies sources of potential funding for
implementation.
The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan was approved
unanimously by 6-0 vote of the Commission (Mr. Sowers absent)
following a public hearing on June 5, 1991 and forwarded to City
Council for action.
Please contact John R. Marlles, Agent, Roanoke City
Planning Cormmission or Kit Kiser, Director of Utilities and
Operations, if you have any questions.
CAP:avs
CC:
Respectfully submitted,
Charles A. Price, Jr. Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
City Engineer
Building Commissioner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The need for environmental protection through effective
solid waste management prompted the 1989 Virginia General
Assembly to pass House Bill 1743, which states that every city,
county and town must develop a solid waste management plan,
either individually or in conjunction with other localities of
similar demographic characteristics, for submission to the
Virginia Department of Solid Waste Management by July 1, 1991.
Each solid waste management plan must be formulated to
reflect how each locality will achieve the following two
objectives:
1. Effectively manage solid waste through the 6-step waste
management hierarchy: source reduction, reuse,
recycling, resource recovery (waste-to-energy),
incineration and landfilling; and
2. Implement a recycling program to reduce the solid waste
stream by 10% by 1991, 15% by 1993, and 25% by 1995.
As outlined in the Virginia Department of .Waste Management's'
Regulations for Solid Waste Management Plan Development, this
solid waste management plan for Roanoke City describes the
following: 1) demographic and natural environment
characteristics of the City; 2) the amount of waste currently
generated in the City; 3) the existing waste facilities in the
City; 4) and the potential markets for recyclable materials
generated in the City. The policy related issues presented in
this Plan include: objectives for solid waste management in
Roanoke City; strategies for meeting the objectives; strategies
for involving and educating the public and the private sector on
methods of effective solid waste management; funding options for
meeting the solid waste management strategies outlined in the
plan; and an assessment of solid waste planning on economic
growth, the environment, and existing waste collection programs
in Roanoke City.
Perhaps the three most important sections of the Roanoke
City Solid Waste Management Plan, aside from the sections
describing education strategies, are those that discuss
objectives for solid waste management (Section III), strategies
for meeting the solid waste management objectives (Section I;),
and funding strategies for plan implementation (Section VIi).
These sections outline what Roanoke City can do in terms of so..id
waste management, what it plans to do for waste management and
recycling, and what funding is needed to successfully implement
these strategies. Although Roanoke City Council will agree to
implementing all of the strategies listed in this Plan by passing
a resolution to adopt the Plan, the following is a list of the
major activities the City plans to implement within the next 20
i
years:
Adoption of the Roanoke City Solid Waste Management Plan
(June 1991).
2. Local ordinance amendments/revisions in conjunction with
plan recommendations (As needed).
3. Public education/information program development and
implementation (On-going since January 1991).
4. Plan update and review every 5 years as required by the
State. Organize a citizens advisory committee and a
technical advisory committee to assist with solid waste plan
updates. The citizens committee should consist of
com~munity/neighborhood leaders, church leaders, business
leaders, environmental group leaders, etc. The technical
advisory committee should consist of industry leaders and
municipal representatives (public works, utilities, etc.).
5. City-wide res~dential curbside recycling (June 1993).
6. Brush/yard waste collection and recycling program-
development and implementation (July 1992)'.
7. Plan envisions transfer of waste to Smith Gap Regional
Landfill through a new waste transfer station located in
Roanoke City (January 1994).
8. Funding procurement for solid waste program implementation
and maintenance (On-going since 1990).
Because this Plan becomes a legally binding document once it has
been adopted.by the Roanoke City Council, particular attention
has been paid to the above listing and the aforementioned
sections to ensure that the strategies can be implemented by the
City at the time indicated.
Because the success of any solid waste management program
depends on the participation of those who generate waste, such as
the general public, businesses and industries, involving these
groups in plan development and developing strategies for
educating these groups on how to effectively manage solid waste
is very important. In Roanoke City, the Planning Commissiom's
Long-Range Planning Subcomm'ittee was expanded to include citiren
representatives from each of the four City quadrants for input on
solid waste ~nagement plan development. This subcommittee
nearly every two weeks in the Spring of 1991 in order to review
draft material and make suggestions regarding certain sections of
the Plan.
ii
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROANOKE CITY
~inal Draft
June 1991
This document was prepared by the staff of the Fifth
Planning District Commission with direction fro~ the
Roanoke City Planning C~ission's Long-Range Planning
Subcommittee, the Solid Waste Citizens Advisory
Committee, and the Solid Waste Technical Advisory
Committee.
ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
LONG-RANGE PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE
Paul Buford, Chairman
John Bradshaw
John Ferguson
SOLID WASTE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ray Barbour, Southeast Action Forum
James Howard, Chsrry Hill Crime Watch Association
Davis Maxey, Williamson Road Action Forum
Hugh Meagher, Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association
Richard Patterson, Greater Deye-rle Neighborhood Association
Roy Stroop, Wildwood Civic League
Lenora Williams, Southeast Action Forum
SOLID WASTE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Laura K. Wasko, Recycling Coordinator
FI~T~ PLANNING DISTRICT CO~lISSlOW
Mrs. Elizabeth Bowles, Chairman
Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director
Helen Smythers, Chief of Community Development
Deborah C. Sturm, Planner I
Jackie L. Pace, Administrative Assistant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II.
III.
IV.
Page
Executive Summary ....................................... i
INTRODUCTION ....
Penalties for Non-Compliance
Schedule for Plan Developmen~ ........................... 1
INCORPORATED DATA.. · 3
Natural Environment ..................................... 3
Population Distribution and Characteristics ............. 5
Existing Waste Management Programs in Roanoke City ...... 11
Evaluation of Public and Private
Waste Collection Programs 18
Estimates of Solid Waste Generation ..................... 24
Potential Markets for Recyclable Materials .............. 27
Waste Management Needs in Roanoke City .................. 28
PROPOSED 20-YEP.~ WASTE'MANAGEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROANOKE CITY ............... 29
Source Reduction. 29
Resource Recovery (Waste-to-Energy)
Incineration ...... 31
............. · ''' 31
STRATEGIES FOR MEETING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
20-Year Plan Implementation Milestones ..................
Solid Waste Management Strategies ......................
Source Reduction ..................................
Reuse.....
Resource Recovery (Waste-to-Energy).
Incineration ........................
Landfilling and Waste Collection ..................
33
33
33
33
33
35
38
38
39
PUBLIC EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES .......... 40
PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES ................... 43
FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR PLAN IMPLF24ENTATION ............ 45
VIII.ASSESSMENT OF PLAN STRATEGIES ........................... 48
Economic Growth and Development ......................... 48
Environmental Compatibility ............................. 48
Current Waste Collection Program Impacts ................ 49
TABLE OF CONTENTs (Cont'd)
IX.
Page
METHODS FOR RECORDING AND REPORTING SOLID WASTE
GENERATED AND RECYCLED IN ROANOKE CITY ............. 51
Appendix A
List of Required Elements for a Local or Regional
Solid Waste Management Plan ........................ 55
Appendix B
Solid Waste Definitions ................................. 58
Appendix C
Garbage Collection System Evaluation Survey ............. 64
Appendix D
Estimated Solid Waste Management Program Costs
for Roanoke City ................................... 67 -
Appendix E
Reporting Forms for Solid Waste Generation and Recycling 76
Appendix F
Minutes From Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee .... 80
Appendix G
Public Hearing Documentation ..... , ...................... 81
Appendix H
Roanoke City Council Resolution to Adopt and Approve
the Roanoke City Solid Waste Management Plan ....... 84
Footnotes .................................................... 86
Bibliography ................................................. 87
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
POPULATION IN ROANOKE CITY 1970-2010 .................... 7
TABLE 2
ROANOKE CITY HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION ...................... 8
TABLE 3
HOUSING TENURE OF ROANOKE CITY RESIDENTS - 1980 ......... 8
TABLE 4
AGE DISTRIBUTION IN ROANOKE CITY 1980-2000 .............. 9
TABLE 5
PROJECTED MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME FOR
ROANOKE CITY 1986-1990 ........................ 9
TABLE 6
EDUCATION - YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED FOR
ROANOKE CITY - 1980 ........................... 9
TABLE 7
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS BY INDUSTRY TYPE
IN ROANOKE CITY - SECOND QUARTER 1990 ......... 10
TABLE 8
TEN LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN ROANOKE CITY - 1990 ............ 10
TABLE 9
WASTE FACILITIES SERVING ROANOKE CITY ................... 13
TABLE 10
WASTE GENERATED IN ROANOKE CITY IN 1989 ................. 25
TABLE 11
PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION IN ROANOKE CITY .............. 26
TABLE 12
WASTE TO BE RECYCLED IN ROANOKE CITY .................... 38
TABLE 13
ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE PLAN OBJECTIVES ............... 50
I. INTRODUCTION
Plan Development Authorization
In 1989, the Virginia General Assembly passed House Bill
1743, which states that every city, county and town must develop
a solid waste management plan, either individually or in
conjunction with other localities of similar demographic
characteristics, for submission to the Virginia Department of
Waste Management by July 1, 1991. In this plan, it must be
explicitly described how each locality will utilize the waste
hierarchy (source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery,
incineration, and landfilling) to effectively manage its solid
waste, and how it will implement a recycling program to achieve
the recycling rates of 10% by 1991, 15% by 1993, and 25% by 1995,
as mandated by the State.
Penalties for Non-Complianc~
Any locality found to be in non-compliance with these
regulations will be fined $25,000 for every day of violation and
will be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor. It should also be-
noted that any locality without a solid waste management plan in
place after July 1, 1992 will be denied permits for any new solid
waste management facilities (in the Virginia Department of Waste
Management regulations for solid waste management plan
development, a solid waste management facility is defined as "a
site used for planned treating, storing, or disposing of solid
waste. A facilit~ may consist of several treatment, storage or
disposal units.,,),x
Schedule for Plan Develo.,~-ent
The schedule for solid waste plan development is as follows:
Solid Waste Management Plans
completed and submitted to Department
of Waste Management
DATE
July 1, 1991
2. Deadline for plan approval/disapproval July 1, 199]
3. Deadline for completion of plan revisions
Solid Waste Management Plan Update
90 days frou
disapproval
(Latest date:
Oct. 1, 1992)
Every 5 years
from 7/1/92
In December 1990, Roanoke City Manager W. Robert Herbert
requested the City Planning Commission's assistance with
selecting a Site for a proposed waste transfer station, and with
helping to develop and review a solid waste management plan for
the City for submittal to the State by July 1, 1991. The matter
was delegated to the Planning Commission's Long-Range Planning
Subcommittee, which was expanded to include additional citizen
representatives. Members of the committee met nearly every two
weeks in an effort to complete the above tasks. Appendix F
contains a copy of the minutes from each Committee meeting held
for the purposes listed above.
II. INCORPORATED DATA
General Description of Roanoke City
In order to understand the impact of solid waste disposal
and the importance of developing and implementing a solid waste
management plan, it is necessary to be aware of the environmental
characteristics and the methods of land use that are prevalent in
Roanoke City.
Roanoke City is located in the south central part of the
Great Valley of Virginia, between the
Appalachian Mountains on
the west and the Blue Ridge Mountains on the east.2 Located
approximately 190 miles from Richmond (Virginia State capital)
and 235 miles from Washington, D.C. (National capital), Roanoke
is the largest metropolitan area west of the Blue Ridge in the
State of Virginia. The 1990 census counts show that Roanoke has
a population of 96,397. Covering an area of approximately 43
square miles, Roanoke City has a population density of 2,242
people per square mile.
Roanoke City is served, by several major national and state
highways. Interstates 81 and 581, U.S. Routes 220, 221, 460 and-
11 all provide adequate transportation through the City. The
Norfolk Southern rail lines also provide adequate transportation
for goods and services through the City, and may become a vital
part of solid w~ste transport out of the City, as discussed later
in this report.~
One river basin drains Roanoke City. The Roanoke River
flows east/southeast from its headwaters in Montgomery County,
through Roanoke, an~ then into North Carolina where it reaches
the Atlantic Ocean.~ This river is vital to economic growth in
Roanoke City; its protection from litter and solid waste
mismanagement is equally important.
Natural Environment
When developing and implementing a solid waste management
plan, it is necessary to realize the fragility of the surrounding
environment in order to preserve it. It is also necessary to
realize which areas are best suited to waste management
practices. Areas that are most stable with regards to geology,
soil, climate and to~x)graphy are more likely to be suitable for
solid waste management practices.
Climate
Roanoke City is protected from harsh rain and snow storms by
the mountains that surround it. The temperate climate of the
region brings relatively cooler summers and mild winters. The
winds through the region generally blow from the west/northwest
3
at an average of 8-10 miles per hour. Gusts up to 80 mph or more
sometimes occur during severe storms. Average precipitation for
the Roanoke area is around 40-45 inches a year with the drier
months occurring during the winter. Rowever, many summers can be
extremely hot and dry, causing drought to occur. When the rain
returns in the fall (often as a result of tropical depressions or
storms in the vicinity) flooding occurs in low-lying areas of
Roanoke City because of its proximity to the Roanoke River poor
stormwater management, and poor soil permeability.5 '
Temperatures in Roanoke City remain fairly mild year-round,
with an average maximum temperature ranging in the low- to mid-
60's and the average minimum temperature ranging in the low- to
mid-40,s.6
Topography
Roanoke City's location in the Great Valley of Virginia
lends itself to a gently rolling topography. The outlying areas
of the City are more mountainous, particularly in the northwest
and southeast sections of the City. The downtown areas of the
City are relatively level, largely due to the influence of the
Roanoke River.
Geology
A general knowledge of the underlying rock formations in a
given area can help the people in that area to realize how
important it is to wisely dispose of solid waste, especially if
the landfilling option is to be considered.
Because Roanoke City is located in the Great Valley of
Virginia and because it borders on the Blue Ridge Mountains, it
is located within two physiographic regions: the Valley and
Ridge Province and the Blue Ridge Province. Beneath the Valley
and Ridge Provioce are sedimentary rocks which primarily consist
of shale, limestone, dolomite, sandstone and some conglomerate.
Except for the conglomerate, the other rocks listed have
relatively high rates of permeability (ability to allow water
seepage). While the sandstones form the ridges, the limestones
and shales form the valley floors.
The Blue Ridge Province consists of older, more resistant
rocks, such as granites, gneisses and lava flows. Important
minerals can be found in these rocks as well. The rocks in t!%is
region may be more suitable for so~id waste disposal because of
their lower levels of permeability.;
Soils
Various soil types have different levels of permeability
(ability to allow water seepage), different textures and
4
different consistencies which behave diversely to the intrusion
of solid waste. Soils are also easily affected by changes in
climate and vegetation. For examDle, dry soil that is sparsely
covered by vegetation is eroded away more easily. This can cause
problems, particularly if the soil is contaminated from solid
waste disposal.8
The best soils for solid waste disposal are those with poor
drainage characteristics. This helps prevent solid waste
leachates (that might escape from the landfill liner) from
getting into the groundwater system.
Land Use
A variety of land uses exists throughout Roanoke City. The
primary land use throughout the City is residential, with
industrial uses extending along Hollins Road, U.S. Route 460, the
Norfolk Southern Railroad, the Lynchburg-Salem Turnpike and in
various industrial parks. Commercial land use exists primarily
in dowhtown Roanoke with other corridors of commercial
development along major routes throughout the City, such as
Franklin Road, Williamson Road, Hershberger Road, and Peters
Creek9Road. Recreational areas are found throughout the City a&
well.
Population Distribution and Characteristic-
In developing a local solid waste management plan, not only
is it important to become aware of the surrounding environment,
but it is also important to realize the impact which man has had,
and continues to have, on the earth. As the world becomes more
populated, more solid waste is generated. We are running out of
places to dispose of this waste. As strategies are developed for
solving this problem in Roanoke City, it is necessary to get an
idea of how. the population is changing within the City.
Statistics have been gathered for Roanoke City and are presented
in the tables at the end of this discussion. Below is a summary
of those statistics.
Population
Roanoke City population increased from 1970 to 1980.
However, the projected growth in the City did not occur from 1980
to 1990; instead the City experienced a 3.8% decrease in
population during that time. Projections still show, however,
that Roanoke City's population is expected to increase by tae
year 2000, where it will remain stable through the year 2010 (s~e
Table 1). Although the population growth in Roanoke City seems
to be leveling off, the amount of waste generated per person will
likely continue to increase if current lifestyles and patterns of
convenience remain unchanged.
5
Housing
The number of households in Roanoke City is expected to
continue to increase into the 1990s; however, slowed population
growth has caused the increase in the number of households to
stabilize. Households are getting smaller as a result of the
increased number of single parents and couples waiting longer
before having children. The number of people per household in
Roanoke City went from 2.85 in 1970 to 2.15 in 1990 s
~)~. ihs decrease in persons per househol~ ..... (~ee Tab~
lnolca:e a aecrease in waste generated. ~ow"e~u~
lifestyles and patterns of convenience dictate that more waste is
being generated, regardless of a decrease in people per
household.
1980 census data show that nearly 95% of the owner-occupied
housing in the City is single family, while 56% of the renter-
occupied .housing is multi-family. Nearly 64% of the people in
occupied housing units own their homes, while 36% rent their
homes (see Table 3). The sizeable amount of rental housing in
Roanoke City (particularly the multi-family.housing) provides a
goed targe~ group for implementing waste management and recyclin9
programs. '
Age Distribution
Understanding the age distribution of the people in a
locality is important when designing and implementing an
effective solid waste management program. In Roanoke City, only
one age group (the "Under 25" age group) shows a projected
decline from 1980 to 2000. The ]ncrease in the number of people
in the other three age groups listed in Table 4 shows that the
population is expected to get older, particularly as the "baby-
boomers" continue to age.
Income
When planning waste management facilities and programs, it
is helpful to keep in mind the income levels of the people in the
locality that the facility or program will serve. In Roanoke
City, median family income levels are projected to increase '26~
from 1986 to 1990 (see Table 5).
Education
Knowing the education levels of residents in a locality is
useful in developing a waste management program; especially when
public information and education are two vital parts to the
success of the waste management program. In Roanoke City,
according to 1980 census data (the most recent as of the
development of this report), 57.5% of the people age 25 and over
6
are high school graduates. The percentage of students finishing
4 years of college is 12.2%, and the median number of school
years completed is 12.2 (see Table 6).
Business and Industrial Establishments
Understanding the type of businesses and industries located
in a certain area is helpful when designing a comprehensive solid
waste management program. In Roanoke City during second quarter
1990, 33.6% of the total business establishments were in the
Service sector and 25.4% were in the Retail Trade sector (see
Table 7). These types of businesses generate a variety of wastes
and should be targeted in the development of a solid waste
management/recycling program.
Major ~mployers
Table 8 shows the ten largest employers in Roanoke City.
The majority of these are in the Service sector, while some fall
under Utilities, Transportation and Manufacturing. These larger
companies should be targeted as major components of comprehensive
recycling and waste management programs in the City.
TABLE 1
POPULATION IN ROANOKE CITY
1970-2010
Population % Change
1970 92,115
1980 100,220 8.8%
1990 96,397 -3.8%
2000* 100,000 3.7%
2010' 100,000 0.0%
* projected figures
Source:
1970-1990
2000-2010
Center for
Bureau of the Census
Virginia Statistical Abstract,
Public Service
1989 Edition,
TABLE 2
ROANOKE CITY HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
Total HOuseholds
(in Thousands)
Persons Per Household
1970 24.7 2.85
1980 40.0 2.47
1990' 44.0 2.15
* 1990 Data are preliminary census data - subject to change.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
TABLE 3
HOUSING TENURE OF ROANOKE CITY RESIDENTS - 1980
Total Occupied Housing Units
Owner-Occupied Units
Single Family Units
Multi-Family Units
Mobile Homes
Renter-Occupied Units
Single Family Units
Multi-Family Units
Mobile Homes
Persons in Occupied Housing Units
Persons in Owner-Occupied Units
Persons in Renter-Occupied Units
Source: Bureau of the Census
Number Percent
40,023 100.0%
23,776 59.4%
22,527 94.8%
1,053 4.4%
196 0.8%
16,247 40.6%
7,110 43.8%
9,098 56.0%
39 0.2%
98,647 100.0%
62,597 63.5%
36,050 36.5%
8
TABLE 4
AGE DISTRIBUTIOR IN ROANOKE CITY
1980-2000
Under 25 25-44 45-64 65+
Total
1980 36,376 26,307 21,835 15,702 100,220
1990' 31,022 31,484 18,753 17,741 99,000
2000* 27,936 31,185 23,383 16,496 99,000
* projected figures
Note: 1990 census data
time of the development of
for 1990 were used.
by age group were unavailable at the
this report. Therefore, projections
Source:
1980 Bureau of Census
1990-2000 Virginia Employment Commission, April 1990
TABLE 5
PROJECTED MEDIAN PANILY INCOME FOR ROANOKE CITY
1986-1990
Year Income (in dollars)
1986 $ 24,588
1987 $ 25,964
1988 $ 27,490
1989 $ 29,164
1990 $ 30,905
Source: Tayloe Murphy Institute, UVa, 1986
TABLE 6
EDUCATION - YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED FOR ROANOKE CITY
1980
Persons 25 and Older 63,844
% High School Graduates 57.5%
% 4 Years of College 12.5%
Median Number School Years Completed 12.2
Source: Bureau of the Census
TABLE 7
NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS BY INDUSTRY TYPE IN ROANOKE CITY
SECOND QUARTER 1990
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm., and Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Fin., Ins., and Real Estate
Services
Non-Classifiable
TOTAL
D - data suppressed to avoid disclosure
Source: Virginia Employment commission'
Number Percent
34 1.0%
313 9.3%
154 4.6%
128 3.8%
347 10.3%
859 25.4%
320 9.5%
1,136 33.6%
3,377 100%
TABLE 8
TEN LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN ROANOKE CITY - 1990
FIRM
Carilion Health Systems
Norfolk Southern
Dominion Bank'
City of Roanoke
Kroger
Roanoke City Schools
Sears Telecatalog
C & P Telephone
Appalachian Power
Roanoke Electric Steel
EMPLOYEES
4,575
3,100
1,930
1,845
1,710
1,643
1,000
713
613
608
Source: Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, 1990
10
Existing Solid Waste Management Programs in Roanoke City
Municipal Waste Management Programs
Waste Collection
Roanoke City collects waste from its residents on a weekly
basis (Monday through Friday). The City is divided into five
sections, and each section has its waste collected on a certain
day of the week. Residential refuse is collected once a week,
commercial and multi-family refuse is collected twice a week, and
refuse from the central business district (CBD) is collected six
nights a week. The City's program is a combination of curbside,
alley and back- or side-yard pick-up.
Recycling
Several forms of recycling are currently conducted within
Roanoke City. They are as follows:
Curbside Collection - Roanoke City recently implemented the first
phase of its curbside recycling program. Residents in portions
of 10 City neighborhoods (approximately 4,000 people) currently
separate out their newspaper, plastic (#1-PETE and #2-HDPE),
glass (clear, brown and green bottles and jars), and cans (steel,
bi-metal and aluminum food and beverage containers) for
recycling. These materials are placed into a compartmentalized
32-gallon container (provided to each household free of charge by
the City) for collection on the regular garbage collection day.
The City hopes to have all its citizens participating in this
curbside recycling program by 1994.
Yard Waste Collection Roanoke City currently collects three
types of yard waste for mulching and/or stockpiling. Leaves are
collected every fall by bag or by vacuum. The City has three
locations where leaves are dumped from vacuum collection. A
portion of the bagged leaves is also dumped in these three areas,
while, in 1990, the remainder went into an experimental windrow
for mulching. Brush is collected in the City if a resident calls
the Public Works Department and requests collection. This
material is collected with white goods and currently goes tc the
landfill. The Public Works Department is considering the start-
up of a regular brush collection program whereby the City %ould
utilize a separate truck for brush collection and transport to
the landfill, where it would be chipped in a tub grinder and ~old
(by the landfill) as mulch. Christmas trees have been collected
in Roanoke City for the past two years. Residents place their
discarded trees on the curb or in alleys, and the Department of
Public Works picks them up and brings them back to their service
center for mulching. The mulch is then made available free to
the public.
11
Landfillin~
Refuse collected in Roanoke City is taken to the Roanoke
Valley Regional landfill, which is owned and operated by the
Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board. Located in
eastern Roanoke County, the landfill is expected to close by
January 1, 1994 to comply with the new State landfill
regulations. This expected closure has prompted the landfill
Board to apply for a permit for an expansion of the existing
landfill, and to locate a suitable site for a new landfill.
These two activities are described in more detail in the next
paragraph.
Proposed Waste Facilitie~
Three new or expanded waste facilities have been planned for
the Roanoke Valley as of April 1991. The first is the new
regional landfill that will be located in Smith Gap in
southwestern Roanoke County. This landfill will be owned by the
Roanoke County Resource Authority (of which Roanoke City expects
to be a member), and is projected to serve the residents of the
Roanoke Valley for at least 50 years. Chis facility will use
approximately 450 acres for landfill space and is expected to be
permitted by the Department of Waste Management in 1993.
The Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board is
in the process Of applying for a permit to expand the current
regional landfill in eastern Roanoke County. This expansion
will last approximately five years - long enough to handle the
continued flow of waste until the new landfill opens in 1993.
The Long-Range Planning SubcomMittee of the City Planning
Commission is in the process of locating a site for a transfer
station that will be used to route trash from the Roanoke Valley
to the new landfill at Smith Gap. The Long-Range Planning
Subcommittee has developed siting, design and operating criteria
for the waste transfer station and has narrowed its site options
to 3 locations in Roanoke City. The transfer station is expected
to be in operation by December 1993.
12
TABLE 9
WASTE FACILITIES SERVING ROANOKE CITY
Current Facilities
SITE NAME:
PERMIT NUMBER:
COUNTY:
OWNER:
FACILITY TYPE:
PERMIT YEAR:
CAPACITY:
LIFE EXPECTANCY:
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL LANDFILL
0165
ROANOKE
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT BOARD
S
1974
260 ACRES
3-5 YEARS
Proposed Facilities
SITE NAME:
PERMIT NUMBER:
COUNTY:
OWNER:
FACILITY TYPE:
PERMIT YEAR:
CAPACITY:
LIFE EXPECTANCY:
SMITH GAP REGIONAL LANDFILL
N/A (NOT AVAILASLE)
ROANOKE
ROANOKE COUNTY RESOURCE AUTHORITY
S
1993 (ESTIMATED)
400-450 ACRES
50+ YEARS
SITE NAME:
PERMIT NUMBER:
COUNTY:
OWNER:
FACILITY TYPE:
PERMIT YEAR:
CAPACITY:
LIFE EXPECTANCY:
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL LANDFILL
(EXPANSION)
N/A (NOT AVAILABLE)
ROANOKE
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT BOARD
S
1992 (ESTIMATED)
35 ACRES
5 YEARS
SITE NAME:
PERMIT NUMBER:
LOCALITY:
OWNER:
FACILITY TYPE:
PERMIT YEAR:
CAPACITY:
LIFE EXPECTANCY:
ROANOKE VALLEY WASTE TRANSFER STATION
N/A (NOT AVAILABLE)
ROANOKE CITY
N/A (NOT AVAILABLE)
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOURCE:
OLVER Inc., 1990.
Roanoke Valley Regional
1990.
Solid Waste Management Board,
13
Private Waste Management Programs
Private Waste Collection
Cycle Systems
Collection: Commercial and residential waste and recyclable
material collection (drop-off station and bin collection as
needed.
Materials recycled: glass (3 colors), aluminum cans, bi-
metal cans, plastic containers (HDPE and PETE), newsprint, mixed
paper, and cardboard. Cycle Systems also buys and sells scrap
metals.
Handy Dump
Collection: Commercial waste and recyclable material
collection (drop-off station and bin collection) as needed.
Materials recycled: cardboard, mixed paper, computer paper,
glass (3 colors), nswsprint,~aluminum, plastic (RDPE and PETE).
Virginia Container Services
for
Collection: Industrial waste collection as needed.
Materials recycled: no recyclables collected; only
landfill disposal is collected.
trash
Companies That Process Recyclable Materials
Virginia Iron and Scrap
This company has recycled all types of metals in the Roanoke
Valley for several years. VIS buys and sells metals from
localities within a several hundred mile radius from Roanoke.
Reynolds Aluminum
Reynolds Aluminum operates an aluminum and scrap metal buy-
back center in Roanoke City at which cash or checks are paid for
any material brought in by residents or small commercial
establishments. Commercial and industrial loads of material are
brought in to Reynold's main plant in Roanoke for processiag.
From there, cast metal is transported to Michigan, cans are
transported to Alabama, and other different grades of scrap metal
are transported to Richmond.
14
Chesapeake Corporation
Chesapeake Corporation buys secondary fibers for its mill in
West Point, Virginia. Chesapeake also buys secondary fibers for
Wisconsin Tissue Company, which manufactures tissue from 100%
recycled fibers. In addition to these mills, Chesapeake sells
fiber to other mills around the country.
Locally, Chesapeake will pick up baled or containerized
paper from local businesses and industries. The paper that is
picked up has to be of a grade that is currently marketable. For
example, the computer paper market is currently strong, while the
markets for newsprint and mixed paper are somewhat weaker.
In conjunction with Stake Technology, Chesapeake is
currently conducting research for a new secondary fiber system
that will boost the market for mixed paper. These two companies
have joined to form Recoup Recycling Technologies in Richmond,
which will continue to develop this system and then market it to
other mills.
Companies That Have Im~lsmsnted-In-House Recycling Program,.
The following is a discussion of the private recycling
programs known to exist in Roanoke City at the time of the
publication of this report. It should be noted, however, that
every day more and more companies in the City are implementing
in-house recycling programs. Section IX of this report outlines
the City's plan for recording these programs, as well as the
recyclable materials generated, in order to meet the State
recycling mandates.
Downtown Roanoke Incorporated
Downtown. Roanoke Incorporated (DRI) will begin a downtown-
wide recycling program on May 1, 1991. In this program, all
downtown businesses will separate the mixed paper from their
waste stream for recycling. DRI will provide special blue
plastic trash bags in which participating businesses will put
their paper for collection during regular trash collection five
days a week. Cycle Systems will process the paper and the
plastic bags for recycling so that 100% of the material collected
in this program will be kept out of the waste stream. DRI will
also distribute "Recycling Kits" to each business participating
in the program. This kit will contain guidelines and suggestions
for recycling in the downtown program, as well as stickers f~r
all employees to display inside trash cans near each desk,
counter or work station. Once implemented, this program is
expected to save Roanoke City $15,000 in landfill tipping fees
during the first year of operation.
15
Dominion Bank
Dominion Bank has collected mixed paper and aluminum and bi-
metal cans in-house for recycling for the past two years.
Dominion plans to upgrade its recycling program by separating out
computer paper and aluminum cans in order to obtain a higher
market value for each.
Currently, Dominion uses recycled paper for its bank
receipts, and also reuses copier paper to reduce the amount of
waste paper generated. During the first quarter of 1991,
Dominion plans to begin using stoneware and flatware in its
cafeteria to replace the styrofoam plates and plastic utensils it
currently uses.
To educate its employees about recycling, Dominion has
ordered recycling brochures from the Department of Resources to
include in each employee's pay slip. Dominion is also going to
start publishing a newsletter to keep its employees and others
informed about its efforts to recycle. Dominion also plans to
begin recording the amount of paper and cans it recycles in order
to comply with Virginia's recycling mandates.
Shenandoah Life Insurance Company
Shenandoah Life Insurance Company has implemented a fairly
comprehensive in-house recycling program. Currently the company
provides sets of three-color bins throughout its offices for the
collection of mixed paper, computer paper and aluminum and bi-
metal cans for recycling. Shenandoah also recycles cardboard, a
large component of the company's waste stream.
In August 1990, the company furnished all its employees with
ceramic coffee mugs to replace styrofoam cups and reduce the
amount of waste being generated.
To make recycling complete, Shenandoah also buys tissue and
paper towels made from recycled paper. Twenty-five percent of
the profit made from recycling goes into a fund for the employees
club. The remaining 75% is used to maintain the recycling
program.
Coca Cola
Coca Cola Bottling Company of Roanoke currently does not
have a recycling program in place, but plans to b~gin
implementing the recycling of bottles and cans in early 1991.
Kroger
Ail Kroger stores in the Roanoke Valley currently recycle
their plastic bags and cardboard. At this time, the Krogers at
16
Crossroads Mall in Roanoke City has on its premises a community
recycling box provided by Cycle Systems. Reports indicate that
this center is constantly full of recyclable materials.
Harris Teeter
Harris Teeter currently collects and recycles the plastic
bags its customers get for carrying groceries. In addition,
Harris Teeter bales its cardboard and sends it back to its main
plant for recycling.
Food Lion
Food Lion has bins in-store to collect paper and'plastic
grocery bags for recycling. An expansion Of this program is
planned for the near future. Food Lion also bales and sells its
cardboard to another company for recycling. Bone and fat from
the meat department is picked up by companies that manufacture
cosmetics.
Roanoke Times and World News
Currently, t~e Roanoke.Times and World News is conducting an
animal bedding recycling p'roject in Bedford and Franklin
Counties wherein newspaper is shredded and used as bedding for
farm animals. This program is currently in the testing stages;
however, it will eliminate approximately 540 tons annually of
newsprint waste at full operation. Currently, four farms are
being tested, and a fifth farm is on a waiting list.
Advance Auto
Virginia law now states that lead-acid batteries are banned
from all sanitary landfills (effective July 1, 1990). All
retailers of these batteries must accept used batteries in equal
quantities as sold to customers. In light of this, Advance Auto
is conducting a chain-wide automobile battery recycling program
whereby customers can bring in up to 25 batteries per person per
week for a $2.00 refund per battery. The limit on the number of
batteries brought in per person was issued due to limited storage
space in the Advance Auto stores. At this time, no plans have
been made to expand this program to include the municipal
collection of batteries (it should be noted here that K-Mart
stores nationwide will also pay $2.00 for every automobile
battery returned to its stores).
Recently, Advance Auto announced the start of its pilot
program for recycling used oil. This program allows customers to
bring in up to five gallons of used, uncontaminated motor oil.
Customers can check their used oil for contamination at
participating Advance Auto stores.
17
Evaluation of Public and Private Garbage Collection Syst-m,',
AS part of the development of its solid waste plan, each
locality must evaluate its existing public and private garbage
collection systems and provide for improvements if necessary.
According to a report published by the Environmental Protection
Agency, a typical governmental solid waste collection system
would satisfy all or most of the objectives listed below:
1. Environmental Protection provide a healthful,
sanitary and aesthetic collection system;
2. Convenience - provide a specific level of service;
3. Continuity - provide a stable level of service;
4. Resource Recovery - reclaim resources where desired;
5. Safety - provide a safe collection system; and
6. Efficiency - achieve objex%ives while maintaining high
productivity and low cost.
Each locality in the Fifth Planning District has its own
public garbage collection system (with the exception of Botetourt
County, which contracts the services of six different private
haulers for County garbage collection; and Craig County, which
has private curbside collection only in New Castle) which it will
evaluate according to the above criteria. However, there are
two private waste haulers that provide service to the Roanoke
Valley. These haulers are:
Cycle Systems, Inc.
Handy Dump
Each of these .private haulers was evaluated by the Fifth Planning
District staff according to questions based on the criteria
listed above. Appendix C contains a copy of the survey that was
used to evaluate the private collection systems listed above.
Local governments can also use this survey to evaluate their
public waste collection systems. Below is a brief evaluation of
each private hauler.
Private Collection Syetems
Cycle Systems Inc.
