HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 02-03-97 ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
February 3, 1997
2:00p. m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
1. Call to Order =- Roll Call. Council Member Harris was absent.
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Roanoke City Council will hold Visioning Community Forums on the
following dates:
Tuesday, February 11 at 7:00 p.m., Roanoke Civic Center
Exhibit Hall - Economy
Thursday, February 13 at 7:00 p.m., Roanoke Civic Center
Exhibit Hall - Effective Government
Saturday, February 22 at 2:00 p.m., Fitzpatrick Hail, The
Jefferson Center - Education
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE
MONDAY COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME
FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM LISTED ON
THE AGENDA MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,
ROOM 456.
CONSENT AGENDA
(APPROVED 6-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY
COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE
WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF
DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an Executive
Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees 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.
A report of the City Attorney requesting an Executive Session to discuss
specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel,
specifically the terms and conditions of the settlement of a claim involving an
insurance matter, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in
File #25-132 Executive Session.
A report of the City Manager transmitting recommendations with regard
to the G-reenways Proposal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in recommendations.
Removed from Consent Agenda for separate discussion. (See Item C-3 on
page 6.)
A report of the City Manager with regard to goals of the Commonwealth
Transportation Alliance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #20-77
Q alification of the following persons:
Barbara Lashley as a member of the Roanoke Arts
Commission to fill the unexpired term of Janie P. Wheeler,
resigned, ending June 30, 1999; and
File 15-110-230
Gina B. Wilbum as a member of the Advisory Board of
Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2000.
File #15-72-110
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Council concurred in a report of the Assistant City Manager
requesting an Executive Session to discuss the disposition of publicly held
property in connection with a prospective business where no previous
announcement has been made of the business' interest in locating in the
community, specifically the possible conveyance of an interest in land for
economic development purposes, pursuant to §2.1-344 (A)(5), Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended.
File #2-132-200-207
REGULAR AGENDA
A report of the City Manager transmitting recommendations with
regard to the Greenways Proposal.
Council concurred in the recommendation of the City Manager.
The Mayor addressed the issue of turning Wiley Drive into a greenway by
making Wiley Drive a one-way street, with one side reserved for biking,
hiking, jogging, etc. The matter was referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council.
File #67-200-379-514
3. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
None.
4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None.
5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
None.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
A report recommending appropriation of $78,150.00 to the
Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology Addition/Property
Account, representing land sale proceeds fi.om the sale of property
to Or,ds Roanoke, Inc., for the purpose of business expansion in
the RCIT.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33250-020397. (6-0)
File 02-60-207-450
A report with regard to formation of a Fifth Planning Regional
Alliance pursuant to provisions of the 1996 Regional
Competitiveness Act.
Adopted Resolution No. 33251-020397. (6-0)
File #72-110.137-200-326-412-450
A report recommending transfer of funds fi.om a Capital Account
for design and related work for connection of the Tinker Creek
interceptor siphon box, on the plant side of the river, to the
headworks at the Water Pollution Control Plant.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33252-020397. (6-0)
File #2%60.468
A report recommending appropriation of $45,000.00 ii, om the 1996
General Obligation Bond proceeds to fired an en~neering contract
with T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, Ltd., for design
of the Baker Street Drainage Project.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33253-020397. (6-0)
Council Member Swain inquired as to the number of pending
storm drainage projects in the City, estimated cost broken
down by projects, and timetable for completion.
File #2%53-60-237-405-468.514
A report recommending award of a contract to BFI Waste Systems,
Inc., to provide bulk container collection services, for a period of
one year, with the option to renew for two additional one-year
periods, at a cost of $24.88 per unit, per pick-up.
Adopted Resolution No. 33254-020397.
Wyatt voted no.)
File 0144-253
(~-1, Vice-Mayor
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
A financial report for the month of December, 1996.
Received and ~ed.
File #1-10
CITY CLERK:
A report advising of expiration of the three-year terms of office of
Marilyn L. Curtis, Marsha W. Elhson, and John H. Saunders as
Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board on June 30, 1997, and
applications for the upcoming vacancies will be received in the
City Clerk's Office until 5:00 p.m., on Monday, March 10, 1997.
Received and filed.
File # 110-467
A report requesting that Council concur in establishing specific
dates for various actions required pursuant to the School Trustee
selection process.
Concurred in the request.
The City Attorney was requested to prepare the proper
measure recognizing the service of Ms. Marilyn L. Curtis as a
Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board from May 2, 1988
to June 30, 1997.
File 080-467
6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
A report of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission recommending
renewal of the current contract with Ticketmaster Mid-Atlantic, Inc., for
five years to provide computerized ticketing service for the Roanoke
Civic Center. James W. Stephens, Chairperson.
Adopted Resolution No. 33255-020397. (6-0)
File 0192
A report of the bid committee recommending award of a contract to
Breakell, Inc., in the amount of $126,702.00, to construct a new (roof)
cover over the entrance to the Exhibit Hall at the Civic Center; and
transfer of funds in connection therewith. Council Member John H.
Parrott, Chairperson.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33256-020397 and Ordinance No.
33257-020397. (6-0)
File tt60-192
Co
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending amendment
of the Environmental Policy relating to Real Property Acquisition to
provide for a semi-annual summary report to the Members of City
Council for property right(s) acquisition(s) for which a complete
environmental assessment is not performed. Vice-Mayor Linda F. Wyatt,
Chairperson.
Adopted Resolution No. 33258-020397. (6-0)
File 11162-362-468
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending execution of
the appropriate document granting a new 2,243 SCl. ft. permanent drainage
easement to the Virginia Depadment of Transportation across City-owned
property at Coyner Springs in connection with development of the new
Brooktield Subdivision. Vice-Mayor Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33259 on first reading. (6-0)
File 1120-27-28-77-166-468
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending execution of
Supplemental Lease Agreement No. 5 with the General Services
Administration relating to lease of space in the Commonwealth of
Vir~nia Building. Vice-Mayor Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33260 on first reading. (6-0)
File #468-524
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending execution of
a new contract with Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc., to provide
EMS billing and collection services for a period of one year; and
execution of a new lease agreement for space in the Municipal Building
for a term of one year. Vice-Mayor Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson.
Adopted Resolution No. 33261-020397 and Ordinance No. 33262 on
first readIng. (6-0)
File #209-354-373-468
go
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending adoption of
a policy with regard to wireless telecommunications facilities located on
City property. Vice-Mayor Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson.
Adopted Resolution No. 33263-020397. (6-0)
File #166-262-383-468
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending approval of
the Garden City Property/Relocation Program Acquisition Policy,
purchase of certain properties, execution of the appropriate
implementation documents; and appropriation of funds. Vice-Mayor
Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson.
Adopted Budget OrdInance No. 33264-020397 and Ordinance No.
33265-020397. (6-0)
File #60-165-166-188-237-468
A briefing by the City Manager with regard to the Garden City
Property/Relocation Program Acquisition Policy. (15 minutes)
File #165-166-188-237-468
H:'~AOENIDA.g'AFEIt~ACT ~ 0
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
Ordinance No. 33243, on second reading, amending and reordaining
subsection (c) of Section 20-76, Parking spaces reserved for persons with
~, and subsection (c) of Section 20-81, Exemptions from certain
rea_uh'ements of parking meter re_rotations, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, by limiting to four hours the time in which a vehicle
displaying a disabled license tag or placard may be parked in a parking
zone limited as to time or in a metered space without paying the required
fee.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33243-020397. (6-0)
File #24-120-353
bo
Ordinance No. 33247, on second reading, authorizing the alteration and
closing, by barricade, of the easternmost terminus of Mount Holland
Drive, S. W., near the rear entrance of Hidden Valley Junior High School.
Adopted Ordinance No. 3324%020397. (6-0)
File #467-514
Co
A Resolution appointing a Director of the Industrial Development
Authority of the City of Roanoke, to fill the remaining portion of a four
(4) year term on its Board of Directors.
Adopted Resolution No. 33266-020397. (6-0)
File #15-110-207
do
A Resolution memor/alizing the late Junius A. Haskins, Jr., Member,
Lynchburg City Council.
Adopted Resolution No. 3326%020397. (6-0)
File #80-132
H:~AG ENDA.B~,~..~3.ACT 1 1
9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ao
bo
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council.
Council Member White referred to a newspaper article which
appeared in the Thursday, January 30 edition of the ]~loJiP~l~l~
listing Roanoke as the most segregateq. City in Virginia, and
requested that the City Manager report to Council with regard to
data/factors which were used to compile the national study. Council
Member Swain requested that Council be apprised of any
irregularities reported to the Fair Housing Board.
File #11-178-227
Council Member Parrott requested that the matter of providing
parking for persons residing in downtown Roanoke be referred to the
City Manager for study, report and recommendation. He called
attention to the practice of some localities of providing a sticker to be
applied to the windshield of the vehicle. Vice-Mayor Wyatt asked
that the City Manager explore the feasibility of providing parking in
the City parking garages in downtown Roanoke.
File #20-132-178-277
Council Member Swain addressed the issue of additional space needs
of the Police Department, and requested a follow-up report from the
City Manager on the feasibility of police substations. He called
attention to the former Best Products building on Hershberger Road
as a possible location.
File #5-132
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
H:IAG~DA.~?~I~.AGT 1 2
10. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
Ms. Katherine Glassbrenner, 5221 Medmont Circle, S. W., and Ms.
Marianne Gandee, 3271 Allendale Street, S. W., spoke in opposition to
reducing the real estate tax rate in view of the many outstanding needs of
the City.
File #66-79
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (6-0)
Reappointed Carolyn H. Coles as a member of the City Planning
Commission for a term ending December 31, 2000.
File #15-110-200
Reappointed Willard G. "Bill" Light as a member of the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a term ending December 31, 1999.
File #15-51-110
Adopted Resolution No. 33268-020397 authorizing settlement of a claim
with Blue Cross and Blue Shield in connection with hospital discount credits
between the City and Blue Cross. (6-0)
File #58-501
A motion to expand the membership of the Mill Mountain Development
Committee and to appoint Ms. Betty Field as an additional member was
defeated by a 4-2 vote of the Council, Council Members White, Wyatt,
Parrott, and Mayor Bowers voted no.