Cycle Systems is a commercial hauler that collects non-
hazardous waste from businesses and residences throughout the
Roanoke Valley. In addition to waste collection, Cycle Systems
is heavily involved in recycling. Since the early 1900's, Cycle
Systems has developed long-term markets for thousands of tons of
18
recyclable materials, ranging from paper and plastic to electric
furnace scrap and reusable locomotive diesel engines. Currently,
Cycle Systems operates Several community recycling drop-off
centers (at Krogers and at the Cycle Systems Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF)) throughout the Valley.
The following is a synopsis of Cycle Systems' response to
the garbage collection evaluation survey (see Appendix C).
Environmental Protection
At this time there is no state permit required as a
registration to haul any solid or industrial wastes. An
Environmental Protection Agency registration is required to haul
hazardous wastes.
Cycle Systems, Inc. uses a combination of methods to ensure
a "healthful, sanitary and aesthetic,' collection of wastes.
First, prior to the sale of any service, a sales representative
calls on a prospective customer to determine the nature of the
material which Cycle Systems has been requested to transport for
disposal. If it is deemed necessary, a plant survey is conducted
by the Cycle Systems' sales representative from the prospective
customer.
For existing ~ustomers, an annual survey is done of all
containers to be certain that the material being collected and
disposed of is the same material originally contracted for. Also
during this survey it is determined whether or not the containers
are in good serviceable condition. If they are not, they are
scheduled for replacement.
Convenience
Cycle Systems provides drop-off center recycling for several
rural communit%es and for urban communities upon request. In
regard to those people who cannot take their garbage to the curb
or to a green box or landfill, Cycle Systems does not provide any
special collection arrangements for them at this time.
Cycle Systems places its drop-off containers at the
direction of the municipality. However, Cycle Systems,
recommendation would be to centrally locate these facilities in
an easily accessible area.
Continuity
Curbside collection and drop-off center collection are both
provided either on a scheduled basis or on an "on-call" basis.
In any event, the collection is at the direction of the
municipality or the customer served.
19
Resource Recovery
NOTE: The responses given for this section are somewhat vague
due to the varying number of schedules provided to Cycle
Systems' customers. The specifics of these services are
considered proprietary information and therefore not available
for comment.
Cycle Systems, Inc. will discuss and assist the prospective
customer or existing customer with advice on how to set up a
recycling program; however, it is the opinion of Cycle Systems
that each company must tailor the program for its own benefit and
waste management needs.
Cycle Systems provides for commercial clients a second
container for the collection of co-mingled recyclables that have
been separated out of the waste stream. At this time co-mingled
recyclables include, but are not limited to, mixed office paper,
newspaper, corrugated chip board, aluminum and bi-metal beverage
containers and several other materials at the specific request of
the customer.
Safety
To ensure on-the-job safety, an intensive and comprehensive
education program is conducted by Cycle Systems, Inc. both in
initial training and on-going training for its drivers. In
calendar year 1991, Cycle Systems hopes to begin a bi-annual
classroom session consisting of two four-hour presentations on
various techniques to protect its employees. This training,
however, is only in the planning stages at this time.
Because Cycle Systems does not provide any curb-side
service, it currently has no safety procedures in place to assist
in this matter. For green box or landfill systems, Cycle
Systems, Inc. performs several unscheduled observations of drop
off centers and sanitary landfills to determine potential
hazards. Once identified as a potential hazard, Cycle Systems,
Inc. takes whatever action prudent to insure safe operations.
Efficiency
Cycle Systems, Inc. chooses its garbage collection routes
such that segments of these routes are not duplicated during one
collection trip. While Cycle Systems distributes waste
containers appropriate to the amount of waste generated in any
given area, the garbage collection vehicles are not chosen
according to the amount of trash generated. Instead, vehicles
are chosen in compliance with state and local ordinances, as well
as to be of an efficient size to travel along the streets of the
collection area. For Cycle Systems, waste transportation
distance to disposal sites is more important than the amount of
2O
waste to be collected.
Handy Dump
Handy Dump is a commercial hauler that collects non-
hazardous solid waste from businesses throughout the Roanoke
Valley (Handy Dump does not tabulate the amount of waste or
recyclable materials it collects from each jurisdiction at this
time. However, Roanoke City may have to consider the adoption
of an ordinance requiring private haulers to specify amounts of
waste collected from each jurisdiction for the purpose of meeting
the State solid waste management regulations. See Section IX of
this report for a description of how waste generation will be
recorded for Roanoke City in the future). Handy Dump also
operates an on-site community recycling station (Waste Diverting
Technologies) at which glass (3 colors); aluminum; cardboard;
newspaper; mixed paper; computer paper; plastic grocery bags,
milk jugs, soda eontainers and HDPE and PETE are collected.
The'following is a synopsis of Handy Pump's responses to the
garbage collection system evaluation survey in Appendix C.
Environmental Protection
At this time, no specific permits are required for the
transport or storage of non-hazardous solid waste. In order to
ensure a "healthful, sanitary and aesthetic" collection system,
Handy Dump follows several industry standards, such as using
self-contained trucks and containers for the collection and
storage of solid waste.
Convenience
Each Handy Dump client has a dumpster on site for the
storage of solid waste. In addition to these individual
collection sites, Handy Dump also has a drop-off center for
recyclables on site at the Handy Dump office on River Avenue in
Roanoke. Currently, Handy Dump does not conduct residential
curbside collection.
Continuity
Handy Dump collects trash from its clients according t¢ the
collection needs of each client.
Resource Recovery
While Handy Dump does conduct some source separation of
recyclable material at its plant, it does request that its
clients practice in-house source separation when it is practical.
Any recyclable material that is retrieved from the waste stream
is sold to various brokers and end-users.
21
Safety
Handy Dump observes all industry safety standards and
regulations. Handy Dump is a member of the National Solid Waste
Management Association, which actively lobbys to promote
stringent safety guidelines.
Question #2 is not applicable to Handy Dump.
Efficiency
Handy Dump operates as efficiently as possible to provide
maximum service at minimal costs. Therefore, the collection
routes and the type of vehicle used for collection are chosen to
reflect the best interests of both customer and provider.
Each client served by Handy Dump rents waste containers
according to the amount of waste it generates. Handy Dump offers
waste containers in 4, 6 or 8 cubic yard sizes; 20, 30 or 40
cubic yard sizes, and some other special sizes.
Roanoke City Municipal Waste Collection System
The Roanoke City Manager of Refuse
garbage collection survey in Appendix
City's municipal waste collection system.
his answers to the survey.
Collection used the
C to evaluate Roanoke
Below is a synopsis of
Environmental Protection
Currently, Roanoke City municipal waste haulers are not
required to obtain permits to ensure environmental protection
during waste collection. However, to ensure a "healthful,
sanitary and aesthetic" waste collection system, refuse in all
areas of the City is collected on a regular basis (see
description of service on page 11). Each garbage truck is
washed at least once a week and the cabs are cleaned daily.
Convenience
Roanoke City has-a-combination of curbside, alley and back-
yard pick-up to serve its residents. This diversity in service
is especially beneficial for those residents who are unable to
bring their own trash to the curb.
Continuity
As noted on page 11, garbage in Roanoke City is collected
once a week for single family homes, twice weekly for multi-
family homes and commercial establishments, and six nights weekly
in the central business district. Roanoke City experimented with
22
different collection schedules to determine how often waste
should be collected in the City.
Resource Recovery
Residents in the City can separate their recyclable
materials from their garbage and deposit them in privately owned
drop-off centers located throughout the City (see pages 14-17 for
a description of private waste programs). However, starting in
early 1991, citizens in portions of 10 neighborhoods throughout
the City will be served by a curbside recycling program. Some of
the recyclable materials taken out of the waste stream (paper,
metal, glass and plastics) are taken to a local recycling
station, while leaves, some brush and Christmas trees are
mulched.
Safety
To ensure on-the-job safety of the garbage collection
program, sanitation workers are required to wear hard hats,
safety shoes and goggles. Safety meetings for the sanitation
workers are held once a week..
For those residents who &re unable to safely take their own
trash to the curb, a special service form may be submitted to the
Refuse Manager. If the form is approved, sanitation workers can
collect the trash according to the instructions on the request
form.
Efficiency
The collection routes in Roanoke City are such that none are
duplicated; however, if a resident reports a missed collection, a
truck will pick up the garbage on an individual basis.
To reduce trips to the landfill, an appropriately-sized
truck is used for waste collection.
The existing privately-owned drop-off centers are located in
areas where they are well-used (see pages 14-17 for a description
of private waste programs).
23
Estimates of Solid Waste Generation in Roanoke City
Current Waste Generation
According to the solid waste management plan regulations
promulgated by the Virginia Waste Management Board, the following
items must be included (as they are available) in each local
solid waste management plan:
Estimates of solid waste generation from households,
commercial institutions, industries, and other types of sources,
including the amounts reused, recycled, recovered as a resource,
incinerated and landfilled. Estimates should identify special
waste to include, at least, the following:
stumps
land-clearing/ construction debris
motor vehicle tires
waste oil
batteries
sludges
mining wastes
ash
white goods
septage
agricultural wastes; and
spill residues
(from State solid waste regulations, Sec. 4.2-3)
Table 10 shows the waste information available for Roanoke
City as of September 1990. Because detailed record-keeping was
not required in the past, complete records regarding the
different types of waste generated in Roanoke City (as listed in
Section 4.2-3 of the State solid waste regulations) have not been
kept. ~owever, the State recycling mandates require that
localities keep more complete records of types of waste generated
in the future. See section IX of this re~ort for a description
of how the City plans to record the amounts of waste generated
and recycled in the future.
24
TABLE 10
WASTE GENERATED IN ROANOKE CITY IN 1989'*
Residential Waste
Commercial Waste
Industrial Waste
57,982
N/A
N/A
tons
Special Wastes
Stumps N/A
Landclearing/construction debris N/A
Motor vehicle tires N/A
Waste oil N/A
Batteries N/A
Sludge 6,000 dry
Mining wastes N/A
Ash N/A
White goods N/A
Septage N/A
Agricultural wastes N/A
Spill residues N/A
Waste reused
Waste recycled*
Waste recovered as a resource
Waste incinerated
N/A
3,990 tons
N/A
N/A
53,992 tons
Waste landfilled
tons
Total Waste Generated N/A
Recycling Rate*** 7%
* Figure only i'ncludes municipal waste recycled at Cycle
as reported to the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill
** Figures reflect waste collected during fiscal year 1990 (July
1989-June 1990)
Systems
(see below)
*** Based only on amount of waste collected by Roanoke City
Sanitation Workers and amount of waste recycled at Cycle Systems
as reported to the Regional Landfill (includes collection of some
commercial waste in the City)
N/A - Data not available (see section IX for recordation plan
description
SOURCE: Information received from Roanoke Valley Regional
Landfill
25
The figures in Table 10 show that Roanoke City achieved an
approximate recycling rate of 7% in fiscal year 1990. It should
be noted, however, that this recycling rate is not indicative of
all the recycling efforts in the City. Several companies in the
City, such as Chesapeake Corporation and Reynolds Aluminum, also
recycle material separately from that which is reported by Cycle
Systems to the Roanoke Valley Regional landfill (see pages 14-17
for a description of other recycling programs currently in
operation in Roanoke City).
Projected Waste Generation
Table 11 shows projected waste generation for Roanoke City. The
data were generated by using population projections from the
Virginia Employment Commission, a per capita waste generation of
1.117 tons (as calculated by Olver, Incorporated), and a
projected increase in waste generation of 0.6% per capita per
year (based on national trends in waste generation).11 As shown
in the table, Roanoke City is expected to have a per capita waste
generation rate of 6.9% by 2010, generating 11.6 tons per day.
This is a 16% increase over that generated in 1990.
Year
TABLE 11
PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION IN ROANOKE CITY
Projected
Population
Projected Projecte4 waste Generation
Waste Rate* Tons Per Day Tons Per Year
1990'* 96,397 6.12 295.0
1991 99,002 6.14 303.9
1992 99,001 6.18 305.9
1993 99,001 6.22 307.9
1994 99,000 6.26 309.9
1995 99,004 6.30 311.9
1996 99,000 6.34 313.8
1997 99,003 6.38 315.8
1998 98,999 6.42 317.8
1999 99,002 6.46 319.8
2000 99,000 6.50 321.8
2005 99,000 6.70 331.6
2010 99,000 6.90 341.6
107,675 4
110,936 7
111,658 3
112,381 0
113,102 5
113,843 5
114,547.9
115,274.1
115,997.0
116,718.4
117,438.8
121,052.2
124,684.0
* lbs./person/day
** 1990 census data
Source: Olver, Incorporated, 1989.
26
Potential Markets for Recyclable Materia]~
In 1989 the Virginia General Assembly allocated $100,000 to
the Virginia Department of Waste Management so that it could
conduct a study to determine the various markets available for
recyclable materials in Virginia. In turn, the Department of
Waste Management contracted with Marketing Information Data and
Services (MIDAS), Inc. to conduct a market study for recyclable
materials. MIDAS searched 2,000 databases to generate data and
information on recycling and the markets for recyclable materials
in the state of Virginia. It also generated a list of Virginia
companies that are potential users of recyclable materials.
The list below reveals those companies in the Fifth Planning
District that, according to MIDAS, have the potential to serve as
markets for recyclable materials collected in Roanoke City. It
should be noted here that there are other companies in the state
and th~ nation that could take recyclable materials collected in
Roanoke ~ity; however, the list below includes only those located
in the Fifth Planning District.
Aluminum, Glass and Plastic Companies12
Virginia Acadia, Inc. (Plastics) - Roanoke City
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company (Plastics) - Roanoke City
Hercules Incorporated (Plastics) - Covington
Reynolds Aluminum (Aluminum) - Roanoke City
Virginia Scrap Iron and Metal (Scrap Metal) - Roanoke City
Cycle Systems (Scrap Metal, Plastic, Glass) - Roanoke City
Vinton Scrap and Metal (Scrap Metal) - Vinton
Waste Diverting Technologies (Aluminum, Glass, Plastic) - Roanoke
City
NSW Corporation (Plastic bags) - Roanoke City
Pa~er and Paper Related Compenies
Shorewood Packaging Corp. (Corrugated/solid fiber boxes)-
Roanoke City
Chesapeake Corporation (Corrugated/solid fiber boxes) - Roanoke
American Profile Company (Paper mills) - Vinton
Sonoco Products Company (Paperboard mills) - Clifton Forge
Westvaco Corporation (Pulp mills) - Covington
Westvaco Corporation (Paperboard mills) - Covington
DEC International Corp. (Paper mills) - Roanoke City
Bright-Crest, Ltd. (Stationery products) - Roanoke City
Double Envelope Corporation (Paper mills) - Roanoke City
Cycle Systems, Inc. (Paper) - Roanoke City
Waste Diverting Technologies (Paper) - Roanoke City
27
Waste Management Needs In Roanoke City
Roanoke City, like other localities in the State, is
realizing the importance of effective, comprehensive solid waste
management for the protection of the environment and for reducing
the costs associated with solid waste management.
Currently, Roanoke City municipal waste is taken to the
Roanoke Valley Regional landfill in eastern Roanoke County.
However, this landfill is filling up quickly and is expected to
close within the next several years. A site has been chosen for
a new regional landfill (see page 13), which is currently going
through the Department of Waste Management's permit process
(expected to be completed in 1993). To fulfill the landfill
needs of the Valley after the old landfill has closed and before
the new landfill has opened, the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill
Board is applying for a permit for an expansion of the existing
landfill.
Although every effort is being made to ensure adequate
landfill space for waste disposal in the Roanoke Valley, it is
necessary for extensive recycling, source reduction a.nd reuse
programs to be implemented throughout the Valley in_ order to
preserve the amount of space available in the new landfill.
Roanoke City has begun the implementation of its curbside
recycling program, and it has plans for expanding the program to
include the entire City by 1994. Public education on recycling
and solid waste management will be the key to a successful
residential and business recycling program in the City. While
several businesses in the City now recycle, many more do not.
These businesses will need to be made aware of the economic and
environmental benefits of recycling. Aside from having to meet
the State recycling mandates and complying with the State solid
waste management regulations, the waste management needs of
Roanoke City are as follows:
-To maximize landfill life expectancy through a comprehensive
solid waste management program that focuses on source reduction,
reuse and recycling.
-To educate both the public and private sectors on: (1) the
i~portance and benefits of recycling, source reduction and reuse;
and (2) how comprehensive solid waste management will protect the
environment and reduce waste transport and disposal costs.
-To continuously explore the market for recyclable materials in
order to find the most cost-effective means for recycling certain
materials, and to continuously search for effective means of
managing other solid waste.
-To make solid waste management as financially feasible as
possible for Roanoke City and its residents.
28
III. PROPOSED 20-YEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALs, OBJECTIVES
AND ~ECOMMENDATIONS ~)R ROANOKE CITY
The following 20-year waste management goals, objectives and
recommendations are categorized according to each step of the
nationally-recognized waste management hierarchy source
reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery (waste-to-energy),
incineration and landfilling), which is designed to effectively
manage solid waste by reducing the amount of waste that is
ultimately disposed through landfilling or incineration. These
goals, objectives and recommendations are general guidelines that
Roanoke City will follow as it develops and begins to implement a
comprehensive solid waste management program.
Source Reduction / Reusp
a. Goals
- To continue to inform citizens, businesses, and
government officials of source reduction methods and
encourage their ~se where appropriate.
To continue the ongoing search for funding to continue
business education on source reduction methods.
Objectives
The City should educate the consumer on how they may
assist source reduction efforts.
The City should educate the business community on the
costs of excess packaging, and encourage them to
maximize use of source reduction methods in the work
place.
The City should continue to implement source reduction
programs.
Recommendations
The City should minimize the use of disposable products
in-house (such as styrofoam cups), and maintain records
of the amount of waste reduced through source reduction
methods.
The City should encourage the State and Federal
government to study the feasibility of enacting
legislation that would restrict the manufacture of
disposable products (such as styrofoam cups) and excess
packaging.
29
Rec¥clinq
The City should continue to educate the private sector
about SOurce reduction methods through the use of
presentations, promotional materials and a possible
Roanoke City waste management hot-line.
a. Goals
To promote a coordinated recycling effort with
governmental assistance aimed at making recycling a
common practice in homes and businesses (at a minimum).
- To continue the ongoing search for funding for the
implementation of recycling programs, including market
development and public information campaigns.
Objectives
The City should continue to implement recycling
programs, including household hazardous waste
recycling/disposal and composting.
The City should continue to educate the public on why
and how to make lifestyle changes that will make
recycling succeed.
The City should encourage an increased market for
recycled goods.
Recommendations
Recycling efforts should continue to be implemented in
conjunction with source reduction methods.
Enqourage the State of Virginia, in coordination with
Virginia localities, to take appropriate steps to
stimulate the recycled goods market and educate the
public about market fluctuations.
Encourage all offices, both public and private, to
purchase recycled materials and to initiate recycling
within their buildings at a minimum (office paper,
computer paper, soft drink cans, etc.)
The City should encourage, where possible, regional
efforts to recycle.
The City should seek procurement of equipment and
services from vendors with waste diversion programs.
30
The City should encourage the State of Virginia to
consider the feasibility of a bottle bill or any other
measures to encourage recycling and source reduction.
Resource Recovery
At this time, this option is not feasible for Roanoke
City. However, the City will remain cognizant Of
changes in technology that may warrant the use of
resource recovery facilities in the future.
Incineration (without resource recovery)
At this time, this option is not feasible for Roanoke
City. However, the City will remain cognizant of
changes in technology that may warrant the use of
incineration as a means for waste management in the
future.
Landfillinq
a. Goal
To utilize the' proposed regional landfill in
conjunction with the other steps of the waste
management hierarchy to ensure the longevity of the
life of the landfill.
b. Objectives
The City should educate the public on the pros and cons
of landfilling (with the realization that landfills
will still be needed in conjunction with other waste
management technologies).
The City should plan for landfills, if necessary, only
in conjunction with consideration of the other steps of
the waste management hierarchy.
c. Recommendations
The City should consider any future landfill studies in
the context of the waste management hierarchy (i.e.,
source reduction, recycling, etc. should also be
included in the overall plan).
The City should allocate funding for the education of
the public in regards to the pros and cons of
landfilling, including the fact that landfilling is
needed in order to have a successful and comprehensive
waste management program.
31
AS part of the landfilling process, the City should
consider the use of a centrally located transfer
station for the collection and transport of solid waste
to the proposed regional landfill at Smith Gap.
32
IV. STRATEGIES FOR MEETING SOLID WASTE MANAGF24ENT OBJECTIVES
20-Year Plan Implementation Milestones
The 20-year solid waste management plan implementation milestones
for the City are as follows:
Adoption of the Roanoke City Solid Waste Management Plan
(June 1991).
Local ordinance amendments/revisions in conjunction with
plan recommendations (As needed).
Public education/information program development and
implementation (On-going since January 1991).
Plan update and review every 5 years as required by the
State. Organize a citizens advisory committee and a
technical advisory committee to assist with solid waste plan
updates. The citizens committee should consist of
community/neighborhood leaders, church leaders, business
leaders, environmental, group leaders, etc. The technical
advisory committee should consist o~ industry leaders and
municipal representatives' (public works, utilities, etc.).
5. City-wide residential curbside recycling (June 1993).
Brush/yard waste collection and recycling program
development and implementation (July 1992).
Transfer of waste to Smith Gap Regional Landfill through the
new Roanoke County Resource Authority Waste Transfer Station
located in Roanoke City (January 1994).
Funding procurement for solid waste program implementation
and maintenance (On-going since 1990).
Solid Waste Nanagement Strategies
The following plan implementation strategies are based on the
solid waste management plan recommendations found in Section III
of this report. These strategies describe in general the waste
management program the City will implement over the next 20
years.
Source Reduction/Reuse
Successful source reduction and reuse programs will rely on
extensive public education and information at all levels,
including local government, schools, consumers and businesses.
The City plans to implement an education program (starting in
July 1992) that focuses on a "checklist" for source reduction,
including:
33
1. Buy durable, not disposable, products.
2. Buy sensibly packaged products.
3. Buy only what is needed, and buy in bulk
quantities those products used often.
4. Reuse handy containers.
5. Borrow or rent items you use infrequently.
6. Maintain and repair products to ensure long
product life.
7. Resell goods you no longer need.
8. Buy used goods.
9. Donate used goods to charities.
10. Avoid buying products which use unnecessary
plastic and paper packaging. This can result in
removing 10-20% of the waste from your household
garbage can.
11. Buy recyclable products.
12. Look for non-hazardous substitutes for cleaners
and pesticides.
13. Use a canvas bag, or reuse plastic and pape{3bags,
when shopping for groceries or other items.
The City also plans to develop a list of social and human
service agencies, businesses and industries (possibly by December
1991) that are able to take reusable items such as clothing,
furniture, and possibly some household hazardous wastes (such as
old paint, etc.). This will enable citizens to provide for the
reuse of their discarded items rather than disposing of them in
the landfill.
Although waste taken out of the waste stream through source
reduction methods cannot be counted as waste that has been
recycled, localities can submit source reduction documentation,
as part of a variance procedure, to the Department of Waste
Management if for some reason they do not meet the required
recycling mandate.
Household Hazardous Waste Management
Because household hazardous waste (see definition in
Appendix B) generated in Virginia can still be disposed in a
landfill and, therefore, poses a threat to the environment, the
best practice for household hazardous waste management at this-
time is source reduction. Buying only the amount of materials
(paint, household cleaners pesticides, etc.) needed is one
example of minimizing household hazardous waste through source
reduction.
Another form of minimizing hazardous waste through source
reduction is to engage in some sort of waste exchange program
whereby certain unused materials (such as paint) are donated to
social and human service agencies that can use the materials in
their projects. Agencies like Habitat for Humanity are known to
take unused household hazardous waste for use in their projects.
34
Recycling programs for some household hazardous wastes (such
as batteries and use motor oil) are currently in place throughout
the State. Local governments and private agencies across the
State are currently trying to address the issue of household
hazardous waste disposal. In many localities, household
hazardous waste is collected on specially designated days and is
shipped out of the State for disposal. Unfortunately, for many
localities, this option is too expensive to implement. For this
reason, the best policy for the effective management of household
hazardous waste is not to generate it in the first place.
Recycling
In November 1988, Roanoke City Manager W. Robert Herbert
appointed a Task Force to investigate recycling and develop
recommendations for a program to reduce the quantity of solid
waste materials generated in the City and disposed of in the
Regional Landfill. The following recycling program outline is
based on the recommendations made to Mr. Herbert by the Roanoke
City Recycling Task Force.
Roanoke City has already implemented the first phase of the
voluntary curbside recyclable collection program recommended by
the City's recycling Task Force. Currently, parts of 10 City
neighborhoods (approximately 4,000 homes) receive curbside
recyclable material collection (see page 11 for a more complete
description of the program). Below is a schedule for the 4-phase
City recycling program as recommended to Mr. Herbert.
35
P_has e I
TIME FRAME:
ACTIVITIES:
COSTS:
FUNDING SOURCE:
Phase I1
January 1990-June 1990
Employ Coordinator
Conduct public information campaign
$330,250
50% grant from Regional Landfill Board
Existing capital funds
TIME FRAME:
ACTIVITIES:
COSTS:
FUNDING SOURCE:
Phase III
July 1990-June 1991
Begin collections
Continue public information campaign
Acquire second truck and 10,000 bins
$395,152
Operating budget
TIME FRAME:
ACTIVITIES:
COSTS:
FUNDING SOURCE:
Phase IV
July 1991-June 1992
Expand collections
Continue public info'rmation campaign
Acquire third truck and 10,000 more bins
Approx. $400,000
Operating budget
Regional Landfill Board grant, if
available
TIME FRAME:
ACTIVITIES=
July 1992-June 1993
Expand program to include entire City
Continue public information campaign
Acquire fourth truck and 10,000 more
bins
COSTS: Approx. $400,000
FUNDING SOURCE: Operating budget
Capital improvement funds, if available
Regional Landfill Board grant, if
available
Tables 1-5 in Appendix D show the actual costs incurred during
the implementation of the Start-up Phase and Phase I of the
City's curbside recycling program. The estimated costs for
Phases II-IV are based on the costs incurred during the Start-up
Phase and Phase I. The estimated costs shown for each phas~ do
not include revenues from recycling materials.
In addition to implementing the curbside recycling program
described above, Roanoke City also plans to implement the
following recycling programs:
Begin recycling activities within City government (use
of recycled/recyclable goods, separation of recyclables
36
from non-recyclable materials, etc.) (On-going since
1986).
Begin collection of white goods for recycling; set up
regional white goods collection center for transport to
market (February 1991).
Encourage local service agencies, grocery stores and
restaurants to set up a food bank for the collection of
food for the needy (July 1992).
Amend local ordinances to promote/enable waste
reduction and recycling (as needed).
Continuously monitor markets for recyclable materials
in order to obtain the best price for materials
collected (annually).
Conduct surveys in the City to determine what
improvements need to be made in the curbside recycling
program (annually).
Develop a brush and yard waste collection program for
the development of mulch for public and private use
(July 1992).
Develop a brochure that describes to City residents
their options for recycling in addition to the City's
program (e.g., the Advance Auto battery and used oil
recycling program, etc.) (July 1992).
Monitor curbside recycling program participation to
determine if a mandatory program needs to be
implemented (annually).
The recycling rate for the City of Roanoke will be determined as
follows:
Rate = (Waste Recycled/Total Waste Generated) x 100
The amount of waste recycled in the City for any given year
includes all principal recyclable materials (see definition in
Appendix B) collected from residents and businesses through all
recycling programs (public and private) in the City. Recycling
of supplemental recyclable materials (see definition in Appendix
B) is not required by the State; however, a locality may recycle
these (if feasible) and include them in the recycling rate
calculation. "Total Waste Generated" includes all household and
commercial waste generated plus that which is collected through
recycling programs, both public and private. Roanoke City will
continue to recycle glass (3 colors), newspaper, aluminum and
plastic in its curbside recycling program. Eventually, as a
program is developed, the City will collect white goods, scrap
37
metal, tires and brush for recycling. Residents are encouraged
to continue bringing their batteries and used motor oil to those
companies that will accept it.
Roanoke City will record the amount of waste generated and
recycled (by weight) for a given year up until December 31 of
that year. Using the formula shown above, the City will then
determine its recycling rate and report the information to the
Department of Waste Management before April 30 of the following
year.
Table 12 shows the tonnage of waste that will need to be
recycled in Roanoke City in 1991, 1993 and 1995 to meet the State
mandates. These figures do not take into consideration the
amount of commercial or industrial waste recycling that may be in
place at the time when recycling rates must be reported to the
State. Any commercial or industrial recycling that is
implemented in the future will reduce the amount of waste to be
recycled per person.
According to current waste generation rates, Roanoke City
residents will need to recycle at least 1.6 pounds per person per
day (approximately 78 tons a day) by 1995 in order to achieve the
25% State mandated recycling, rate. By educating the public,
providing incentives (both financial and environmental) for
recycling, and creating markets for recyclable materials, these
rates can be achieved.
TABLE 12
WASTE TO BE RECYCLED IN ROANOKE CITY
Total Projected Waste
Tons Per Day Recycling
Year (lbs./person/day} Rate
A~ount to be Recycled
Tons Per Day
(lbs./person/day)
1991 303.9 (6.14) 10% 30.4 (0.6)
1993 307.9 (6.22) 15% 46.2 (0.9)
1995 311.9 (6.30) 25% 78.0 (1.6)
Fifth Planning District Commission
Source:
Resource Recovery (Waste-to-Energy)/Incineration
These steps of the waste management hierarchy are not
economically nor environmentally feasible for Roanoke City at
this time. However, the City will remain cognizant of any
changes in technology that may warrant the use of resource
recovery or incineration as a means for waste management in the
future.
38
Landfilling and Waste Collection
Through recycling, source reduction and reuse, Roanoke City
hopes to dramatically reduce its waste stream in order to protect
the environment and maximize existing landfill space. Regardless
of how much waste is recycled or reused in the City, landfilling
remains as a waste management option--at this point not all waste
can be recycled. When the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill
closes in 1994, it is anticipated that Roanoke City will begin to
transport its waste to the new Smith Gap Regional Landfill in
western Roanoke County. After much consideration and financial
analysis, it was determined that waste transported to the
landfill by rail was the best option for the Roanoke Valley.
Roanoke City Manager W. Robert Herbert requested the Planning
Commission's assistance with selecting a site for a proposed
solid waste transfer facility in the City. The Planning
Commission's Long-Range Planning Subcommittee developed siting,
design and operating criteria for the transfer facility and
recommended three viable sites. After careful review of the
recommended sites, the City Planning Commission made its
recommendation to City Council. The transfer facility is
expected to be in place by December 1993. Current waste
collection routes will be adjusted to accommodate the site of the
new transfer facility. Implementation milestones for landfilling
are shown on page 33.
39
V. PUBLIC EDUCATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES
Public education about recycling and appropriate methods of
solid waste management are the key to the success of any solid
waste management program. Successful recycling programs require
a change in lifestyle whereby citizens learn to separate from
their garbage those reusable and recyclable materials that they
would otherwise throw away.
Several efforts in recycling and waste management education
currently exist in Roanoke City. They are as follows:
City of Roanoke
Upon implementation of Phase I of its curbside recycling
program, Roanoke City distributed pamphlets on recycling along
with each of its recycling bins. Pamphlets will eventually be
given to all citizens as the curbside program is expanded.
Television, radio and newspaper advertisements have also been
released to inform City residents of their new recycling program.
To answer City residents' questions on recycling and solid waste
management in general, Roanoke City has also installed a "hot
line" that residents can call when they have questions. Roanoke
City gives recycling presentations upon request to civic groups,
business groups and neighborhood groups in addition to manning
recycling booths at environmental and public events.
Clean Valley Council
Clean Valley Council (CVC) has been active in recycling
education since the early 1980's. As sponsors of Clean Valley
Day and Clean River Day, CVC encourages recycling in the Valley
through speaking engagements to clubs, churches and businesses;
distribution of recycling literature and participation at special
Roanoke Valley events. The Council's Recycling Educator provides
recycling information to all elementary and secondary schools,
colleges and school boards throughout the Valley. For businesses
and industries, CVC has developed a Business Waste Recycling
Guide, and conducts on-site visits and telephone consultation for
those commercial establishments that are interested in or are
starting to implement in-house recycling programs. CVC will
continue to provide valuable recycling education throughout the
Valley even after the individual localities have their recycling
programs in place.
Cycle Systems
As one of the major commercial waste haulers in the Roanoke
Valley, Cycle Systems does its part to educate its clients and
citizens on proper recycling methods. In addition to giving
tours of its materials recovery facilities (MRFs) in the City,
Cycle Systems publishes a newsletter as new recycling information
4O
warrants it, and also conducts recycling presentations at the
Science Museum in downtown Roanoke. Speaking to business, civic
and school groups is another way Cycle Systems educates the
public about is recycling activities.
Handy Dump (Waste Diverting Technologies)
Another one of the major commercial waste haulers in Roanoke
City, Handy Dump has many ways in which it helps educate the
public about recycling and other methods of waste management. In
addition to tours of its recycling facilities, Handy Dump
publishes a recycling newsletter that is distributed to Handy
Dump clients only, and it also makes presentations to schools and
businesses on request.
Chesapeake
The largest manufacturer of ~aper products in the Valley,
Chesapeake Corporation conducts presentations to and consults
with firms interested in paper and cardboard recycling.
Chesapeake also distributes pamphlets describing paper recycling,
and will conduct facility tours upon request..
Education Strategies
The recycling/waste management education programs discussed
herein are the only programs known of at this time. As many more
businesses and industries begin to recycle, and as markets for
yarious r~cyclable materials strengthen, educational efforts will
increase in order to make these programs more successful. As
more localities begin to address the issue of household hazardous
waste disposal, education efforts will become extremely important
in order to ensure proper disposal of these materials. To
address the issues discussed herein, the following strategies
will be implemented in Roanoke City:
The Roanoke City Recycling Coordinator will continue to
distribute recycling brochures as recycling bins are
distributed to each household and as other recycling
programs are implemented (from FY 1991).
The Roanoke City Recycling Coordinator, in conjuncuion
with the City's Public Information Officer, %ill
develop brochures for educating City workers on
recycling in the office (FY 1992).
The Roanoke City Recycling Coordinator will develop a
recycling education video in conjunction with the
public relations firm it has hired for the development
of recycling education materials. This video will be
used to educate civic groups, neighborhood groups and
other citizens in general (FY 1992-93).
41
The City will organize a citizens advisory committee
and a technical advisory Committee to assist with solid
waste plan updates. The citizens committee should
consist of Community/neighborhood leaders, church
leaders, business leaders, environmental group leaders,
etc. The technical advisory conunittee should consist
of industry leaders and municipal representatives
(public works, utilities, etc.).
The City will use waste facilities in the area to help
educate the public about the need for recycling and
other waste management practices. Tours of the new
landfill and waste transfer station could be conducted
in this endeavor.
Roanoke City realizes the importance of education in the
success of recycling and effective waste management. The above
strategies will be implemented as funding becomes available.
42
VI. PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT STRATEGIES
In addition to planning for waste management at each level
of the State's waste management hierarchy, a comprehensive waste
management program must take into consideration the waste
generated by businesses and industries--the private sector.
Nearly two-thirds of waste generated in a locality comes from the
private sector.14 Encouraging the private sector to recycle
materials from their waste stream not only benefits localities,
in terms of obtaining the recycling mandates, but it also makes
the businesses aware of the waste they generate and how their
Operations can be made more efficient (thus saving money).
Educating the private sector about the economic and
environmental benefits of reuse, recycling and source reduction
will improve the participation rates in the waste management
programs set up in the private sector. The following strategies
describe how Roanoke City plans to include the private sector in
its solid waste management program.
The City will write to the businesses in the City
encouraging them to recycle and describing the resources
available to them for recycling in the City. Some of the~
specific activities (and the' projected time frame for these
activities) the City may implement in order to involve the
private sector in recycling and overall waste management include:
Develop a waste audit program whereby businesses record
the amounts of waste they generate and recycle (July
1995).
Set up an awards/incentives program (in addition to the
program alrea4y in place by Clean Valley Council) in
conjunction with Downtown Roanoke Incorporated and the
Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce to encourage
busi.ness recycling (September 1996).
Develop a "Business Waste Recycling Video" in
conjunction with Clean Valley Council and Roanoke
County as part of private sector recycling education
(December 1991).
Conduct recycling workshops for those people
responsible for developing and managing recycling
programs within their offices (July 1995).
The Roanoke City Recycling Coordinator will encourage
civic organizations to become involved with paper
drives and other recycling activities.
Encourage the Roanoke County Resource Authority to
provide financial incentives to encourage private
sector recycling.
43
Roanoke City will continuously monitor its recycling rates and
the progress of its recycling program to determine whether or not
mandatory business and industry recycling is required. If the
City does not meet the recycling mandates through its residential
recycling program, it may become necessary for the City to adopt
an ordinance requiring businesses to keep accurate records of the
waste they generate and private haulers to keep accurate records
of the waste they collect within the City limits.
44
VII. FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of all of the strategies discussed herein
depend on whether funding is available. Many localities in the
State are facing exorbitant costs associated with landfill
closure and/or development. With state and local budget cuts,
the result of a nationwide economic recession, little or no
money is available at this time for localities to implement
comprehensive recycling programs. This is especially true in the
more rural areas of the State, where budgets are often too small
(and ill-equipped) to handle the costs associated with
landfilling and recycling.
There
localities
programs.
are, however, several funding options available to
as they plan for new waste management facilities and
These are as follows:
1. Allocate money from the general operating fund and
raise taxes to accommodate the increase in costs.
2. Sell bonds; repay the money with funds from the general
operating fund or from tipping fees.
3. Borrow from banks; repay the money with funds from the~
general operating fund or from tipping fees.
4. Use tipping fees to help offset the cost of new waste
management facilities; set up a rate schedule for
commercial haulers, private citizens, etc.
5. Contact the Virginia Resources Authority, which has
allocated approximately $300 million for solid waste
management programs.
6. Seek corporate sponsorship of recycling education
programs, purchase of bins, equipment, etc.
7. Seek donations from local civic groups, environmental
groups, etc.
Other remotely possible sources of solid waste management
urogram funding include the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Virginia Department of Waste Management, and the Virginia
Environmental Endowment.
The recycling and waste collection programs currently
operated by Roanoke City are funded through the City's general
operating fund. It is anticipated that this will likely continue
as long as funds are available in the budget to do so. It should
be noted here that in 1990, Roanoke City received $15,000 in
corporate sponsorships for the implementation of its curbside
recycling program.
45
Roanoke City's recycling budget is partially funded by a 35%
matching grant from the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill Board.
The Landfill Board also provides a 25% discount on tipping fees
to those establishments that recycle 50% of their waste. It is
hoped that this funding and incentive program will continue to be
available from the Roanoke County Resource Authority once it
takes Over the responsibility for landfilling in the Valley.
The future waste management expenditures for Roanoke City
include repayment to the Roanoke County Resource Authority for
waste transfer station development, curbside recycling program
expansion, recycling education materials, and yard waste/brush
collection and composting project.
Although Roanoke City has developed design and operating
criteria for the waste transfer station, and has also recommended
three potential sites for the station, it will not be responsible
for funding the actual construction of the site. The Roanoke
County Resource Authority, owners of the Smith Gap Regional
Landfill, will fund the construction of the transfer station.
Roanoke City will reimburse the Authority for its share of the
development costs through tipping fees.
Tables 3-5 in Appendix D show the est'imated costs for~
expanding the curbside recycling program. On average, the City
expects to spend $400,000 to $500,000 per year through FY 1994 to
expand the curbside program to include the entire City. Any
costs incurred after that include items for program maintenance,
such as vehicle maintenance, bin replacement, etc. It should be
noted here that additional City employees will not be needed as
the curbside recycling program expands because City garbage
collectors will be transferred to the recycling collection
program as the demand for garbage collection decreases (a
projected result of increased recycling).
Tables 2-5 in Appendix D show estimated costs for recycling
education programs. Thus far, the City has spent approximately
$28,000 on materials for recycling education, which include
stickers for the recycling bins, brochures explaining how to
recycle, several billboard advertisements, and radio and
television public service announcements. The cost to the City
would have been greater had it not been for contributions from
agencies such as NA~COR and the Virginia Softdrink Association.
Roanoke City is hoping for continued corporate sponsorship,
especially for its recycling education programs. Much o~ the
recycling education conducted in the City is currently handled by
Clean Valley Council. Roanoke City allocates its State litter
tax funding to Clean Valley Council each year for continued
recycling education.
Each year Roanoke City spends approximately $14,000 on
bagged leaf and Christmas tree collection (see Tables 6 and 7 in
Appendix D). If the City decides to implement a structured brush
46
collection/recycling program, it will incur permit application
fees set up by the State. Funding for additional manpower or
collection equipment would not be needed if some of the garbage
collectors and a garbage truck are available for brush collection
(if a program is implemented).
Currently, the Junior League of the Roanoke Valley is
investigating the costs associated with conducting a household
hazardous waste collection day. It is anticipated that Roanoke
City will participate in this event; however, the funding needed
by the City to participate is not known at this time. Those
companies that generate or distribute household hazardous waste
in Roanoke City (and the Valley as a whole) could serve as a
potential funding source for this program.
47
VIII. ASSESS~EENT OF SOLID WASTE PLAN STRATEGIES
Economic Growth and Development
A local solid waste management plan should give
consideration to the relationship between solid waste management
and economic growth and development. The following is a list of
criteria by which the Roanoke City Solid Waste Management Plan
may be evaluated in regard to its relationship to economic growth
and development:
Waste generation, collection and disposal at private
businesses and industries should be documented in the
plan;
B. Localities should plan for providing adequate solid
waste management capacity to accommodate appropriate
future economic growth and development;
C. The plan should provide an opportunity for and
encouragement of .recycling and use of recyclables in
businesses, industries and local governments;
D. The plan should encourage research and pilot programs
on source reduction in businesses, industries and local
governments;
E. The plan should encourage waste exchanges as
appropriate between industries;
F. Public/private partnerships in waste management should
be considered as appropriate. Examples would include
use of municipal waste in an industrial resource
recovery facility; and
Private business and industry representatives would be
included on the advisory committee for plan preparation
and updates.
Environmental Compatibility
The environmental compatibility of Roanoke City's Solid
Waste Management Plan should be evaluated on the basis of the
following criteria:
A. The' plan should emphasize the protection of valuable
natural resources while managing the impacts associated
with necessary solid waste management activities;
B. The locality should utilize the most feasible
environmentally-sensitive solid waste management
48
strategies. Evaluation of these strategies should be
conducted in the order given in the state hierarchy
(Source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery
(waste-to-energy), incineration and landfilling);
The locality should ensure that its plan and solid
waste management activities meet all applicable local,
state, and federal standards;
Where necessary and desirable, a locality may exceed
mandated standards where special local environmental
conditions exist. A locality should evaluate its
resources to determine if such special conditions
exist;
E. The plan should include a public education program to
heighten citizen environmental awareness and
participation in regard to solid waste management; and
F. Environmental interest groups should be included on the
advisory committee which prepares and updates the local
solid waste management plan.
Current Waste Collection Program Impact~
A local solid waste management plan should give
consideration to the existing garbage collection system in each
locality and provide for any necessary changes as a result of new
solid waste management programs. The following criteria should
be considered in evaluating Roanoke City's Solid Waste Management
Plan in regard to its compatibility with the City's existing
garbage collection system:
The plan should provide for the use of any existing
garbage collection systems and equipment in new waste
collpction programs.
B. The plan should provide for the purchase or rental of
equipment needed for an expanded garbage collection
program (particularly in terms of recycling).
C. Where curbside recycling is an option, the locality
should carefully review the number of employees needed
for garbage/recyclable material collection--a curb~ide
recycling program can use employees who are freec up
due to less garbage pick-up (a result of recycling),
D. Public Works personnel should be included on any
advisory committee for developing or updating the solid
waste management plan.
The following table shows whether or not the Plan meets the
49
criteria set forth above. If the Plan meets a criteria for a
certain category, a "yes" is entered for that criteria under that
category. If the criteria is not met, a "no" is entered.
TABLE 13
ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE PLAR OBJECTIVES
Criteria
Economic Growth
and Development
Environmental
Compatibility
A YES YES
B YES YES
C YES YES
D YES YES
E YES YES
F YES YES
G YES ___1
o~ly 6 criteria listed for this category
only 4 criteria listed for this category
Current Waste
Collection Program
Impacts
YES
YES
YES
YES
5O
IX. METHODS ~OR RECORDING AND RY_/~ORTING SOLID WASTE
GENERATED AND RECYCLED IN ROANOKE CITY
In order for Roanoke City to determine its recycling rate
and report to the State the amount of waste generated and
recycled in the City, accurate records will need to be kept on
the amount of residential and commercial waste generated and
recycled. Both of these are components of the equation for
determining the recycling rate (see page 37) to be reported to
the State.
Commercial Waste Reporting
In 1990, the State gave localities the authority to require
businesses to record and report the amount and the type of waste
they generate, recycle and, where applicable, reduce through
source reduction. For now, Roanoke City wants to take a
hierarchical approach to this problem by implementing a
voluntary reporting program that first targets the private waste
haulers; then the major waste generators and then the
businesses. '
The private waste haulers in the Roanoke Valley have
collection routes that cross jurisdictional boundaries, making it
difficult to document how much waste is collected from each
locality along a particular route. The City plane to meet with
these haulers and solid waste representatives from the other
Valley localities to discuss the development of a waste reporting
form (modeled after reporting forms released by the Department of
Waste Management in 1990) to be used by private haulers valley-
wide. On this form, private haulers would be asked to estimate
the percent of total waste collected that originated in each
locality. To make this task simpler, the haulers may have to
restructure their collection routes so that they only pick up
material from one locality at a time. Ail of these options will
be discussed with the haulers before any reporting program is
implemented.
After the private hauler reporting program has been in
place for one year, the City will evaluate the program to
determine if the major waste generators (such as Chesapeake
(paper), Reynolds (aluminum), and Advance Auto (batteries)) need
to begin reporting the amount of waste they collected and
recycled from Roanoke City. If needed, Roanoke City will i~elp
these companies set up a recording/reporting program, as was .lone
with the private haulers.
If, after a year, the waste reporting program for the major
waste generators does not help the City maintain accurate records
on commercial waste generated and recycled in the City, the City
may need to implement a business waste reporting program whereby
businesses keep track of the waste they generate, recycle and
reduce through source reduction. A special form (modeled after
51
the State's waste reporting form shown in Appendix E) would be
developed for these businesses so that they could report to the
City any waste they recycle.
Waste reporting for each of the above-mentioned groups would
be voluntary at first. However, if participation in these
recommended reporting programs is low, the City may seriously
consider the adoption of an ordinance requiring establishments to
report as requested. To review, the schedule for setting up a
waste reporting program for private haulers,
generators, and businesses is as follows:
Element
1. Meet with private haulers and
solid waste representatives from
the Valley; discuss options for
reporting form.
major waste
Proposed Time Frame
June 1991
2. Allow 9-12 months for compliance
with voluntary waste reporting
program.
July 1991 to April-
June 1992
3. Evaluate private hauler waste
reporting program according to the
waste generation information
reported to the State.
April 1992
4. Meet with major waste generators
to discuss waste reporting if private
hauler program is insufficient.
April-June 1992
5. Implement major waste generator
reporting program; allow 9-12 months
for compliance.
July 1992
6. Evaluate major waste generator
reporting program and, if determined
to be insufficient, meet with City
business leaders to discuss feasibility
of waste reporting program for all
business establishments.
April-June 1993
Ail those establishments that participate in
waste reporting/recording program will report their
to the City's Recycling Coordinator.
the City's
information
Until all residents in the Roanoke Valley are served by
local recycling programs, the drop-off centers located throughout
the Valley will continue to be utilized. Because of the need for
fairly accurate waste reporting, it may become necessary for the
groups responsible for each of these drop-off centers to
estimate (based on the location of the drop-off center) the
52
amount of recyclable material brought in by residents from the
areas adjoining the drop-off site.
Many multi-family complexes within the City are served by
private waste haulers. Information on waste collected in these
areas will also need to be incorporated into the waste reporting
conducted by the private haulers.
Residential (Household) Waste Reporting
Currently, Roanoke City tabulates the amount of household
waste generated in the City according to weight tickets received
from the Regional Landfill. Materials recovered through the
City's curbside recycling program are tabulated according to
weight tickets from Cycle Systems. The City will continue to
utilize weight tickets as indicators of waste generated once it
begins to transfer its waste to the new regional landfill at
Smith Gap. Weight tickets will continue to be an indicator of
materials recycled, regardless of where the materials are taken
for processing.
The City will also document any waste reduced through source
xeduction programs. The waste reporting forms distributed by the
Department of Waste Management (see Appendix D) have a space for
reporting source reduction activities and estimating the tonnage
of waste reduced through source reduction.
Special Waste Reporting
Roanoke City will continue to monitor special wastes
generated in the City, such as sludge, white goods, tires and
brush. Materials such as white goods and tires will be recorded
separately once a collection program has been developed for these
items. Companies that collect batteries and waste oil (such as
Advance Auto) for recycling will need to report the amount of
material they. collect for recycling in Roanoke City (as noted
above). The only generator of ash in Roanoke City is Roanoke
Electric Steel. The City will encourage this company to record
and report the amount of ash it generates. Wastes such as mining
waste, agricultural wastes and spill residues are not generated
in the City, and will not, therefore, be recorded.
Household Hazardous Waste
If, and when, residents in Roanoke City participate in a
household hazardous waste collection program, the company that
collects the material for out-of-state disposal can provide the
City with a weight ticket signifying the amount of material
collected.
Waste Facilities
Roanoke City will keep a record of the waste facilities
53
located within the City proper. Thus far, no waste disposal
facilities are located in Roanoke City; however, each of the
proposed sites for the proposed waste transfer station is located
within the City.
54
REGULATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLA~S
1) Consideration of hierarchy
2) Demonstrate 3.2 B recycling rates
3) Include copy of local resolution
4) Virginia Development Act
4.2 - INCORPORATED DATA~
1) Demographic & population 20 yr. projection
2) * Urban concentrations
· Geographic conditions
· Markets
· Transportation conditions
· Related factors
3) Estimates of solid waste generation:
* Households
* Comercial Institutions
* Industry
* Other
4) List of all waste management facilities
5) Plan implementation milestones, 20 years
6) Programs
7) Outrea¢~ programs
8) Evaluating collection systems
4.3 - A~SF-~S~T OF ~L_ID WASTE MAN~]~T N~.
* Waste management needs for 20 years
* Action to be taken to meet needs
pp. 29-39
pp. 35-37
p. 84
N/A
p. 5
p. S
~. 3
p. 27
p. 3
pp. 5-I0
pp. 24-26
pp. 24-26
pp. 24-26
pp. 24-26
p. 13
p. 33
p, 11
p. 11
p. 18
p. 28
pp. 33-~
4.4 - ASSESS~tENT OF ~LTERRATIVES:
1) Mandatory objectives (3.2)
2) Hierarchy (2.2)
3) Environmental compatibility
4) Economic growth
5) Waste collection
~PD. 29-39
pp. 29-39
p. 48
p. 48
p. 49
OBJECTI~S AND PERFORMANCE P~O_UI~n
3.2 - MANDA~RY PItoN OBJECTI~S-
A) The Solid Waste Management Plan shell include:
1. In~egra~e~ s~rate~
2. Objectives
3. S~ages towards accomDlis~en=
4. Funding and resources necessary
5. S=rate~ for f~ding and resources
6. Public education and info~ation
7. Private sec=or 9a~iciDation
3.3 - ~3BLIC PARTICIPATION~
A) Record of 9ublic hearing and written comments
B) Citizen advisory committees
33-39
29-31
33-39
p. 45
p. 4S
p. 40
p. 43
p. 81
p. ii
APPENDIX B
SOLID WASTE DEFINITIONS
Agricultural Waste means all solid waste produced from farming
operations, or related commercial preparation of farm products
for marketing.
Commercial Waste means all solid waste generated by
establishments engaged in business operations other than
manufacturing. This category includes, but is not limited to,
solid waste resulting from the operation of stores, markets,
office buildings, restaurants and shopping centers.
Construction Waste means solid waste which is produced or
generated during construction of structures. Construction waste
consists of lumber, wire, sheetrock, broken brick, 'shingles,
glass, pipes, concrete, and metal and plastics if they are part
of the construction material or are empty containers for such
materials. Paints, coatings, solvents, asbestos, compressed
gases, liquids or semi-liquids and garbage are not construction
wastes .. .
Debris Waste means stumps, wood, brush, and leaves from land
clearing operations.
De~lition Waste means solid waste
structures and their foundations and
as construction waste.
produced, by destruction of
includes the same materials
Director means the Director of the Department of Waste
Management.
Disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, spilling,
leaking or placing of any solid waste into or any land or water
so that such solid waste or any constituent thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any
waters.
Facility means.solid waste management facility unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise.
Garbage means readily putrescible discarded materials composed of
animal, vegetable or other organic matter.
Hazardous Waste means a "hazardous waste" as defined by the
Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Re~ulation:~.
Household Waste means any waste material,
trash and refuse, derived from households.
single and multiple residences, hotels and
ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds,
day-use recreation areas.
including garbage,
Households inc..ude
motels, bunkhou~,es,
picnic grounds and
Incineration means the controlled combustion of solid waste for
disposal.
59
Incinerator means a facility or device designed for the treatment
for volume reduction of solid waste or combustion.
Industrial Waste means any solid waste generated by manufacturing
or industrial process that is not a regulated hazardous waste.
Such waste may include, but is not limited to, waste resulting
from the following manufacturing processes: electric power
generation; fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related
products/by-products; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel
manufacturing; leather and leather products; nonferrous metals
manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins
manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products; stone, glass, clay and concrete products;
textile manufacturing; transportation equipment; and water
treatment. This term does not include mining waste or oil and
gas waste.
Landfill means a sanitary landfill, an industrial waste landfill
or a construction/demolition/debris landfill. '
Large diameter tree stumps means tree stumps too large to be
chipped or processed using a.vailable technology.
Permit means the written permission of the Director to own,
operate or construct a solid waste management facility.
Princip&l Recyclable Materials means newspaper, ferrous scrap
metal, non-ferrous scrap metal, used motor oil, corrugated
cardboard and kraft paper, container glass, aluminum, high-grade
office paper, tin cans, cloth, automobile bodies, plastics and
clean wood, brush, leaves, grass and other arboreal materials.
"Principal Recyclable Materials" do not include large diameter
tree stumps.
Recycled Material means a material which is derived from
recycling.
Recycling means the process of separating a given waste material
from the waste stream and processing it so that it is used again
as a raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar
to the original product.
Refuse means all solid waste products having the character of
solids rather than liquids and which are composed wholly or
partially of materials such as garbage, trash, rubbish, litter,
residues for clean up of spills or contamination, or ot'~er
discarded materials.
Resource Recovery System means a solid waste management system
which provides for collection, separation, recycling and recovery
of energy or solid wastes, including disposal of non-recoverable
waste residues.
6O
Reused means having once been a waste and being:
1. Employed as an ingredient (including use as an
intermediate) in a process to make a product,
expecting those materials possessing distinct
components that are recovered as separate end
products; or
Employed in a particular function or application
as an effective substitute for a commercial
product or natural resources.
Sanitary Landfill means an engineered land burial facility for
the disposal of solid waste which is so located, designed,
constructed and operated to contain and isolate the solid waste
so that it does not pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment.
Scrap Metal means bits and pieces of metal parts such as bars,
rods, wire, or metal pieces that may be combined together with
bolts or soldering which are discarded material and can be
recycled.
Site means all land and Structures, other appurtenances, and
improvements thereon used for treating, storing, and disposing of
solid waste. This term includes adjacent land within the
property boundary used for the utility systems such as repair,
storage, shipping or processing areas, or other areas incident to
the management of solid waste.
Sludge means any solid, semi-soli~ or liquid waste generated from
a municipal, commercial or industrial waste water treatment
plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility.
Solid Waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge and other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid or contained
gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining
and agricultural operations, or community activities but does not
include:
1. Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage.
2. Solid or dissolved material in irrigation return
flows or in industrial discharges which are
sources subject to a permit from the State Water
Control Board, or
Source, special nuclear, or by-product material as
defined by the Federal Atomic Energy Act Of 1954,
as amended.
61
AS used in this plan, solid waste does not include hazardous
wastes as defined in the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations.
Solid Waste Disposal Facility means a solid waste management
facility at which solid waste will remain after closure.
Solid Waste Management Facility (SW~4F) means a site used for
planned treating, storing, or disposing of solid waste. A
facility may consist of several treatment storage, or disposal
units. '
Source Reduction means any action that reduces or eliminates the
generation of waste at the source, usually within a process.
Source reduction measures include process modifications,
feedstock substitutions, improvements in feedstock purity,
improvements in housekeeping and management practices, increases
in the efficiency of machinery, and recycling within a process.
Source Separation means separation of recyclable materials by the
generator.
S~ecial Wastes mean solid waste that are difficult to handle,
require special precautions because of hazardous properties or
the nature of the waste creates waste management problems in
normal operations.
Supplemental Recyclable Material means construction rubble,
tires, concrete and similar inert materials, batteries, ash,
sludge or large diameter tree stumps; or as may be authorized by
the Director.
Trash means combustible and noncombustible discarded materials
and is used interchangeably with the term rubbish.
Transfer Station means any solid waste storage or collection
facility at which solid waste is transferred from collection
vehicles to haulage for transportation to a central solid waste
management facility for disposal, incineration or resource
recovery.
Used or Reused Material means a material which is either:
Employed as an ingredient (including use as an
intermediate) in a process to make a product,
excepting those materials possessing distinct
components that are recovered as separate end
products; or
~mployed in a particular function or application
as an effective substitute for a commercial
product or natural resources.
Waste Exchange means any system to identify sources of wastes
with potential for reuse, recycling or reclamation and to
facilitate its acquisition by persons who reuse, recycle or
reclaim it, with a provision for maintaining confidentiality of
trade secrets.
Waste-to-Energy Facility means a facility that uses waste to
generate usable energy, or treats the waste in order to
facilitate its use in the production of usable energy.
Yard Waste is that fraction of household waste that consists of
grass clippings, brush and tree prunings arising from general
household yard maintenance. For the purpose of this plan, yard
waste includes similar material collected from streets, parks and
recreational areas.
63
APPENDIX C
GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEY
64
GARBAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEy
Environmental Protection
1. What permits is each hauler required to obtain, if any,
to ensure protection of the environment?
2. What methods does each hauler practice to provide a
"healthful, sanitary and aesthetic,, collection system?
Convenience
1. What type of service (curbside or drop-off center) is
provided for rural areas?
2. What type of service (curbside or drop-off center) is
provided for urban areas?
3. What kind of special collection arrangements are made
for those people who cannot take their garbage to the curb or to
a green box or landfill?
4. Are green boxes or drop-off centers placed in locations
convenient to the majority of residents located in any given
area?
Continuity
1. How often is garbage collected from the clients served
by curbside collection?
2. How Often is garbage collected from the clients served
by drop-off centers?
3. For house-to-house collection, what factors does your
company take into consideration in determining the frequency of
garbage collection?
Resource Recovery
1. What program, if any, is in place for the separat.,on
of reusable and recyclable materials from garbage that is ~ot
reusable or recyclable?
2. What is done with the recycled and reusable items once
they have been separated out of the waste stream?
65
Safet~
1. What methods are in place to ensure on-the-job safety
of garbage collectors?
2. What methods, if any, are in place to ensure the safety
of citizens who set out their trash on the curb? those that take
their trash to a green box or landfill?
Efficiency
1. Are collection routes such that segments of the route
are not duplicated during one collection trip?
2. Is the size of the garbage collection vehicle chosen
according to the amount of trash to be collected?
3. Is the size of waste containers appropriate to the area
in which the containers are located?
66
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATES OF SOLID WASTE MANAGF2~ENT PROGRAM COSTS FOR ROANOKE CITY
TABLE 1
1989-1990 RECYCLING BUDGET
Start-uD Phase
January-June 1990
Recycling Equipment
A. 1 Recycling Truck
B. 1 Truck Camera
C. 1 Truck Radio
D. 9,000 Carts
$ 70,312.00
1,990.00
1,274.00
$ 255,646.00
II. Interim Drop-off Station
$ 1,080.00
TOTAL
$ 256,726.00
68
TABLE 2
1990-1991 Estimated Recycling Budget
Phase I
II.
III.
Office Equipment and Supplies
A. Computer hardware and software
B. Office furniture
C. Miscellaneous office supplies
D. Miscellaneous office equipment
IV.
Education
A.~Public service announcements
B.
(4)'
Development & production of logo,
stationery and business cards
C. Art work and production for carts
and truck
D. Development and production of brochures
E. Photography/display work and supplies
F. Conferences/seminars
G. Memberships/subscriptions
N. Miscellaneous education
Employee Salaries
A. i Motor Equipment Operator (3 months)
B. I Sanitation Worker (3 months)
C. I Recycling Coordinator (9 months)
Recycling Equipment (CMERP Funds)
A. 2 Recycling trucks
B. 2 Truck cameras
C. 2 Truck radios
D. 4,500 carts
F. 3,000 bins
Vehicle Needs & Sorting Fees
A. Vehicle Maintenance
B. Fuel Costs
C. Vehicle Modification
C. Sorting Fees ($10/ton)
D. Interim Drop-off Station
TOTAL
$ 3,911.00
1,987.43
171.00
$ 6,295.43
$ 14,170.19
2,061.33
1,555.84
9,219.79
278.00
847.00
86.00
400.0Q
$ 28,583.15
$ 4,108.05
3,547.38
24.000,0Q
$ 31,655.43
$ 151,000.00
3,980.00
2,548.00
99,000.00
18.000.00
$ 274,528.00
600.00
446.00
2,862.00
1,400.00
1.440.00
$ 6,648.00
$ 347,810.01
69
1991-1992
TABLE 3
Estimated Recycling Budget
Phase 2
Office Equipment and supplies
A. Telephone
B. Administrative supplies & equipment
$ 600.00
900.Q0
$ 1,500.00
II.
III.
IV.
Education
A. Brochure development & production
B. Photography/display work and supplies
C. tonferences/seminars
D. Program video
E. Memberships/subscriptions
F. Miscellaneous education
Employee wages
A. I Motor Equipment Operator
B. I Sanitation Worker
C. I Recycling Coordinator
D. Overtime & temporary wages
E. Fringe benefits
Recycling Equipment (CMERP)
A. Truck, radio and camera
B. Carts/bins
$ 10,000.00
300.00
600.00
8,000.00
400.00
4.949.00
$ 24,249.00
17,198.00
14,302.00
32,000.00
7,000.00
18.886.00
89,386.00
92,000.00
200.000.00
292,000.00
Vehicle Needs & Sorting Fees
A. Vehicle maintenance
B. Fuel & Lubricants
C. Sorting fees (incl. CBD recycling)
D. Worker supplies
3,000.00
2,200.00
30,000.00
537.04
35,737.00
TOTAL
442,872.00
70
TABLE 4
1992-1993 Estimated Recycling Budget
Phase 3
II.
III.
IV.
office Equipment and Supplies
A. Telephone
B. Administrative supplies & equipment
Education
A. Brochures
B. Photography/display work and supplies
c. Conferences/seminars
E. Memberships/subscriptions
F. Miscellaneous education
Employee Wages
A. 3 Motor Equipment Operator
B. 3 Sanitation Worker
C. I Recycling Coordinator
D. Overtime & temporary wages
E. Fringe benefits
Recycling Equipment (CMERP)
A. Truck, radio and camera
B. Carts/bins
V. Vehicle Needs & Sorting Fees A. Vehicle maintenance
B. Fuel & lubricants
C. Sorting fees
D. Worker supplies
$ 600.00
2.000,00
$ 2,600.00
$ 13,600.00
400.00
2,600.00
400.00
$ 35,000.00
$ 54,000.00
45;000.00
33,500.00
10,000.00
43.000.00
$ 185,500.00
$ 94,000.00
205.000.00
$ 299,000.00
9,000.00
6,500.00
30,000.00
600,00
46,1oo.oo
TOTAL
568,200.00
71
TABLE 5
1993-1994 Estimated Recycling Budget
Phase 4
II.
III.
IV.
Office Equipment and Supplies
A. Telephone
B. Administrative supplies & equipment
Education
A. Brochures
B. Photography/display work and supplies
C. Conferences/seminars
E. Memberships/subscriptions
F. Miscellaneous education
Employee Wages
A. 4 Motor Equipment Operator
B. 4 Sanitation Worker
c. I Recycling Coordinator
D. Overtime & temporary wages
E. Fringe benefits
Recycling Equipment (CMERP)
A. Truck, radio and camera
B. Carts/bins
Vehicle Needs a Sorting Fees
A. Vehicle maintenance
B. Fuel & lubricants
C. sorting fees
D. Worker supplies
600.00
3,100.00
13,600.00
400.00
2,600.00
400.00
15.000.00
35,000.00
75,600.00
63,000.00
35,100.00
12,000.00
55.000.00
240,700.00
$ 94,000.00
205.000.0Q
$ 299,000.00
$ 12,000.00
8,800.00
30,000.00
600.0Q
$ 51,400.00
TOTAL
$ 629,200.00
'. 72
TABLE 6
1990 BAGGED LEAF COLLECTION
Total number of bags collected = 54,176 over a 32-day period*
TONNAGE
437.93 tons
x $19.QQ per ton
$8,320.67 landfill diversion
B. LABOR
$7,147.52 - 510 regular hours
~ - 198.5 overtxme hours
$11,439.09 - total labor cost
C. MAINTENANCE
198.50 hours
x s25.00 Der hour
$4,962.50
D. FUEL
$16/day x 32 days = $512
E. TOTAL COST
11,439.09 labor
4,962.50 maintenance
~ fuel
16,913.59
16,913.59
~ landfill diversion
8,592.92 TOTAL COST
'1 average leaf bag = 16.17 lbs.
TABLE 7
1990 CHRISTMAs TREE COLLECTION
TONNAGE
154.00 tons
x $i6.00 Der ton
$2,464.00 landfill diversion
LABOR
Drivers
Sanitation Workers
C. ~AINTENANCE
1. Packer Trucks
2. Dump Truck
3. Chipper Truck
$1,315.08
$2,493.57
156 hours
163 hours
D. FUEL
160 hrs. x $25/hr. = $4,000.00
40 hrs. x $18/hr. = 720.00
40 hrs. x $15/hr. =
$5,320.00
$16/day x 11 days = $176
E. TOTAL COST
$2,493.57 labor
5,320.00 maintenance
~ fuel
$7,989.57
$7,989.~7
-?~_Q_Q landfill diversion
$5,525.57 TOTAL COST
TAB LE 8
1991 CHRIST~tAS TREE COLLECTION
A. TONNAGE
B. LA~OR
149.00 tons
X $19.00 Der tgn
$2,831.00 landfill diversion
Drivers
Sanitation Workers
C. MAINTENANCE
$1,253.04
$2,429.28
138 hours
156 hours
1. Packer Trucks
2. Dump Truck
3. ChipDer Truck
D. FUEL
106 hrs. x $25/hr. = $2,650.00
30 hrs. x $18/hr. = 540.00
60 hrs. x $15/hr. = + 900.00
'$4,090.00
S20/day x 10 days = $200
E. TOTAL COST
$2,429.28 - labor
4,090.00 - maintenance
+-~ - fuel
$6,719.28
$6,719.28
~ - landfill diversion
$3,888.28 - TOTAL COST
75
APPENDIX E
REPORTING FOI~/~S FOR SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND RECYCLING
76
Name of Respondent:
'Address:
Phone: ( )-
ICalendar Year of Report
19
Member Governments:
Recycled Waste Type Amount Waste Dispo
Total Metab:
'Aluminum Waste-to-Erie
Auto Bodies Incineration
Other Ferrous Landfill
Other Non-Ferrous: [TOTAL in tot
Total Paper Products:
Newspaper
Cardboard
*Office Paper
Other
Total Plastics:
P E T E #1 ' A~boreal me;
H D P E ~2 grass, andsimil~
Mixed #1 and #2
Other
Total Glass:
Containers
Other
Used Oil: DI
Cloth: R
Arboreal Materials':
tons (A) ] A
TOTAL
in'
Waste Disposal Amount
Waste-to-Energy
Incineration
Landfill
[TOTAL in tons (B)
B
ns wood, brush, leaves,
similar materials
M Form
RECYC- 1
7?
Construction rubble, tires,concrete and similar inert material, batteries, ash, sludge, or
large-diameter tree stumps; or material authorized by the Director, Department of
Waste Management.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL AMOUNT
RECYCLED
,TOTAL in tons
A+C
ANNUAL RECYCLING RATE =, 100
A+B+C
ANNUAL RECYCLING RATE =
Ail information in this report is truo to thc be. st of our ability to calculate
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: I DATE:
I
78
ACTIVITY:
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES:
Reuse Source Reduction ~--~
Please check one box
ESTIMATED WASTE REDUCTION in tons per year:
CONTACT PERSON:
Page.
of
'PHONE:
Form REC¥C-2
79
APPENDIX p
MINUTES FROM SOLID WASTE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
8O
APPENDIX G
PUBLIC w~-~RIIqG DOt~JN. ENTATION
81
APPENDIX g
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE
ROANOKE CITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEI~ENT PLAN
84
FOOTNOTES
1Virginia Department of Waste Management, Regulations for
the Development Of Solid Waste Management Plan~, (Richmond:
Virginia Department of Waste Management, 1990).
2Fifth Planning District Commission, Part I - Demographic
Data and Solid Waste Generation Characteristics for the Fifth
Plannin~ District Co~,,ission, (Roanoke: Fifth Planning District
Commission, 1991).
3Fifth Planning District Commission
4Fifth Planning District Commission
5Fifth Planning District Commission
6Fifth Planning District Commission
7Fifth Planning District CommissIon
8Fifth Planning District Commission
9Fifth Planning District Commission
of the Fifth Planning District Commission, (Roanoke: Fifth
Planning District Commission, 1978).
10Fifth Planning District Commission, Refuse Collection in
Alleghan¥ County, (Roanoke: Fifth Planning District Commission,
June 1983), p. 9.
llH. A. Neal, and J. R. Schubel, Solid Waste Management and
the Environment: The Mounting Garbage and Trash Cris~, (n.p.:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1987).
12Market.ing Information Data and Services, Recyclable
Materials Market Study for the Commonwealth of Virginin,
(Richmond: MIDAS, 1989), pp. 23-83.
13Virginia Department of Waste Management, Waste Management-
It's Not a Game and It's Not Trivia], (Richmond: Virginia
Department of Waste Management, June 1989), p. 13.
14Clean Valley Council, Business Waste Recycling Guide,
(Roanoke: Clean Valley Council, 1990), p. 1.
Part I.
Part I.
Part I.
Part I.
Part I.
Part I.
Regional Land Use Plan
86
Clean Valley Council. Business Waste Recycling Guide.
Clean Valley Council, 1990, p. 1.
Roanoke:
Fifth Planning District Commission. Part I - Demographic Data
and Solid Waste Generation Characteristics for the Fifth
Planning District Commission.
District Commission, 1991.
Roanoke: Fifth Planning
Fifth Planning District Commission. Refuse Collection in
Alleghan¥ County. Roanoke: Fifth Planning District
Commission, June 1983, p. 9.
Fifth Planning District Commission. Regional
the Fifth Planning District Commission.
Planning District Com/~ission, 1978.