File 015-67-110
DAVID A. BOWERS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594
Telephone: (540) 981-2444
Fax: (540) 853-1145
Februa~ 3,1997
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards,
commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
David A. Bowers
Mayor
DAB:sm
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
C[TY A~FOR NEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY P~i~!ORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24011-1595
· ELEPHONE: 540-853-2431
E MAIL: clt yat ty @Ici.roanoke. v a.us
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GLADYS L. YATES
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
A SSK~TA NT CITY ATI~ORNEYS
February 3, 1997
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Request for Executive Session
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
This is to request that Council convene in Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters
requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, specifically the terms and conditions of the
settlement of a claim involving an insurance matter, pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A.7, Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Since~rely your~jj /
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WCD/lsc
CC~
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
February 3, 1997
No. 97-110
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Commonwealth Transportation Alliance
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Virginia's continued economic vitality and high quality of
life are dependent on an improved transportation system. A safe,
convenient, efficient, cost-effective, multi-modal transportation
network will promote and enhance domestic and international
commerce and facilitate the movement of our citizens to work,
school, recreation, and other activities.
The Commonwealth Transportation Alliance is a broad-based
coalition organized and coordinated by the Virginia Chamber of
Commerce. Its membership includes business and trade associations,
large and small businesses, local chambers of commerce, local
governments, and citizens representing all regions of the
Commonwealth, every sector of the Virginia economy, and every major
transportation mode - including roads, public transit, air, rail
and ports.
The Commonwealth Transportation Alliance has the following
goals:
To educate citizens, the business community, and
government leaders about the critical importance of
transportation to the lives and livelihood of all
Virginians and to the Commonwealth's capacity to compete
for new and expanded business enterprise;
To provide a forum for discussion and the development of
consensus among those interested in improving Virginia's
transportation;
To complement the work of the Commission on the Future of
Transportation in Virginia;
To encourage and facilitate a deliberative,
comprehensive, objective analysis of statewide
transportation needs as well as a thorough and accurate
assessment of the existing and projected revenue
resources, from all sources available to meet those
needs;
Mayor Bowers & Members of Council
No. 97-110
Page 2
February 3, 1996
To ensure full participation by citizens, businesses, and
local governments in the determination of the adequacy of
resources to meet needs and in any policy deliberations
about additional revenues and funding mechanisms;
To advocate public policies which will provide a
transportation infrastructure sufficient to ensure and
support a strong, vibrant economy and a high quality of
life.
The Commonwealth Transportation Alliance is recruiting
associates, organizations, local governments, companies, and other
interested entities to this coalition. The City of Roanoke is now
in the process of joining this coalition and will be represented by
our City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Bob Bengtson. Please note that
there is no commitment for funds involved nor will the City be
committed to any public policy position not specifically spelled
out in their goal statement.
Council can be assured that if this coalition takes a position
regarding certain transportation issues, that such information will
be brought to Council for its consideration.
WRH/RKB/gpe
copy:
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Manager, Office of Management & Budget
Traffic Engineer
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W.. Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Cte~k
February 10, 1997
File #15-110-230
Brook E. Dickson, Chairperson
Roanoke Arts Commission
380 Highland Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Ms. Dickson:
This is to advise you that on January 24, 1997, Barbara Lashley qualified as a member of
the Roanoke Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Janie P. Wheeler, resigned,
ending June 30, 1999.
~'""~ ~'0~'Sincerely, f~.,,,.j,,,~._._
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
pc:
Shiela Cuadrado, Secretary, Roanoke Arts Commission
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Barbara Lashley, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a
member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Janie P.
Wheeler, resigned, ending June 30, 1999, according to the best of my ability. So help
me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this c~ day of ~/-~9~.7
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
H:~G ENDA'~DECEMBER,2
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W,, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Depuly Cit~, Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #15-79-110
The Reverend Frank W. Feather, Chairperson
Advisory Board of Human Development
P. O. Box 6297
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Reverend Feather:
This is to advise you that on January 22, 1997, Gina B. Wilburn qualified as a member of
the Advisory Board of Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc:
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
Glenna O. Ratcliffe, Secretary, Advisory Board of Human Development
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Gina B. Wilbum, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a member of the Advisory Board of Human Development for a term ending
November 30, 2000, according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~::~'~~---~997.
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
H:'~AGEN DA.97~J^NUARY,6
February 3, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
This is to request that Council convene in Executive Session to discuss the disposition of
publicly held property in connection with a prospective business where no previous announcement
has been made of the business' interest in locating in the community, specifically the possible
conveyance of an interest in land for economic development purposes, pursuant to §2.1-
344(A)0) and §2.1-344(A)(5), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Ci~ Manager
WRH/kdc
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandm H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ~67-200-379-514
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Your report transmitting recommendations with regard to the Greenways Proposal, was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
February 3, 1997.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, Council concurred in the following
recommendations:
Forward the Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan to the Roanoke City
Planning Commission for review and report;
Refer the Intergovernmental Agreement establishing the Roanoke
Valley Greenway Commission to the City Manager and the City
Attorney for preparation of a unified document to be signed by all
participating governments; and
Refer a resolution for funding of the Roanoke Valley Greenways
Coordinator position to 1997-98 budget study.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
February 10, 1997
Page 2
The Mayor addressed the issue of turning Wiley Drive into a greenway by making Wiley
Drive a one-way street, with one side reserved for biking, hiking, jogging, etc. The matter
was referred to you for study, report and recommendation to Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc:
Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission,
P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Lucy Ellett, Chairperson, Greenways Open Space Steering Committee, 3752
Brandon Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Elizabeth Belcher, Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator, P. O. Box 2569,
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
John R. Marlles, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
John W. Coates, Manager, Parks and Recreation/Grounds Maintenance
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
Office of the City Manager
February 3, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
SUBJECT: Greenways Proposal
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
Attached you will find a request by the Greenways Committee for City Council to
adopt the following three items:
The Conceptual Greenway Plan I recommend that this matter be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and comment,
ultimately to be forwarded for action to Roanoke City Council.
Interqovernmental Agreement establishin.q the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission - I recommend that we withhold action on this document until
each individual government can work towards a unified single document that
all governments would approve and sign. To this end, I have discussed this
matter with Randy Smith, City Manager of Salem, as well as Elmer Hodge,
County Administrator of Roanoke County. They are in agreement that the
attorneys from each jurisdiction should work with their own clients to
consolidate comments and provide a unified document for each locality to act
on should there be favorable intent to do so.
Resolution for Funding of the Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator
Position - I recommend City Council simply refer this matter to budget study.
Again, I have spoken with both the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke
about their intentions to take similar actions.
I would be pleased to answer any questions regarding the above recommendations
which I will summarize.
Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan: Forward to the Roanoke City Planning
Commission for a review and report.
Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 981-2333 FAX (540) 224-3138
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
February 3, 1997
Page Two
WRH/dh
Attachment
CC:
The Intergovernmental Aqreement establishing the Roanoke Valley
Greenway Commission: Refer to the City Manager and City Attorney for
preparing a unified document for all participating governments to sign.
Resolution for Funding of the Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator
Position: Refer to budget study.
Respectfully,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
John R. Marlles, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Ms. Elizabeth Belcher, Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator, P.O.
Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Mrs. Lucy Ellett, Chairman, Greenways Open Space Steering Committee,
3752 Brandon Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
ROANOKE VALLEY GREENWA YS STEERING COMMITTEE
c/o Fifth Planning District Commission
P.O. Box 2569, 313 Luck Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
540-343-4417 (Phone)540-343-4416 (Fax)
planfive @ roanoke.infi.net (E-mail)
January 24, 1997
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Roanoke City Manager
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am pleased to present to you the recommendations of the Roanoke Valley Steering
Committee for implementation of the greenway program. When established, the Steering
Committee was charged with producing a greenway plan and d~eveloping recommendations for an
organizational structure to implement the program. The Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway
Plan was completed in December 1995. The Steering Committee is now presenting as well its
recommendations for organization and implementation of the greenways program.
The Steering Committee recommends that each locality adopt three documents: 1) the
Conceptual Plan, 2) an intergovernmental agreement establishing a Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission, and 3) a resolution for continued funding of the Greenways Coordinator position.
Adoption of the Conceptual Plan will ensure its incorporation into your Comprehensive Plan and
its consideration as other issues such as transportation planning and stormwater management are
addressed. Establishment of the Greenway Commission as an appointed advisory board will
continue the work of the Steering Committee, which was originally appointed for only one year,
and will provide for intergovernmental coordination as a Valley-wide system of greenways is
developed. The fiscal resolution requires Roanoke's annual budgeting to help pay for a regional
coordinator, but assures that this cost would be reduced proportionately by any grants or
donations received.
I am enclosing copies of these documents for Mayor Bowers and members of City Council
and the Planning Commission. While the Plan may necessitate some review or hearing, we hope
the other two items can be put on the agenda for the February 3 City Council meeting. We
appreciate the support of Roanoke's citizens, as recently demonstrated in the CIP workshop, as
well as of the adminstration and elected officials. I look forward to completion of our pilot project
up Mill Mountain and initiation of greenways to serve other sections of the City.
SinCerely,
Liz Belcher
Greenways Coordinator
ROANOKE VALLEY GREENWA YS STEERING COMMITTEE
c/o Fifth Planning District Commission
P.O. Box 2569, 313 Luck Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
540-343-4417 (Phone)540-343-4416 (Fax)
planfive @ roanoke.infi.net (E-mail)
January 24, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
In 1996 the Roanoke Valley Greenways Steering Committee moved from successful development
of the Conceptual Greenway Plan to implementation of the greenway program. At~er selecting a
pilot project, the Committee began addressing coordination among the four localities and
establishment ora permanent organizational structure for regional planning and coordination of
greenway construction and management.
In the spring of 1996, at the request of the Steering Committee, the governing bodies of Roanoke
City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of Vinton agreed to budget funds, allocated on the
basis of population, to pay the expenses ofa Greenways Coordinator for FY 96/97. In August,
Elizabeth Belcher was hired for this position and was physically and administratively placed as an
employee of the Fifth Planning District Commission. She has proven to be a very effective
coordinator. In November she sent to the four governing bodies a quarterly report showing
accomplishments and progress toward the Steering Committee goals and objectives.
At this time the Steering Committee would like to make its recommendation for a permanent
organization that will promote and coordinate greenway development on a continuing basis.