Land Use Plan of
Roanoke: Fifth
Marketing Information Data and Services.
Market Study for the Commonwealth of
MIDAS, 1989, pp. 23-83.
Recyclable Materials
Virginia. Richmond:
Neal, H. A., and J. R. Schubel.
Environment: The Mounting
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1987.
Solid Waste. Management and the
Garbage and Trash Crisis.. h.p.:
Virginia Department of Waste Management. Regulations for the
Development Of Solid Waste Management Plans. Richmond:
Virginia Department of Waste Management, 1990.
Virginia Department of Waste Management. Waste Management-It's
Not a Game and It's Not Trivial. Richmond: Virginia
Department of Waste Management, June 1989, p. 13.
87
RECEIVED
CITY CLEPP~S OFF!CE
'91 all13 Ag:28
Office of the City Manager
June 10, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Subject:
Status Update - Process for Siting a Solid Waste Transfer
Station and Approval of the Solid Waste
Management Plan
The Roanoke City Planning Commission took the following action on
June 5, 1991.
1. Solid Waste Management Plan - Approved
Three (3) Potential Sites for a Transfer Station - Approved
all three sites plus the design and operational criteria
noting that the Hollins Road south site is the most preferred
site and the Hollins Road north site is the least preferred
site.
The following process is recommended for Council to deal with these
issues:
Council receive the Planning Commission recommendations on
these two subjects on 3une 24 and schedule two public hearings
(one hearing for the Solid Waste Management Plan and one for
the transfer station sites) for 3uly 8, 1991.
July 8 Hearing on the Solid Waste Management Plan - Receive
any public comments and approve the plan or send it back for
additional infoz~nation.
3uly 8 hearing on the siting of a solid waste transfer
station:
Hear staff presentation regarding the need and process
for siting a transfer station.
b. Hear public comments.
Take the matter under advisement pending my
recommendation regarding negotiations for the use of the
Smith Gap landfill in Roanoke County.
Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, 5.W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 98t -2333
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 10, 1991
Page 2
This is for your information.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:KBK:afm
CC:
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
3ohn R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Noel C. ~ylor
Mayor
Howard E. Musser
Vice-Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
'uly 8. 1991
Council Members:
David A. Bowers
Elizabeth T. Bowles
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
James G. Harvey, II
William White, Sr.
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss personne~
matters relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards.
co,,,,iissions and cor~nittees appointed by Council. pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Mayor
NCT:se
Pending Items from July 10, 1978,
~eferral Date Referred To
7/10/78 City Manager
1/8/90
City Attorney
7/9/90 City Manager
Director of Finance
7123/90
City Manager
8/27/90
City Manager
11/12/90
City Attorney
City Manager
2/4/91
City Manager
through June 24~ 1991.
Item
Recommendation No. 11 con-
tained in the Mayor's 1978
State of the City Message.
(Development of a hotel on
Mill Mountain.)
Request to conduct a review
of the City's Zoning Ordi-
nance to determine if
stronger regulations and
management procedures are in
order for certain zoning mat-
ters.
Matter with regard to the Pay
Plan for Roanoke City
employees.
Request to submit a report
and recommendation to Council
in conjunction with the
realignment of Second Street/
Gainsboro Road and WeZZs
Avenue to provide for under-
ground power and telephone
lines along Jefferson Street
in the vicinity of the
historic sanctuary of First
Baptist Church to be known as
"Old First."
Request to investigate the
feasibility of instituting a
"Adopt-A-Program~"an arrange-
ment whereby businesses could
fund a specific City program
for a certain period of time.
Issue of instituting a ward/
modified ward system for
election of Roanoke City
Council Members.
Matter with regard to place-
ment of banners and flags in
the downtown area of the
City, as well as tourism
signs for downtown Roanoke.
-1-
Pending Items from July 10, 1978,
Referral Date Referred To
2/11/91 Architectural
Review Board
2/25/91
City Manager
3/4/91
City Manager
School Administration
3/4/91
City Manager
3/25/91
Director of Real
Estate Valuation
through June 24~ 1991.
I tern
Request to review Section
36.1-345(b) of the City Code
and after conducting a public
hearing on the matter, to
submit a report and recongnen-
dation to Council with regard
to clarification of the
language contained therein.
Request for a briefing with
regard to the City's program
reZating to Small and
Minority Business Develop-
men t .
Request to submit a joint
report to Council and the
School Board relative to the
three schools proposed to be
renovated after Forest Park
Elementary SchooI renovations
have been completed to deter-
mine if there remains a need
to renovate said facilities
as elementary schools.
(Note: See City Manager's
communication under date of
March 22, 1991, suggesting
that the study process on the
matter begin in JuIy~ 1991.)
Request to provide detailed
information as to events
occurring in the northwest
area of the City, specifi-
cally Lansdowne Park, Hurt
Park and Lincoln Terrace,
along with an indication as
to the feasibility of
establishing a police pre-
cinct in what is considered
to be the highest crime area
of the City, and whether or
not such action would have an
impact on existing problems.
Request to submit a report to
Council with regard to an
assessment of property
located in the Shaffers
Crossing area of the City.
-2-
Pending Items from July 10~ 1978~
~eferra! Date Referred To
4/8/91 City Manager
5/13/91
City Manager
1992-93 Budget Study
5/13/91
City Manager
5/13/91
City Attorney
5/20/91
City Manager
5/28/91
City Manager
5/28/91
City Manager
through June 24~ 1991.
Item
Matter with regard to rental
fees proposed to be charged
by the Department of Parks
and Recreation for use of
City recreation facilities.
Request to confer with the
City's Pay Plan consultant
with regard to salaries for
certain positions which
appear to be out of line with
comparable positions in the
Pay Plan.
Request to investigate the
possibility of retaining a
consultant to review areas of
joint cooperation where the
City and the school system
could combine activities in
an effort to save money.
Request to obtain information
with regard to a Sales Tax
Rebate Program.
A communication from the
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson~
Sheriff~ with regard to
overcrowding of the City
Jail.
A co,~nunication from Council
Member David A. Bowers
requesting consideration of a
proposal to allow a real
estate property tax rebate
for developers or homeowners
who build single family resi-
dences on inner city vacant
lots.
Request to report to Council
with regard to the expen-
diture side of the budget as
a part of the June Financial
Statement.
-3-
Pending Items
~eferral Dat~
6/10/91
6/17/91
6/17/91
from July 10, 1978,
Referred To
City Manager
City Attorney
City Manager
through June 24, 1991.
Item
Request for a response as to
why the school system discon-
tinued the Virginia Summer
Food Service Program in 1985;
whether it was a policy deci-
sion or an administrative
decision; and ~ the most
cost effective way m to
deliver the service.
A communication from Mr.
Edward $. Grandis, Attorney,
representing Mr. John p.
Cone, Jr., advising of his
client's appeal to the
Circuit Court of the City of
Roanoke, in connection with
Council's denial of a peti-
tion to appeal a decision of
the Architectural Review
Board regarding an applica-
tion for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for property
located at 526 Mountain
Avenue, S. W.
Remarks of Mr. Henry H.
Craighead with regard to
allowing only those persons
who live and work in the
Roanoke Valley to play on
softball teams sponsored by
the City of Roanoke Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation.
-4-
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, Vlrg~ma 2401 ~
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #15-467
Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairman
Roanoke City School Board
1030 S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Pincus:
This is to advise you that Mrs. Marilyn C. Curtis, Ms. M. Wendy
O'Neil, and Mr. James M. Turner, Jr., have qualified as Trustees
of the Roanoke City School Board for terms of three years, each,
commencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1994.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
pc:
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. O. Box
13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the 13th day of May, 1991, MARILYN C. CURTIS was reelected as a
member of the Roanoke City School Board for a term of three
yea~s, commencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1994.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this
14th day of May, 1991.
City Clerk
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F.
Council of the
Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held
the 13th day of May, 1991, M. WENDY O'NEIL was elected as a
member of the Roanoke City School Board for a term of three
yea~s, commencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1994.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke
14th day of May, 1991.
on
this
City Clerk
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the 13th day of May, 1991, JAMES M. TURNER, JR., was reelected as
a member of the Roanoke City School Board for a term of three
years, commencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1994.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this
14th day of May, 1991.
City Clerk
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2!5 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 240; 1
Telephone: (703)981-2541
July 11, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #15-230
Ms. Mimi Hodgin, Chairman
Roanoke Arts Commission
805 Virginia Avenue
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Ms. Hodgin:
This is to advise you that Ms. Elizabeth K. Bernard has qualified
as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending
June 30, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Ms. Joyce A. Sink, Secretary, Roanoke Arts Commission
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the sixth day of May, 1991, ELIZABETH K. BERNARD was elected as
a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending
June 30. 1993.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this
eighth day of May, 1991.
City Clerk
RECEIVED
Roanoke, Virginia
July 8, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters
requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel being the terms and con-
ditions of proposed agreements for development of a regional landfill facility
pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
EBRJr/ga
Respectfully suited,
Earl S. Reynolds, Jr.
Acting City Manager
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W ,Room 456
Roanoke, Virglma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
July 11, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #249
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0720
Dear Mr. Butler:
Your appeal on behalf of St. Mark's Lutheran Church of a decision
rendered by the Architectural Review Board in connection with
denial of your client's request to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish certain buildings located at 1001
Third Street, S. W., was before the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded, and adopted, Council took the following
position:
1. Council finds:
ia)
that loss of the structure would not be
adverse to the district or the public
interest by virture of its uniqueness or its
significance to the district;
that demolition would not have an adverse
effect on the character and surrounding
environment of the district; and
(c)
that the proposed new use of the petitioner
satisfies the intent and standards of the H-2
District.
The decision of the Architectural Review Board is
reversed and a Certificate of Appropriateness shall
be granted.
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler,
July 11, 1991
Page 2
Attorney
The petitioner,
Administration
Certificate of
July 8, 1991.
interposing no objection, the City
is directed to withhold issuing the
Appropriateness for 90 days from
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, (2MC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
pc: Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board, 1255 Keffield Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Ms. Evelyn $. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215ChurchAvenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, ¥icgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 18, 1991
SANDRA H, EAKIN
Depuzy C~ty Clerk
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler
Attorney
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0720
Dear Mr. Butler:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your communication under date of
June 17, 1991, with regard to the request of your client, St.
Mark's Lutheran Church of Roanoke, to appeal a decision rendered
by the Architectural Review Board on Thursday, January 10, 1991,
in connection with denial of the request of your client to obtain
a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 1001
Third Street, S. W.
Pursuant to your request, the petition will be placed on the
agenda of the Roanoke City Council on Monday, July 8, 1991. The
meeting will convene at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chamber,
fourth floor of the Municipal Building.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely you~t~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
APPEAL.4A
pc:
Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board,
1255 Keffield Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Ms. Evelyn $. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
RECEIVED
WOODS, 1ROOERS & HAzLErC~TC,Vvr~E[~KS f~FF[CE
18 $ 0:31
(703)-982-4244
June 17, 1991
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Room 456 Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
Re:
Petition for Appeal of St. Mark's Lutheran Church of
Roanoke, Virginia to Architectural Review Board
Your File #249
Dear Ms. Parker:
The above matter, which is an appeal on behalf of the
Trustees of St. Mark's Lutheran Church, represented by this firm,
from a decision rendered by the Architectural Review Board on
Thursday, January 10, 1991, for denial of their request to
demolish the building and associated outbuildings, located at
1001 Third Street, S.W., which is within the boundaries of an
area designated by City Council as H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District, is presently pending before City Council.
By letter dated June 6, 1991, we requested that the matter
be heard on the 24th day of June, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. Since that
time, we have been requested by a spokesperson for the
Architectural Review Board that the matter be continued to July
8, 1991. The Mayor has indicated to you and to me that he would
grant the request.
Accordingly, this letter is to amend our earlier request and
to ask that this matter be placed on the public hearing docket
for July 8, 1991, at 7:30 pm. I understand the meeting will be
in the City Council Chambers.
M#57103
Mary F. Parker
Page Two
June 17, 1991
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE
Caldwell Butler
MCB:srg
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
W. L. Whitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
M#57103
MARY F. PARKER
¢~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke. V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
February ?, 1991
File #249
Mr. M. Caidweil Butler
Attorney
P. O. Box ?20
Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0?20
Dear ~lr. Butler:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your petition ~2tich ~as filed in
the City Clerk's Office on Wednesday, February 6, 1991, on behalf
of St. Markts Lutheran Church, to appeal a decision rendered by
the Architectural Review Board on Thursday, January 10, 1991, in
connection with denial of the request of your client to obtain a
Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 1001 Th/rd
Street, S. W.
Pursuant to your request, the petition will be withheld from the
agenda of the Roanoke City Council pending further notice by you.
Sincerely,
Wary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
APPEAL.4
pc:
Mr. W. L. ~ft~ell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board.
1255 Keffield Street, ~. W.. Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. Wilburn C. Oibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
WOODS, ROOEHS 8t HAZLEOHOVE
Io[5 FRANKLIN ROAD, S.W, ~ O. BOX 7~o
(703) 982-4244
February 6, 1991
Ms. Mary Parker
Clerk of Roanoke City
215 West Church Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Petition for Appeal of St. Mark's Lutheran Church
of Roanoket Virginia to Architectural Review Board
Dear Ms. Parker:
Enclosed please find Petition for Appeal in the above-
captioned matter.
You are asked to withhold thia item from your agenda until
fuz-th~r request from the undersigned.
Thank you for your cooperation.
With kindest, regards, I am,
Very truly yours,
M. Caldwell Butler
MCB/clr
enclosure
cc: Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter
M#38898
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
TRUSTEES OF ST. MARK'H
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PETITION FOR APPEAT.
TO THE HONORABLE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE:
Your Petitioners, the Trustees of St. Mark's Lutheran
Church of Roanoke, Virginia, would respectfully state:
1. This is a~ appeal from a decision of the
Architectural Review Board ("ARB") uader Section 36.1-642(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
2. The property which is the subject of this appeal is
located at 1001 Third Street, S.W. in the City of Roanoke and
includes a residence and two separate buildings as shown on the
"existing site plan" attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. Your Petitioners are the owners of the property which
is the subject of this a~eal.
4. The Dro~erty is zoned C-! office district.
5. The property ts within the boundaries of an area
which the Council has designated as H-2 (Neighborhood
Preservation District).
6. O~ January 10, 1991, the ARB for the City of Roanoke
denied application for a certificate under Section 36.1-345 of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke that it
was appropriate to demolish the aforesaid buildings and to use
M938900
the property as a parking lot in conjunction with the expansion
of the church facilities.
A copy of the letter from the Secretary of the ARB dated
January 14, 1991, l~a~tached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. The loss of the buildings would not be adverse to the
district or the public interest by virtue of its uniqueness or
its significance to the district; demolition would not have an
adverse effect on the character and surrounding environment of
the district; and the demolition is in conjunction with a
proposed new use of the site which satisfies the intent and
standards of the H-2 district.
8. Your Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the
ARB i~ that it interferes with the plans of St. Mark's Lutheran
Churck to expand its facilities in order to serve its members
and c.o~nity better.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioners request that the certificate
of agp~u~lateness be gran~.
TRUSTEES OF ST MARK'S
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA
~ Of Counsel
M. Caldwell Butler
WOODS, ROGE~ & HAZLEGROVE
105 Franklin Road, S.W.
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0720
(703) 982-4244
M#38900
FP,,A NK~I N 140A~9
rtl
EXHIBIT
3anuary 14, 1991
Mr. George A. Kegley, Trustee
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
Dear Mr. Kegiey:
Subject: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
1001 Third Street, S.W. - No. 91-001
The Architectural Review Board of the city of Roanoke,
Virginia, considered your above-referenced request and a
Certificate of Appropriateness was denied.
It was the Board's ~e~ermina%ion that the builcling at 1001
Third Street, S.W., was a significant, contributing structure
and that its demolition would adversely affect the district.
If you shoul~ h~ve further questions relative to this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact thi~ office ~% the
number lis~e~ below.
Sincerely,
~ve~¥~ $. Gun,er, Secretary
Architectural Review Boar~l
ESG:mpf
attacb_~e~t
cc: Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
July 8, 1991
Mayor Noel C. Taylor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: St. Mark's Lutheran Church
Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision
I. Background:
ae
Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Architectural Review Board was requested to demolish
the structure at 1003 3rd Street, S. W. The purpose
of the demolition is to provide additional parking
for a proposed new addition to the church, which was
not a part of the application. Supporting
information submitted to the Board included
pictures, property information, conceptual and
existing site plans by Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford,
Shaffner, Inc., and a program and master plan by the
same firm, dated 4/13/88.
The demolition request was considered by the
Architectural Review Board at their meeting on
1/19/91. A copy of the minutes of the
meeting are attached for your review. At the public
meeting, there was considerable discussion by th,
applicant, the Board, and the public of th,
architectural merit of the strUcture, r"hnh~litation
costs, and alternative parking. Two churches in the
immediate area, Second Presbyterian and Christ
Episcopal, had no opposition to the request. One
adjoining property owner, Mr. Jim Ford, supported
the request. Ms. Estelle Nichols, Executive
Director of the Free Clinic, also spoke in favor of
the request. Several persons and organizations
spoke in opposition to the demolition request. Old
Southwest, Inc. and the Roanoke Valley PreserVation
Foundation submitted letters expressing their
concern about demolition of the structure.
Room 355 Mumopal Bul~d~ng 215 Churct~ Avenue S W Roanoke, V~rg,nlo 24011 (703) 981-2344
Members of Council
Page 2
Other persons objecting to the demolition included
Mr. Jeff Parkhill, 532 Mountain Avenue; Mr. Bob
Lynn, 535 Mountain Avenue; Mr. Paul English, 536
Allison Avenue; Mr. Geoff Seamans, 414 Walnut
Avenue; Mr. William Westpitch, 381 Washington
Avenue, Ms. Petie Brigham, 509 Allison Avenue; and
Mrs. Joel Richert, 415 Allison Avenue. Copies of
all written correspondence are attached.
Architectural Review Board denied the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness by a vote of 4-2
(Messrs. Motley, Whitwell, Creasy, Meagher voting to
deny the request and Messrs. Boynton and Jones
voting to approve the request. Mr. Jamieson was
absent.). The Board determined that the building at
1001 Third Street, S. W. was a significant~
contributing structure and that its demolition would
adversely affect the district.
II. Current Situation:
ao
Appeal of Architectural Review Board decision filed
on February 6, 1991. Attorney requested that the
appeal be withheld from the agenda of City Council
until further notice.
Petitioner's appeal states that "the loss of the
building would not be adverse to the district or the
public interest by virtue of its uniqueness or its
significance to the district; demolition would not
have an adverse effect on the character and
surrounding environment of the district; and the
demolition is in conjunction with a proposed new use
of the site which satisfies the intent and standards
of the H-2 district".
III. Issues:
A. Architectural Review Board findings.
Required findings for issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, as per Section 36.1-348 of the
Zoning Code of the City of Roanoke, as amended. A
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued
where it is found that:
Loss of the structure would not be adverse to
the district or the public interest by virtue
of its uniqueness or its significance to the
district.
Members of Council
Page 3
Demolition would not have an adverse effect on
the character and surrounding environment of
the district.
Where demolition is in conjunction with a
proposed new use of the site, such use
satisfies the intent and standards of the
district.
C. New addition and need for demolition.
IV. Alternatives:
Affirm the decision of the Architectural Review
Board.
Concur with the findings of the Board.
Building is contributing to the district and
its loss would be adverse to the district.
Findings, as required by ordinance, would
upheld.
3. Plans for new addition have not been s,,hm~tted
to the Architectural Review Board for their
review. A determination has not been made as
to whether the addition meets the intent and
standards of the district.
Reverse the decision of the Architectural Review
Board.
1. Do not concur with the findings of the Board.
2. Council must make other findings.
Need demonstrated. Plans for new addition to
be reviewed by Architectural Review Board in
the future.
Refer matter back to the Architectural Review Board
for further review of new information.
Recu.~.ndation:
On behalf of the Architectural Review Board, it is
respectfully requested that City Council affirm the
decision and findings of the Board and not grant a
Certificate of ApDroDriateness for the demolition of the
building at 1003 Third Street, S. W. The building is a
contributing architectural structure in the historic
district and its demolition would not be in the best
interest of the neighborhood preservation district.
Members of Council
Page 4
mitted,
Chairman
cc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn S. Dibling, City Attorney
M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIAx~,~ESS
Application is hereby made to the Architectural Review Board of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
make the modifications or improvements described below to the
property or properties in the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District, in the City of Roanoke.
1. Name of Applicant: St. Mark's Lutheran Church
Doing business as
(if applicable):
Same
3. Address of Applicant: 1008 Franklin Road, $.W., Roanoke, VA 24016
Telephone (office): 344-9051
(home):
Location (address) of property or properties for which the
Certificate of Appropriateness is requested:
1001 Third Street, S.W., Roanoke, VA
J
Attach to this application the names and addresses of owners
of the lots or properties immediately adjacent, to the rear,
and directly opposite the property.
General description of each modification or improvement:
Removal of present old house to make space for additional parking.
Enlargement of present facility in compliance with existing architecture
will require additional parking. Also currently additional parking
is needed.
Attach scaled drawings, photographs, materials, samples and
any other items which detail your request.
Will these modifications or improvements be visible from any
public street, alley or right-of-way? Yes
10.
Is there an application relevant to this property and the
subject modifications or improvements pending or contemplated
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, City Planning Commission
or City Cou/lcil? NO If SO, specify:
11.
W~no will represent the applicant before the Architectural
Review Board (representative should have authority to commit
applicant to make changes that may be suggested by the Board)?
Name: ..M. Caldwell Butler~ Attorney at Law
Title or relationship to applicant: Legal Counsel
Address: 105 Franklin Road, S.W.~ Roanoke, VA 24011
Telephone: 982-A244 (zip code)
Signature of Owner:
Signatur~ -
George A. Ke~le~, Trustee
(please print or type)
Signature of a~agent:
(where applicable)
Sighature
(please print or type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY ARB STAFF ONLY:
Received by:
Date:
Scheduled for ARB meeting
on:
Zoning:
Tax No.:
Historic District
Zoning:
Names and mailing addresses of owners of lots or properties
immediately adjacent, to the rear, and directly opposite the
property:
Owners & Mailing Address
Location of Property
Trustees, St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
St. Mark's Parking Lot
St. Mark's Lutheran
Church
Trustees, Beth Israel Congregation
920 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
920 Franklin Road, S.W.
Karl A. and Paula J. Vandegriff
2629 Wycliffe Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24014
305 Highland Avenue, S.W.
Highland Ave. & 3rd St.,
S.W.
Trustees, 2nd Presbyterian Church
214 Mountain Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
Parking Lot
Albert W. Moser
1335 Clarke Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24016
SoWo
1010 3rd Street, S.W.
Anne L. Ferguson
117 Serpentine Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24014
1016 3rd Street, S.W.
Louis & Antoinette D'Alessandro
1018 3rd Street, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
1018 3rd Street, S.W.
1020 3rd Street, S.W.
Edmond M. Stanley
Albemarle Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
227 Albemarle Avenue,
S.W.
James Ford
P.O. Box 2708
Roanoke, VA 24001
303 Washington Avenue,
S.W.
M#29293
January 14, 1991
Mr. George A. Kegley, Trustee
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
Dear Mr. Kegley:
Subject: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
1001 Third Street, S.W. - No. 91-001
The Architectural Review Board of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, considered your above-referenced request and a
Certificate of Appropriateness was denied.
It was the Board's determination that the building at 1001
Third Street, S.W., was a significant, contributing structure
and that its demolition would adversely affect the district.
If you should have further questions relative to this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at the
number listed below.
Sincerely,
Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary
Architectural Review Board
ESG:mpf
attachment
cc: Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
TRUSTEES OF ST. MARK'S )
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF )
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA )
PETITION FOR APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE:
Your Petitioners, the Trustees of St. Mark's Lutheran
Church of Roanoke, Virginia, would respectfully state:
1. This Is an appeal from a decision of the
Architectural Review Board ("ARB") under Section 36.1-642(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
2. The property which is the subject of this appeal is
located at 1001 Third Street, S.W. in the City of Roanoke and
includes a residence and two separate buildings as shown on the
"existing site plan" attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. Your Petitioners are the owners of the property which
is the subject of this appeal.
4. The property is zoned C-1 office district.
5. The property Is within the boundaries of an area
which the Council has designated as H-2 (Neighborhood
Preservation District).
6. On Januar~ 10, 1991, the ARB for the City of Roanoke
denied application for a certificate under Section 36.1-345 of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke that it
was appropriate to demolish =he aforesaid buildings and to use
M#38900
the property as a parkLng lot in conjunction with the expansion
of the church facilities.
A copy of the letter from the Secretary of the ARB dated
January 14, 1991, Is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. The loss of the buildings would not be adverse to the
district or the public interest by virtue of its uniqueness or
its significance to the district; demolition would not have an
adverse effect on the character and surrounding environment of
the district; and the demolition Is in conjunction with a
proposed new use of the site which satisfies the intent and
standards of the H-2 district.
8. Your Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the
ARB in that It interferes with the plans of St. Mark's Lutheran
Church to expand its facilities
and'community better.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioners
of appropriateness be granted.
in order to serve its members
request that the certificate
TRUSTEES OF ST MARK'S
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ROANOKE,
VIR6INIA
~ Of Counsel
M. Caldwell Butler
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE
105 Franklin Road, S.W.
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0720
(703) 982-4244
M#38900
2
rtl
FRANKLIN I~OAO
Roanoke City Arcb'tectural Review Board
Page 5
January 10, 1991
what kind of condition the roof was in.
Mr. Whitwell asked if the Board was ready to make a motion.
Mr. Meagher moved to approve the request as presented.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Motley. A roll call vote was
taken on the request as follows:
Mr. Motley Yes
Mr. Jones Yes
Mr. Whitwell Yes
Mr. Creasy No
Mr. Meagher No
Mr. Boynton Yes
The request was approved by a vote of 4-2.
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1003 3rd Street, SW
Demolition of former Free Clinic
Mr. Caldwell Butler appeared before the Board and stated he was
requesting permission to demolish the building at the
intersection of Highland Avenue and 3rd Street, formerly the
Free Clinic building. He said that the continuance from last
month's meeting had been requested because of some
unanticipated opposition. He also noted that there was no one
in the imediate neighborhood who had expressed opposition, and
he had active support from Jim Ford, an adjoining property
owner. He also said there were no plans to disturb the formal
gardens. He also said he had a letter of support from Second
Presbyterian Church and he noted that Christ Episcopal Church
had no opposition.
Mr. Butler advised the Board that the building had no-
architectural significance. He further stated that the
church's long-range planning committee had determined the need
to expand the church and the expansion could only take place by
one of three ways: (1) using the landscaped area; (2) on the
Third Street side of the church building; or (3) using the
space on which the Free Clinic was constructed. He said that
the only available space for the church to provide parking
would be in the existing garden area or on the site of the Free
Clinic building. He said the church preferred to demolish the
building because of its lack of architectural merit and
restoration would serve only nostalgic purposes. He said that
the building had been inspected in 1988 and it had been
determined that extensive improvements were needed. He said
that from strictly an economic point of view, the building
should be demolished. He said it would cost approximately
$60,000 to demolish the building and put in a parking area. He
also presented a streetscape, which according to Mr. Butler,
was completely consistent with the architecture of the
neighborhood.
Roanoke City Arcb~tectural Review Board
Page 6
'anuary 10, 1991
Motley asked if alternative parking methods had been
~tudied.
Mr. Butler responded that he had asked their architects to look
at alternatives.and the only suggestion they had was to use the
garden area.
Mr. Motley asked how many parking spaces the church had.
Mr. Butler said he thought there were 550 spaces, with 28 lost
by the addition of the building.
Mr. Motley asked if 28 spaces could be built in the small
garden area.
Mr. Butler said he had not asked that specific question. He
asked the Board to recognize that the church had to expand and
could not expand in their existing building.
Mr. Motley asked what the future plans for the garden on
Franklin Road were.
Mr. Butler said that there were no plans to do anything other
than maintain it.
Mr. Whitwell asked Mr. Butler if the development would look
exactly like the streetscape plan presented.
Mr. Butler responded that was how the architect was showing it.
Mr. Talevi said that if the drawing was part of the original
submission he had no problem with it.
Mr. Butler said that was part of his submission.
Mrs. Richert and Ms. Brigham presented a slide show of the
building and surrounding area. Mrs. Richert also advised the
Board of some of the history of the structure and noted that
many parts of the structure were of sound quality. Mrs.
Richert also read a statement from the Old Southwest Board of
Directors opposed to the demolition.
Mr. Jeff Parkhill (532 Mountain Avenue, SW) appeared before the
Board and presented an alternative to St. Mark's plan which
would save the structure from demolition. He said he had used
the church's plan and reoriented it, putting approximately 30
spaces into the side garden. He said he was of the mindset
that the building was not in a dilapidated condition.
Mr. Bob Lynn (535 Mountain Avenue, SW) appeared before the
Board and stated that two adjoining property owners (Mr. Ford
and Mr. Cline) were friends of his and they did not live in the
area. He added that a lot of parishioners did not live in the
neighborhood. He also read a letter, dated July 1990, from Old
Roanoke City Arcb'-ectural Review Board
Page 7
January 10, 1991
southwest relative to the organization requesting a meeting to
discuss the church's future plans as well as a response from
St. Mark's declining a meeting.
Paul English (536 Allison Avenue) appeared before the Board and
called to question the morality of destroying the past of the
neighborhood in which he lived. He advised that he was
concerned for the loss of his young daughter's neighborhood
heritage and was afraid that when she was grown up she would no
longer be able to identify and feel a part of the plan where
she had grown up.
Ms. Estelle Nichols, Executive Director of the Free Clinic,
appeared before the Board and stated that the building was
magnificent and everyone had been very sorry to move out of
the structure. She said, however, that the structure was not a
practical one for them. She said that St. Mark's had allowed
them to remain in the building for 15 years rent free and the
Board of Directors had seriously considered purchasing the
building, however, they had decided against it. She said that
in 1988 they had been told that the cost to renovate the
structure would have been between $200,000 and $250,000. She
said the structure was in very bad shape, with leaking roof,
heating problems, and no air conditioning. She said she felt
the Free Clinic may have hindered the church's grOWth for the
past 15 years and she said she felt they deserved the right to
be able to look a some kind of future for their growth. She
asked the Board to consider the church's request.
Geoff Seamans (414 Walnut Avenue, SW) appeared before the Board
and stated he respected the adjoining property owner's opinions
and knew the St. Mark's had done some very good work. He said
that Old Southwest had attempted to speak with St. Mark's
months ago and had hoped to work out some sort of plan that
would serve the purpose of the historic district. He said that
what frustrated him so much was that the H-2 district and
ordinance was thought of
The church's master plan ~:v~ minor item to be brushed aside.
no consideration to the fact that
the church was located in the historic district. He said he
wanted the important building to be saved and the historic
district ordinance to be used.
William westpich (381 Washington Avenue, SW) appeared before
the Board and questioned the economics the church was using in
deciding to tear the structure down. He said that comparing
the cost of demolition to rehabilitation did not give a true
picture of cost because the cost of the new addition was not
being taken into consideration.
Kent Chrisman (632 Walnut Avenue) appeared before the Board and
stated that he was present on behalf of the Roanoke Valley
Preservation Foundation. He read a letter from the Foundation
expressing their concern for the demolition of the structure.
Mr. Butler again appeared before the Board and explained that
the church had employed an architect and were relying on thgir
suggestions. He said that Roy Kinsey had been employed to
at the building and tell them the prospects. He said if the
church was going to be expanded, the suggestion of their
architect was the most appropriate one.
Roanoke City Architectural Review Board
Page 8
January 10, 1991
He said the building was a tremendous expense. He advised the
Board that the standards which the Board was to use were set
forth in the ordinance. He said that based on the church's
analysis, it was clear to them that the request was quite
appropriate for,the Board to approve.
Geoff Seamans appeared before the Board and commented that
rehabilitating a medical facility was very costly compared to
other rehabilitations.
Ms. Brigham appeared before the Board and stated she was an Old
Southwest board member as well as a local realtor. She
discussed sales patterns in Old Southwest and noted that quite
a few homes, in worse shape the the former Free Clinic
structure, had been purchased and rehabilitated. She further
stated that those who live in Old Southwest thoroughly believe
in their neighborhood. She expressed her concern for the
absentee owners who did not protect resident's investments or
recognize their concerns.
Mrs. Gunter said that she would like to clarify two points for
the Board - one was that the formal gardens at Washington
Avenue and Franklin Road were not part of the application and
that the application indicated that the house was to be removed
to make room for additional parking because of anaddition of
the present facility. She said that she had seen no plans for
an addition and that was not part of the application. She then
read the findings (from Section 36.1-348 of the City Code)
that the Board was to use when making their decision. She said
that it was her understanding that the application was
demolition of the structure for a parking lot.
Mr. Whitwell said that the issue was to grant or not to grant a
certificate to allow a demolition of the building in question.
He said the garden was not at issue.
Mr. Motley said that in order to place the matter on the floor,
he moved to approve the request. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Motley commented that he had made the motion just to get
the matter on the floor so it could be discussed. He said to
allow the demolition of the building would adversely affect the
district. He said it would not be in the best interest of the
public and the structure was definitely a landmark in Old
Southwest and he could not support the demolition.
Mr. Jones said he thought that certainly the home, as it was
built originally, was a majestic building. He said he thought
the renovation that had taken place in the past had certainly
compromised the building's architectural significance. He said
he did not feel it had great architectural significance as it
stood and he would vote for approval.
A roll call'vote was taken as follows:
Roanoke
Page 9
January
City Architectural Review Board
10, 1991
Mr. Motley No
Mr. Jones Yes
Mr. Whitwell No
Mr. Creasy No
Mr. Meaghe= No
Mr. Boynton Yes
The request was denied by a vote of 4-2.
Robert Szathmary
123 Campbell Avenue, SE
Storefront improvements,
improvements
roof repair, and rear facad,
Mr. Szathmary said that Kathy Frazier of Frazier and Associates
and John Morris of Hughes Associates were also present to
discuss the request.
Kathy Frazier presented drawings of the storefront and stated
that the brick would be cleaned and the transom windows
retained. She also discussed the other facade improvements
proposed for the building.
John Morris made the presentation relative to improvements to
the rear of the structure. He said that he wanted to create an
interior courtyard at the rear of the building.
Mr. Whitwell asked for public comment. There was none.
Mr. Szathmary again appeared before the Board and stated that
he planned to replace the his tar and gravel roof with a rubber
roof. He also noted that he was trying to get some bronze,
similar to the storefront across the street, for the facade of
his building. He asked that the Board consider allowing him to
build the entrance in one of two ways: as presented or flush
versus stepped. He also said he anticipated coming back next
month on some smaller things.
Mr. Whitwell asked if the Board would give the petitioner some
latitude for the variation on the entrance. The Board agreed
to that.
Mr. Meagher then moved to approve the request.
seconded by Mr. Creasy and approved 6-0.
Allen Ritter
442 Washington Avenue,
Replacement windows
SW
The motion was
Mr. Ritter appeared before the Board and stated he would like
to replace the windows.
Mrs. Joel Richert appeared before the Board on behalf of David
Peery who lives on Highland at 5th Street. She said that Mr.
Peery had to leave the meeting but had done similar work on his
home and did not have to replace the windows. Mrs. Richert
Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016
January 10, 1991
TO: Architectural
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, VA
Review Board
RE: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness by St.
Mark's Lutheran Church.
Old Southwest Inc. opposes the request of St. Mark's
Lutheran Church for a certificate of appropriateness to up-
root the gardens adjacent to the church and, even worse, to
raze the Henson Mansion, also known as the Free Clinic build-
ing, at the corner of Third Street and Highland Avenue.
We are opposed because the proposal makes no sense. Fur-
ther, we are dismayed that the church and/or its architects
do not seem to comprehend (a) what the city is trying to ac-
complish with the H-2 historic-preservation ordinance and
the exciting potential offered by historic preservation --
for the church as much as for anybody. We say this because:
1. From an H-2 perspective, the proposal as filed with
the ARB is absurd. It would destroy both the gardens and a
contributing structure to the historic district, in exchange
for parking lots. Moreover, the proposal is linked to con-
struction of a church addition whose appropriateness to the
district, even considered apart from the proposed demoli-
tions, is borderline.
2. The Henson Mansion is not simply a contributing struc-
ture to the historic district; it is, by virtue of its loca-
tion and architectural uniqueness, one of the district's key-
stones. The only significant alteration to its original
appearance is a 1979 enclosure, which would be easy to re-
move, of a portion of its front porch.
Moreover, the use of the building is cf potentially na-
tional historic interest. Built in 1909 as a residence for
Waller Henson, an attorney and general counsel for the
Shenandoah Life Insurance Co., the structure in recent years
was the first home of the Free Clinic, whose success has be-
come a national model.
3. The application's description of the building as "di-
lapidated'' is of little relevance to the appropriateness of
its proposed demolition -- and in any event is simply incor-
rect. The building is in good to excellent condition.
Indeed, we are puzzled by the preference for a new addi-
tion over the more cost-effective solution of retrofitting
the Henson Mansion for the additional office and Sunday
school space sought by the church.
Page 2
4. Parking in the neighborhood is ample on Sunday morn-
ings, when it is in greatest demand for ohurches, because of
the presence of nearby commercial buildings whose lots are
empty at that time. Available parking has increased in the
past year, due to rehabilitation and appropriate-infill
projects near St. Mark's.
Old Southwest Inc. stands willing to assist St. Mark's in
any way we can to make formal arrangements for such off-site
parking, and to support requests for wm£vers from city
parking-space requirements if needed to avoid demolitions.
5. By modifying its site plan, St. Mark's could have its
addition snd the same number of on-site parking spaces with-
out imposing a death sentence on the Henson Mansion. This is
hardly an ideal solution: It assumes use of the gardens for
parking, and does not address the issue of the appropriate-
ness to the historic district of the proposed addition.
Still, it would spare the mansion, and -- given the con-
siderable market value of a building that the church proposes
to bulldoze rather than use or sell -- makes the request at
hand even more dismaying.
Sceva Phillips /
President
A1 Greene
Secretary
Board
David Peery
Board member
Brigham
ember
Riohert
ident
~G~o~/Seamans
Tre~rer
~G'o r d o n Blake
Board member
Sand~a Robinson
Board member
(Max Matthews, board member, out of town.)
Tax ~:
Address: 1001
Current Info:
1022102
3rd St. S.W.
4,336 sq. ft.
lot size 76 X 150
Zoned C~
1990 owner: St. Mark's Lutheran Church Current
value: $14,300 land, $16,700 Improvements
History:
St. Mark's bought property in
Description of house: masonry,
(cement floor)
Stone foundation
Brick Veneer
Hip roof
plaster walls
4 porches: front 9 X 38
side 6 X 16
rear 8 X 29
sleep 8 X 29
On land map known as "Jamison Home Place".
1975 repaired front porch $225.
1978 enclosed part of front porch for free
$500. ~8254
1968 (3-29) $50,000.
2 story with basement 40%
wood floors (pine+oak)
slate roof
6 baths
radiator heat
clinic
1909 - Walker J. Henson (Cornelia A.)
of McCormick, Henson, and Brown
1918 - same
1925 - same. Now Judge.
Insurance Co.
1929 - Occupants listed
1939 Occupants listed
General counsel Shenandoah Life
1955 - Occupants listed as:
W.W. Kavanaugh
W.J. Henson
C.J. Gravett
Frank Martin
John Tyler
Walter Jackson
Karl Von Schlatzer
Mary Winsing
Mark Lane
Homer Richards
John Clark
.r
j i L_ .... '.2...L..
'7
L_
ROANOke. VAI.I.~.Y PRESERVATION F. JNDATION
P. O. BOX 1558
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24007
January 1991
Nr. William L. Whitwell, Chairmen
end Nembara of the Architectural Review Board
21S Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Deer Hr. Whitwell end Nembera of the Board:
SUBJECT: 1001Srd Street, SW
Daeolition Request by St. Hark'a Lutheran Church
On behalf of the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation, I
would like to express our concern for the requested demolition of
the historic building et 1001 3rd Street, SW. While we can
understand the need of St. Mark's Church to expand its physical
plant, we feel that further consideration should be given to re-
using the existing building end pursuing alternative parking
solutions which preserve the historic integrity of the block.
The building et 1001 3rd Street ia an important Colonial
Revival house that ia significant in its contribution to the
National Register Southwest Historic District. It 'ia a prominent
landmark in the atreatacape of Third Street end Highland Avanue~
end ia one of the few remaining finely detailed larger homes in
this area of Old Southwest. The presence of this building on a
high point of the ridge ia focal and helps to aaintain the saaa
end ~cala of the turn-of-the-century neighborhood. We support
preservation end reuse of the building, end encourage study to
detaral~a alternative ways, other than deeolition, to address
parking needs.
While not a pert of the request before the Board today, but
a relevant setter, we era also concerned with the future of the
historic gardens at the corner of Washington Avenue end Franklin
Road. These 9ardena ere of significant cultural end historic
value to the atreetaoape of Washington Avenue and Franklin Road
end provide a valuable landscape component of an otherwise
densely developed neighborhood. The ~aatar plan for St. Mark's
indicates reaoval of the gardens end perking in this area. We
encourage alternative perking strategies which preserve.this
vital open apace.
We would be pleased to work with St. Nark'a Church, Old
Southwest, Inc., end the Architectural Review Board to find
acceptable alternatives to the demolition and alteration of these
significant resources. Thank you for allowing ua the opportunity
to comment on this matter before the Board.
President
N. Caldwell Butler, Attorney for St. Nark'a
Scare Phillips, President, Old Southwest, Inc.
Old Southwest. Inc 641 Walnut Ave, S W Roanoke, VA 24016
February 6, 1991
TO: Members of Council
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, VA
RE: Proposed demolition of the Henson Mansion (old Free
Clinic) at Third Street and Highland Avenue SW.
We urge City Council to uphold the Architectural Review
Board in refusing to grant a Certificate of ApPropriateness
to tear down the old Free Clinic building. If Council over-
rules the ARB, it will mean effective repeal of the H-2
historic-preservation overlay.
That would be tragic for Old Southwest. It would also be
tragic for the City. It would nullify years of work, in-
cluding by Council itself. It would put at grave risk Old
Southwest's revival as an attractive inner-city neighborhood
in which to live and work. It would jeopardize the invest-
. ments of those who have poured millions of dollars into
renovation and new construction since the H-2 overlay was
passed -- and thus would jeopardize the city's real-estate
tax base.
The law lists three standards all of which are to be met
before a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued for a
demolition in the historic district. This proposed demoli-
tion falls to meet any of them.
* Would loss of the structure be adverse both to the dis-
trict and to the public interest by virtue of its uniqueness
or its significance to the district?
Yes. The building's location, in the heart of the his-
toric district, and its architectural uniqueness make it a
keystone of the Old Southwest Historic District. Built in
1909, it is in good to excellent condition. The only
street-side alteration to its original appearance is a 1979
enclosure, easily removed, of a portion of its front porch.
Moreover, its early use as a residence for Waller Henson,
general counsel for the Shenandoah Life Insurance Co., makes
it of local historic interest. Its later use as the first
home of the Free Clinic, whose success has become a national
model, makes it of potentially national historic interest.
* Would demolition have an adverse effect on the character
and Surrounding environment of the district?
Again, yes. The massive building, of roughly 3,500 square
feet, stands atop high ground on a prominent corner of the
district. It is visible not only from Third Street and High-
land Avenue but also from heavily traveled Franklin Road.
Page Two
Old Southwest. Inc 641 Walnut Ave, S W Roanoke, VA 24016
Though not perfeotly preserved, the immediately surrounding
area contains a number of contributing structures to the his-
toric district, most of which are in good or excellent condi-
tion. Razing the building would create an open soar in the
urban streetscape. Calling the effect "adverse" is an under-
statement.
* Where demolition is in conjunction with a proposed new
use of the site, does such use satisfy the intent and stan-
dards of the H-2 district?
No. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Trading so
fine and prominent a structure for a mere parking lot would
be a direct contradiction of both the spirit and the letter
of the law.
Though not directly pertinent to the issue at hand the
following points might also be made: '
1. There are several alternative ways, none involving the
razing of contribnting structures to the historic district,
by which the property-owner, St. Mark's Lutheran Church,
could obtain the on-site parking it claims to need.
2. The prospeot of economic hardship to the
property-owner arises if the building is demolished, not if
it is preserved. To demolition costs, stated as $60,000 at
the ARB hearing, must be added the loss of an asset whose
market value is almost certainly in excess of $100,000.
3. The church's record of service to the general community
is not at issue. That record is to be commended. But its
continuation in no way requires the repeal of the H-2
historic-preservation ordinance that has been of such great
benef~it to Old Southwest ~d to the
Al~Greene,~tary ~ -- --
David reer~, Bo=rd .em ej
Sandy ~ob ~so~, Board Member
Max Matthews, Board Member
Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016
July 12, 1990
Reverend Charles H. Easley, Pastor
St. Marks Lutheran Church
Franklin Road and Highland Avenue,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Reverend Easley,
The Board of Directors of Old Southwest, Inc. hasdirected me
to write you regarding your congregation's recent decisions to
alter the church site in the 01d Southwest Historic District.
It is our understanding--please correct us if.we are-wrong--that
future plans involve a possible attempt to demolish the old Free
Clinic Building on Third Street, and also rid the site of the
gardens adjoining the church.
He are extremely interested in preserving the integrity of our
neighborhood, and request from you and the church council an
informal meeting to address these changes.
We look forward to hearing from you, and hope to work together
for the mutual betterment of our neighborhood.
Re~e~t~rs,
A1 ~'P~en~e j ~ecre~ary
Old Southwest, Inc.
P.S.
On a personal note, my warm regards to Emma Lou. As I'm
sure you're aware, we work closely together at the Little
Red Schoolhouse!
Sceva Phillips, President
Joel Richert, Vice President
A1 Greene, Secretary
Geoff Seamans, Treasurer
342-2991
342-2837
342-3869
342-0287
cc, File
cc: Ms. Evie Gunter, Secretary
ARB City of Roanoke
ST. MARK'S LUTHERAN CHURCH
1008 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
The Reverend Charles W. Easley, D.D., Pastor
The Reverend Tracie L. Bartholomew, Associate P~stor
Telephone: Church Office (703) 344-905 I
Pastor's Study (703) 344-7145
Ju y 26, 1990
Mr. A1 Greene, Secretary
Old Southwest, Inc.
641 Walnut Ave., S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
Dear Mr. Greene:
Thank you for your letter of July 12 expressing an interest
in what St. Mark's Church is doing with regard to our property.
Your letter contains both information and mis-information. The
letter was read and discussed at a Church Council meeting last
evening (July 24). It was the opinion of Council that nothing
is to be gained from our meeting with you at this time since
we have been given a direction from the congregation.
Be assured that we also are interested in this neighborhood -
its property and its people.
~Y
cc: Mrs. Evie Gunter, Secretary
ARB City Of Roanoke
JUL O 1990
The Reverend Deborah Hen~ Hunley
Priest-in.Charge
I I01 Franklin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
(703) 343.0159
Howard Thomas 8aush, III
Elizabeth Bunce-Nichols
Christian Education Director
December 13, 1990
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Friends,
This is tq!nform you'tha~,the Vestry. of Chrtst-Church,-durlng its
regular ~onthly meeting-?n'TUesday.?D~cemb~r 11~.1990, considered your
request zor comnent on the proposed demolition of the building behind'
St. Mark's which was formerly used to house the Free Clinic.
The Vestry wishes to go on record as having no objection to the
proposed demolition. The vote was unanimous,
With ail good wishes,
Faithfully yours,
The Rev. Deborah Hentz Hunley {
SECOND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
214 Mountain Avenue, S. W.
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016
(703) 343-3659
Mirti~ar: Wlaiam R. K~tn
Associate Pastor for ConiMegational Care: A. Taylor To~d
Associate Pastor for Chri~len Eclucatia~: Stephen ~ Emick
Pastor Emeritus: A. H. Ho#ingswor~. jr.
SC. ~Iark's LuCheran Church
Franklin Rd. and Highland Ave..
December 1'~. 1990
£ nave been advised ~hut the officers of SC.
cnac rormeriv housej The Free Clinic. ,~' -
The across che s~t'ee~ f~'om SeconQ ~-esbycerlan Chub'ch, we
'nuCura;Iv have an ln~eresc in the use of Che proper~y. I
support ~he error,s of S~. ~[,~l~ 's Church. It is no longer
economically £easlble co make the repairs needed to make the
building safe for occupancy. Were it feaslDle 'I'ne ~ree
Clinic wou]~ nave pursued Chu~ ~venue. I t,~ink lc will
enhance one neigh~orhoo~ 2f the ~ulldlng lm removed.
nope ~e J'i~y will ~'ant permission to have it done.
P.O. Box 2708
303Washinston Avenue S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Telephone: (703) 343-0117
JAMES A. FORD, CLU, District Agent
Chartered Financial Consultant
Melinda L Ragland, Administrative Assistant
Nancy M. Ford, Director of Development
Robert E. Pogue, CLU, General Agent
December 6, 1990
M. Caldwell Butler
Woods, Rogers and Hazelgrove
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, VA 24004
Dear Mr. Butler:
I have been notified by the City of Roanoke of the hearing which
is being held December 13, 1990 regarding the demolition of the
building owned by St. Mark's Lutheran Church at 1001 Third
Street, S.W., formerly used as the Free Clinic. I own the
building located at 303 Washington Ave., S.W., and not only do
not object to this proposed demolition, but am in favor of it. I
am not aware of it having any historic value or any redeeming
esthetic value. I do not believe it is at all attractive.
If I can be of any further help, please let me know.
S~erely,
JAMES A. FORD_~ CLU
JAF/nmf
THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY·Milwaukee
December 12, 1991
Mr. George A. Kegley, Trustee
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Kegley:
SUBJECT: Certificate of Appropriateness
1001 Third Street, S. W.
Please find enclosed a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
demolition of the structure at 1001 Third Street, $. W. as approved
for issuance by City Council 90 days from their decision on July 8,
1991.
I hope that the delay in issuing this certificate has not
created an inconvenience. There was some confusion as to whether
the Certificate was to be issued by the Architectural Review Board
or City Council.
You should contact the Building Department for further
information regarding any other necessary requirements that need to
be met prior to your receiving a permit for the demolition.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
Evelyn S. Gunter
Secretary
cc: ~ary F. Parker, City Clerk
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator
M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
Room 355 Mun,opoi Bu~ld~ng 215 Churcl~ Avenue, S W Roanoke Virg,n~a 24011 (703) 981 2344
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
NO. 91-001
On July 8, 1991, the Council of the City of Roanoke reversed the
decision of the Architectural Review board on appeal and approved
the issuance of this Certificate of Appropriateness to St. Mark's
Lutheran Church for the demolition of the structure located at 1001
Third Street, S. W.
In accordance with Council's action, this Certificate was to be
granted 90 days from July 8, 1991.
December 12, 1991
Eve--lyn ~. Gunter, Secretary
Architectural Review Board
Room 355 Mun,c,pal BuHcling 215 Church Avenue S W Roanoke V~rg~n,a 24011 ~703) 981 2344
RECEIVED
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
'91 dlJL-2 P4:11
July 8, 1991
Mayor Noel C. Taylor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: St. Mark's Lutheran Church
Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision
I. Background:
Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Architectural Review Board was requested to demolish
the structure at 1003 3rd Street, S. W. The purpose
of the demolition is to provide additional parking
for a proposed new addition to the church, which was
not a part of the application. Supporting
information submitted to the Board included
pictures, property information, conceptual and
existing site plans by Sherertz, Franklin, Crawford,
Shaffner, Inc., and a program and master plan by the
same firm, dated 4/13/88.
The demolition request was considered by the
Architectural Review Board at their meeting on
1/10/91. A copy of the minutes of the
meeting are attached for your review. At the public
meeting, there was considerable discussion by the
applicant, the Board, and the public of the
architectural merit of the structurer rehabilitation
costs, and alternative parking. Two churches in the
immediate area, Second Presbyterian and Christ
Episcopal, had no opposition to the request. One
adjoining property owner, Mr. Jim Ford, supported
the request. Ms. Estelle Nichols, Executive
Director of the Free Clinic, also spoke in favor of
the request. Several persons and organizations
spoke in opposition to the demolition request. Old
Southwest, Inc. and the Roanoke Valley Preservation
Foundation submitted letters expressing their
concern about demolition of the structure.
Room 355 Municipal Building 2~ 5 Church Avenue SW Roonol,~e, Virginio 24011 (703) 981 2344
Members of Council
Page 2
Other persons objecting to the demolition included
Mr. Jeff Parkhill, 532 Mountain Avenue; Mr. Bob
Lynn, 535 Mountain Avenue; Mr. Paul English, 536
Allison Avenue; Mr. Geoff Seamans, 414 Walnut
Avenue; Mr. William Westpitch, 381 Washington
Avenue, Ms. Petie Brigham, 509 Allison Avenue; and
Mrs. Joel Richert, 415 Allison Avenue. Copies of
all written correspondence are attached.
Architectural Review Board denied the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness by a vote of 4-2
(Messrs. Motley, Whitwell, Creasy, Meagher voting to
deny the request and Messrs. Boynton and Jones
voting to approve the request. Mr. Jamieson was
absent.). The Board determined that the building at
1001 Third Street, S. W. was a significant,
contributing structure and that its demalition would
adversely affect the district.
II. Current Situation:
Appeal of Architectural Review Board decision filed
on February 6, 1991. Attorney requested that the
appeal be withheld from the agenda of City Council
until further notice.
Be
Petitioner's appeal states that "the loss of the
building would not be adverse to the district or the
public interest by virtue of its uniqueness or its
significance to the district; demolition would not
have an adverse effect on the character and
surrounding environment of the district; and the
demolition is in conjunction with a proposed new use
of the site which satisfies the intent and standards
of the H-2 district".
III. Issues:
A. Architectural Review Board findings.
Required findings for issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, as per Section 36.1-348 of the
Zoning Code of the City of Roanoke, as amended. A
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be issued
where it is found that:
Loss of the structure would not be adverse to
the district or the public interest by virtue
of its uniqueness or its significance to the
district.
Members of Council
Page 3
IV.
2. Demolition would not have an adverse effect on
the character and surrounding environment of
the district.
3. Where demolition is in conjunction with a
proposed new use of the site, such use
satisfies the intent and standards of the H-2
district.
C. New addition and need for demolition.
Alternatives:
A. Affirm the decision of the Architectural Review
Board.
1. Concur with the findings of the Board.
Building is contributing to the district and
its loss would be adverse to the district.
2. Findings, as required by ordinance, would be
upheld.
3. Plans for new addition have not been submitted
to the Architectural Review Board for their
review. A determination has not been made as
to whether the addition meets the intent and
standards of the district.
Reverse the decision of the Architectural Review
Board.
Do not concur with the findings of the Board.
Council must make other findings.
Need demonstrated. Plans for new addition to
be reviewed by Architectural Review Board in
the future.
Refer matter back to the Architectural Review Board
for further review of new information.
Reco, mendation:
On behalf of the Architectural Review Board, it is
respectfully requested that City Council affirm the
decision and findings of the Board and not grant a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the
building at 1003 Third Street, S. W. The building is a
contributing architectural structure in the historic
district and its demolition would not be in the best
interest of the neighborhood preservation district.
Members of Council
Page 4
mitted,
W. L./Whitwell
Chairman
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn $. Dibling, City Attorney
M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Application is hereby made to the Architectural Review Board of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
make the modifications or improvements described below to the
property or properties in the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District, in the City of Roanoke.
1. Name of Applicant: St. Mark's Lutheran Church
Doing business as
(if applicable):
Same
3. Address of Applicant: 1008 Franklin Road, S.W., Roanoke, VA 24016
4. Telephone (office): 344-9051 (home):
5.
Location (address) of property or properties for which the
Certificate of Appropriateness is requested:
1001 Third Street, S.W., Roanoke, VA
Se
Attach to this application the names and addresses of owners
of the lots or properties ir~nediately adjacent, to the rear,
and directly opposite the property.
General description of each modification or improvement:
Removal of present old house to make space for additional parking.
Enlargement of present facility in compliance with existing architecture
will require additional parking. Also currently additional parking
is needed.
Attach scaled drawings, photographs, materials, samples and
any other items which detail your request.
Will these modifications or improvements be visible from any
public street, alley or right-of-way? Yes
10.
Is there an application relevant to this property and the
subject modifications or improvements pending or contemplated
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, City Planning Commission
or City Council? NO If so, specify:
11.
Who will represent the applicant before the Architectural
Review Board (representative should have authority to commit
applicant to make changes that may be suggested by the Board)?
Name: M. Caldwell Butler~ Attorne~ at Law
Title or relationship to applicant: Legal Counsel
Address: 105 Franklin Road, S.W., Roanoke, YA 24011
Telephone: 982-4244
(zip code)
Signature of Owner:
signatur~
George A. Ke~le~, Trustee
(please print or type)
Signature of a~ agent:
(where applicable)
(please print or type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY ARB STAFF ONLY:
Received by:
Date:
Scheduled for ARB meeting
on:
Zoning:
Tax No.:
Historic District
Zoning:
Names and mailing addresses of owners of lots or properties
immediately adjacent, to the rear, and directly opposite the
property:
Owners & Mailing Address
Location of Property
Trustees, St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
St. Mark's Parking Lot
St. Mark's Lutheran
Church
Trustees, Beth Israel Congregation
920 Franklin Road, $.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
920 Franklin Road, S.W.
Karl A. and Paula J. Vandegriff
2629 Wycliffe Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24014
305 Highland Avenue, $.W.
Highland Ave. & 3rd St.,
S.W.
Trustees, 2nd Presbyterian Church
214 Mountain Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
Parking Lot
Albert W. Moser
1335 Clarke Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24016
SoWo
1010 3rd Street, S.W.
Anne L. Ferguson
117 Serpentine Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24014
1016 3rd Street, S.W.
Louis & Antoinette D'Alessandro
1018 3rd Street, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
1018 3rd Street, S.W.
1020 3rd Street, S.W.
Edmond M. Stanley
Albemarle Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
227 Albemarle Avenue,
S.W.
James Ford
P.O. Box 2708
Roanoke, VA 24001
303 Washington Avenue,
S.W.
M#29293
January 14, 1991
Mr. George A. Kegley, Trustee
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
Dear Mr. Kegley:
Subject: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
1001 Third Street, S.W. - No. 91-001
The Architectural Review Board of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, considered your above-referenced request and a
Certificate of Appropriateness was denied.
It was the Board's determination that the building at 1001
Third Street, S.W., was a significant, contributing structure
and that its demolition would adversely affect the district.
If you should have further questions relative to this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at the
number listed below.
Sincerely,
Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary
Architectural Review Board
ESG:mpf
attachment
cc: Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney
VIRGINIA:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
TRUSTEES OF ST. MARK'S
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PETITION FOR APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE:
Your Petitioners, the Trustees of St. Mark's Lutheran
Church of Roanoke, Virginia, would respectfully state:
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the
Architectural Review Board ("ARB") under Section 36.1-642(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
2. The property which is the subject of this appeal is
located at 1001 Third Street, S.W. in the City of Roanoke and
includes a residence and two separate buildings as shown on the
"existing site plan" attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. Your Petitioners are the owners of the property which
is the subject of this appeal.
4. The property is zoned C-1 office district.
5. The property is within the boundaries of an area
which the Council has designated as H-2 (Neighborhood
Preservation District).
6. On January 10, 1991, the ARB for the City of Roanoke
denied application for a certificate under Section 36.1-345 of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Roanoke that it
was appropriate to demolish the aforesaid buildings and to use
M#38900
the property as a parking lot in conjunction with the expansion
of the church facilities.
A copy of the letter from the Secretary of the ARB dated
January 14, 1991, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. The loss of the buildings would not be adverse to the
district or the public interest by virtue of its uniqueness or
its significance to the district; demolition would not have an
adverse effect on the character and surrounding environment of
the district; and the demolition is in conjunction with a
proposed new use of the site which satisfies the intent and
standards of the H-2 district.
8. Your Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the
ARB in that it interferes with the plans of St. Mark's Lutheran
Church to expand its facilities in order to serve its members
and community better.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioners request that the certificate
of appropriateness be granted.
TRUSTEES OF ST MARK'S
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA
~ Of Counsel.
M. Caldwell Butler
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE
105 Franklin Road, S.W.
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, Virginia 24004-0720
(703) 982-4244
M#38900
2
FIII, A NK~.I N ~IIOAD
I'1'1
X
rn
Roanoke City ArcD'tectural Review Board
Page 5
January 10, 1991
what kind of condition the roof was in.
Mr. Whitwell asked if the Board was ready to make a motion.
Mr. Meagher moved to approve the request as presented.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Motley. A roll call vote was
taken on the request as follows:
Mr. Motley Yes
Mr. Jones Yes
Mr. Whitwell Yes
Mr. Creasy No
Mr. Meagher No
Mr. Boynton Yes
The request was approved by a vote of 4-2.
Be
St. Mark's Lutheran Church
1003 3rd Street, SW
Demolition of former Free Clinic
Mr. Caldwell Butler appeared before the Board and stated he was
requesting permission to demolish the building at the
intersection of Highland Avenue and 3rd Street, formerly the
Free Clinic building. He said that the continuance from last
month's meeting had been requested because of some
unanticipated opposition. He also noted that there was no one
in the immediate neighborhood who had expressed opposition, and
he had active support from Jim Ford, an adjoining property
owner. He also said there were no plans to disturb the formal
gardens. He also said he had a letter of support from Second
Presbyterian Church and he noted that Christ Episcopal Church
had no opposition.
Mr. Butler advised the Board that the building had no
architectural significance. He further stated that the
church's long-range planning co~,L,ittee had determined the need
to expand the church and the expansion could only take place by
one of three ways: (1) using the landscaped area; (2) on the
Third Street side of the church building; or (3) using the
space on which the Free Clinic was constructed. He said that
the only available space for the church to provide parking
would be in the existing garden area or on the site of the Free
Clinic building. He said the church preferred to demolish the
building because of its lack of architectural merit and
restoration would serve only nostalgic purposes. He said that
the building had been inspected in 1988 and it had been
determined that extensive improvements were needed. He said
that from strictly an economic point of view, the building
should be demolished. He said it would cost approximately
$60,000 to demolish the building and put in a parking area. He
also presented a streetscape, which according to Mr. Butler,
was completely consistent with the architecture of the
neighborhood.
Roanoke City ArcD~tectural Review Board
Page 6
January 10, 1991
Mr. Motley asked if alternative parking methods had been
studied.
Mr. Butler responded that he had asked their architects to look
at alternatives,and the only suggestion they had was to use the
garden area.
Mr. Motley asked how many parking spaces the church had.
Mr. Butler said he thought there were 550 spaces, with 28 lost
by the addition of the building.
Mr. Motley asked if 28 spaces could be built in the small
garden area.
Mr. Butler said he had not asked that specific question. He
asked the Board to recognize that the church had to expand and
could not expand in their existing building.
Mr. Motley asked what the future plans for the garden on
Franklin Road were.
Mr. Butler said that there were no plans to do anything other
than maintain it.
Mr. Whitwell asked Mr. Butler if the development would look
exactly like the streetscape plan presented.
Mr. Butler responded that was how the architect was showing it.
Mr. Talevi said that if the drawing was part of the original
submission he had no problem with it.
Mr. Butler said that was part of his submission.
Mrs. Richert and Ms. Brigham presented a slide show of the
building and surrounding area. Mrs. Richert also advised the
Board of some of the history of the structure and noted that
many parts of the structure were of sound quality. Mrs.
Richert also read a statement from the Old Southwest Board of
Directors opposed to the demolition.
Mr. Jeff Parkhill (532 Mountain Avenue, SW) appeared before the
Board and presented an alternative to St. Mark's plan which
would save the structure from demolition. He said he had used
the church's plan and reoriented it, putting approximately 30
spaces into the side garden. He said he was of the mindset
that the building was not in a dilapidated condition.
Mr. Bob Lynn (535 Mountain Avenue, SW) appeared before the
Board and stated that two adjoining property owners (Mr. Ford
and Mr. Cline) were friends of his and they did not live in the
area. He added that a lot of parishioners did not live in the
neighborhood. He also read a letter, dated July 1990, from Old
Roanoke City Arcb'~ectural Review Board
Page 7
January 10, 1991
Southwest relative to the organization requesting a meeting to
discuss the church's future plans as well as a response from
St. Mark's declining a meeting.
Paul English (536 Allison Avenue) appeared before the Board and
called to question the morality of destroying the past of the
neighborhood in which he lived. He advised that he was
concerned for the loss of his young daughter's neighborhood
heritage and was afraid that when she was grown up she would no
longer be able to identify and feel a part of the plan where
she had grown up.
Ms. Estelle Nichols, Executive Director of the Free Clinic,
appeared before the Board and stated that the building was
magnificent and everyone had been very sorry to move out of
the structure. She said, however, that the structure was not a
practical one for them. She said that St. Mark's had allowed
them to remain in the building for 15 years rent free and the
Board of Directors had seriously considered purchasing the
building, however, they had decided against it. She said that
in 1988 they had been told that the cost to renovate the
structure would have been between $200,000 and $250,000. She
said the structure was in very bad shape, with leaking roof,
heating problems, and no air conditioning. She said she felt
the Free Clinic may have hindered the church's growth for the
past 15 years and she said she felt they deserved the right to
be able to look a some kind of future for their growth. She
asked the Board to consider the church's request.
Geoff Seamans (414 Walnut Avenue, SW) appeared before the Board
and stated he respected the adjoining property owner's opinions
and knew the St. Mark's had done some very good work. He said
that Old Southwest had attempted to speak with St. Mark's
months ago and had hoped to work out some sort of plan that
would serve the purpose of the historic district. He said that
what frustrated him so much was that the H-2 district and
ordinance was thought of as a minor item to be brushed aside.
The church's master plan gave no consideration to the fact that
the church was located in the historic district. He said he
wanted the important building to be saved and the historic
district ordinance to be used.
William Westpich (381 Washington Avenue, SW) appeared before
the Board and questioned the economics the church was using in
deciding to tear the structure down. He said that comparing
the cost of demolition to rehabilitation did not give a true
picture of cost because the cost of the new addition was not
being taken into consideration.
Kent Chrisman (632 Walnut Avenue) appeared before the Board and
stated that he was present on behalf of the Roanoke Valley
Preservation Foundation. He read a letter from the Foundation
expressing their concern for the demolition of the structure.
Mr. Butler again appeared before the Board and explained that
the church had employed an architect and were relying on their.
suggestions. He said that Roy Kinsey had been employed to look
at the building and tell them the prospects. He said if the
church was going to be expanded, the suggestion of their
architect was the most appropriate one.
Roanoke City ArcW~tectural Review Board
Page 8
January 10, 1991
He said the building was a tremendous expense. He advised the
Board that the standards which the Board was to use were set
forth in the ordinance. He said that based on the church's
analysis, it was clear to them that the request was quite
appropriate for.the Board to approve.
Geoff Seamans appeared before the Board and commented that
rehabilitating a medical facility was very costly compared to
other rehabilitations.
Ms. Brigham appeared before the Board and stated she was an Old
Southwest board member as well as a local realtor. She
discussed sales patterns in Old Southwest and noted that quite
a few homes, in worse shape the the former Free Clinic
structure, had been purchased and rehabilitated. She further
stated that those who live in Old Southwest thoroughly believe
in their neighborhood. She expressed her concern for the
absentee owners who did not protect resident's investments or
recognize their concerns.
Mrs. Gunter said that she would like to clarify two points for
the Board - one was that the formal gardens at Washington
Avenue and Franklin Road were not part of the application and
that the application indicated that the house was to be removed
to make room for additional parking because of an addition of
the present facility. She said that she had seen no plans for
an addition and that was not part of the application. She then
read the findings (from Section 36.1-348 of the City Code)
that the Board was to use when making their decision. She said
that it was her understanding that the application was
demolition of the structure for a parking lot.
Mr. Whitwell said that the issue was to grant or not to grant a
certificate to allow a demolition of the building in question.
He said the garden was not at issue.
Mr. Motley said that in order to place the matter on the floor,
he moved to approve the request. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Motley commented that he had made the motion just to get
the matter on the floor so it could be discussed. He said to
allow the demolition of the building would adversely affect the
district. He said it would not be in the best interest of the
public and the structure was definitely a landmark in Old
Southwest and he could not support the demolition.
Mr. Jones said he thought that certainly the home, as it was
built originally, was a majestic building. He said he thought
the renovation that had taken place in the past had certainly
compromised the building's architectural significance. He said
he did not feel it had great architectural significance as it
stood and he would vote for approval.
A roll call'vote was taken as follows:
Roanoke City Architectural Review Board
Page 9
January 10, 1991
Mr. Motley No
Mr. Jones Yes
Mr. Whitwell No
Mr. Creasy No
Mr. Meaghe~ No
Mr. Boynton Yes
The request was denied by a vote of 4-2.
Robert Szathmar¥
123 Campbell Avenue, SE
Storefront improvementst
improvements
roof repair,
and rear facad~
Mr. Szathmary said that Kathy Frazier of Frazier and Associates
and John Morris of Hughes Associates were also present to
discuss the request.
Kathy Frazier presented drawings of the storefront and stated
that the brick would be cleaned and the transom windows
retained. She also discussed the other facade improvements
proposed for the building.
John Morris made the presentation relative to improvements to
the rear of the structure. He said that he wanted to create an
interior courtyard at the rear of the building.
Mr. Whitwell asked for public comment. There was none.
Mr. Szathmary again appeared before the Board and stated that
he planned to replace the his tar and gravel roof with a rubber
roof. He also noted that he was trying to get some bronze,
similar to the storefront across the street, for the facade of
his building. He asked that the Board consider allowing him to
build the entrance in one of two ways: as presented or flush
versus stepped. He also said he anticipated coming back next
month on some smaller things.
Mr. Whitwell asked if the Board would give the petitioner some
latitude for the variation on the entrance. The Board agreed
to that.
Mr. Meagher then moved to approve the request.
seconded by Mr. Creasy and approved 6-0.
The motion was
Allen Ritter
442 Washington Avenue, SW
Replacement windows
Mr. Ritter appeared before the Board and stated he would like
to replace the windows.
Mrs. Joel Richert appeared before the Board on behalf of David
Peery who lives on Highland at 5th Street. She said that Mr.
Peery had to leave the meeting but had done similar work on his
home and did not have to replace the windows. Mrs. Richert
Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Ave., SW. Roanoke, VA 24016
January 10, 1991
TO: Architectural
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, VA
Review Board
RE: Application for Certificate of Appropriateness by St
Mark's Lutheran Church. ·
Old Southwest Inc. opposes the request of St. Mark's
Lutheran Church for a certificate of appropriateness to up-
root the gardens adjacent to the church and, even worse, to
raze the Henson Mansion, also known as the Free Clinic build-
ing, at the corner of Third Street and Highland Avenue.
We are opposed because the proposal makes no sense. Fur-
ther, we are dismayed that the church and/or its architects
do not seem to comprehend (a) what the city is trying to ac-
complish with the H-2 historic-preservation ordinance and (b)
the exciting potential offered by historic preservation --
for the church as much as for anybody. We say this because:
1. From an H-2 perspective, the proposal as filed with
the ARB is absurd. It would destroy both the gardens and a
contributing structure to the historic district, in exchange
for parking lots. Moreover, the proposal is linked to con-
struction of a church addition whose appropriateness to the
district, even considered apart from the proposed demoli-
tions, is borderline.