The Steering Committee proposes formation of a Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, with
three members appointed by each of the four governments and one appointed by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization. The Commission would have the primary responsibility for advising,
promoting and coordinating Valley-wide greenway development, but would not have the legal
authority to accept or expend funds. A nonprofit friends group, which is already being organized
and incorporated, would be able to receive and expend funds, and would be a resource separate
and independent of the four governments to involve citizens in greenway planning, promotion,
and maintenance. While these two organizations would assist with greenway coordination and
development, the primary control ofgreenways within a jurisdiction would be the responsibility of
that government.
Page -2-
The Steering Committee believes that the position of Greenways Coordinator should be retained,
except that the person would now work for the permanent Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission rather than for the current Steering Committee, which would be terminated. Mrs.
Belcher and the Fifth Planning District Commission are seeking funding for the position from
foundations, grants, and other private sources. To date, they have filed applications for $136,710,
of which $58,275 would, if received, cover the salary and expenses of the Greenways
Coordinator. A list of these pending grants is included with the budget in this packet.
Since grant, foundation, and donated receipts are apt to vary from year to year, the Steering
Committee respectfully requests that each of the four governments fully budget funds for the
Coordinator position each year with the understanding that monies received from other sources
will reduce and offset any payments from the governments. We are optimistic that sufficient funds
will be generated, so that little local government money will be required to pay for staff. We
believe, however, that approaching the funding issue this way will ensure the ongoing services of
a Greenways Coordinator and will result in a continuation of the significant greenway advances
made to date in the Roanoke Valley.
We present to you at this time three documents which we have developed to implement the
greenway program and organizational structure. They are:
1) the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan,
2) an Intergovernmental Agreement Establishing the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission, and
3) a Resolution for Funding of the Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator
Position.
While we understand that adoption of the Plan might require review or hearings, we hope that
you will be able to act expeditiously on the fiscal and commission agreements. These have been
reviewed carefully by the Steering Committee and are critical to continuation of the greenway
momentum and Valley-wide coordination.
We feel that the greenway program is unusual in the Roanoke Valley in the tremendous support it
has garnered from citizens, government staff, elected officials, and businesses and industries. The
benefits ofeconomi~ development, transportation alternatives, flood reduction, environmental
protection, wellness and fitness promotion, and recreation are ones which improve not only the
quality of life but also the economic viability of the region. We appreciate your past and continued
support of the greenway program.
Since[ely,
Lucy Ellett,~Chair
Roanoke Valley Greenways Steering Committee
cc: Members, Roanoke City Planning Commission
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING
THE ROANOKE VALLEY GREENWAY COMMISSION
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, also known as Greenway
Commission, is to promote and facilitate coordinated direction and guidance in the
planning, development, and maintenance of a system of greenways throughout the
Roanoke Valley.
B. SCOPE
This greenway system is intended to enhance the quality of life for Valley citizens and
visitors and to:
provide safe and efficient alternative transportation linkages between
recreational sites, open spaces, residential area~, employment centers,
educational and cultural facilities, and other activity centers;
encourage citizen wellness and maintain environments which promote
opportunities for recreation activities;
· protect environmental assets and retain beneficial ecological habitats;
maintain a contiguous urban forest ecosystem to reduce community wide
environmental problems such as excessive storm water runoff, air quality
degradation, water pollution, and urban climate change;
promote an appreciation for the Valley's natural, historical and cultural resuu~ces-
and its neighborhoods;
protect and link significant remnants of the community's undeveloped open
spaces, woodlands, and wetlands; and,
enhance the Valley's appearance to encourage tourism, promote economic
development, and improve the living environment for residents.
C. CREATION
The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission is created, in accordance with Section
15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia as amended, upon execution of this agreement
pursuant to ordinances approving this agreement adopted by the governing bodies of
the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton.
! Janua~ 15,1997
D. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
The Commission shall have the following responsibilities and duties:
To study the needs of the Roanoke Valley and the desires of the Valley
residents as expressed in the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, dated
December 1995, as may be amended, and work to implement a coordinated
system of greenways into each jurisdiction's planning efforts;
To advise and inform the governing bodies and the citizens of the Valley of
existing, planned~and potential opportunities for establishing greenways within
the Valley;
To make recommendations to the governing bodies relative to desirable federal,
state, and local legislation concerning greenway programs and related activities;
To investigate and recommend funding, grants, and/or donations of land,
property or services from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of
America, their agencies, private citizens, corporations, institutions and others to
promote, construct or maintain Greenways within the Roanoke Valley;
To study and recommend uniform standards for the design and construction of
greenways, including sign standards, to be employed Valley-wide;
To actively pursue and promote public/private partnerships, work closely with the
Western Virginia Land Trust and similar nonprofit organizations, and facilitate
cooperation between Valley governments in developing, constructing and
maintaining a system of greenways throughout the Valley; and,
To coordinate the efforts of the federal, state and local jurisdictions in the Valley
to create a Valley-wide system of greenway~ and trails that satisfy the needs of
all the residents of the Valley, including those with special needs.
MEMBERSHIP
The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission shall be composed of members,
appointed as follows:
Three (3) members from each of the participating political subdivisions to
be appointed by the governing bodies, each for a term of three years,
except for the initial appointments which are to be staggered for each
representative as a one, a two and a three-year term as determined by
the governing body. Each member must be a resident of the jurisdiction
which he or she represents.
Januaw 15,1997
One (1) member appointed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization of
the Fifth Planning District Commission for a term of three years.
In addition to the above members, the following individuals, or their designated
representatives, shall serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of the Greenway
Commission:
a. the chief planning official of each jurisdiction;
b. the official responsible for parks and recreation from each jurisdiction;
one representative of the nonprofit friends group established to support
greenways; and,
d. one representative of the Western Virginia Land Trust.
A vacancy for the remainder of any term shall be filled by the governing body
making the original appointment. _
The Commission may add ex-officio members, as appropriate, from interested
organizations.
The members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
G.
1.
2.
3.
MEETINGS
The Commission shall hold regular meetings at least once per quarter each
calendar year. All meetings and hearings of the Commission shall be open to
the public except private meetings called pursuant to provisions of the Freedom
of Information Act. Reasonable notice of the time and place ot ali regular and
special meetings shall be given to the public. Meetings shall be called by the
chairman or upon request of a majority of the members.
The Commission shall adopt bylaws necessary to conduct the affairs of the
Commission.
OPERATING REVENUE
The Commission will not operate as a fiscal agent.
Funding for staff support to the Commission may be made available as
appropriated and administered through an agreed-upon fiscal agent.
Annual funding requests from the Commission shall be made by February 1 of
each year to the member jurisdictions.
3 Januaw 15,1997
H. ADMINISTRATION
An annual report shall be prepared and submitted to the governing body of each
member jurisdiction each calendar year.
The Commission may establish any committees necessary to fulfill the
responsibilities and duties of the Commission.
Any greenway coordinator or staff positions of the Commission approved by the
governing bodies shall be funded on a pro rata basis, based on the latest
population studies of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the
University of Virginia.
I. DURATION AND TERMINATION
The agreement shall remain in force for a period of 12 years unless specifically
extended or otherwise modified by action of the governing bodies of all member
jurisdictions.
A participating political subdivision may withdraw from this agreement by
adoption of appropriate ordinance.
J. AMENDMENTS
This agreement may be amended only by approval by the governing bodies of each
member jurisdiction.
K. LIABILITY
The participating political subdivisions agree to indemnify, keep and hold the members
of the Commission and its staff free and harmless from any liability on account of any
injury or damage of any type to any person or property growing out of performance of
the duties and responsibilities imposed by this Agreement. In the event of any suit or
proceeding brought against members of the Commission or its staff, the participating
political subdivisions shall pay reasonable costs of defense. Any costs of the
participating political subdivisions under this section shall be shared on a per capita
basis as determined by the most recent population estimates of the Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia.
4 Janua~ 15,1997
RESOLUTION FOR FUNDING OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY GREENWAYS
COORDINATOR POSITION
Whereas the local governments of Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of
Vinton formed a Roanoke Valley Greenways Steering Committee in 1995 to work jointly for
greenway development, and
Whereas the four local governments fully funded the position of Greenways Coordinator for
fiscal year 1996/97, with funds appropriated on a population basis, and
Whereas the Steering Committee has recommended that the position of Greenways Coordinator
be made permanent and that an intergovernmental Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission be
formed to replace the Steering Committee, and
Whereas the Greenways Coordinator has already sought and will continue to seek funds from
sources other than the local governments to pay the related costs, and
Whereas funds from other sources are apt to vary from time to time and the Steering Committee
wishes to establish funding that will ensure the continued services of a Greenways Coordinator,
and
Whereas the current total annual cost for the salary and related expenses of the Greenways
Coordinator is $60,000,
Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the Roanoke City Council agrees to budgeted annual
funding for the position of Roanoke Valley Greenways Coordinator, with fund allocations
prorated based on the respective populations as recorded by the I'geldon Cooper Center for Public
Service of the University of Virginia, and with the understanding that funds will be actively sought
by a permanent Greenways Commission and the Greenways Coordinator from foundations,
grants, and private donations to be used to reduce and offset payments by the governing bodies
for this purpose, and
Be It Further Resolved that copies of this resolution will be transmitted to each of the other
three local governments, the Fifth Planning District Commission and the chair of the Roanoke
Valley Greenways Steering Committee.