2. The Henson Mansion is not simply a contributing struc-
ture to the historic district; it is, by virtue of its loca-
tion and architectural uniqueness, one of the district's key-
stones. The only significant alteration to its original
appearance is a 1979 enclosure, which would be easy to re-
move, of a portion of its front porch.
Moreover, the use of the building is of potentially na-
tional historic interest. Built in 1909 as a residence for
Waller Henson, an attorney and general counsel for the
Shenandoah Life Insurance Co., the structure in rece~lt years
was the first home of the Free Clinic, whose success has be-
come a national model.
3. The application's description of the building as "di- '
lapidated" is of little relevance to the appropriateness of
its proposed demolition -- and in any event is simply incor-
rect. The building is in good to excellent condition.
Indeed. we are puzzled by the preference for a new addi-
tion over the more cost-effective solution of retrofitting
the Henson Mansion for the additional office and Sunday
school space sought by the church.
Page 2
4. Parking in the neighborhood is ample on Sunday morn-
ings, when it is in greatest demand for churches, because of
the presence of nearby commercial buildings whose lots are
empty at that time. Available parking has increased in the
past year, due to rehabilitation and appropriate-infill
projects near St. Mark's.
Old Southwest Inc. stands willing to assist St. Mark's in
any way we can to make formal arrangements for such off-site
parking, and to support requests for waivers from city
parking-space requirements if needed to avoid demolitions.
5. By modifying its site plan, St. Mark's could have its
addition and the same number of on-site parking spaces with-
out imposing a death sentence on the Henson Mansion. This is
hardly an ideal solution: It assumes use of the gardens for
parking, and does not address the issue of the appropriate-
ness to the historic district of the proposed addition.
Still, it would spare the mansion, and -- given the con-
siderable market value of a building that the church proposes
to bulldoze rather than use or sell -- makes the request at
hand even more dismaying.
Sceva Phillips /
President
A1 Greene
Secretary
Brigham
Board ember
David Peery
Board member
(Max Matthews, board member, out
Richert
President
-G~o~/Seamans
TreaSurer
~ordon Blake
Board member
Sand~a Robinson
Board member
of town.)
Old Free
Tax ~: 1022102
Address: 1001 3rd St. S.W.
Current Info: 4,336 sq. ft.
lot size 76 X 150
Zoned C~
1990 owner: St. Mark's Lutheran Church Current
value: $14,300 land, $16,700 Improvements
History:
St. Mark's bought property in
Description of house: masonry,
(cement floor)
Stone foundation
Brick Veneer
Hip roof
plaster walls
4 porches: front 9 X 38
side 6 X 16
rear 8 X 29
sleep 8 X 29
1968 (3-29) $50,000.
2 story with basement 40%
wood floors (pine+oak)
slate roof
6 baths
radiator heat
On land map known as "Jamison Home Place".
1975 - repaired front porch $225.
1978 - enclosed part of front porch for free clinic
$500. $8254
1909 - Walker J. Henson (Cornelia A.)
of McCormick, Henson, and Brown
1918 - same
1925 - same. Now Judge.
Insurance Co.
1929 - Occupants listed
1939 - Occupants listed
1955 - Occupants listed
General counsel Shenandoah Life
as: W.W. Kavanaugh
W.J. Henson
C.J. Gravett
as: Frank Martin
John Tyler
Walter Jackson
Karl Von Schlatzer
as: Mary Winsing
Mark Lane
Homer Richards
John Clark
ROANO~-. VALLEY PR~.SRRVATION F~ JNDATION
P. O. BOX 1~8
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24007
B January 1991
Mr. William L. Whltwell, Chairman
and Members of the Architectural Review Board
21S Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Whitwell and Members of the Board=
SUBJECT: 1001Srd Street, SW
Demolition Request by St. Mark's Lutheran Church
On behalf of the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation, I
would like to express our concern for the requested demolition of
the historic building at 1001 3rd Street, SW. While we can
understand the need of St. Mark's Church to expand its physical
plant, we feel that further consideration should be given to re-
using the existing building end pursuing alternative parking
solutions which preserve the historic integrity of the block.
The building st 1001 3rd Street is mn important Colonial
Revival house that is significant in its contribution to the
National Register Southwest Historic District. It is a prominent
landmark in the streetscape of Third Street and Highland Avenue,
snd ia one of the few remaining finely detailed larger homes in
this area of Old Southwest. The presence of this building on s
high point of the ridge is focal and helps to maintain the mess
end scale of the turn-of-the-century neighborhood. We support
preservation and reuse of the building, end encourage study to
determi~e alternative ways, other than demolition, to address
perking needs.
While not s part of the request before the Board today, but
s relevant matter, we are slao concerned with the future of the
historic gardens at the corner of Washington Avenue end Franklin
Road. These gardens ars of significant cultural .and historic
value to the streetscspe of Washington Avenue and Franklin Road
and provide s valuable landscape component of an otherwise
densely developed neighborhood. The master plan for St. Mark's
indicates removal of the gardens and parking in this area. We
encourage alternative parking strategies which preservethis
vital open space.
We would be pleased to work with St. Mark's Church, Old
Southwest, Inc., end the Architectural Review Board to find
acceptable alternatives to the demolition and alteration of theme
significant resources. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity
to comment on this matter before the Board.
President
M. C&ldwell Butler, Attorney for St. Mark's
Steve Phillips, President, Old Southwest, Inc.
Old Southwest, Inc 641 Walnut Ave, SW Roanoke, VA 24016
February 6, 1991
TO: Members of Council
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, VA
RE: Proposed demolition of the Henson Mansion (old Free
Clinic) at Third Street and Highland Avenue SW.
We urge City Council to uphold the Architectural Review
Board in refusing to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
to tear down the old Free Clinic building. If Council over-
rules the ARB, it will mean effective repeal of the H-2
historic-preservation overlay.
That would be tragic for Old Southwest. It would also be
tragic for the City. It would nullify years of work, in-
cluding by Council itself. It would put at grave risk Old
Southwest's revival as an attractive inner-city neighborhood
in which to live and work. It would jeopardize the invest-
ments of those who have poured millions of dollars into
renovation and new construction since the H-2 overlay was
passed -- and thus would jeopardize the city's real-estate
tax base.
The law lists three standards all of which are to be met
before a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued for a
demolition in the historic district. This proposed demoli-
tion fails to meet any of them.
* Would loss of the structure be adverse both to the dis-
trict and to the public interest by virtue of its uniqueness
or its significance to the district?
Yes. The building's location, in the heart of the his-
toric district, and its architectural uniqueness make it a
keystone of the Old Southwest Historic District. Built in
1909, it is in good to excellent condition. The only
street-side alteration to its original appearance is a 1979
enclosure, easily removed, of a portion of its front porch.
Moreover, its early use as a residence for Waller Henson,
general counsel for the Shenandoah Life Insurance Co., makes
it of local historic interest. Its later use as the first
home of the Free Clinic, whose success has become a national
model, makes it of potentially national historic interest.
* Would demolition have an adverse effect on the character
and Surrounding environment of the district?
Again, yes. The massive building, of roughly 3,500 square
feet, stands atop high ground on a prominent corner of the
district. It is visible not only from Third Street and High-
land Avenue but also from heavily traveled Franklin Road.
Page Two
Old Southwest. Inc. 641 Walnut Ave, S W Roanoke, VA 24016
Though not perfectly preserved, the immediately surrounding
area contains a number of contributing structures to the his-
toric district, most of which are in good or excellent condi-
tion. Razing the building would create an open scar in the
urban streetscape. Calling the effect "adverse" is an under-
statement.
* Where demolition is in conjunction with a proposed new
use of the site, does such use satisfy the intent and stan-
dards of the H-2 district?
No. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Trading so
fine and prominent a structure for a mere parking lot would
be a direct contradiction of both the spirit and the letter
of the law.
Though not directly pertinent to the issue at hand, the
following points might also be made:
1. There are several alternative ways, none involving the
razing of contributing structures to the historic district,
by which the property-owner, St. Mark's Lutheran Church,
could obtain the on-site parking it claims to need.
2. The prospect of economic hardship to the
property-owner arises if the building is demolished, not if
it is preserved. To demolition costs, stated as $60,000 at
the ARB hearing, must be added the loss of an asset whose
market value is almost certainly in excess of $100,000.
3. The church's record of service to the general community
is net at issue. That record is to be commended. But its
continuation in no way requires the repeal of the H-2
historic-preservation ordinance that has been of such great
benef~it to Old_Southwe~t a~d to the city.
Go~don B ~ke,'B~d Member
,
Max Matthews, Board Member
Old Southwest, Inc. 641 Walnut Ave., S.W. Roanoke, VA 24016
July 12, 1990
Reverend Charles W. Easley, Pastor
St. Marks Lutheran Church
Franklin Road and Highland Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Reverend Easley,
The Board of Directors of 01d Southwest, Inc. has directed me
to write you regarding your congregation's recent decisions to
alter the church site in the Old Southwest Historic District.
It is our understanding--please correct us if we are wrong--that
future plans involve a possible attempt to demolish the old Free
Clinic Building on Third Street, and also rid the site of the
gardens adjoining the church.
We are extremely interested in preserving the integrity of our
neighborhood, and request from you and the church council an
informal meeting to address these changes.
We look forward to hearing from you, and hope to work together
for the mutual betterment of our neighborhood.
P,So
A1 ~eM'e ,- Secre~tary
01d Southwest, Inc.
On a personal note, my warm regards to Emma Lou. As I'm
sure you're aware, we work closely together at the Little
Red Schoolhouse!
P.S.
Sceva Phillips, President
Joel Richert, Vice President
A1 Greene, Secretary
Geoff Seamans, Treasurer
342-2991
342-283?
342-3869
342-0287
cc, File
cc: Ks. Evie Gunter, Secretary
ARB City of Roanoke
ST. MARK'S LUTHERAN CHURCH
1008 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
The Reverend Charles W. Easley, D.D., Pastor
The Reverend Tracie L. Bartholomew, Associate Pastor
Telephone: Church Office (703) 344-9051
Pastor's Study (703) 344-7145
Otly 26, 1990
Mr. A1 Greene, Secretary
Old Southwest, Inc.
641 Walnut Ave., S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24016
Dear Mr. Greene:
Thank you for your letter of July 12 expressing an interest
in what St. Mark's Church is doing with regard to our property.
Your letter contains both information and mis-information. The
letter was read and discussed at a Church Council meeting last
evening (July 24). It was the opinion of Council that nothing
is to be gained from our meeting with you at this time since
we have been given a direction from the congregation.
Be assured that we also are interested in this neighborhood -
its property and its people.
Charles W. E~y
cc: Mrs. Evie Gunter, Secretary
ARB City Of Roanoke
The Reverend Deborah Hentz Hunley
Pr~st-in-Char&e
1101 Franklin Road,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
(703) 343-0;59
Howard Thomas 8augh, III
Elizabeth 8unce-Nichols
Christian Education Director
December 13, 1990
St. ~ark's Lutheran Church
1008 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Friends,
~ . -iThis is tq inform y~u'that the Vestry:of Christ-Church,-dUring its
':~:i ':[:''':regular m°nthlYmeeting onrJTueSd~y?December 11;1990, 'considered¥our ~-.
'-.' request for Con~nent On the Proposed demolition of the building behind-
St. ~ark's which was formerly used to house the Free Clinic.
he Vestry wishes to go on record as Earing no objection to the
proposed demolition. The vote was unanimous,
Withall 'good wishes,
Faithfully yours,
The Rev. Deborah Hentz Hunley [
SECOND PRESBYERIAN CHURCH
214 Mountain Avenue, S. W.
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016
(703) 343-3659
Minister: William R. Klein
Associate Pastor for Congregational Care: A. Taylor Todd
Associate Pastor for Christian Eclucatian: Stephen [ Emick
Pastor Emeritus: A. H. Holilngsworth, Jr.
St. h[ark's Lutheran Church
FranKlin Rd. and Highland Ave..
Roanoke. ~. 24016
December
i t~ave been advised that the officers of S~. Mark's
Luct~eran Churc£~ al-e s=eA'lng permission ~o raze ~he building
cna~ formerly houseJ The Free Clinic. Since
[he across che s~i'eeC from Secon~ Presbyterian Chub'ch,
nuuura!ly have en ~nCe~-es~ in the use of Che proper~y.
support the efrorcm of S~. Mark's Church. It im no longer
economically feasible ua make Che repairs needed to make the
k, ulldlng s~fe ~or occupancy. Were It feasible The Free
Clinlc [~oul~ nave pursued ChuE a.venue. I
enhance cne neighDor~ooG 2~ the ~ulld~ng
nope ~he City will gyant permission to have It done.
Sinc~ly.
P.O. Box 2708
303 Washington Avenue S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Telephone: (703) 343-0117
lAMES A. FORD, CLU, District Agent
Chartered Financial Consultant
Melinda L. Ragland, Administrative Assistant
Nancy M. Ford, Director of Development
Robert E. Pogue, CLU, General Agent
December 6, 1990
M. Caldwell Butler
Woods, Rogers and Hazelgrove
P. O. Box 720
Roanoke, VA 24004
Dear Mr. Butler:
I have been notified by the City of Roanoke of the hearing which
is being held December 13, 1990 regarding the demolition of the
building owned by St. Mark's Lutheran Church at 1001 Third
Street, S.W., formerly used as the Free Clinic. I own the
building located at 303 Washington Ave., S.W., and not only do
not object to this proposed demolition, but am in favor of it. I
am not aware of it having any historic value or any redeeming
esthetic value. I do not believe it is at all attractive.
If I can be of any further help, please let me know.
JAMES A. FORD_~ CLU
j2~F/~/nm f
THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYe,~4ilwaukee
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S w, Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #60-467
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordi~ e 30620-70891 amending and reor-
daining certain sections o~ he 1991-92 Grant, General and
Capital Projects Fund Appropri.~.zons, providing for appropriation
of funds to certain school programs, viz: Child Development
Clinic Program, Child Specialty Services Program, Juvenile
Detention Home Program, Special Education Tuition Program,
1991-92 Apprenticeship Program, 1991-92 Governor's School
Program, and Teaching Peace Grant; appropriating $46,670.00 for
operation of two transit buses for field trip use by the schools;
and appropriating $2,500,000.00 for renovation of Forest Park
Elementary School. Ordinance No. 30620-70891 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric,
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board,
1030 S. Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. O. Box
13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th Day of July, 1991.
No. 30620-70891.
VIRGINIA
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1991-92 Grant, General and Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
Government of the
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant, General and
Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Education
Child Development Clinic 1991-92 (1-6) .............
Child Specialty Services 1991-92 (7-12) ...........
Juvenile Detention Home 1991-92 (13-19) ...........
Special Education Tuition 1991-92 (20) ............
Apprenticeship 1991-92 (21-27) ....................
Governor's School 1991-92 (28-63) .................
Teaching Peace 1991-92 (64-65) ....................
Revenue
$ 19,311,213
51,870
64,719
73,033
325,000
157,087
785,556
3,300
Education $ 19,311,213
Child Development Clinic 1991-92 (66) .............. 51,870
Child Specialty Services 1991-92 (67) .............. 64,719
Juvenile Detention Home 1991-92 (68) ............... 73,033
Special Education Tuition 1991-92 (69) ............. 325,000
Apprenticeship 1991-92 (70-71) ..................... 157,087
Governor's School 1991-92 (72-74) .................. 785,556
Teaching Peace 1991-92 (75) ........................ 3,300
General Fum~
A ro 'a io
Education $ 64,086,322
Instruction (76) ................................... 48,243,959
General Support (77-82).
12,215,625
Other Uses of Funds (83)'''''''''''''''''''''''''''
531,040
Non-Departmental 12,234,014
Transfer to Other Funds (84) ....................... 10,864,617
Revenue
Charges for Services $ 7,405,967
Education (85) ..................................... 2,475,760
Capital Pro4ects Fund
Appropriations
Education $ 15,170,049
Renovations - Forest Park Elementary School (86)... 2,500,000
Revenue
Due from State Literary Loan (87) .................... $ 2,500,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
Educational
Coordinator
Social
Security
State
Retirement
Health
Insurance
State Group
Life Insur.
Indirect
Costs
Educational
Coordinator
Social
Security
State
Retirement
Health Insur.
State Group
Life Insur.
Indirect
Costs
Educational
Coordinators
(035-060-6593-6554-0138) $ 38,287
(035-060-6593-6554-0201) 2,929
(035-060-6593-6554-0202) 6,417
(035-060-6593-6554-0128) 1,913
(035-060-6593-6554-0205) 410
(035-060-6593-6554-0212) 1,914
(035-060-6594-6554-0138) 48,288
(035-060-6594-6554-0201) 3,694
(035-060-6594-6554-0202) 8,093
(035-060-6594-6554-0128) 1,913
(035-060-6594-6554-0205) 517
(035-060-6594-6554-0212) 2,214
(035-060-6595-6554-0138) 52,918
14) Substitutes
15) Social
Security
16) State
Retirement
17) Health
Insurance
18) State Group
Life Insur.
19) Indirect
Costs
20) Tuition -
Private
Schools
21) Coordinator
22) Social
Security
23) State
Retirement
24) Health Insur.
25) State Group
Life Insur.
26} Part Time
Instructors
27) Travel
28) Teachers
29) Social
Security
30) State
Retirement
31) Health Insur.
32) State Group
Life Insur.
33) Local Travel
34) Conference
Travel
35) Field Trips
36) Textbooks
37) Director
38) Clerical
39) Social
Security
40) State
Retirement
41) Health
Insurance
42) State Group
Life Insur.
43) Part-Time
Teachers
44) Service
Contracts
45) Instructional
Technology
(035-060-6595-6554-0021)
(035-060-6595-6554-0201}
(035-060-6595-6554-0202}
(035-060-6595-6554-0128)
(035-060-6595-6554-0205)
(035-060-6595-6554-0212)
(035-060-6596-6329-0312)
(035-060-6746-6138-0121)
(035-060-6746-6138-0201)
(035-060-6746-6138-0202)
(035-060-6746-6138-0128)
(035-060-6746-6138-0205)
(035-060-6746-6138-0313)
(035-060-6746-6138-0551)
(035-060-6977-6107-0121)
(035-060-6977-6107-0201)
(035-060-6977-6107-0202)
(035-060-6977-6107-0128)
(035-060-6977-6107-0205)
(035-060-6977-6107-0551)
(035-060-6977-6107-0554)
(035-060-6977-6107-0583)
(035-060-6977-6107-0613)
(035-060-6977-6307-0114)
(035-060-6977-6307-0151)
(035-060-6977-6307-0201)
(035-060-6977-6307-0202)
(035-060-6977-6307-0128)
(035-060-6977-6307-0205)
(035-060-6977-6307-0321)
(035-060-6977-6307-0332)
(035-060-6977-6307-0351)
$ 65O
4,098
8,869
3,826
566
2,106
325,000
43,519
10,474
7,294
939
466
93,395
1,000
386,986
30,180
66,120
22,010
4,221
450
1,222
2,000
4,000
56,947
20,470
5,922
12,975
3,826
828
5,000
2,800
4,000
46) Purchased
Services
47} Tuition
48) Local Travel
49) Conference
Travel
50) Evaluation
51) Inservice
52) Library
Materials
53) Instructional
Supplies
54) Equipment
55) Custodian
56) Social
Security
57) City
Retirement
58) Health Insur.
59) State Group
Life Insur.
60) Utilities
61) Telecommuni-
cations
62) Maintenance
Supplies
63) Debt Service
64) Inservice
Training
65) Social
Security
66) State Grant
Receipts
67) State Grant
Receipts
68) State Grant
Receipts
69) State Grant
Receipts
70) State Grant
Receipts
71) Fees
72) State Grant
Receipts
73) Local Match
74) Fees from
Other School
Divisions
75) Donations
76) Tuition -
In State
77) Bus Driver
78) Social
Security
(035-060-6977-6307-0381)
(035-060-6977-6307-0382)
(035-060-6977-6307-0551)
(035-060-6977-6307-0554)
(035-060-6977-6307-0584)
(035-060-6977-6307-0129)
(035-060-6977-6307-0613)
(035-060-6977-6307-0614)
(035-060-6977-6307-0802)
(035-060-6977-6681-0192)
(035-060-6977-6681-0201)
(035-060-6977-6681-0203)
(035-060-6977-6681-0204)
(035-060-6977-6681-0205)
(035-060-6977-6681-0511}
(035-060-6977-6681-0523)
(035-060-6977-6681-0608)
(035-060-6977-6681-0901)
(035-060-6978-6100-0129)
(035-060-6978-6100-0201)
(035-060-6593-1100)
(035-060-6594-1100)
(035-060-6595-1100)
(035-060-6596-1100)
(035-060-6746-1100)
(035-060-6746-1103)
(035-060-6977-1100)
(035-060-6977-1101)
(035-060-6977-1103)
(035-060-6978-1103)
(001-060-6001-6307-0382)
(001-060-6002-6676-0171)
(001-060-6002-6676-0201)
4,200
4,000
50O
75O
5OO
1,200
25O
31,000
1,500
13,194
1,009
1,662
1,913
141
15~200
6,600
7,300
64,680
3,065
235
51,870
64,719
73,033
325,000
66,203
90,884
325,000
260,806
199,750
3,300
(196,126)
10,500
8O5
79) Health
Insurance (001-060-6002-6676-0204) $ 1,913
80) Bus Driver
Per Diem (001-060-6002-6676-0554) 1,000
81) Operating
Costs (001-060-6002-6676-0609) 9,750
82) Capital
Outlay (001-060-6002-6676-0808) 22,702
83) Matching
Funds (001-060-6005-6998-0588) (64,680)
84) Transfers to
Grant Fund (001-004-9310-9535) 260,806
85) Transporta-
tion Trips (001-060-6000-0810) 46,670
86) Approp. from
Literary
Fund Loan (008-060-6075-6896-9006) 2,500,000
87) Due from State
Literary (008-1209) 2,500,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
OE:PARTM~:NT OF FINANCE: CITY CLERKS
CITY OF I~OANOKE, VA.
July 8, 1991
'91 Jif. -2 P4:41
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger
School Board Request for the Appropriation of Funds
I have reviewed the attached request of the School Board
to appropriate funding into three funds. This report will
appropriate $2,500,000 in State Literary Loan funds in the Capital
Projects Fund for the renovation of Forest Park Elementary School.
This report also appropriates seven grants in the Grant
Fund. All of the grants are funded with state funds, fees or
donations. In addition to these funding sources, the Governor's
School grant will receive a local match of $260,806. Funding for
the local match is available in the Education portion of the
General Fund budget in the following accounts:
Tuition - In State
Matching Funds
(001-060-6001-6307-0382)
(001-060-6005-6998-0588)
$196,126
64,680
The final item being appropriated is the School Bus Field Trip
program in the General Fund. This program will operate two transit
type buses for field trip use by the schools. Funding will be from
fees charged to schools for actual bus use.
Honorable Mayor and Members
Page 2
July 8, 1991
of City Council
I recommend that you concur with this request of the School
Board.
JMS/pac
director of Fin~
l James M. Turner, Jr., Chairman
Soll~ T. Coleman, Vice Chairman
Martlyn C. Curtis
Roanoke
City School Boord
Charles W. Day V$1ma B. Self
l~omas L On' i~F~E[¥ F...l~ank P. Tota, Supe~ln~enden~
'91 25 1:58
P.O Box 1310.5, Roanoke, Virginia ~)4031 · 703-9814)381
June 21, 1991
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official action at its meeting of June 20, 1991, the
School Board respectfully requests City Council to appropriate funds to the
following school accounts:
Grant No. 6593-
$51,870.00 for the Child Development Clinic program to
provide funds for the salary and expenses of the
educational coordinator at the clinic. The program will
be reimbursed one hundred percent by state funds.
Grant No. 6594-
$64,719.00 for the Child Specialty Services program to
provide funds for the salary and expenses of the
educational coordinator. The program will be
reimbursed one hundred percent by state funds.
Grant No. 6595-
$73,033.00 for the Juvenile Detention Home program to
provide funds for the salary and expenses of the two
educational coordinators at the detention home. The
program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by
state funds.
Grant No. 6596-
$325,000.00 for the Special Education Tuition program
to provide funds for the placement of special education
students at the direction of the State Department of
Education. The program will be reimbursed one
hundred percent by state funds.
Grant No. 6746-
$157,087.00 for the 1991-92 Apprenticeship program to
provide on-the-job and classroom vocational instruction
for students in the apprenticeship program. The
program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by
state funds and fees paid by participants.
Excellence in Education
Members of Council
Page 2
June 21, 1991
Grant No. 6977-
$785,556.00 for the 1991-92 Governor's School program
to provide instruction in science and math to high
school students. The program will be supported by
state funds and tuition collected from participating
school districts.
Grant No. 6978-
$3,300.00 for the Teaching Peace Grant to utilize a
donation from the Peace Development Fund to support
the Roanoke City Schools conflict resolution and
dismantling racism training program for teachers.
The Board further requests the appropriation of $46,670.00 to provide
for the operation of two transit type buses for field trip use by the schools.
Funds will be provided from fees charged to schools for actual bus use.
The appropriation of $2,500,000.00 also is requested for the renovation
of Forest Park Elementary School. A Literary Fund loan has been approved
for this project in the amount of $2,500,000.00.
The approval of these requests will be appreciated.
Richard L. Kelley
Clerk of the Board and
Executive for Business Affairs
rg
CC:
Mr. James M. Turner, Jr.
Dr. Frank P. Tota
Mr. William L. Murray, Jr.
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy, Jr.
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger (with accounting details)
ROANOKE CITY SCIi005 BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Child Development Clinic 1991-92
6593
035-060-6593-6554-0138
035-060-6593-6554-0201
035-060-6593-6554-0202
035-060-6593-6554-0128
035-060-6593-6554-0205
035-060-6593-6554-0212
Appropriation Unit YSM
Educational Coordinator
Social Security
State Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group 5ire Insurance
Indirect Costs
38,287.00
2,929.00
6,417.00
1,913.00
410.00
1,914.00
$ 51,870.00
035-060-6593-1100
State Grant Receipts
$ 51,870.00
The Child Development Clinic program provides funds for the salary and
expenses of the educational coordinator at the clinic. One hundred percent of
expenses are reimbursed by state funds. The program will operate July 1, 1991
through June 30, 1992.
June 20, 1991
RO~OKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Child Specialty Services 1991-92
6594
035-060-6594-6554-0138
035-060-6594-6554-0201
035-060-6594-6554-0202
035-060-6594-6554-0128
035-060-6594-6554-0205
035-060-6594-6554-0212
Appropriation Unit Y5N
Educational Coordinator
Social Security
State Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group Life Insurance
Indirect Costs
48,288.00
3,694.00
8,093.00
1,913.00
517.00
2,214.00
$ 64,719.00
035-060-6594-1100
State Grant Receipts
$ 64,719.00
The Child Specialty Services program provides funds for the salary and
expenses of the educational coordinator. One hundred percent of expenses are
reimbursed by state funds. The program will operate July 1, 1991 through June
30, 1992.
June 20, 1991
RO~OKE CITY SCHOOl, BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Juvenile Detention Home 1991-92
6595
035-060-6595-6554-0138
035-060-6595-6554-0021
035-060-6595-6554-0201
035-060-6595-6554-0202
035-060-6595-6554-0128
035-060-6595-6554-0205
035-060-6595-6554-0212
Appropriation Unit Y50
Educational Coordinators
Substitutes
Social Security
State Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group hire Insurance
Indirect Costs
52,918.00
650.00
4,098.00
8,869.00
3,826.00
566.00
.2,646 00
$ 73,033.00
035-060-6595-1100
State Grant Receipts
$ 73,033.0__0
The Juvenile Detention Home program provides funds for the salary and expenses
of the two educational coordinators at the detention home. One hundred
percent of expenses are reimbursed by state funds. The program will operate
July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992.
June 20, 1991
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION RF~UE~T
Special Education Tuition 91-92
6596
035-060-6596-6329-0312
Appropriation Unit Y5P
Tuition - Private Schools
$ 32__~5,000.00
035-060-6596-1100
State Grant Receipts
$ 325,000,00
The Special Education Tuition program provides the funding for the placement
of special education students at the direction of the State Department of
Education. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by state funds and
will end June 30, 1992.
June 20, 1991
ROh~O[[g CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Apprenticeship 91-92
6746
035-060-6746-6138-0121
035-060-6746-6138-0201
035-060-6746-6138-0202
035-060-6746-6138-0128
035-060-6746-6138-0205
035-060-6746-6138-0313
035-060-6746-6138-0551
Appropriation Z74
Coordinator
Social Security
State Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group Life Insurance
Part Time Instructors
Travel
43,519.00
10,474.00
7,294.00
939.00
466.00
93,395.00
1,000.00
$ 157t087.00
035-060-6746-1100
035-060-6746-1103
State Grant Receipts $ 66,203.00
Fees 90,884.00
$ 15--7,087.00
The 1991-92 Apprenticeship program will provide on-the-job and classroom
vocational instruction for students in the apprenticeship program. Revenue
will be provided by state funds and fees paid by participants. The program
will end June 30, 1992.
June 20, 1991
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Governor's School 1991-92
6977
035-060-6977-6107-0121
035-060-6977-6107-0201
035-060-6977-6107-0202
035-060-6977-6107-0128
035-060-6977-6107-0205
035-060-6977-6107-0551
035-060-6977-6107-0554
035-060-6977-6107-0583
035-060-6977-6107-0613
035-060-6977-6307-0114
035-060-6977-6307-0151
035-060-6977-6307-0201
035-060-6977-6307-0202
035-060-6977-6307-0128
035-060-6977-6307-0205
035-060-6977-6307-0321
035-060-6977-6307-0332
035-060-6977-6307-0351
035-060-6977-6307-0381
035-060-6977-6307-0382
035-060-6977-6307-0551
035-060-6977-6307-0554
035-060-6977-6307-0584
035-060-6977-6307-0129
035-060-6977-6307-0613
035-060-6977-6307-0614
035-060-6977-6307-0802
035-060-6977-6681-0192
035-060-6977-6681-0201
035-060-6977-6681-0203
035-060-6977-6681-0204
035-060-6977-6681-0205
035-060-6977-6681-0511
035-060-6977-6681-0523
035-060-6977-6681-0608
035-060-6977-6998-0901
Teachers
Social Security
State Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group Life Insurance
Local Travel
Conference Travel
Field Trips
Textbooks
Director
Clerical
Social Security
State Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group Life Insurance
Part-Time Teachers
Service Contracts
Instructional Technology
Purchased Services
Tuition
Local Travel
Conference Travel
Evaluation
Inservice
Library Materials
Instructional Supplies
Equipment
Custodian
Social Security
City Retirement
Health Insurance
State Group Life Insurance
Utilities
Telecommunications
Maintenance Supplies
Debt Service
$ 386,986.00
30,180.00
66,120.00
22,010.00
4,221.00
450.00
1,222.00
2,000.00
4,000.00
56,947.00
20,470.00
5,922.00
12,975.00
3,826.00
828.00
5,000.00
2,800.00
4,000.00
4,200.00
4,000.00
500.00
750.00
500.00
1,200.00
250.00
31,000100
1,500.00
13,194.00
1,009.00
1,662.00
1,913.00
141.00
15,200.00
6,600.00
7,300.00
64,680.00
Appropriation Unit Z35
$ 785,556.00
035-060-6977-1100
035-060-6977-1101
035-060-6977-1103
State Grant Receipts
Local Match
Fees from other School Divisions
$ 325,000.00
260,806.00
199,750.00
$ 785,556.00
The 1991-92 Governor's School program will provide instruction in science and
math to high school students. The program will be supported by state funds
and tuition collected from participating school districts. Tuition from
Roanoke City will be transferred from account 001-060-6001-6307 0382
($196,126) and 001-060-6005-6998-0588 ($64,680). The program will end June
30, 1992.
June 20, 1991
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Teaching Peace 91-92
6978
035-060-6978-6100-0129
035-060-6978-6100-0201
Appropriation Unit Z36
Inservice Training
Social Security
$ 3,065.00
235.00
$ 3,300.00
035-060-6978-1103
Donation $ _3,300.00
The Teaching Peace Grant will utilize a donation from the Peace Development
Fund to support the Roanoke City Schools conflict resolution and dismantling
racism training program for~teachers. The program will end June 30, 1992
June 20, 1991
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
School Bus Field Trip 91-92
001-060-6002-6676-0171
001-060-6002-6676-0201
001-060-6002-6676-0204
001-060-6002-6676-0554
001-060-6002-6676-0609
001-060-6002-6676-0808
Bus Driver
Social Security
Health Insurance
Bus Driver Per Diem
Operating Costs
Capital Outlay
10,500.00
805.00
1,913.00
1,000.00
9,750.00
22,702.00
$ 46,670.00
001-060-6000-0810
Transportation Trips
$ 46~670.00
This additional appropriation will provide for the operation of two transit
type buses for field trip use by the schools. The use of public buses will
reduce the cost to the schools by 35% for the expense of hiring private buses
for out-of-town field trips. The revenue will be from fees charged to schools
for actual bus use.
June 20, 1991
RO~J~OKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
Renovation of Forest Park Elementary School
6075
008-060-6075-6896-0851
Appropriation Unit ZMT
Alterations to Buildings
$ 2,500,000.00
008-060-6075-6896-9007 State Literary Fund Loans
$ 2,500,000.00
The renovation of Forest Park Elementary School is the fourth in a series of
seven schools constructed prior to 1930 which are scheduled to be remodeled.
A Literary fund loan in the amount of $2,500,000 has been approved for this
project.
June 20, 1991
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Roorr~ 456
Roanoke. Virgima 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Oty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #102
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30621-70891 authorizing you
to enter into an engineering services reimbursement, with a cost
ceiling contract, with Mattern & Craig, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $78,000.00, to provide for performance of certain bridge
inspection services. Resolution No. 30621-70891 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
pc:
Mr. Steve Campbell, Mattern & Craig, Inc., 701 First Street,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Ms. Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director, Roanoke Regional
Airport
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Euffine, City Engineer
Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Office of the City Clerk
July 16, 1991
File #102
Ur. ~ichard D. Justice, P.E.
Branch ~anager
Anderson and Associates
100 Ardmore Street
Biacksburg, Virginia 24060
Dear ,~r. Justice:
! am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30621-70891 authorizing the
City ,Manager to enter into an engineering services reimbursement,
with a cost ceiling contract, with ~attern & Craig. Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $78,000.00, to provide for performance of
certain bridge inspection services. Resolution No. 30621-70891
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeti,~ held on ~onday. July 8, 1991.
On beh If of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to ex ~ess appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
d~scri~ed services.
Sincerely, ~
.~4ary F. Parker, CMC/~4E
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc .
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
Office of the City Ch:-k
July 16, 1991
File #102
~r. Robert J. Humphrey, P.E.
~ice President - Transportation
Hayes, Seay, .~attern & Ma£tern,
P. 0. Box 13446
Roanoke, Virginia 24034
f_nc .
Dear ~r. Humphrey:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30621-70891 authorizing the
City Manager to enter into an engineering services reimbursement,
with a cost ceiling contract, with ~attern & Craig, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $78,000.00, to provide for performance of
certain bridge inspection services. Resolution No. 30621-70891
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meetin~ held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
On beh'lf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to ex,'ess appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
descrioed services.
Sincerely, ~0~
Mary~F. Parker, C~C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
lhe 8th Day of July, 1991.
No. 306Zl-70891.
ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into an
engineering services reimbursement with cost ceiling contract
with a certain engineering firm, providing for the performance of
certain bridge inspection services; and rejecting certain other
proposals.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City,
to execute and attest, respectively, an engineering services
reimbursement with cost ceiling contract with Mattern & Craig,
Inc., for provision by such firm of bridge inspection services,
as more particularly set forth in the July 8, 1991, report of
the City Manager to this CouB¢il, for an amount not to exceed
$78,000.00.
2. The form of the contract with shall be approved as to
form by the City Attorney.
3. The City Clerk is directed to notify the other firms
which submitted proposals to the City of the award of this con-
tract, and to express the City's appreciation for their proposals.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY C[E! K50 :F;CE
'c)1 JUL-2 P2:t4
Roanoke, Virginia
July 8, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: 1991 Annual Bridge Inspection Program
I. Background:
1978 Surface Transportation Act enacted by Congress requires
that all bridges, including "off Federal Aid System" struc-
tures, must be included in the bi-annual inspection program.
Supplementary Brid~e Inspection Reports are required on
sixty-seven (67) structures in the City of Roanoke this year.
Forty-one (41) structures (40 bridges and 1 tunnel) are
inspected annually while twenty-seven (27) structures are
inspected bi-annually.
Federal Highway Administration has established a new require-
ment that all existing bridges be screened for potential
scour and to take appropriate remedial actions where a high
potential for scour exists. Field evaluation for scour is
required on 45 City of Roanoke bridges.
II.
Current situation is that Engineering Services Qualification
Proposals for the necessary technical inspections and reports were
publicly advertised and received from:
* Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
* Mattern & Craig, Inc.
* Anderson and Associates
A. Selection of the firms for consideration was based on the
following criteria:
1. Qualification of personnel
2. Time available to meet schedule
Page 2
Ce
3. Experience in performing bridge inspections
4. Ability to produce project on time
5. Local accessibility for project coordination and
cooperation
6. Response to request for proposal
7. Past record with City of Roanoke
Interviews were held with all firms as they were all deemed
qualified. Staff team included Charles M. Huffine, P.E.,
City Engineer; John A. Peters, III, P.E., Civil Engineer II;
and Dianna L. Likens, Civil Engineer I.
Negotiations were conducted with Mattern & Craig, Inc. for
the necessary technical inspections, reports, and scour
screenings. Mattern & Craig, Inc. was selected as the most
qualified firm due to their past performance on bridge
inspections as well as a proposal to provide the City with a
priority schedule, including cost estimates, for any
necessary repairs, replacements, or modifications.
In-depth inspections are now required by Federal and State
Highway agencies related to a particular aspect of bridge
inspection as a result of catastrophic bridge failures in
other states in recent years.
Underwater bridEe inspections require more care to
detect possible erosion of support in waterways beneath
bridge structures. Many of the City's bridges being
inspected are above waterways, the majority of which
have structural supports underwater. These structures
must be analyzed physically and mathematically to deter-
mine catastrophic scour potential.
E. Scope of work to be performed includes:
Field investigations of sixty-seven (67) structures to
include pertinent roadway approaches, waterway, piers
and abutments, bearings, stringers, beams, girders,
decks, expansion joints, curbs, sidewalks, bridge
railing, culverts, and signing. The Airport Tunnel will
also be inspected.
Field investigations of 45 bridges for scour potential
to include review of available construction plans, foun-
dation borings, safety inspection reports, maintenance
history, maps and photographs as well as an in-depth on-
site review.
Page 3
III.
Brid~e and culvert inspection reports and field eva-
luation of scour potential reports to be prepared with
sketches and/or photographs to adequately describe defi-
ciencies and problem areas.
Final inspection documents completed in accordance with
the Federal, State and City criteria regarding the
bridge inspection program. All reports to be completed
before the end of 1991.
Cost reimbursement fee for engineering services is based on
actual manhours used to physically review each component of
the sixty-seven (67) bridges and one (1) tunnel. Mattern &
Craig, Inc., in following this billing procedure, offers
reasonable manhour pay rates and an acceptable cost ceiling.
GJ
Declining costs, as indicated below, are due to load rating
ayalyses that were required, the majority performed in 1989
and the remaining in 1990. No load rating analyses are
required in 1991.
1. 1989 Total Inspection Costs: $125,800.00
2. 1990 Total Inspection Costs: $97,500.00
3- 1991 Proposed Inspection Contract: $78,000.00
Issues in evaluation of the proposal and awarding contract to firm
known to be qualified are:
A. Inclusion of proper work scope
B. Ability to meet time schedule
C. Reasonableness of fee
D. Availability of funding
IV. Alternatives for providing the necessary work are:
Award engineering services reimbursement with cost ceiling
contract to Mattern & Craig, Inc. in the amount of
$78,000.00.
1. Inclusion of proper work scope has been reviewed and
verified.
2. Ability to meet time schedule has been demonstrated and
firm is ready to begin immediately.
Page 4
WRH/DLL/mm
Reasonableness of fee has been established through "cost
ceiling". Mattern & Craig, Inc. has set a cost ceiling
in their proposal of $78,000.00.
Availability of funding exists in the General Fund "Fees
for Professional Services -- Engineering" Account
001-052-4310-2010 for the bridge inspections
($76,000.00) and in the Airport Commission's "Airport
Engineering" Account 004-058-4401-7070 for the Airport
Road Tunnel ($2,000.00).
Be
Do not award engineering services reimbursement with cost
ceiling contract to Mattern & Craig, Inc. in the amount of
$78,000.00.
1. Inclusion of proper work scope would have to be deferred
to the City or other consultants.
2. Ability to meet time schedule would be Jeopardized.
3. Reasonableness of fee cannot be assured.
e
Availability of funding would remain in the General Fund
"Fees for Professional Services -- Engineering" Account
001-052-4310-2010 and the Airport Commission's "Airport
Engineering" Account No. 004-058-4401-7070.
V. Recommendation is that the City:
Award engineering services reimbursement with cost ceiling
contract in form approved by the City Attorney to Mattern &
Craig, Inc. in the amount of $78,000.00.
Funding is available for the contract from the General Fund
"Fees for Professional Services -- Engineering" Account
001-052-4310-2010 and the Airport Commission's (upon approval
by the Airport Executive Director). Reimbursement will be
requested by the Engineering Department from the Airport upon
completion of the work.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Page 5
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
Airport Executive Director
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215ChurchAvenue,$ W,Room456
Roanoke, Virg~n,a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty C~erk
July 11, 1991
File #40-214
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling,
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Omo
Dear Mr. Dibling:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30623-70891 authorizing you
to file a Petition for Writ of Election with respect to the
vacancy in the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court created by
the retirement of the Honorable Patsy Testerman. Resolution No.
30623-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, ~_~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc.
pc: The Honorable G. O. Clemens, Chief Judge, Circuit Court, 305
E. Main Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
The Honorable Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge, Circuit Court, 305 E.
Main Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Diane M. Strickland, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Alton B. Prillaman, Secretary, Electoral Board
Mr. A. Dale Hendrick, Interim Clerk of Circuit Court
Ms. Sharon L. Carrington, Registrar
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th Day of July, 1991.
No. 30623-70891.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Attorney to file a Petition
for Writ of Election with respect to the vacancy in the Office of
the Clerk of Circuit Court created by the retirement of the Honorable
Patsy Testerman.
WHEREAS, the Honorable Patsy Testerman retired from her Office as
Clerk of Circuit Court effective July 2, I991;
WHEREAS, $24.1-76(B), Code of Virginia (I950), as amended,
requires that, when a vacancy occurs in any elected City office and
no provision is made for the filling of the same for the unexpired
portion of the term of office, the governing body of the City shall,
within fifteen days of the occurrence of the vacancy petition the
Circuit Court to issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy; and
WHEREAS, City Council is desirous of authorizing the City
Attorney to file a Petition for Writ of Election requesting the Cir-
cuit Court to issue a Writ requiring an election at the next ensuing
general election to fill the vacancy in the Office of Clerk of Circuit
Court crc&ted by the retirement of the Honorable Patsy Testerman;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CounciI of the City of Roanoke
as follows:
1. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to file, on behalf
of the City Council, a Petition for Writ of Election requesting the
Circuit Court to issue a Writ ordering an election to fill the vacancy
in the Office of Clerk of Circuit Court created by the retirement
of the Honorable Patsy Testerman, such election to be held on
November $, 1991.
2. The City Attorney shall be authorized to take such other
action as he deems appropriate to comply with §24.1-78 and other pro-
visions of the Code of VirEinia (1950), as amended, includinE the
filing of any required motions and petitions, causinE leEal notices to
be Eiven and makinE any required appearances.
3. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution to
The Honorable Alton B. Prillaman, Secretary, EIectoral Board for the
City of Ro&noke.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CiTY AttORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
REGEIVEO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNE~TY CLEF4~!?~ OFFICE
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
July 8, 1991
JLIL-3 A8:41
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
Re: Writ of election
As you know, the Honorable Patsy Testerman has retired effective
July 2, 1991. In this regard, §24.1-76(B), Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, provides as follows:
"When a vacancy occurs in any elected county, city, town
or district office and no provision is made for filling
the same for the unexpired portion of the term of office,
the governing body of the county, city or town shall,
within fifteen days of the occurrence of such vacancy,
petition the court to issue a writ of election to fill
such vacancy .... "
The writ of election will order that an election be held at the next
ensuing general election which will be November 5, 1991. The person
elected to the Office of Clerk of Circuit Court will serve for the
unexpired portion of Ms. Testerman's term.
By the attached resolution, City Council may authorize the filing
of a Petition for Writ of Election with the Circuit Court. This will
allow the election to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of
Ms. Testerman to occur in compliance with the provisions of the Code
of Virginia. I recommend the adoption of the attached resolution to
you.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
WCDJr:fcf
Attachment
cc: The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge
The Honorable Alton B. Prillaman, Secretary,
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
Electoral Board
VIRGINIA:
RECE~VEO
CITY C] ER~'~ u F CE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF~OA~K~ P3:56
IN RE: SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL VACANCY )
IN OFFICE OF CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT ) O R D E R
On the 16th day of July, 1991, the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as "City", a municipal corporation of the
Comonwealth, appeared, by counsel, before the Circuit Court for the
City of Roanoke and filed a Petition for Writ of Election seeking
that this Court order an election to be held on Nove~ber 5, 1991,
with respect to the vacancy in the Office of Clerk of Circuit
Court.
Upon consideration whereof, it is ADJUDGED, ORDERED and
DECREED as follows:
1. A vacancy exists in the Office of Clerk of Circuit Court
as a result of the retirement of the Honorable Patsy Testerman
effective July 2, 1991.
2. Such vacancy not occurring within 120 days prior to the
next ensuing general election, it is proper for this Court to issue
a Writ of Election to fill the vacancy at the next ensuing general
election to be held in the City.
3. A Writ of Election is hereby issued with respect to the
Office of Circuit Court, such election to be conducted on November
5, 1991, pursuant to SS24.1-76 and 24.1-163, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, and other applicable provisions of such Code.
4. The Secretary of the City of Roanoke Electoral Board
shall publish a copy of this Writ of Election at not less than ten
(10) public places or publish once in a newspaper of general
circulation at least ten (10) days before November 5, 1991.
5. The Acting Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Writ of
Election to the Honorable Michael G. Brown, Secretary, State Board
of Elections, Alton B. Prillaman, Secretary, City of Roanoke
Electoral Board, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and Wilburn C.
Dibling, Jr., City Attorney.
ENTER: This __day of July, 1991.
Chief Judge
Judge
Judge
Judge
I ask for this:
VIRGINIA:
RECE!¥ED
CITY CLER~.S OFF!CE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CIT 1OFJ[ d o :56
IN RE:
SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL VACANCY )
IN OFFICE OF CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT )
PETITION
NOW COMES Petitioner, City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City"), a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
respectfully represents to the Circuit Court as follows:
1. The Honorable Patsy Testerman retired from her Office as
Clerk of Circuit Court effective July 2, 1991.
2. The City Council of the City of Roanoke desires that the
Circuit Court issue a Writ of Election requiring an election at the
next ensuing general election to fill the vacancy in the Office of
Circuit Court created by the retirement of Ms. Testerman, and the
Council has authorized its City Attorney to file this Petition.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner, City of Roanoke, Virginia,
respectfully prays as follows:
1. That a Writ of Election be issued requiring an election
at the next ensuing general election to be held in the City to fill
the vacancy in the Office of Clerk of Circuit Court;
and
2. That the election conducted pursuant to such Writ of
Election shall be held on November 5, 1991, and shall be carried
out pursuant to ~S24.1-76 and 24.1-163, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, and other applicable provisions of such Code.
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
464 Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Counsel for Petitioner
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the
foregoing petition was hand-delivered to the Office of the Clerk of
Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke and to the Office of the City
Clerk of the City of Roanoke on this /~ day of July, 1991.
Jr.
City Attorney
- 2 -
MARY F. PARKER
C~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2]SChurchAvenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke. V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, P6~.-
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric o
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 ~
Telephone: {703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~y Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Quentin N. Burdick, Member
United States Senate
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Burdick:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
MARY F. PARKER
CiTy Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W,Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy CiTy Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan, Member
United States Senate
'464 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Moynihan:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parmer, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roaooke, Virgm,a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Cr:y Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable George J. Mitchell, Member
United States Senate
176 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Mitchell:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City o~ Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, o
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roa.noke. Virg~ma 24071
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Oty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File ~468B-137
The Honorable Max S. Baucus, Member
United States Senate
706 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Baucus:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Ct:y Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg, Member
United States Senate
717 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Lautenberg:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke. V~rg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Harry M. Reid, Member
United States Senate
324 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Reid:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
F'~ ~4Sincerely'
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W,Room 456
Roanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Oty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Bob Graham, Member
United States Senate
241 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Graham:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W. Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C*zy Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman,
United States Senate
502 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Member
Dear Senator Lieberman:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Howard M. Metzenbaum,
United States Senate
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Member
Dear Senator Metzenbaum:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, ~.~_
Mary F~. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2?5ChurchAvenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, Virgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy CFCy Clerk
July 11, 1991
File ~468B-137
The Honorable John H. Chafee, Member
United States Senate
567 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Chafee:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, p~.._
MaryF~. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc o
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
275 Church Avenue, S W,Room 456
Roanoke, Virgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2545
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Csty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Member
United States Senate
261 Dirksea Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Simpson:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc.
MARY'.PARKER
CityClerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W ,Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgmla 24011
Telephone; (703) gB1-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Oty Clerk
July Il, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Steve Symms, Member
United States Senate
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Symms:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No,
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Ch u ch Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) g81-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable John Warner, Member
United States Senate
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposltloa by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Ctty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Dave Durenberger, Member
United States Senate
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Durenberger:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eno.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virg~ma 2401 I
Telephone: {703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy O:y Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Charles S. Robb, Member
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Robb:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, ~%~,,..._
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric.
MARY F. PAeKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W ,Room 456
Roanoke. ~/trgl~la 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-25Zll
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Ci:y Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable James M. Jeffords, Member
.United States Senate
521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Jeffords:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W ,Room 456
Roanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~:y Clerk
July 11, 1991
File ~468B-137
The Honorable Robert O. Smith, Member
United States Senate
835 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Smith:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc o
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke. Virgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B-137
The Honorable Harris Wofford, Member
United States Senate
283 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Wofford:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30624-70891 expressing
opposition by the Council of the City of Roanoke to establishment
by the Federal Government of a maximum contaminant level for lead
at the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No.
30624-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely, PO~.._
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th Day of July, 1991.
No. 30624-70891.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION expressing this Council's opposition to establishment
by the federal government of a maximum contaminant level for l~ad at
the homeowner's tap in the City of Roanoke.
WHEREAS, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
currently reviewing the Lead Exposure Reduction Act of 1991; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to this bill may be considered that would
require the Environmental Protection Agency to set a maximum con-
taminant level for lead at the homeowner's tap; and
WHEP~EAS, s~h a standard would place the City of Roanoke and other
wate~ suppliers in a position of being legally responsible for
plumbiRg and fixtures that lie outside their control; and
WHEREAS, such a standard would create a false sense of security
for homeowners with the expectation that the water supplier is in a
position to address lead levels at the tap; and
WHEREAS, such a standard oould unfairly result iR the imposition
of fines of up to $25,000.00 per day for non-compliance with a stan-
dard that is in essence impossible to meet.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
that this Council hereby states its objection to establishment by the
federal government of a maximum contaminant level for lead at the
homeowner's tap.
Honorable James Olin,
Members of the Senate
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk forward copies of this
Resolution to the Honorable John Warner, Member, United States Senate,
the Honorable Charles S. Robb, Member, United States Senate, and the
Member, House of Representatives, and the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY OF ROANOKE
RECEIVED
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTOR~i~YCLER/~S
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
OANOKE. V,R ,N,A2 0.- 59S 91 Jlll--2 P5:19
July 8, 1991
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
The Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Federal Drinkin~ Water Legislation
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
It is our understanding that the United States Congress is
currently finalizing legislation relating to the reduction of lead in
drinking water. One version of the legislation under consideration
would require the Environmental Protection Agency to set a maximum
contaminant level for lead at the homeowner's tap. Current lead and
other water standards are monitored and enforced at the water meter.
The water meter is the end point of the public water system. As you
can imagine, such a federal requirement would cause numerous problems
for the City of Roanoke including placing the City in the position of
being legally responsible for plumbing and fixtures inside citizens'
homes and out of City control.
Obviously, lead levels in drinking water need to be reduced at
locations where the lead limit is above safe drinking water standards
and the City joins other municipalities in urging appropriate action
to accomplish this goal. The City Administration, however, does not
believe that having the federal government set a maximum level for
lead at the homeowner's tap is the appropriate method of achieving
this goal. In addition to the obvious administrative and liability
concerns that such a standard would create, the City would also face
fines of up to $25,000 per day for non-compliance under the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Attached for your consideration is a proposed resolution
expressing the City's opposition to federal legislation establishing a
standard for lead at the consumer's tap. If approved, this resolution
will be forwarded to our United States Senators, the members of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Representative
Olin.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
July 8, 1991
Page 2
I will be pleased to respond to any comments or questions
may have with regard to this matter.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilburn C. ing, Jr.
City Attorney
WCDJr:dlj
Attachment
cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
that you
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 4S6
Roanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #53B-467
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling,
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Jr,
Dear Mr. Dibling:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30625-70891 amending and
restating certain provisions to an Ordinance authorizing the
issuance of not to exceed $2,000,000.00 General Obligation School
Bonds, Series of 1991, of the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
Ordinance No. 30625-70891 was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Eric .
pc.'
Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board,
1030 S. Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. O. Box
13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. William X Parsons, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
IN TN COUNCIL OP xm~ CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th Day of July. 1991.
No. 30625-70891.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND KESTATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO AN
ORDINANCE AuTuORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $2,000,000
~RAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERI~S OF 1991, OF T-~ CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA~ AND PROVIDING FOR AN F/4ERt~CY.
~U~I~EAS, on May 28, 1991, the Council (the "Council") of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City") adopted an ordinance ( the
"Bond Ordinance" ) authorizing the issuance of not more than
$2,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series 1991 (the
"Bonds") for sale to the Virginia Public School Authority (the
"VPSA") pursuant to the terms thereof~
w~E~S, the VPSA has requested the Council to amend and
restate certain p~0visions of the Bond Ordinance in order to
conform the terms and provisions of the Bonds to those of the
bonds to be issued by the VPSA, a portion of the proceeds of
which the VPSA will use to purchase the Bonds~ and
~-~.REAS, the Council desires to amend and restate certain
provisions of the Bond Ordinance and to ratify and confirm
certain other provisions relating thereto.
NOW, TB~REFOI~, BE IT ORDAINED BY T-~. COUNCIL OF Tg~ CITY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Bonds shall be issued in the aggregate principal
amount of $1,654,827.00~ shall be issuable in fully registered
form as a single typewritten bond substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit Ar shall be dated the date of issuance
and delivery of the Bonds~ shall be designated "General
Obligation School Bonds, Series 1991"~ shall bear interest from
the date of delivery thereof payable on January 15, 1991, and
semiannually thereafter on each July 15 and January 15 (each an
"Interest Payment Date"), at the rates set forth on Schedule I
attached hereto and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a
"Principal Payment Date"), and in the amounts set forth on
Schedule I attached hereto.
2. The Mayor, the City Manager or the Assistant City
Manager and such officer or officers of the City as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Use of
Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and
investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such
covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with
the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the
exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds or on the
VPSA Bonds, except as provided below. The Council covenants on
behalf of the City (i) that the proceeds from the issuance and
sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in
such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the City shall comply with
the other covenants and representations contained therein,
(ii) that the City shall not file a Form 8038-G for the Bonds
with the Internal Revenue Service and (iii) that the City shall
comply with (A) the provisions of the Code, except as provided
above, so that interest on the Bonds would be excludable from
gross income for federal income tax purposes but for the filing
of a Form 8038-G for the Bonds with the Internal Revenue Service
and (B) the provisions of the Code so that interest on the VPSA
Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income
tax purposes.
3. All references to "premium" and 'premium, if any,' in
the Bond Ordinance shall hereby be deleted.
4. As amended and restated by this Ordinance, the Bond
ordinance is hereby ratified and confirmed and is in full force
and effect. To the'extent any provision of the Bond Ordinance
conflicts with any provision of this Ordinance, the provision of
this Ordinance shall control.
5. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of
the Municipal Government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and
this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage.
Attest]
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF BOND)
NO. R-1 $ 1,654,827.00
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
City of Roanoke
General Obligation School Bond
Series 1991
The City of R6anoke, Virginia (the "City"), for value
received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay
to the ~IRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDP~D TWENTY-
SEVEN and no/100 Dollars ($1,654,827.00), in annual installments
in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on
July 15, 1992 and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including
July 15, 2011 (each a "Principal Payment Date"), together with
interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments,
payable semiannually on each January 15 and July 15, co~encing
January 15, 1992 (each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with
any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per
annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto. Both principal of
and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the
United States of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall make all
payments of principal of and interest on this Bond, without the
presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School
Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11=00 a.m.
on the applicable Payment Date. If a Payment Date is not a
business day for hanks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal of or
interest on this Bond shall he made in immediately available
funds at or before 11=00 a.m. on the business day next preceding
the scheduled Payment Date. Upon receipt by the registered owner
of this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and
interest, written acknowledgement of the receipt thereof shall he
given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the City shall be fully
discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the
payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be
surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of and interest on this
Bond.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with
and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Comonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, Chapter 5, Title
15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, ordinances duly
adopted by the Council of the City and resolutions duly adopted
by the School Board of the City to provide funds for capital
projects for school purposes.
This Bond is registered in the name of Virginia Public
School Authority as to both principal and interest on books of
the City kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this
Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only
upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner.
The principal installments of this Bond are not subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent ~o and in the issuance of this Bond have
happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and
manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other
indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The ordinance adopted by the Council of the City on
May 28, 1991, authorizing the issuance of this Bond provides, and
Section 15.1-210 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended,
requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax
upon all taxable property in the City subject to local taxation
sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal of and
interest on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax
shall be without limitation as to rate and amount and shall be in
addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the City.
3
IN WITNESS ~-~EOF, the Council of the City of Roanoke has
caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, to be signed by its Mayor or Vice-Mayor, its seal to be
affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk or any
of its Deputy Clerks,
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
and this Bond to be dated , 1991.
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Council of the City-
of Roanoke, Virginia
Mayor of the City
of Roanoke, Virginia
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE R~CEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and
transfers unto
the within bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably
constitutes and appoints attorney
to register the transfer of the within bond on the books kept for
registration, thereof with full power of substitution in the
premises.
Date=
~OTICE= The signature to this
assignment must correspond with the
name as it appears on the face of
the within bond in every
particular, without alteration or
enlargement or any change whatever.
NOTICE= Signatures must be
guaranteed by a member firm of the
New York Stock Exchange or a
commercial bank or trust company.
5
Schedule I
Roanoke City
Virginia Public School Authority
Scl'ill 1991A
Payment Interest Total Fiscal
Date Principal Rate Interest Dab{ Service Total
1/15/92 47,510.79 47,510.79 47,510.79
7/15/92 67,100 4.850% 51,829.95 118,929.95
1/15/93 50,202.77 50,202.77 169,132.72
7/15/93 74,487 5.350% 50,202.77 124,689.77
1/15/94 48,210.24 48,210.24 172,900.01
7/15/94 74,567 5.600% 48,210.24 122,777.24
1/15/95 46,122.36 46,122.36 168,899.60
7/15/95 75,855 5.800/0 46,122.36 121,977.36
1/15/96 ,4,3,922.56 ,43,922.56 165,899.92
7/15/96 76,306 5.900% 43,922.56 120,226.56
1/15/97 41,671.53 41,671.53 161,900.09
7/15/97 76,902 6.100O/o 41,671.53 118,573.53
1/15/98 39,326.02 39,326.02 157,899.55
7/16~0 77,615 6.100°/° 39,326.02 116,941.02
1/15/99 36,958.76 36,958.76 153,699.76
7/15/99 78,413 6,200% 36,958.76 115,371.79
1/15/00 34,527.96 34,527.96 149,699.72
7/16/00 79,343 6.300% 34,527.66 113,070.96
1/15/01 32,029.66 32,028.66 145,899.62
7/15/01 80,416 6.400% 32,020.66 112.~?..66
1/15/02 29,455,35 29,455.35 141,900.01
7/15/02 81,643 6.500% 29,455.35 111,098.35
1/15/03 26,801.95 26,801.95 137,900.30
7/15/03 83,036 6.600% 26,001.95 109,637.95
1/15/04 24,061.76 24,061.76 133,099.71
7/15/04 84,567 6.600% 24,061.76 108,628.76
1/15/05 21,271.05 21,271.05 129,899.81
7/15/05 66,203 6.600% 21,271.05 107,474.05
1/15/06 18,426.35 18,426.35 125,900.40
7/15/06 67,950 6.600% 18,426.35 106,376.35
1/15/07 15,524.00 15,524.00 121,900.35
7/15/07 69,816 6.600"/° 15,524.00 105,340.00
1/15/08 12,560.07 12.560.07 117,900.07
7/15/08 91,810 6.600"/° 12,560.07 104,370.07
1/15/09 9,530.34 9,5,30.34 113,900.41
7/15/09 93,939 6.600% 9,530.34 103,469.34
1/15/10 6,430.35 6,430.35 109,899.69
7/15/10 96,214 6.600% 6,430.35 102,644.35
1/15/11 3,255.29 3,235.29 105,699.64
7/15/11 98,645 6,600% 3,255.29 101,900.29
1/15/12 0.00 0.00 101,900.29
1,654,827 1,179,915.48
Dated Date 7/31/91
Dalivel'y Date 7/31/91
prepared by Publlc F7nancialManagement,/nc. LocalSchBm:JAttch 7/2/91 3:39 PM
WaBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY OF ROANOKE
RECE~¥E,., ..
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNt~Y CLE~t~,S ,~F. FtC~.
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
'gl JUL -2 P5:21
July 8, 1991
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
The Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: 1991VPSA School Bond Issue
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
At your May 28, 1991 meeting, this Council adopted an ordi-
nance authorizing the issuance of general obligation school bonds
in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00 to fund improvements at
Crystal Spring Elementary School. Bond counsel for the Virginia
Public School Authority has requested that the City and all other
entities which are participating in this bond program enact cer-
tain changes in the measure authorizing issuance of the bonds.
The amending ordinance, a copy of which is attached, will
change the principal and interest payment dates from December 15
and June 15 to January 15 and July 15, respectively, of each year.
The ordinance also deletes as inapplicable the references to pre-
miums on the bonds. The ordinance further provides that the City
shall comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code so
that interest on the bonds will be excludable from gross income of
the purchasers for federal income tax purposes.
The attached ordinance has been approved by local bond counsel
and by my office. I will be pleased to respond to any questions
which members of Council may have about this matter.
With kindest personal regards, I remain
Sincerely yp~.~.~-
W_~lburn C%----~ibling, Jr.
City Atto~hey
WCDJr/WXP:dlj
ce:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Richard Kelley, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue,$ W ,Room 456
Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~zy Clerk
July 11, 1991
File #468B
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30614-70891 establishing a
rate schedule for certain water rates and related charges for
services provided by the City, effective August 1, 1991, July 1,
1992,. and July i, 1993. Ordinance No. 30614-70891 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, July 8, 1991.
Sincerely,~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
MR.
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
M. Craig SluRs, Manager, Water Department
Deborah J. Moses, Chief of Billings and Collections
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
The 8th day of July, 1991.
No. 30614-70891.
AN ORDINANCE establishing a rate schedule for certain water rates
and related charges for services provided by this City effective
August 1, 1991, July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
water rates and other related rates and charges for services provided
by the City of Roanoke shall be as set forth in Attachment A attached
hereto, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein, such rates
to be effective for all water and fire service statements rendered on
or after August 1, 1991, July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993, as set forth
in Attachment A.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
"Attachment A"
Adopted by Roanoke City Council on June 24, 1991
On First Reading
Rate Schedule to be Effective with all Service Billings
On and AfterDate Sho~n
Mint~u~ C~ar~es Based on Allowance of 200 Cu. Ft.
Per Month
~eter Size
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" · Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
12" Meter
Effective
Au~. 1. 1991
Effective
July 1~ 1992
Effective
July 1~ 1993
$ 1.94 $ 2.00 $ 2.06
3.65 4.71 6.05
4.87 6.28 8.07
12.17 15.69 20.17
19.47 25.08 32.25
48.65 62.69 80.62
77.84 100..30 128.97
194.61 250.77 322.46
311.36 401.20 515.91
498.17 641.93 825.46
778.43 1,003.06 1,289.84
Next 2,800 cu. ft. .54/100
Next 27,000 cu. ft. .43/100
All over 30,000 cu. ft..32/100
· 68/100 .85/100
.56/100 .71/100
.56/100 .71/100
Notes:
1. For retail water service sold outside the City limits,
the minimum charge is 100Z greater than City rates.
2. Minimum charges and quantity allowances are three times
greater for consumers billed quarterly.
3. Cost for water rates and service outside the City limits in
excess of the minimum quantity will be:
$1.08/100 cu. ft. beginning August 1, 1991
$1.36/100 cu. ft. beginning July 1, 1992
$1.70/100 cu. ft. beginning July 1, 1993
Fire Services - Mini~umNov~h!y ~hargme
4[9
6"
8"
10"
12"
July 1. 1992
July I. 1993
47.24 $ 60.87 $ 78.28
106.71 137.50 176.81
168.35 216.93 278.96
298.45 384.58 494.53
424.87 547.48 704.01
RECEI¥EO
CITY CLERE? OF~;CE
"91 0:04
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
June 24, 1991
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Water Capital Improvements
Your Water Resources Co~nittee met on June 17, 1991 and considered
the attached report on the subject matter. The Con~nittee reco~nends to
you Alternative "A" (Full Plan with a three year rate phase-in);
however, in an effort to minimize the impact on those citizens who have
minimum usage, the attached revised Attachment "A" is the recommended
rate schedule adjustment.
Alternative "A" approval signifies Council's understanding and
appreciation of the need for those improvements and the value of water
to our community. In addition, State and Federal regulations require
that we proceed as soon as possible.
The results of revised Attachment "A" as compared to current cost
and original Attachment "A" results in the following changes in
projected monthly cost after the three year phase-in of revised rates:
Minimum Typical Typical Typical
Usage Household Commercial Industrial
(518") (518") (1") (6")
Current $1.88 $3.89 $3g.61 $1,101.02
Attachment "A" 3.49 7.23 74.22 3,483.60
Revised Attach-
ment "A" 2.06 6.03 81.57 3,874.96
Revised Cost
per 100 cu.ft. 1.03 .90 .82 .77
While this revised schedule relieves some of the burden for typical
homeowners for a small additional increase for large users, the
Committee believes the revised cost per 100 cu. ft. shows a more
equitable sharing of cost.
The Committee recommends this approach to you.
i.t fu, lly ~ubmit ted,,~
eth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
ETB:KBK:afm
Attachments
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Manager, Water Department
Chief, Billings & Collections
A't'fA~"T "A" REVISED
FULL PLAN, '£m~g YEAR PHASED-IN RATE ADJUSTM~T
With Ni~iuml Impact on Typical Residmatial Meters having Hinimum Usages
Rate Schedule to be Effective with all Service Billings
On and After Date Shown
Ninimum Charges Based on Allowance of 200 Cu. Ft.
Per Honth
Neter Size
Effective
AuR. 1, 1991
Effective
guly 1~ 1992
Effective
July 1~ 1993
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
12" Meter
$ 1.94 $ 2.00 $ 2.06
3.65 4.71 6.05
4.87 6.28 8.07
12.17 15.69 20.17
19.47 25.08 32.25
48.65 62.69 80.62
77.84 100.30 128.97
194.61 250.77 322.46
311.36 401.20 515.91
498.17 641.93 825.46
778.43 1,003.06 1,289.84
Next 2,800 cu. ft. .54/100
Next 27,000 cu. ft. .43/100
All over 30,000 cu. ft. .32/100
.68/100 .85/100
.56/100 .71/100
.56/100 .71/100
1. For retail water service sold outside the City limits,
the minimum charge is 100% greater than City rates.
2. Minimum charges and quantity allowances are three times
greater for consumers billed quarterly.
3. Cost for water rates and service outside the City limits in
excess of the minimum quantity will be:
$1.08/100 cu. ft. beginning August 1, 1991
$1.36/100 cu. ft. beginning July 1, 1992
$1.70/100 cu. ft. beginning July 1, 1993
Fire Services - Minimum Monthly Charges
August 1~ 1991
July 1~ 1992
July 1~ 1993
4" $ 47.24 $ 60.87 $ 78.28
6" 106.71 137.50 176.81
8" 168.35 216.93 278.96
10" 298.45 384.58 494.53
12" 424.87 547.48 704.01
June 17,
1991
Mrs. Bowles and Members
Water Resources Committee
Dear Committee Members:
Re: Water System Capital Improvement Program
It is time to proceed. We have talked about the need,
explained it to citizens and generally had this issue before
us for over one year.
I believe we have fairly presented options. We have
answered questions relating to increased cost and risk of
postponement of portions of the project. It is time to
proceed.
After approval of recommended Alternative "A" we wiil:
1. Still have one of the lowest water rates known.
Will still experience low water pressure during
periods of high d-m-nd or system malfunctions for
about three years until the improvements can be
substantially completed.
Be able to certify water availability, after we get
the improvements substantially underway, for new
industries or other developments.
Try to meet the federal mandate of longer detention
times, during the treatment process, which mandate
takes effect June 30, 1993.
Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen, it is time to proceed. Please
call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WP~:afm
cc: Councilman David A. Bowers
Counci]m-n William White
215 Chur~ Avenue. S W Roanoke Virginia 24011
I~T~aO~i~ARTM~NT
DATE:
TO:
June 17, 1991
~M s.~ ~wl~s.~and~.~ Members, Water Resources Committee
Kit B. Kiser
SO--CT: Additional Information - Water Capital Improvement
Program
Committee asked for additional information during the May 20, 1991
Committee meeting regarding the Water Capital Improvement Program. That
information has been generated, calculated and is attached with the help
of the Director of Finance and the Office of Billings and Collections.
Alternative "A", as contained in the attached copy of the report
you took under advisement on May 20, is still recommended.
This is for your information and reconsideration at the special
meeting scheduled for 1:00 p.m., June 17, 1991.
KBK:afm
Attac~nnents
cc: Ms. Selena Pedersen
ADDITIONAL INFOI~4ATI01~ TO NAY 20, 1991
WA'£~ RESOURCES C~{~ll'l-£~J~ REPORT
~uestion #1:
What would costs be if 2/3 or 1/2 of work is authorized
now and remainder is authorized in about six (6) years
and rates phased in for remainder of work over three (3)
additional years?
Assumptions:
3.
4.
Results:
Mid-point for remainder of work would be 1999.
Additional rates would be phased in in 1998, 1999,
and 2000.
Construction cost will increase at 5% annually.
Operating cost will increase at 4% annually.