FUNDING REQUEST AND ALLOCATION
FOR GREENWAYS COORDINATOR POSITION
Funding Request
Salary $27,500
Benefits 6,094
Overhead 10,219
Staff support 8,839
Direct costs 7,348
Total Budget Request: $60,000
Funding Allocation
Prorated among the Localities, Using 1995 Population Estima!es of Weldon Cooper Center for
Public Service of the University of Virginia
Jurisdiction Population Estimate % Share $ Request
Roanoke City 96,600 48% $28,800
Roanoke County 74,135 36% $21,600
Salem 24,200 12% $ 7,200
Vinton 7,665 4% $ 2,400
TOTALS 202,600 100% $60,000
Roanoke Valley
Virginia
Prepared For:
the Roanoke Valley Greenways/Open Space Steering Committee,
the Fifth Planning District Commission
the City of Roanoke, the County of Roanoke,
the City of Salem, and the Town of Vinton
Prepared By:
Greenways Incorporated
December, 1995
Contents
Document Summary ............................................................................... 1
Section 2: Top Ten Strategies for Success 1
Section 3: Benefits of Gteenways
Section 4: Goals and Objectives/Strategies
Section 5: Inventory and Analysis
Section 6: Conceptual Greenway Route Plan
Section 7: Getting the Gveenway Built
Section 8: Greenway Maintenance and Management
Section 9: Greenway Trail Design
1
2
4
4
4
5
5
Section 1: Introduction .............................................. 7
Section 2: Top Ten Strategies for Success ..................................................... 9
Section 3: Benefits of Greenways .................................................................. 13
3.1 Transportation Benefits
3.2 Economic Benefits
3.3 Health and Recreation Benefits
3.4 Cultural Benefits
3.5 Water Quality and Water Quantity Benefits
3.6 Air Quality Benefits
3.7 Plant and Animal Habitat Benefits
13
14
14
15
15
16
17
Section 4: Goals and Objectives ..................................................................... 19
4.1 Summary of Citizen input 19
4.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 21
Section 5: Inventory ........................................................................................ 25
5.1 Historical Context of The Roanoke Valley 25
5.2 Previous Support for Greenway Planning 25
5.3 Existing Trails and Bicycle Facilities in the Valley 27
5.4 Potential Greenway Corridors 29
Section 6: Conceptual Greenway Route Plan .............................................. 33
6.1 Route Planning 33
6.2 Greenway Route Descriptions 34
6.3 Routes Not Shown On Map 41
6.4 Priorities for Route Development 42
Section 7: Getting the Greenway System Built .......................................... 45
7.1 Greenway Planning and Design 45
7.2 Finding Land for Gmenway Development 47
7.3 Sources of Funding for Greenway Projects 50
Section 8: Greenway Maintenance and Mnnagement ........................... 59
8.1 Liability/Risk Management 59
8.2 Safety and Security Considerations 59
8.3 Routine Maintenance 60
Section 9: Trail Design ................................................................................... 61
9.1 Trail Tread Design 61
9.2 Trail Tread Width 62
9.3 Design of the Trail Cross Section 63
9A Bridges and Boardwalks 64
9.5 Trail Intersections 64
9.6 Trail Signage 65
9.7 Site FumishLngs 66
9.8 Typical Trail Cost Estimates 66
Appendix ........................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A: 67
Appendix 8: 72
Appendix C: 76
ROA ~O~ YALLI~Y CONC~*I~fIIA L GIF'INWAY I'I*~N (f~l~ ~ ~~~
Acknowledgements
The Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan was prepared under the direction of the
Roanoke Valley Groenways/Open Space Steering Committee, in cooperation with the
Fifth Planning District Commission, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, the Town
of Vinton, and Roanoke County, Virginia.
Inquiries should be directed to the:
Fifth Planning District Commission
PO Box 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
(540) 343-4417
Project Consultant
Greenways Incorporated
121 Edinburgh South, Suite 210
Cary, North Carolina 27511
(919) 380-0127
Assistance provided by the
West Main Design Collaborative
Members of the Roanoke Valley Greenways/Open Space
Committee
Lucy Ellett, Chair
City of Roanoke
John Marlles
City of Roanoke
Charles Blankenship
Roanoke County
Anita McMillan
Town of Vinton
Barbara Duerk
City of Roanoke
Ed Riley
City of Salem
Lee Eddy John Sell
Fifth PDC Town of Vinton
Brad Grose
Town of Vinton
Don Witt
Roanoke County
Butch Kelly
Roanoke County
Joe Yates
City of Salem
Document Summary
The regional greenways planning effort began in earnest in December 1994 when the
elected officials of the valley's four governments appointed representatives to serve on
the RoanokeValley Greenwaya/Open Space Steering Committee; the group is staffed by
the Fifth Planning District. Local governments also provided funding, on a per-capita
basis, to hire a greenways specialist to assist the steering committee with a citizen-based
greenways planning effort.
The steering committee's activities have included: visiting greenway systems in Ra-
leigh/Durham, North Carolina, and Knoxville, Tennessee; hiring Chuck Flink and his
firm, Greenways Incorporated, as the consultant for the planning effort; conducting a
series of three public workshops across the valley to obtain citizen input; working with
the consultant to develop the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Plan; and selecting, from
among several regional alternatives, the first greenway corridor for which ISTEA funds
will be sought. (For a detailed chronology of the planning process, see Appendix A.)
Section 2: Top Ten Strategies for Success
Based on its experience working in communities across the United States, Greenways
Incorporated, the consulting firm which helped the regional steering committee prepare
the conceptual plan, sets forth 10 strategies as essential to the successful development
of the Roanoke Valley greenway system. The strategies are:
I. Establish a formal framework for on-going inter-governmental cooperation.
2. Promote and ensure private-sector involvement.
3. Create a non-governmental, citizen-based greenway advocacy organization.
4. Develop a Valley-wide network of on and off-road corridors linking major facilities
and points of interest.
5. Incorporate bicycle (and, where feasible, pedestrian) accommodations when up-
grading existing roads and building new roads.
6. Develop a highly visible, multi-jurisdictional pilot project.
7. Establish an on-going, regional program to preserve or acquire the use of property
for greenways.
8. Institutionalize the greenway system by way of annual funding allocations by local
governments for greenway development and maintenance.
9. Implement a regional greenway management and maintenance program.
10. Develop an on-going information and marketing program for the regional green-
way system to ensure maximum usage and support by citizens as well as the
realization of economic benefits.
Section 3: Benefits of Greenways
Investments in greenway systems pay off, directly and indirectly, through a variety of
benefits realized by communities.
~flllal~lL[l~dl~[~: Greenways can link common destinations such as schools,
commercial and employment centers, parks and libraries. Therefore, they can pro-
vide alternative transportation routes which reduce or prevent congestion on high-
ways and streets and the associated costs of expanding or developing infrastructure
for motor vehicles.
~: In exchange for the costs of development and maintenance, green-
way systems frequently produce a diversity of economic benefits including: in-
creased tourism and recreation-related revenues; increased property values for
homes and businesses located adjacant to greenways; and avoided costs for high-
way expansion. Greunway systems also are a quality-of-life amenity considered
important by many corporations seeking to expand or relocate.
Health and recreation benefits: Greenway systems often link existing parks and play-
grounds and provide a variety of opportunities for recreation and exercise to many,
regardless of age and ability. 'l~pically, they are used by walkers, joggers and bi-
cyclists and, based on terrain and trail design, the intensity of exercise can range
from mild to strenuous. Excepting extremely rough terrain, greenway corridors
can, and should, he designed to be accessible to those with physical limitations.
(~.pltural and historic benefits: Greenways can provide opportunities for the enhance-
ment of a region's culture (they are becoming the new "Main Street" in many
communities) and the protection of its historic resources. Many of the Roanoke
Valley's historic resources, in particular those related to its early settlement, are
found along the Roanoke River and tributaries such as Tinker Creek.
Water-oualitv and ouantitv benefits. Greenways can protect water quality by preserv-
ing natural buffer areas beside streams and rivers which filter pollutants. They also
can be used in stormwater management programs to prevent or minimize flooding
and reduce prope~y damage by serving as storage areas for water during periods
of heavy rain.
Air-aualitv benefits: Greenways promote walking and bicycling and often link shop-
ping and employment districts, schools, parks and libraries. Therefore, they provide
alternatives to motor vehicle transportation which can figure significantly in con-
trolling or reducing air-polluting emissions.
Plant and animal-habitat benefits: All types of wildlife benefit from greenways, espe-
cially in urban and suburban areas, because they provide corridors for access to
food sources, water and habitat. In much the same way, greenways provide
"gene-ways" for plant life.
Section 4: Goals and Objectives/Strategies
This section describes the citizen-based planning process used to develop the concep-
tual greenway plan and contains the goals and objectives/strategies in their entirety.
The goals and objectives/strategies for the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan
ROA NOK~ VArnEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY IR'AN
PAGE 2
are based on citizen input obtained at the series of three public workshops; these state-
ments were reviewed and refined by the regional steering committee to ensure that the
plan being presented to local officials is complete and comprehensive.
The ~ states that greenways should be viewed as an alternative to
motor vehicles as a means to access shopping areas, schools, work sites, parks and
other important places in the Valley. ~ focus on integrating
greenways into the community by connecting them with mass transit sites, widen-
ing or modifying roads to accommodate bicycles and ensuring access to greenways
for those with physical challenges.
The ~ focuses on designing greenway corridors and programs to ensure the
safety of users and those living and working nearby. Supporting ~
g~ address the establishment of effective law enforcement and emergency re-
sponse programs, the prevention of problems, minimizing user conflicts and im-
proving bicycle safety.
The ~ states that the greenway system should be designed to
serve both as a recreational/fitness resource and as a means of access to parks and
other recreational opportunities. ~LZ~.~g~gl~ cite the need for a range of
fitness activities, encourage the integration of greenways into area businesses' fit-
ness programs and promote the use of fitness education to help Valley citizens
emphasize wellness.
The education goal focuses on providing the public with information about the ben-
efits and uses of greenways and the area's natural and cultural history. Objectives/
strategies address a variety of education initiatives dealing with the environment,
economic benefits, proper greenway use and conduct, historic resources and the use
of greenways as learning laboratories for school and community groups.
The economic develonment goal states that both costs and benefits should be consid-
ered as the greenway system is being developed. Objectives/strategies deal with
promoting tourism; maintaining greenways; utilizing easements, incentives, public
rights-of-way and other approaches to promote and enable greenway development;
documenting greenway benefits; and cultivating multiple sources of financial sup-
port for greenways.
The ~ identifies environmental benefits as a major focus of the green-
way system and establishes as supporting g~gLZ~d~gl~gi~: stormwater man-
agement and flood reduction; protection of stream corridors, vegetation and wild-
life habitats; and reduction of non-point-source water pollution.
The o~anization and oneration goal addresses the implementation of the regional
conceptual greenway plan and the greenway system. Obiectives/strate~ies include:
obtaining local government and citizen support; being responsive to citizen con-
corns; establishing standards for the design, operation and maintenance of the sys-
tem; ensuring the existence of an organizational structure to carry out regional
planning, implementation and operation of the greenway system; establishing a
non-profit organization to promote public support, raise funds and operate volun-
teer programs; and selecting a pilot greenway corridor project and implementing it.
Section 5: Inventory and Analysis
This section has two components. The first catalogs earlier ~ directly
or indirectly involving greenways and recreational trails. It also discusses existing trails
and bicycle facilities in the Valley. In the second component, twes of corridors are
described; these include railroad corridors and utility rights-of-way.
Section 6: Conceptual Greenway Route Plan
This section, along with Section 4 which contains goals and objectives/strategies, forms
the backbone of the conceptual greenway plan. The public-input process used to iden-
tify greenway linkages and rank corridors is described, l~talled information is pro-
vided about each of w ' set out in the conceptual plan and map
and several routes within the City of Roanoke which could not be shown on the map
due to its scale are explained.
The section concludes with a listing of the greenwav corridors recommended bv the
Roanoke Valley Greenways/O~en Snace Steering Committee as starting points for
greenway implementation. In determining which corridors to ~commend, the steering
committee considered public input and preferences, information provided by the con-
sultant, the insights they gained through greenway site visits and similar experiences
and the porspectiyes and knowledge they brought with them to the commiRee (as bi-
cyclists, teachers and hikers, for instance).
The listing of recommended greenway corridors is (in no priority order): · The Roanoke River;
· Mudlick Creek]Garst Mill;
· The Blue Ridge Parkway (on-road and off-road facilities);
· The Salem Rail Trail (Hanging Rock);
· Tinker Creek;
· Downtown Roanoke to Explore Park (via Mill Mountain);
· A connection to the Appalachian Trail (via Carvins Cove);
· Electric Road/Route 419 (on-road and off-road facilities);
· Wolf Creek;
· Stewartsville Road (Rt. 24) to the Blue Ridge Parkway; and
· Connections to existing horse trails.
Section 7: Getting the Greenway Built
Implementing a greenway system is a long-term process during which the system is
pieced together, literally, as each corridor is developed. This section proposes an imple-
mentation schedule for the Roanoke Valley's regional greenway system and explains in
detail the components and sub-parts of the implementation process.
ROA NO K~ VA LLEY CONC~I*'rUA L GR~N'WAY PLA N (~ ~ ~(~~
PACE 4
Several sub-parts comprise the first implementation comnonent, txeenwav Dlannin?
~: feasibility studies, master planning and construction documentation. Find-
ing land for t, reenwav develonment is the second component; easements, regulations
and impact fees are among the approaches used and within each of those categories
there are a variety of mechanisms. For instance, conservation easements, preservation
easements and public-access easements offer landowners a range of options and incen-
fives to provide land for greenway development.
The third imnlementation component, sources of funding for greenwav proiocts is ex-
amined in some depth. Local funds for greenway systems can be provided by way of
bond referenda, General Fund appropriations and Capital Improvement Programs, green-
way trust funds, private-soctur funds and other initiatives such as volunteer-assismnco
and small-scale donation programs which give citizens opportunities to actually buy-
in to greenway systems. Federal funding sources include the Intermodal Surface Trans-
portation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) monies which are passed through and administered
by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Symms National Recreation Trails
Fund Act, the National Scenic Byways Program, various programs charged with pro-
tecting public land and conserving natural resourcos and public works/community
development programs. Some of the more prominent grant programs funded by private
foundations are also identified.
Section 8: Greenway Maintenance and Management
A greenway maintenance and management plan is critical to the long-term success and
viability of any greenway system and should be developed early in the greenway de-
velopment process. A regional approach, to the extent it is feasible, is proposed for the
Roanoke Valley greenway system.
Techniques for addressing liability and risk management issues are discussed, as are
~ considerations and routin~.
Section 9: Greenway Trail Design
The final section of the plan provides technical information about a range of trail types,
widths and surfaces; special structures, such as bridges and boardwalks; signage; and
furnishings.
Section 1: Introduction
The Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan's study area includes the Cities of
Roanoke & Salem, the Town of Vinton, and Roanoke County. This plan delineates
proposed conceptual routes for a network of greenways throughout the four jurisdic-
tions. It also addresses necessary policies, programs,
and physical improvements needed to develop this
network of greenways throughout the Valley. This
plan addresses both off-road and on-road corridors,
and makes recommendations for a trail system that
would serve the needs of bicyclists, walkers, jog-
gers, rollerbladers, horseback riders and hikers.
This plan reflects the strong desire of local residents
to ensure greater mobility and improve the quality
of life in the region. The Roanoke Valley Concep-
tual Greenway Plan is the result of growing
grassroots support for greenway development
among local citizens. Hundreds of Roanoke Valley
residents demotmtrated their support during a series
of three public workshops conducted during July and
August of 1995. These residents, along with the
Greenways/Open Space Steering Committee,
provided detailed input that became the foundation for this Conceptual Plan. It is their
collective vision that made this plan possible, and that vision will carry its implemen-
tation into the 21st century.
Section 2: Top Ten Strategies for Success
A tremendous amount of work will be needed to achieve the greenway route network
envisioned by the Conceptual Greenway Route Map. In order to fully implement the
plan, success must occur both "on the ground" -- as indicated by miles constructed --
as well as at a programmatic level. Greenway programs such as on-going planning,
education, marketing, maintenance and advocacy are essential components of a suc-
cessful program. It is important to consider these elements during the early years of
greenway development to ensure continued public in.est and safe and secure trails.
The ten action statements below represent the most critical items that must be accom-
plished in order to successfully develop the Roanoke Valley greenway system. These
recommendations are based on successful techniques that other communities have used
to get greenway systems on the ground. Some will be easier to accomplish than others
- but all are necessary.
Establish a framework for on-going inter-governmenCal cooperation to develop
a regional greenway system through a permanent committee of
interjurisdictional local staff.
A successful greenway pwgram in the Roanoke Valley will be more likely if local
staff are able to devote time for planning and coordination. In some communities,
intergovernmental Greenway Commissions can provide not only a forum for staff
involvement, but also a planning entity that can be charged with reviewing local
greenway plans and on-going regional greenway planning.
· Promote and ensure private sector involvement from all localities by means of
organized partnerships.
As fundraising efforts begin in earnest for greenways in the Roanoke Valley, it will
be essential to identify private sector corporations and businesses that are willing
to contribute land, funds, materials, or services for greenway development. By
formally organizing public/private partnerships to develop greenways, local busi-
nesses will be assured that their contributions are recognized
· Create a non-governmental greenway advocacy organization that would in-
clude citizens from all communities.
Grass-roots support will be essential in order to keep the greenway movement going
strong in the Roanoke Valley. A Citizan's Greenway Advocacy Group can provide
local support that is critical during the early years of implementation. Local plan-
ners will need community support for ordinance revisions, local Capital Improve-
ments Program funding, and specific greenway projects. In other communities,
greenway advocacy groups have formed to promote a particular project, and then
have graduated to new projects as greenways are built.
Develop an on-road and off-road network of trails through the Valley linking
diverse land uses such as communities, parks, commercial areas, and natural
The Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Map shows a network of facilities
proposed throughout the Valley. These trails should be built to serve diverse users
such as equestrians, walkers, bicyclists, rollet~oladers, cross-country skiers, joggers
and mountain bicyclists.
Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian accomodations on newly built and improved
urban roads. Incorporate bicycle accomodations on other newly built and
improved roads.
Many oppoi~mnities exist to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities on roads that
are already planned for widening, and on new roads that are planned in the Valley.
It is far less expensive to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of the
construction process, rather than retrofitting these roads after construction is com-
plete.
Develop a highly visible multi-jurisdictional pilot project.
A successful, well-used, and popular pilot project can be used to introduce the
greenway concept to the general public in a positive way, and to garner general
public support for continued greenway development. A multi-jurisdictional pilot
project in the Valley would also help the region develop cooperative working re-
lationships, as well as provide a guide to dealing with critical management issues
for trails that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
Establish a regional program of on-going greenway land acquisition through
donations, easements combined with new sewer interceptors, and land pur-
chase where necessary.
Immediate action to preserve and acquire greenway land will be necessary in the
Roanoke Valley, due to diminishing land resources in urban and suburban areas.
Governmental agencies should be made aware of the opportunities to include green-
way easements along with new sewer interceptors and rail corridors that are an-
nounced for abandonment. Interagency assistance should be provided to ensure
these opportunities aren't missed.
Establish an annual allocation of local government funds for trail construction
and maintenance.
While federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian facilities has provided a boost to
greenway construction throughout the United States, these funds cannot be accessed
without local matching funds. (]reenway funding should be a standard part of local
fiscal budgets. In general, a diverse funding base should be pursued, in the event
that federal funding is discontinued.
ROANOK~ VALLI~Y CONCEPTUAL GR~IwAY [~n'AN (~ ~1~ ~(~~q~
PAGE 10
· Implement a multi-jurisdictional greenway maintenance and management program
to promote a safe and Glean trail system.
Maintenance and management issues should be resolved before greenways are built.
· Develop a regional marketing program for the greenway system that includes
promotional literatUre, maps, and tourist information.
As the Roanoke Valley's greenway system begins to take shape, local governments.
and community organizations should join together to market this system. Maps and
brochures can be used not only to educate local citizens, but also to increase tourism
PAGE II
Section 3: Benefits of Greenways
Greenways are not a new land use concept, having existed in the United States for more
than 100 years. Greenways ave generally regarded as systems or networks of connected
lands that ate protected, managed or developed to provide environmental protection,
alternative transportation, Hood plain management, economic revitalization, and a rec-
reation amenity. In the urban areas of the Roanoke Valley, greenways will be estab-
lisbed along the last vestiges of undeveloped land, which include abandoned railroad
corridors, streams, utility rights-of-way, and park lands.
Many greenways are implemented by local communities to control flooding, improve
water quality, protect wetlands, conserve habitat for wildlife, and buffer adjacent land
uses. Greenways typically incorporate varying types and intensity of human use, in-
cluding trails for passive recreation and alternative transportation, and Iow intensity
park facilities, such as open play fields. They have also been shown to increase the
value of adjacent private properties as an amenity to traditional forms of land develop-
ment. These and other benefits of a Roanoke Valley greenway network are described
below.