Compare with Alternate "C", e.g. 2/3 work now and 1/3 work
later.
Additional cost to current cost
due to construction increase
Additional cost to current cost
due to operating increase
Total Additional Rate Increase
Typical
Household
Monthly Min.
Cost Household
Current $1.88
1993 3.09
2000 4.61
Compare to
Alt. "A"
(1993)
#2:
1998 1999 2000
13% 13% 13%
9% 9% 9%
22% 22% 22%
Typical Typical
Commercial Industrial
$3.89 $ 45.26 $1,101.02
6.40 73.86 3,000.94
9.59 110.82 3,899.20
3.49 7.23
Compare with Alternate "D", e.g.
later.
84.74 3,483.60
1/2 work now and 1/2 work
Page 2
Additional cost to current cost
due to construction increase
Additional cost to current cost
due to operating increase
Total Additional Rate Increase
Monthly
Cost
Current
1993
2000
Compare to
Alt. "A"
(1993)
Min. Typical
Household Household
1998 1999 2000
20% 20% 20%
11% 11% 11%
31% 31% 31%
Typical Typical
Commercial Industrial
Q~estiom #2:
Answer:
Q~estion #3:
Answer:
$1.88 $3.89 $ 45.26 $1,101.02
2.67 5.52 64.02 2,618.06
5.01 10.38 120.51 3,992.25
3.49 7.23 84.74 3,483.60
How many residents use minimum bill quantity (6/100 cu.
ft./qtr.) or less and how many use 9/100 cu.ft./qtr, or
less?
Meter Size
6/100 cu.ft. Units
or Less/qtr.
9/100 cu.ft. Units
or Less/qtr.
5/8 inch 3,630 6,400
3/4 inch 1 1
1 inch 12 20
3,643 6,421
Is there anything else we can do to soften the increase
to residents who use small quantities of water?
Option #1:
Do not raise the minimum fee for residential
accounts who use the minimum quantity and who have
a standard 5/8-inch residential size meter.
Result: Annual revenue loss - $70,132
Make-up:
Increase the minimum fee (even more) for those
standard residential 5/8-inch meters who use more
than 6/100 cu. ft. units per qtr. and for all
monthly 5/8-inch meters. Net amount of
additional increase effective July 1, 1993:
Page 3
Option #2:
Result:
Make up:
$70,132 + 27,891 + 12 ~ 21¢ (phase in at
7C/month effective August 1, 1991, 7¢ effective
July 1, 1992 and 7C/month effective July 1,
1993
Residential Minimum Bill/Month: Now, $1.88
Option, $1.88 Alt. "A", $3.49, or
Increase minimum quantity for all residential use to
3/100 cu. ft./month or 9/100 cu. ft./qtr.
Annual revenue loss: (31,521 - 3,643) x 3/100 x 4 x
$ .80 = $267,629 or $8.49/household/year
Increase the minimum fee (even more) for all
residential meters.
Approximately: $267,629 + 31,521 + 12 = 71C/month
or $8.72/yr.
Net Annual Cost: $8.72 - $8.49 = 23C/year
Another Problem: (Option #1 & Option #2)
Our billing system does not distinguish between classes of
customers, e.g. the same rate applies for the same usage regardless
of whether the account is residential, commercial or industrial.
Option #3:
Inform anyone who desires that the City will bill them
for their residential services monthly rather than
quarterly.
Problem:
This would add approximately 250% more expense,
if all residential accounts switch from
quarterly to monthly, to the billing effort,
approximately another $1,000,000 annually and
would likely create the need for larger office
space.
It is possible that a limited number of
hardship cases could be put on monthly billing.
I~'r~d~_~PAI~IT4~f CO~4UNICATION
May 20, 1991
Mrs. Bowles and Member~R-/~ter Resources Committee
thru W. Robert,~er~e~4~ty Manager
,ru Joe ~. nger, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, D~ctor of Utilities & Operations
SUBJECT: Water Capital Improvements
I. Background:
Report of need to make improvements to the Carvins Cove Water
Treatment Plant and transmission system was made to the
Committee on 3anuary 22, 1991.
Need for improvements is sum~narized by the following
categories:
1. Capacity
Mo
80% Rule - State regulations require water system to
embark on a plan of expansion when the system
capacity reaches 80% for three consecutive months.
The City's water system was 87% for three months in
calendar year 1990 and at 81% for the entire year.
Filter Plant Capacity - The rated capacity of
Carvins Cove Filter Plant is 18 million gallons per
day (MGD). That plant reached or exceeded its
capacity on 114 days in 1990 compared to four (4)
days in 1986. The plant capacity needs to be
expanded to 28 MGD in order to effectively treat the
safe yield of 20 MGD of this source of supply.
Compliance - New federal regulations, due to be effective
June, 1993, require a longer detention time in treatment
basins and final storage tanks to provide a safeguard for
the treatment of virus cysts.
3. Condition
Intake screens are needed to keep debris from
clogging up pumps and nozzles.
b. Electrical service and reconditioned access road are
needed for Carvins Cove Dem.
Page 2
Raw water pump station located between the dam and
treatment plant is currently rated at 12 MGD with no
back up pumps in the event of a maintenance problem.
do
Raw water transmission line and primary treated
water transmission line are experiencing an ever
increasing loss of capacity due to scale and algae
growth in the lines. Also, there are no parallel
lines to enable the removal of these lines for
cleaning or repair.
Chemical feed process is antiquated at best and
needs to be improved from a safety standpoint.
Primary concerns are the method of loading and
storage of dry chemicals and the method of feeding
chlorine.
fo
General conditions of Carvins Cove Plant reflect 35
years of service and such items as master meters,
rate of flow controllers, and instrumentation need
replacement due to age.
Conmmnication - The fact that these improvements are
needed as a health and safety issue has been communicated
to our citizens in the following ways:
Numerous news reports, newspaper articles, and
editorials.
o
103 letters to neighborhood organizations,
civic clubs, and other groups offering to
discuss this issue with them at public
meetings.
54 letters were sent to the large consumers
inviting their representatives to a public
meeting.
36~788 individual notices mailed to consumers
advising that we were considering these
improvements and notifying them of a public
meeting on May 7 at the Civic Center.
Notice of public meetinK, regarding May 7
meeting, advertisement appearing on Thursday,
April 25, and Sunday, April 28.
6. 12 meetings with groups and organizations.
7. Public meetinK at the Civic Center on May 7.
8. 100 + telephone inquiries from citizens.
9. Results of our communication effort can be
sunnnarized as follows:
Page 3
~ost
A.
Bo
Mo
fo
Concern about the potential loss of water
service.
Desire to proceed as soon as possible.
Desire to ensure the large users pay their
fair share, even to the extent of charging
a flat rate for all users regardless of
the amount of consumption.
Acknowledgement that some type of discount
may be appropriate to keep our rates for
industrial users competitive with other
locations such as Richmond, Greensboro,
and Louisville.
Concern that a dime-a-day increase may
still be too large for citizens on low or
fixed incomes.
Attendance at the group and organizational
meetings varied from 3 to approximately
150. Approximately 20 citizens attended
the public meeting. Attached, as
Attachment "F", is a copy of minutes taken
from the public meeting including a
written presentation from Ms. Selena
Pedersen. Also attached, as Attachment
"G", are calculations of potential rates
based on suggestions by citizens.
All improvements are estimated to cost $28,300t000
in 1990 dollars. Detailed cost breakdown is
available in the full consultant report available in
the Office of the City Clerk and as previously
reported.
Dime-a-day increased cost for water service for
typical households will result if all improvements
are ix~nediately funded. Current rate schedule is
shown on Attachment "E".
Significant cost increases for water service,
doubling and tripling depending on the quantity,
will occur for large water users due to anticipated
elimination of the bottom two steps of the rate
schedule.
Page 4
D. No impact on sewer rates.
II. Issues in order of consideration are:
A. Improvements needed
B. Timing
C. Phasin~
D. Rate schedule
III. Alternatives:
Full Plan, Three-year Phased-in Rate Adjustment - Committee
recommend Council approve the following actions:
Adoption of a rate schedule adjustment shown on
Attachment "A".
ii. Immediate issuance of two Requests for Proposals
(RFP) to engage consultants to design improvements
to accomplish the following:
Mo
All raw water facility improvements and finish
water treatment plant improvements from Carvins
Cove Dam through and including the proposed new
four (4) million gallon finished water
reservoir.
bo
Ail finished water pipeline and pumpin~ station
improvements from Carvins Cove Filter Plant
property to the area of Crystal Sprin~s.
iii. Director of Finance authorized to proceed with the
necessary action to issue bonds to finance
$31~772t410 of capital improvements in 1994 dollars.
1. Improvements needed can begin as soon as possible.
2o
Timin~ to complete the work will be the earliest possible
once the adjusted rates take affect.
Phasin~ of construction will not be delayed, however, the
three year phase-in of rates means we should consider the
cost of construction one year later than an immediate one
time rate adjustment.
Rate schedule is attached and would generate the
following typical monthly costs: (Note, all monthly
comparisons are based on the following typical
consumptions):
Household:
Connnercial:
Industrial:
20 100 cu. ft. units per quarter
100 100 cu. ft. units per month
5000 100 cu. ft. units per month
Page 5
Total
Effective Effective Effective Daily
Current 8/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 Increase
Household $ 3.89 $ 4.78 $ 5.88 $ 7.23 11¢
Commercial 45.26 55.83 68.86 84.74 1.32
Industrial 1,101.02 1,770.58 2,830.57 3,483.60 79.19
Full Plan, One-time Rate Adjustment - Committee recommend
Council approve the following actions:
Adoption of a rate schedule ad.iustment shown on
Attachment "B".
ii.
I~ediate issuance of two Requests for Proposals
(RFP) to engage consultants to design improvements
to accomplish the following:
Ail raw water facility improvements and finish
water treatment plant improvements from Carvins
Cove Dam through and including the proposed new
four (4) million gallon finished water
reservoir.
Ail finished water pipeline and pumpinK station
improvements from Carvins Cove Filter Plant
property to the area of Crystal Sprin~s.
iii. Director of Finance to take the necessary action to
issue bonds to finance $30,847,000 of capital
improvements in 1993 dollars.
1. Improvements needed can begin as soon as possible.
Timin~ to complete the work will be the earliest
possible.
Phasin~ will not occur in favor of the earliest
completion of the work at the lowest overall cost.
Rate schedule is attached and would generate the
following typical monthly costs:
Current Total Daily
FY 91 FY 92 Increase
Household $ 3.89 $ 6.97 10¢
Commercial 45.26 81.22 $ 1.20
Industrial 1,101.02 3,324.48 74.12
2/3 Plan, Three-year Phased-in Rate Adjustment - Comittee
recommend Council approve the following actions:
i. Adoption of a three (3) year phased-in rate schedule
adjustment shown on Attachment "C".
Page 6
ii.
Immediate issuance of two Requests for Proposals
(RFP) to engage consultants to design improvements
to accomplish the following:
Ail raw water facility improvements and finish
water treatment plant improvements from Carvins
Cove Dam through and including the proposed new
four (4) million gallon finish water reservoir.
bo
Ail finished water pipe line and pumping
station improvements from Carvins Cove Filter
Plant property to Delray Pumping Station
located in the vicinity of Hershberger and
Williamson Roads.
iii. Director of Finance take the necessary action to
issue bonds to finance $21,301~680 of capital
improvements in 1993-94 dollars.
1. Improvements needed can begin as soon as possible.
Timing will start 2/3 of the work now with the final 1/3
to be planned in 4 - 5 years.
Phasing for both rate schedule adjustment and
construction will be provided.
Rate schedule is attached and would generate the
following typical monthly costs for the three (3) year
phase-in:
Total
Current, Daily
FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 Increase
Household $ 3.89 $ 4.60 $ 5.42 $ 6.40 8¢
Commercial 45.26 53.40 62.82 73.86 95¢
Industrial 1,101.02 1,710.08 2,562.50 3,000.94 $63.33
1/2 Plan, Two-year Phased-in Rate Ad.]ustment - Committee
reco~end Council approve the following actions:
Adoption of a two year phased-in rate schedule
adjustment shown on Attachment "D".
ii. Immediate issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP)
to engage a consultant to design the following
improvements.
a. Raw water pumping station expansion
b. Filter plant expansion
c. 4 million gallon reservoir
Page 7
IV.
d. Boxley Hills Pumping Station emergency power
iii. Director of Finance take the necessary action to
issue bonds to finance $14~364~150 of capital
improvements in 1993 dollars.
Improvements needed can begin. Many items will have to
be delayed until a future time.
Timin~ will allow some work to begin i~ediately. Other
urgently needed work will be delayed.
Phasing for both rate schedule adjustments and
construction will be provided.
Rate schedule is attached and would the following
typically monthly costs for the two (2) year phase in:
Total
Current, Daily
FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 Increase
Household $ 3.89 $ 4.62 $ 5.52 5¢
Commercial 45.26 53.49 64.02 63¢
Industrial 1,101.02 1,711.59 2,616.06 $50.50
Recommendation: Committee recommend Council authorize the needed
capital improvements. The recommended plan of action is to
accomplish the work at the earliest time with a three year
phased-in rate adjustment in accordance with Alternative "A".
KBK:afm
Attachments
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Manager of Water Department
Chief of Billings & Collections
ATTAC]~fE~T "B"
P~te Schedule to be Effective with all Service Billing
On and After August 1, 1991
~eter Size
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
12" Meter
MinimmCharge Based on
Allowance of 200 Cu. Ft.
Per Month
$ 3.38
5.09
6.79
16.96
27.13
67.81
108.49
271.22
433.94
694.31
1,084.92
Next 2,800 cu. ft. .77 per 100 cu. ft.
Ail over 3,000 cu. ft. - .61 per 100 cu. ft.
Notes: 1.
For water sold in retail service outside the City limits,
the minimum charge is 100% greater than the City rates.
Charges for water delivered for retail sold outside in
excess of the minimum allowance of 200 per month will be
$1.54 per 100 cu. ft.
Customers receiving quarterly bills will have a minimum
charge and quantity allowance three times greater than the
monthly minimum charge and allowance.
Fire Services - Niei~-ww Mo~thly CharEes
4" $ 65.84
6" 148.73
8" 234.63
10" 415.96
12" 594.92
2/3 lq_,AN, 'rtlKEE YgAR PHASED-IN RATE ADJUS~
Pmte Schedule to be gffectiv~ vith all Service gillings
On and After Date Shown
Minimm 6%arges Based on Alloeance of 200 Cu. Ft.
Per Month
Meter Size
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
12" Meter
Effective
AuR. 1, 1991
Effective
July IF 1992
Effective
July IF 1993
2.22 $ 2.62 $ 3.09
3.34 3.94 4.65
4.45 5.25 6.20
11.12 13.12 15.48
17.78 20.98 24.76
44.45 52.45 61.89
71.12 83.92 99.03
177.80 209.80 247.56
284.47 335.67 396.09
455.16 537.09 633.77
711.20 839.22 990.28
Next 2,800 cu. ft.
Next 27,000 cu. ft.
Ail over 30,000 cu.
.51/100 .60/100 .71/100
.40/100 .47/100 .55/100
ft..30/100 .47/100 .55/100
Notes:
1. Minimum charges and minimum quantity allowances are three
times greater for consumers billed quarterly.
2. Minimum charges and double for retail water service outside
the City limits.
3. Cost for water rates & service outside the City limits in
excess of the minimum quantity will be:
$1.02/100 cu.
$1.20/100 cu.
$1.42/100 cu.
ft. beginning August 1, 1991
ft. beginning July 1, 1992
ft. beginning July 1, 1993
Fire Services - Mini~umMonthly Charges
August 1, 1991
July 1~ 1992
July 1, 1993
4" $ 43.16 $ 50.93 $ 60.10
6" 97.50 115.05 135.76
8" 153.81 181.50 214.17
10" 272.69 321.77 379.69
12" 390.00 460.20 543.04
1/2 PLAN, ~/0 YI~AR PHASeD-IN ILiTE ADJUSTM~rr
Pate Schedule to be Effectiv~ with all Service Billings
On and After Date Shown
Minimum Charges Based on Allowance of
200 Cu. Ft. Per Honth
Meter Size
Effective
AuR. 1, 1991
Effective
July 1, 1992
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
12" Meter
$ 2.24 $ 2.67
3.37 4.01
4.49 5.34
11.21 13.34
17.93 21.34
44.83 53.35
71.72 85.35
179.31 213.38
286.89 341.40
459.02 546.23
717.24 853.52
Next 2,800 cu. ft.
Next 27,000 cu. ft.
Ail over 30,000 cu. ft.
.51 .61
.40 .48
.30 .48
1. Minimum charges and minimum quantity allowances are three
times greater for consumers billed quarterly.
2. Minimum charges are double for retail water sold outside
the City limits.
3. Cost for water retail service in excess of the minimum
quantity will be:
$1.02/100 cu. ft. effective August 1, 1991
$1.22/100 cu. ft. effective July 1, 1992
Fire Services - Mimim~mMomthly C~arges
August 1, 1991
4,,
10"
12"
$ 43.53
98.33
155.12
275.00
393.32
July 1~ 1992
$ 51.80
117.01
184.59
327.25
468.05
M~thly Billin~
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
Minimum Charge Based on
Allowance of 200 Cu. Ft.
Per Month
$ 1.88
2.83
3.77
9.42
15.07
37.67
60.27
150.68
241.08
385.73
Next 2,800 cu. ft. @ .43 per 100 cu. ft.
Next 27,000 cu. ft. @ .34 per 100 cu. ft.
Next 105,000 cu. ft. @ .25 per 100 cu. ft.
Ail over 135,000 cu. ft. @ .16 per 100 cu. ft.
Notes: 1.
Minimum charges for water retailed outside City limits is
100% greater than inside City limits. Charges for water
delivered for retail service outside the City limits in
excess of minimum allowance will be at $ .86 per 100 cu. ft.
Consumers receiving quarterly bills will have minimum
charges and quarterly allowances three times greater than
monthly charges and allowances.
Fire Services - Min;nnnn Monthly CharBes
4" $ 36.58
6" 82.63
8" 130.35
10" 231.09
ATTA(~'~
PUBLIC
WA'r~ IMPROV}O{~N~S
7:00 p.m., Hay 7, 1991, Civic Center E~hibit Hall
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, opened the meeting. He introduced Kit
Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations, and stated that he would make
comments on industrial and large users. He stated there would then be a
time for co~ents and questions from citizens.
Mr. Herbert stressed the importance of water. He added that it was
taken for granted. He noted that there were people in the southeast
area that were experiencing low water pressure in the summer. He stated
that 75% of our water comes from Carvins Cove and that Carvins Cove
holds 570 days of water in reserve. The remaining facilities are Falling
Creek and Crystal Springs. All three facilities were constructed many
years ago. Mr. Herbert stated that the problem is not having water, but
getting it treated and distributed.
Mr. Herbert covered four areas, known as the 4 C's; i.e. Capacity,
Condition, Compliance, and Communication. He also added a 5th C - Cost.
Capacity - 18 Million gallons per day maximum at Carvins Cove. There
were a number of days in the past five years where the plant met or
exceeded its capacity. In 1990 the demand for water caused the plant to
exceed its capacity 114 days out of 365 days. He stated we are being
pushed beyond our limits. When plant exceeds capacity it is necessary
to by-pass some of the normal treatments of the water. Water still
meets regulation standards but is not the quality of water we want to
deliver. Mr. Herbert stated we need to enlarge treatment capacity from
18 MGD to 28 MGD. We need to have new and larger settling basins and
renovate existing equipment.
Condition - Carvins Cove Filter Plant was constructed in mid 1940's.
The last time any major improvements were made was in 1955.
Intake screens are needed on portals to keep debris from entering plant
and causing pumps to jam. Pumps at dam are rated at 12 MGD which are
inadequate for 18 MGD treatment plant. He stated that there is only one
line from Carvins Cove to Boxley Hills Pump Station. Pump station is
used to keep enough water in line. If electricity goes off, no water
goes into pump. When no pumps are working problems exist. If we had 2
- 3 major fires, system would be drained. Producing and treating more
water won't eliminate problem. Need to lay new water line from Carvins
Cove Filter Plant to Crystal Springs to carry additional water.
Compliance - We have to meet State regulations. Health Department
requires expansion plan when City exceeds 80% of rated capacity 3 months
in a row. City exceeded capacity during every three month period in
1990. EPA has announced new water treatment standards for water
quality.
Page 2
Communication - Try to help co~nunity know that we have problems.
Cost - Mr. Herbert stated that the projected cost of improvements is
$28,000,000 or 10 cents a day for typical household. This would be an
increase from $3.89 to $7.00 a month. Exact increase would be up to
Council. Will deal with issue on May 20 at the Water Resources
Con~nittee meeting and make recon~endation to full City Council. Mr.
Herbert added that even with full increase, Roanoke will have one of the
lowest rates in State.
Mr. Herbert added that if we don't move ahead, it would spell potential
disaster for Roanoke and because of compliance with State and Federal
requirements, we don't have a choice. Mr. Herbert added that last year
the Falling Creek Filter Plant was taken off line for repair during
winter months and that the project is well under construction. The
anticipated completion date is August 13, 1991.
Mr. Kiser made a presentation concerning Industrial and Commercial
rates. He stated that we are suggesting that the bottom 2 steps of the
sliding scale be eliminated. This would mean for large users total cost
could double or triple. He added that we have a contract with other
jurisdictions to provide water on an annual basis. The June 30, 1990
rate is $ .58 per 100 cu. ft.
Citizen Input
Selene Pedersen - Suggested an alternate plan, copy attached. Firstly,
let the minimum charge stay the same. This would be beneficial to
people who use minimum water and live on a fixed income. Secondly, set
a fixed rate of $ .85 per hundred cubic feet for all users above
minimum. Small user would benefit the most. Instead of an 80%
increase, the increase would be only 18%. The average user and the
small business would experience about a 20% savings over the City's
plan. Our business example would pay more but his cost per 100 cu. ft.
would still be less than yours or mine. This would encourage
conservation, instead of rewarding large consumers.
Jim Soderber~ - 2621 Weaver Roadt S.W. - Stated that consumption rate
has risen in past 5 years, but population has not risen. Wanted to know
where was primary usage of gallons.
Mr. Kiser stated that we are not wasting it and that we have a system
for accounting for water. He added that in 1976 when billings went on
computer, a run was made on all household uses. The average household
usage was 14.73 units. He added that population hasn't gone up and
sales outside City haven't gone up. Another run in 1990 revealed the
average household usage now is 20.03 units. He added that he can't
answer what is happening to water. It goes through meter.
Mr. Soderberg stated there should be another way to identify users of
water and that major users should bear burden of cost.
Mr. Kiser stated that it was predominately in residential sections.
Page 3
Ms. Pedersen indicated that she keeps a record of rainfall. She stated
that last sununer there was one 21 day period without rainfall and two 15
day periods that had temperatures of over 95 degrees. She indicated
that water was going into the ground from lawn and garden watering.
A question was asked that if sliding scale removed two lower categories,
what would that generate annually in income. The answer was $300,000
annually.
Mr. Soderberg asked what is current income generated to City of Roanoke
by water billings. Mr. Kiser replied approximately $2,961,650 for water
annually within City of Roanoke. He then went over 4 funding scenarios
that are being proposed.
A lady from the Williamson Road Area talked about the taste and odor
problem that the City was experiencing the first few months of this
year. She stated that she had been drinking bottled water. She stated
that she saw in the newspaper that $75,000 was appropriated for
additional chemicals to take care of the problem.
Mr. Kiser explained that the problem was caused by algae growth in the
water. He further stated that carbon was added to the water at a cost
of $2,000 a day until problem was under control.
Mr. Jared T. Clevenger - 1630 Hershberger Road expressed concern about
what rate increase will do to senior citizens who are on a fixed income.
He asked would 10 cents a day be the only cost and will this affect
sewer and tax. He also suggested that instead of sending out a postcard
the City should mail an envelope with pamphlets on the importance of
conserving water.
Mr. Kiser explained that the 10 cents a day only applies to water and
there would be no change in sewer fees. He added that utility tax
applies to water and rate would be 11 cents a day if you add utility
tax.
A ~entlemen who lives at 814 Hamilton Avenue asked if proposed
improvements would change the areas the 3 separate systems now serve.
Mr. Herbert replied that water loses its identity once it comes into the
system. He added that the systamwas totally interconnected.
Bill Tanner asked what would benefit be to eliminate all steps in
sliding scale and have a flat rate.
It was suggested that computer runs be made and do comparisons on Mrs.
Pedersen's figures.
Mr. Soderberg asked when this would go into effect?
Mr. Herbert replied that if Water Resources Con~nittee and Council backs
the financing plan, we would like to start with the first billing cycle
in July.
Page 4
Mr. Bradley - Virginia Heights - Grandin Road stated he had been getting
dirt in water which was causing stain in commode and in clothing washed
in washing machine.
Mr. Sluss replied that this may be due to Fire Department opening up
hydrants. This stirs up lime and iron deposits.
He asked if changing lines in his house would make any difference. He
was told that when a consumer changes line, the City will change their
line from City's side to meter.
He then asked where he could have a gallon of water tested. Mr. Sluss
told him the City could take a sample and run a lab test and give him
the results.
Another gentlemen asked if pipe installed in proposed system would be
metal or plastic? Mr. Kiser replied parallel line would be reinforced
concrete pipe or ductile iron.
Bill Tanger asked when they would get back with new figures. Mr.
Herbert replied they will bring additional information to Water
Resources Committee.
Another gentlemen asked if there was any money now in the Water Fund.
Mr. Kiser replied there is money in the bank but some is committed to
other projects such as filter plant we are working on. He also added
that we just had a real estate closing, amounting to $400,000, on Water
Department property sold the Roanoke Memorial Hospital. He added that
any benefits generated by Water Department property goes into the Water
Fund.
Mr. Herbert added that there has been only one overall rate increase in
water since 1976. Salaries have all escalated. The Water Fund should
have some working capital. He added that if we had any sizeable
emergency in City we would have to get a loan from General Fund.
An Alternative Water Proposal
Water is a precious commodity. Until recently the residents of Roanoke
have taken for granted its availability. However, the last few summers
of drought conditions have shown us just how rare and precious water can
be. Having lived in California and salvaged used water from my bathtub
in order to water my plants I appreciate having water available and I am
more than willing to pay a reasonable price for it.
The city has traditionally offered low rates for water to high volume
users in order to retain and even attract business. In order to be able
to offer these low rates to business the city has required US to bear a
disproportionate share of the cost The city's new plan will continue to
do this. Growth in the valley has occurred without fully considering
future needs and demands. Most of this growth has been commercial. Due to
this, not only are we not meeting federal guidelines, but water pressure
for consumers has suffered. We have a problem. The question now is how to
address the present situation and the future needs.
I understand that we will have to have a rate increase, and that a rate
increase would only bring us in line with surrounding communities. My
disagreement with the city of Roanoke, as per my news opinion in the
Roanoke Times on May 1, is how this will be done.
The city proposes approximately an 80% increase across the board. I
contend that an increase should make rates more equitab)e. Presently the
city has a sliding scale that benefits large users. A business usin~
300,000 cubic feet is using 15,000 percent more water than the average
user and paying at a rate that is almost 50 percent less than what you
and I pay. Under the city's new proposal this large user would still be
paying a fete of 40 percent less than we would.
My proposal is this: Firstly-instead of increasing the minimum charge,
this would stay the same. This would be beneficial to those people who
use a minimum amount of water and live on a fixed income. Secondly-set a
fixed rate of $.85 per hundred cubic feet for all users above the
minimum. The small user would benefit the most. Instead of an 80%
increase, the increase would be only 18%. The average user and the small
business would experience about a 20% savings over the city's plan. Our
business example would pay more but his cost per hundred cubic feet would
still be ]ess than yours or mine. This would encourage conservation,
instead of rewarding large consumers. Mr. KIser, director of utilities
and operations for the city suggested to me that large users could not
afford this. On what basis cannot they afford it?-their incomee~-their
profit~ I would wager that I pay a bigger percentage of my income for
utilities tha~ they do. As quoted in the Roanoke Times' article on April
19 Mr. Kiser indicated that in some localities sliding sca]es have been
eliminated to encourage conservation. He was further quoted that some
localities have started charging higher rates for heavy users to
encourage conservation. This is a philosophy that I believe is essential
in the shrinking world we live in. We can no longer think in terms of
'bigger is better' and 'that ! 'm entitled to use es much of the
resources as I want'. Why should you and I have to pay more so the
country club can water its greens?
Selene Pedersen May 7, 1Sql
Proposed New Rates
Selena Pedersen
Proposal: For a quarter-To keep minimum charge at the present level for
all ueers and charge all customers .85 per hundred cubic feet after the
first 600 cubic feet.
Comparisons
Size Usage Now/ Proposed rate/ City proposal/
Avg rate Avg rate Avg rate
518 go0 6.93/ .77 8.19/ .91 12.46/1.38
518 2000 11.66/ ,58 17.54/ .85 21.00/1.05
t 900 12.60/1.40 13.54/1.54 22.67/2,52
I 2000 17.33/ .87 23.21/1.16 31.14/1.56
4 300,000 1017.00/ .34, 2478.00/ .83 1956.00/ .65#
**Baeed on figures printed in the Roanoke Times on April 19, 1991
CIT/Z~N SUGG&HTIONS FOR Kv~lq HI~zfz.~ LARGE USER COSTS
AND SM~YJ.]k'~ INCR]EAS~S FOI{ HOUSEHOLDS
SuF~estion No. 1: Keep standard residential minimum charge constant,
increase all other minimum charges as proposed and have two step user
rate.
Assumptions:
1. Revenue loss predicted by keeping minimum charges constant:
31,521 typical household meters x $5.65/qtr. x 4
x 80% = $569,899
2. Revenue increase predicted per 1¢ increase in user rates:
If 1/3 of revenue is from minimum fees, 2/3 of revenue
equals $1,957,855 for 38¢/100 cu. ft.
1¢ = $51,523
B. Compared to other calculation (Suggestion #3) of $51,707
C. Average at $51,615 per year per 1¢ increase
Rates would need to increase an additional 11¢ from $ .80 in
Alternate "A" to $ .91 and from $ .64 in Alternate "A" to
$ .75
Con~nents:
This approach adds $400 to $1,000 or more to the monthly user
cost to large and very large users who will already have their
cost doubled or tripled.
Assumptions and predictions are difficult to verify due to
many variables of meter sizes, consumption trends, and status
of fire protection.
Large user rates could take us out of the range of competition
with other industrial areas.
Results: Monthly Costs
Typical
Minimum Household Commercial Industrial
Current $1.88 $3.89 $45.26 $1,101.02
Suggestion #1 1.88 6.13 95.52 4,033.38
Alternate "A" 3.49 7.23 84.74 3,483.60
Page 2
2.
3.
Results:
water consumption.
Assumptions:
Total Revenue Needed:
Water Sold: 5,170,654 100 cu. ft. units
Cost of Water: $1.05/100 cu. ft. units
Monthly Costs
Current
Suggestion #2
Alternate "A"
Have no minimum fees and charge one flat rate for
$5,436,881/year in 1991
Minimum Typical
2 Units Household Con~nercial Industrial
$1.88 $3.89 $ 45.26 $1,101.02
2.10 7.00 105.00 5,250.00
3.49 7.23 84.74 3,483.60
This results in a smaller increase to small users and a larger
increase to large users.
This suggestion is more predictable than Suggestion #1;
however, the increase to mid range and large user is
considerably greater than the proposed increase in Alternate
Su~estion #3: Leave minimum fees alone and obtain increase needed from
one flat rate of 85¢/100 cu. ft. of consumption.
Assumptions:
3.
4.
5.
Results:
1/3 of revenue is currently derived from minimum charges =
1/3 x 2,935,361 = $ 977,475
Revenue needed: $5,436,881
Additional revenue needed $4,459,406
Billing units: 5,170,654
Actual cost needed per unit billed: 87¢
Monthly Costs
Minimum
Typical
Household Con~nercial
Current $1.88 $3.89 $45.26
Suggestion #3 1.88 5.94 94.68
Alternate "A" 3.49 7.23 84.74
Industrial
$1,101.02
4,498.94
3,483.60
Page 3
Con~nents: Similar to previous suggestions, e.g. smaller increase to
households and small users but even greater increase to medium and large
users.
Question #1:
Answer:
How many accounts fall into the discount rate category,
how much water do they use and how much revenue do they
generate?
Number of accounts:
Annual usage:
Annual revenue:
645
2,207,776 100 cu.
$737,554.60
ft. units
Question #2:
Answer:
Why not raise water rates more, pay off capital
improvements sooner and then rescind or reduce the
increased rates?
A 15-year bond rather than a 30-year bond would cause
water rates to be increased an additional 32% to perform
all work under a one time rate adjustment. This is
possible but not recommended.
INDUSTRIAL/LARGE CONSUMPTION
LO~]EST WAT~ ]{ATE AV~T].ARI.R
Cost/1000 Gallons: Cost for 3,750,000 Gals./No.
Compare to Full Plan, One Time Rate Adjustment
Roanoke - 21¢/1000
Current Cost of 3,750,000
gals./mo. - $1,101.02
Salem - $1.20/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $4,532.20
Vinton - 90¢/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $3,436.87
Rocky M~t - $1.50/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $5,627.85
Roanoke County - $1.04/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $5,289.03
Bedford - $1.02/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $3,902.13
Botetourt County - $2.75/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $10,328.50
Lynchburg - 52¢/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals.
Greensboro - 31¢/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals.
Richmond - 25.2¢/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals.
Louisville - 88¢/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals.
Norfolk - $1.50/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals.
~m~pton - $1.706/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals.
Charlotte - $. 963/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $3,609.38
Greenville, S.C. - 78.8¢/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $2,954.40
Raleigh - $ .981/1000
Cost of 3,750,000 gals. - $3,679.10
- $2,686.95
- $1,659.00
- $1,723.69
- $4,637.02
- $5,625.00
- $6,398.00
Proposed to be: 89¢/1000
Proposed: $3,324.48
ATTACI~ *'A"
FULL PLAN,, 'r~(EE YEAR PNASff)qN RATE ADJUSTMENT
Rate Schedule to be Effective with all Service Billings
On and After Date Sho~n
Minimum Charges Based on Allowance of 200 Cu. Ft.
Per Month
Meter Size
5/8" Meter
3/4" Meter
1" Meter
1 1/2" Meter
2" Meter
3" Meter
4" Meter
6" Meter
8" Meter
10" Meter
12" Meter
Effective Effective Effective
Aug. 1, 1991 July 1~ 1992 July 1~ 1993
$ 2.31 $ 2.84 $ 3.49
3.48 4.28 5.26
4.64 5.71 7.02
11.59 14.26 17.54
18.54 22.80 28.04
46.33 56.99 70.10
74.13 91.18 112.15
185.34 227.97 280.40
296.53 364.73 448.62
474.45 583.57 717.79
741.36 911.87 1,121.60
Next 2,800 cu. ft. .53/100
Next 27,000 cu. ft. .42/100
All over 30,000 cu. ft. .31/100
.65/100 .80/100
.52/100 .64/100
.52/100 .64/100
Notes:
1. For retail water service sold outside the City limits,
the minimum charge is 100% greater than City rates.
2. Minimum charges and quantity allowances are three times
greater for consumers billed quarterly.
3. Cost for water rates and service outside the City limits in
excess of the minimum quantity will be:
$1.06/100 cu. ft.
$1.30/100 cu. ft.
$1.60/100 cu. ft.
beginning August 1, 1991
beginning July 1, 1992
beginning July 1, 1993
Fire Services - MinimumMonthly Charges
August 1. 1991
July 1~ 1992
July 1, 1993
4" $ 44.99 $ 55.34 $ 68.07
6" 101.63 125.00 153.75
8" 160.33 197.21 242.57
10" 284.24 349.62 430.03
12" 404.64 497.71 612.18