3.1 Transportation Benefits
Gmenway corridors throughout the Roanoke Valley can serve as extensions of the road
network, offering realistic and viable connections between origins and popular destina-
tions such as work, schools, libraries, parks, shopping areas, tourist attractions, and
others. Congested streets and highways are a familiar sight throughout the Roanoke
Valley, despite a program of new roadway construction and roadway improvements.
The Valley's roads are becoming more congested, and the congestion often mak~es public
roads unsafe for alternate means of transportation. Greenways offer us the option to
bicycle or walk, when few options otherwise exist.
In past years, our communities have grown in a sprawling, suburban manner fueled by
the capability of the automobile. Our nation has abandoned some traditional forms of
transportation (such as passenger train service), and has been slow to improve other
forms of mass transportation (bicycle networks, bus systems, local train service). In
order to provide relief from congested streets and highways in the Roanoke Valley, we
.should concentrate future transportation planning and development on providing a choice
in mode of travel to local residents. These mode choices should offer the same benefits
and appeal currently offered by the automobile: efficiency, safety, comfotL reliability
and flexibility.
Greenway corridors, if viewed as extensions of the roadway network, can serve as viable
commuting and travel routes throughout the Roanoke Valley. Greenway based bike-
ways and walkways are most effective for certain travel distances. National surveys by
the Federal Highway Administration have shown that Americans are willing to walk as
far as 2 miles to a destination, and bike as far as 5 miles. It is easily conceivable that
destinations can be linked to multiple origins with a combination of off-road trails and
on-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
ROANOK~ VALLEY CONCEPTIJAL GREENWA¥ PLAN
PAGE 13
C~ of Roanoke~
down~own Market
3.2 Economic Benefits
Greenways offer numerous economic benefits to the Roanoke Valley including higher
real property values, increased tourism and recreation related revenues, and cost sav-
ings for public services. Greenways have been proven to raise the value of immediately
adjacent properties by 5 to 20%. In a new development in Raleigh, North Carolina, new
lots situated on greenways were priced $5000 higher than comparable lots off the green-
way. Many home buyers and corporations are looking for real estate that provides
direct access to public and private greenway systems. In many communities, homes
situated adjacent to greenways sell for thousands of dollars more than
similarly sized and priced lots across the street. Greenways are
viewed as amenities by many residential, commercial and office park
developers who, in turn, are l~tlizing higher rental values and prof-
its. Additionally, greenways in the Roanoke Valley can also save
local taxpayers significant public money by utilizing resource based
strategies for managing community stormwater and ha7arcl mitiga-
tion, thus placing into productive use landscapes that would not nor-
mally be developable in a conventional manner.
Tourism plays an important part in the economy of the Roanoke
Valley and the development of greenways can work to enhance this
industry. Tourism is currently ranked as the number one economic
force in the world. In several states, regional areas, and localities
throughout the nation, greenways have been specifically created to
capture the tourism potential of a regional landscape or cultural des-
tination. The State of Missouri, for example, spent $6 million to
create the 200-mile KATY Trail, which, in its first full year of op-
eration, generated travel and tourism expenditures of more than $6
million. Orange County, Florida spent $2 million to create the 16-
mile West Orange Greenway, and expects to realize a complete retu~,n
on its investment in the first year of operation through the economic
revitalization of the small rural towns that lie along the trail's route.
3.3 Health and Recreation Benefits
If greenways can encourage more people to walk or bike to short distance destinations,
Valley residents will likely be more fit and healthy. The modern American life-style is
becoming increasingly fast paced. Leisure time for the average citizen has actually
decreased from the 1960's by almost 4 hours per week. We are working longer hours,
and engage in activities that are less physical. As a society, we are also spending more
of our time indoors.
In 1987, the Presi ~t's Commission on Americans Outdoors released a report that
profiled the mode~ ursuit of leisure and defined the current quality of life for many
Americans. Lim~ access to outdoor resources was cited as a growing problem
throughout the natic~tl. The Commission reconunended to President Reagan that a na-
tional system of greenways could provide all Americans with access to linear open
space resources close to where they live and work.
ROANOKE VALLIry CONCEPTUAL GEItENwAY PLA Iq
PAGE 14
The proposed greenway system for the Roanoke Val-
ley would be developed to complement the
community's existing parks and open space system.
Trail systems could be developed not only for alterna-
tive transportation, but also to serve as primary recre-
ation and fitness resources. Many older Americans
are asked by their doctors to walk at least two miles
a day to maintain a healthy life-style. Greenways can
offer safe off-road facilities for this prescriptive
therapy.
3.4 Cultural Benefits
Greenways can enhance the culture and protect many
historic resources of the Roanoke Valley. Successful greenway projects across the United
States have served as America's new "main street," where neighbors meet, children
play, and community groups gather to celebrate. For cities and towns large and small,
greenways have become a cultural asset and focal point for community activities. Some
communities sponsor "Greenway Day" to celebrate the outdoors and local traditions.
Various walking and running events are also held on greenways to support charity or
extend traditional sporting events. Many environmental groups adopt segments of green-
ways to sponsor Earth Day activities and Clean Sweep programs. Some greenways,
like San Antonio's Riverwalk, are the focal point not only for community activities, but
also for economic growth and prosperity.
~tctory Stadium
The richness and diversity of the Roanoke Valley's historic resources are represented
by numerous local National Register of Historic Places properties and historic districts.
Many of these properties are found along the Roanoke River and within some of the
stream corridors throughout the valley. Streams
played a critical role in the early settlement and
development of the Valley and greenways are a land
use tool that can be utilized to further protect and
enhance these historic resources. Greenways can
also be a vehicle to provide controlled public access
to important historic properties in a manner that
allows preservation to continue.
3.5 Water Quality and Water
Quantity Benefits
Greenways often preserve wooded open spaces
along creeks and streams which absorb flood waters
and filter pollutants from stormwater. Flooding is
a significant problem throughout the Roanoke
Valley. A problem that continues to occur in the
Valley is the encroachment of buildings and other
Historic Home in Saletn
~ ~,~ ~](~~'q~.- ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY PLAN
PAGE 15
The Roanoke River
land use development into flood prone
areas. By designating flood plains as
greenways, the encroachments can be
better managed, and can be replaced with
linear open space that serves as an ame-
nity to local residents and businesses
whose property lies adjacent to the green-
way.
implemented in the Valley, greenway lands
OCCURS.
As a flood control measure, greenway cor-
ridors serve as a primary storage zone
during periods of heavy rainfall. The pro-
retted flood plain can also be used during
non-flood periods for other activities,
including recreation and transportation.
In conjunction with existing stormwater
management policies and programs
can be established by development as it
The expense associated with the establishment of the greenway system will be offset
by the savings realized by every resident in reduced flood damage claims. Additionally,
for those residents who are required to purchase flood insurance, implementation of a
community-wide greenway system in the Roanoke Valley is likely to result in reduced
rates.
Greenway corridors also serve to improve the surface water quality of local streams,
many of which, including sections of the Roanoke River, fall below acceptable stan-
dards for recreational water contact. Currently, stormwater in the urban area is col-
lected in pipes and eventually discharged into local streams and rivers. If more
stormwater were allowed to flow overland though flood plain forests and wetlands,
more pollutants would be removed. Cleaning the surface water in streams would ben-
efit not only local residents, but also the numerous forms of wildlife that depend on
streams for their habitat.
3.6 Air Quality Benefits
Greenways as transportation conidors could serve to reduce traffic congestion and
therefore improve the air we breath. The most prevalent source of air pollution in the
Valley is automobile emissions. The highest concentrations of emissions are typically
located in and around suburban shopping centers, and highway interchanges. Offering
a viable transportation choice will encourage people to bicycle and walk more often,
especially on short trips, thereby reducing congestion and auto emissions.
The Roanoke Valley is able to meet air quality standards at present and has not been
designated as a "non-attainment" area. However, because of the area's topography,
weather inversions can trap man-made pollutants in the Valley, causing pollution con-
cems at times.
ROANOK~ VALLEY CONCEFTUAL GREF-NWAY FLAW
PAGE 16
3.7 Plant and Animal Habitat Benefits
Humans are not the only beneficiaries of greenway corridors. Many species of urban
and rural wildlife also benefit from greenways. Most of the wildlife that we are familiar
with today in our urban communities are known as "edge species." These mammals,
birds, amphibians and insects have adapted to urbanizing landscapes and are develop-
ing a harmonious relationship with urban residents.
Greenway corridors can serve as a suitable habitat for many edge species wildlife. These
corridors offer the necessary food source and, most importantly, access to water that is
required by all wildlife. Additionally, greenway corridors in the Roanoke Valley could
become the primary migratory corridor for terres-
trial wildlife, serving to keep gene pools well inte-
grated. Some wildlife biologists have extolled
greenways as future "gene-ways" and determined
that north-south migration routes are essential to
maintaining healthy wildlife populations.
Greenways can also serve as gene-ways for plant
life. Plants migrate with changes in climate and
habitat. Recently, several scientific studies have
described the demise of the eastern North American
forest; one of the culprits has been 200 years of
intensive land use that fragmented important gene-
ways. These gene-ways are often the rivers and
stream corridors that have long served as transpor-
tation routes for animals and humans. Greenways
in the Roanoke Valley can be targeted as a primary
habitat for many species of plants and animals. Pro-
grams can be established to not only protect the valuable existing forested areas of the
Valley, but also to reclaim and revegetate channelized streams in order to support better
habitat.
Tinker Creek near
Hollins College
(~ ~ ~C~-~ aOANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY P~,N
PAGE 17
Section 4: Goals and Objectives
Public interest in a greenway system for the Roanoke Valley has been growing for some
time. The concept of greenway development has been supported by many local plan-
ning projects. This plan, however, represents the first effort to address a greenway
system comprehensively. All localities within the Roanoke Valley have become coop-
eratively involved in developing a greenway system that will work to link these juris-
dictions. The development of goals, objectives and strategies to guide this cooperative
effort has been a major part of this plan's preparation.
The process of developing goals and objectives for the greenway system has allowed
citizens and the Steering Committee to examine how they want the system to function
and what they want it to provide for the community. The setting of goals and objectives
involved three steps.
At the first community workshop, citizens divided into small groups and "brainstormed"
sets of goals and objectives. These were compiled and displayed on the wall. Citizens
then voted for the goals and objectives considered to be the most important. After the
meeting, the consultant further compiled the citizen responses (avoiding duplication,
clarifying wording, etc.). They provided the results at the remaining community meet-
ings and in the first draft of the plan. This draft was presented to the Steering Com-
mittee which closely examined citizen input and further refined goals and objectives.
4.1 Summary of Citizen Input
The citizens attendir~g the first community meeting were divided into groups and asked
to "brainstorm" goals and objectives for each of six topics - transportation, safety,
recreation/fitness, education, economics, and environment. After compilation of the
small group results, the large group refined a set of goals and objectives. At subsequent
workshops, a summary of these results was distributed and further citizen input was
collected and incorporated. That is also reflected in the following to the extent possible.
The community workshops were held on July 14, 1995 in Roanoke City, August 17,
1995 in Vinton, and August 30, 1995 in Salem. They utilized an interactive group
process. Although input collected from citizens cannot represent an exhaustive listing
of all potential greenway planning factors and concerns, it provides many examples of
the types of things that Roanoke Valley residents consider important. For example,
citizens noted the importance of including a variety of users on the greenways. They
mentioned bicyclists, walkers, joggers, parents with baby carriages, rollerbladers, and
horseback riders. They wanted the physically challenged to have access to at least part
of the system also, although they noted that some trails would be oftbe "rougher" type
that could not accommodate wheelchairs. They wanted greenway surfaces to vary -
being paved in some places and unpaved elsewhere.
Citizens stated that it may be difficult to decide exactly how each trail should be used.
They wondered if horses would get along with bicyclists, noting that some trails (like
the New River State Park Trail) allow horses and bicyclists on the same path. In other
~ ~/1~ ~~~ ROANOK~ VAIA~Y CONCF, PTUAL OREENWAY PLA N
PAGE 19
localities, tbe.~ uses are separated. Similar questions arose on whether or not mllerblades
would interfere with walkers. Ideas were offered on how all types of users could or
should be accommodated on the greenway system.
They stressed that greenways should be used both as recreational destinations and as
ways to get to other recreation areas (both proposed and existing) in the community.
They also listed the types of places that should be linked together by greenways - schools,
libraries, parks, shopping areas, and work sites. They wanted people to be able to use
greenways as alternatives to motor vehicle traffic. They wanted people to be able to
use greenways to get to Valley Metro's Campbell Court (main bus station) and to bus
stops.
Citizens felt that both on-road and off-road trails are needed. For the on-road network,
they wanted existing roads to be modified to allow for bicyclists and pedestrians. Many
wanted new road construction to consider the needs of these users. They wanted the
greenway network to stretch throughout the Roanoke Valley, into the downtown sec-
tions, through the suburbs, and into the rural areas. For example, people noted the
desire to hike from the Blue Ridge Parkway to the downtown farmers markets in Salem,
Roanoke, and Vintou.
Many citizen were aware of the economic benefits of greenways. Greenways could
become new tourist attractions for the Valley, as well as connect the Valley's tourist
attractions. Many people urged greenway linkages with the Appalachian Trail, Blue
Ridge Parkway, and Explore Park.
Citizens described health benefits of greenways, both in the way increased open space
contributes to improved air quality, and in the use of greenways for exercise and rec-
reation. Many voiced an opinion that new businesses would come to the Roanoke Valley
because of the increased quality of life that greenways can bring. These new businesses
would become partners in the greenways program, using it with their corporate wellness
programs.
Citizens wanted greenways to be safe for both users and nearby residents. They sug-
gested that police patrol greenways by horseback or bicycle. They noted that planners
would need to make decisions about signs, lighting, hours of operation, and other se-
curity concerns. This will be especially needed for sections of greenways that pass
through residential neighborhoods.
They stressed the need for greenway planners to work closely with property owners
during the design phase to ensure that adjacent property owners' concerns are consid-
ered.
Citizens wanted to make sure that the environment is not degraded in any way by the
development of greenways. They stressed the point that trails along the Roanoke River
should result in less, rather than more, runoff and pollutants in the water. They noted
the need for strict guidelines for environmentally sensitive trail development. Many
suggested taking advantage of the opportunity to make new greenway trails whenever
{ ROANOK~ VALLEY CeNCF. iq'UALGEE, EI~IWAY PLANPAGE ~0 C~ ~1[ ~~4~w~
the ground is restabilized after routine replacements of sewer or other utility lines. Tinker
Creek and the Garst Mill areas were given as examples of such opportunities.
Many citizens proposed that greenways be used as outdoor learning laboratories for
school students. Adults also could use greenways for various learning experiences.
Along the greenways, displays can provide specific cultural and historical information.
Citizens noted that greenways would provide ideal opportunities for teaching bicycle
safety.
4.2 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
This section of the plan combines input of citizens, the consultant (Greenways Incor-
porated), and members of Roanoke Valley Greenways/Open Space Steering Commit-
tee. Steering Committee members attended citizen workshops in order to hear citizens'
concerns in person. The Committee then reviewed the consultant's analysis of the citizen
input as compiled in the first draft of the plan. Steering Committee members provided
comments on the draft goals and objectives, which were then sent to a Technical Sub-
Committee comprised of local staff planners and a Steering Committee representative.
That sub-committee further refined the draft and returned it to the Steering Committee
for final comment. The Technical Sub-Committee also drafted Organizational and
Operational goals for review by the Steering Committee. Because some of the objec-
tives that came out of the planning process also could be described as strategies, they
are called Objectives/Strategies in the following statements.
The following is a listing of goals, objectives, and strategies for greenway planning in
the Roanoke Valley over the next decade. It is not in priority order.
4.21 Transportation Goal
Provide corridors that bicyclists, pedestrians, and others can use to get from one place
to another as an alternative to motor vehicle use.
Objectives/Strategies:
Provide greenways that connect schools, libraries, shopping centers, work sites,
parks and other places in the community.
Provide connections between mass transit sites and make arrangements for safe
storage of greenway system users' bicycles (or other belongings) while they are
using the transit system.
Identify and make plans for existing roads that should be widened or otherwise
modified to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians.
Initiate Valley-wide design and installation standards to incorporate bicycle and
pedestrian facilities on new roads and road improvement plans.
Initiate design standards that are sensitive to the disabled in order to ensure oppor-
tunities for a variety of users.
4.22 Safety Goal
Design a greenway system that maximizes the safety of greenway system users and
nearby property owners and neighborhoodsObjectives/Strategies:
ROANOK~ VALI,k'~' CONCEPTUAL GREENWA¥ PLA N
PAGE 21
· Establish integrated law enforcement and emergency response programs that ser-
vice the needs of greenway system users and landowners.
· Incorporate into the greenway management system appropriate safety and security
strategies.
· Design the greenway system to accommodate different activities (such as horse-
back riding and bicycling) with a minimum of user-conflict.
· Improve bicycle safety by implementing safety education programs in local schools
and the community.
4.23 Recreational/Fitness Goals
Design the greenway ~vstem as both a recreational resource and as public access to
other recreational reso :cs, offering a full spectrum of recreation and exercise oppor-
tunities.
Objectives/Strategies: · Provide a greenway system that accommodates a variety of recreational activities.
· Encourage businesses to establish and integrate use of greenways into corporate
health and wellness programs.
· Promote programs and facilities that provide opportunities for individual health
related activities.
· Make each greenway a stand-alone destination (as well as a link to other resources)
by providing amenities such as benches, picnic areas, and workout stations.
· Provide access to the Valley's existing and proposed recreation areas, such as local
parks, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Appalachian Trail.
· Inform the public on how using the greenways can help citizens increase personal
fitness and maintain healthy lifestyles.
4.24 Education Goal
Educate the public about the need for and benefits of greenways, and educate the green-
way system user about the area's natural and cultural history.
Objectives/Strategies:
· Educate the community on the importance of environmental conservation and res-
toration ecology.
· Develop a program of continuing education for elected officials, agency staff,
developers, and engineers to define the latest technologies, design methodologies,
and land use practices for managing the environment.
Increase public awareness of the importance of the Roanoke River and its water-
shed lands to the future of the Roanoke Valley.
· Educate the public on the benefits and uses of greenways. Develop an out-reach
education program to attract new users.
· Educate property owners of the economic advantages of having a greenway on or
near their property.
· Educate greenway system users on proper greenway system etiquette that respects
the rights of adjacent property owners and other greenway system users.
· Use the greenway system as an outdoor Environmental Learning Lab for school
and community use.
· Provide historic information using trail markers along historically significant trail
corridors.
· Provide maps and literature on trail length, difficulty, restrictions, and amenities.
4.25 Economic Development Goal
Address both the appropriate costs of implementing the greenway system (including
land acquisition and capital improvements) and the benefits that will result from its
creation.
Objectives/Strategies:
· Utilize the grecnway system as an economic development marketing tool for the
Roanoke Valley.
Use greenway linkages to complement and enhance tourist attractions.
· Document economic benefits of greenways, such as increasing the value of land
that lies contiguous to a greenway and the benefits to a new business locating in the
Roanoke Valley.
· Establish a mechanism to ensure continuing maintenance of the greenways, such
as using volunteers to keep maintenance costs low and sta~ing an Adopt-A-Green-
way program.
· Utilize tax incentives, easements and other approaches to encourage individuals
and businesses to donate land, funding, or materials.
· Establish procedures for subdivision developers to provide donations of land or
rights-of-way for greenway systems.
· Utilize existing rights-of-way, utility corridors, and other features to lower instal-
lation costs.
Explore and obtain mutiple sources of funding for the greenways.
4.26 Environmental Goal
Design a plan that preserves, promotes and enhances the Valley's environmental assets.
Objectives/Strategies:
Encourage localities to include greenways as a flood reduction strategy in the
Roanoke ReGional Stormwater Management Plall.
· Develop a valley-wide strategy for protecting natural stream corridors and other
open space, plus a mitigation program for addressing resources that have been ad-
versely altered by land development.
· Promote greenways as an alternative transportation mode that can help reduce air
pollution.
· Utilize areas adjacent to greenways as natural areas that protect, maintain, or restore
natural vegetation and aquatic and wildlife habitats.
· Design greenways to reduce non-point source pollution in stormwater runoff.
· Utilize greenways as buffer zones between developed areas and open spaces.
4.27 Organizational and Operational Goals
Implement the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan on a regional level and
proceed with future greenway system planning and implementation.
Objectives/Strategies: · Obtain local government and citizen support for the Roanoke Valley Conceptual
Oreenway Plan.
· Respond to citizen concerns such as safety issues and user conflicts in the estab-
lishment and operation of the greenway system.
· Establish standards for the design, operation, and maintenance of the grcenway
system.
· Ensure that an organizational structure exists for regional planning, implementa-
tion, and operation of gr~nways in the Roanoke Valley.
· Establish a non-profit organization to launch a public awareness campaign, volun-
teer programs and fundmising efforts.
· Select a pilot greenway project and implement it.
· Pursue implementation of other elements of the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Green-
way Plan.
VALLEY CONCEIq'IJA L GRF, ENWAY Iq,AN (~ ~ ~~
Section 5: Inventory
As is common for growing urban areas throughout the country, the Roanoke Valley is
experiencing the problems that often accompany this growth: increased traf~c conges-
tion, diminishing air quality, and flooding in urbanized stream and river corridors.
Poorly designed urban roadways and traffic congestion have made it difficult for local
residents and visitors to bicycle and walk for fitness, recreation or transportation. On
the main roadways that traverse the Roanoke Valley metropolitan area, bicyclists and
pedestrians face a transpomafion system that is oriented almost completely to motor
vehicle travel. There are many places where neighborhoods are not connected to nearby
destinations with sidewalks. Residents are isolated in these neighborhoods. Many
schools are also isolated because they are surrounded by high-speed 4-lane roadways,
which have minimal provisions for pedestrian crossings, and no travel lanes for bi-
cycles.
5.1: Historical Context of The Roanoke Valley
The Roanoke Valley is known and loved for its rich history. Residents and visitors
enjoy the cultural richness of the region on vacations as well as in everyday life. The
region's natural resources and man-made historic features are important components of
the Valley and should be protected and preserved whenever possible. During future
design of Roanoke Valley trails, it will he important to identify and enhance these
historical resources.
5.2: Previous Support for Greenway Planning
Greenways are not a new concept for the Roanoke Valley. John Nolen in his Roanoke
City Plans of 1907 and 1928 originated the idea. He called attention to the aesthetic
and recreational possibilities along Tinker Creek and sounded an early call for its pres-
ervation and incorporation into an open space plan for the city. Greenway development
has been supported by other planning efforts in the Valley for quite some time. This
Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, however, represents the first comprehen-
sive approach to greenway planning in the Valley. Support for this effort has been
provided by several previous planning reports, which are outlined in thc following
section. These descriptions are brief; should any additional information he needed from
these documents, they can he located in the reference library at the Fifth Planning District
Commission.
DRAFT Virginia Outdoors Plan
The draft version of the Virginia Outdoors Plan of 1994 by thc VA Department of
Conservation and Recreation supports the dcveinpmcnt of greenways throughout the
Commonwealth. This plan is currently being prepared by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation. It describes the benefits greenways provide, including
economic, environmental, transportation, fitness and others. This plan outlines meth-
ods of organizing and planning greenway systems, and raising funds to build the trail
systems.
ROANOK~E YALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREF.4~WAY PLA N
PAGE 25
The Virginia Outdoors P/an proposes several specific trail projects in the Roanoke
Valley. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail is identified as being in need of im-
pwvement or protection in several locations. The plan also proposes a loop trail (called
the "Roanoke Area Trail") which would link the Appalachian Trail to the urban area.
A greenway system linking the Roanoke and Salem metro area is supported by this
plan, although the plan does not identify potential routes.
Plan for open space and
greenways from the City of
Roanolce '$ Comprehensive
Vision plan
Roanoke Valley Bikeway Plan
The Roanoke Valley Bikeway P/an was prepared in 1991 by the Fifth Planning District
Commission. This plan was written to assess the existing conditions for bicycling in
the Roanoke Valley as well as to make plans to improve these conditions in the fiature.
It makes recommendations for future roadway improvements to both new and realigned
bike routes. The Bikeway Plan incorporates the con-
cept of greenways as one element in a network of
bicycle facilities throughout the Valley. The plan
supports greenway development because of environ-
mental factors such as flood water control, and rec-
'~.~%.~- ognizes the economic advantages of greenways and
].'~ .~ rail-trails.
-.?
/
Roanoke Vision
Roanoke Vision is the comprehensive plan for the
City of Roanoke, spanning the years between 1985
and 2005. This plan recommends greenway devel-
opment in the chapter devoted to parks planning.
The plan supports the development of a greenway
along the Roanoke River, and encourages connec-
tions to existing trails and parks. Included on the
strategy map ~ potential greenway routes.
Tinker Creek Conservation/Development Plan
The 7~nker Creek Conservation/Development Plan,
prepared in June 1992, is a comprehensive study on
the histot~ and future of Tinker Creek. The study
outlines all past research as well as actions plans that have been developed for this
region. It cites the various historical features of the stream corridor, such as Masons
Mill and Billy's Cabin, and stresses the importance of preserving them. It also outlines
many important topics, including the environmental, ecological, and recreational fea-
tures of the creek. The plan specifically encourages the development of a recreational
greenway trail that would also function to control stormwater runoff and preserve for-
ested areas.
ROANOlU~ VALLIr Y CONe~XprlJAL GIt E~/~WAY PI'AN 4~ ~ ~~~
PAGE ~
Reconnaissance Survey of the Roanoke River Parkway Corridor
The Reconnaissance Survey of the Roanoke River Parkway Corridor was prepared for
the River Foundation by the National Parks Service. The purpose of this study was to
evaluate the conditions and resources of the Roanoke River and its surroundings. The
study's recommendations included the development of a greenway along the Roanoke
River and led to the development of the Roanoke River Greenway Master Plan, de-
scribed below.
The Roanoke River Greenway Master Plan
The Roanoke River Greenway Master P/an was prepared in 1988 for the River Foun-
dation by Jones & Jones, and was the result of th~ assessments and suggestion included
in the Reconnaissance Survey of the Roanoke River Parkway Corridor. This plan gives
a deta~.'~ed account of the existing conditions of the Roanoke River Corridor. In this plan
the river corridor is broken down into sections which are then examined on an indi-
vidual basis. Each section outlines a different set of objectives tailored to that portion
of the fiver.
The Roanoke River Greenway Master Plan outlines many options for the development
of a grecnway along the river. These options range from a parkway system which
would allow vehicular traffic along the river corridor to a pathway system that would
prohibit motor vehicle traffic.
Roanoke River Corridor Plan
The Roanoke River Corridor Plan was prepared in 1990 by Lardner/Klein Landscape
Architects. This study is composed of two parts, the first of which dealt with flood
reduction measures in the Roanoke River Valley, while the second part proposed a trail
system within that corridor. The plan includes strategies to be implemented in the com-
munity that would enhance the environment, aesthetics of the region, and the local
economy.
5.3: Existing Trails and Bicycle Facilities in the Valley
The Roanoke Valley includes many hiking and equestrian trails, as well as several paved
asphalt trails within local parks. The hiking trails are located primarily in the hills that
surround the Valley, and therefore they command outstanding views of the metro area.
The following is a brief overview of the locations of several popular hiking trails in the
region:
The Appalachian Trail
A section of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail passes through the northern portion
of the County, and has three different road way access points in that area. One can be
found on Hwy 311 just east of Catawba Mt., and provides adequate parking. Two more
access points exist on Hwy. 785 and Hwy. 624, but the only parking provided is room
to pull off the road. Through-hikers on the Appalachian Trail are unlikely to journey
into town on foot, since all three highways carry fast traffic and have no place for safe
walking.
ROANOKE YALL~'Y CONCEPTUAL G REENWAY PLAN
PAGE 27
Trail Head near the
Niagara Dam
Blue Ridge Parkway
Several loop-style hiking and horse trails are located
along the Blue Ridge Parkway as it passes through
Roanoke County. Some of these trails originate at
scenic overlook parking areas, such as the network of
trails that extends from the Parkway down to the
Roanoke River near the bridge at Niagara Dam. The
Chesmut Ridge overlook also connects to a series of
hiking and equestrian loop trails.
Aecoss to the trails located along the Parkway is
primarily by automobile. The majority of people who
use ~ trails park their automobiles or bicycles at
the overlook parking lots, and take day-hikes along the
trails. Bicycle access on the Parkway is generally limited to the bravest of cyclists,
since there are no paved shoulders, many hills, and numerous curves with limited sight
distance. There is no bicycle parking at overlooks.
Equestrian Trails
There has been extensive support and interest in incorporating an equesWian trail sys-
tem with this greenway system. Members of the C,-reen Hill Equestrian Center, which
is located in the westero portion of Roanoke County, have expressed their desire to
somehow link the Center with the Carvins Cove area horse trails. This is described
further in the next section of this document.
Hanging Rock Trail dtu~ng
construction
On-Road Bicycle Routes
There are two bicycle routes in the study area. One extends through the City of Salem
and is 11.2 miles long. The other, a shorter route in Roanoke, is a loop that is approxi-
mately three miles long. There are no special improvements along these roads to ac-
commodate cyclists - i.e. no paved shoulders or wider ~ravel lanes. The bicycle route
signage is minimal, and does not include information such as nearby destination points
and mileage. These bicycle routes are primarily for recreational riding, since they do
not connect to likely destination points for commuters.
Multi-Use Trails and Greenways
The Roanoke Valley's fa'st rail-trail is currently under construction
in Salem. This trail extends along Kessler Mill Road from Hang-
ing Rock to Branch Street in Salem (approximately 2 miles in
length). This trail will likely serve both recreational and transpor-
tation use, as it connects to several neighborhoods. The trail was
funded through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991, Transportation Enhancements Program of the Surface
Transportation Program. Another trail is planned along a sewer
easement near Garst Mill Park in Roanoke. This recreational trail
was planned after sewer system improvements were installed.
Except for these two trails in the planning and construction phases,
ROANOKE YALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREF~NWAY PLAN
PAGE
there are no other paved greenway trails known to exist in the urban area of the Valley,
except for several loop trails within local parks.
5.4: Potential Greenway Corridors
There are numerous corridors of land within the Roanoke Valley that offer the potential
to serve as trail corridors. These linear corridors will require much future research to
determine their viability for trail uses. The predominant corridor types include aban-
doned railroad corridors, power line easements, roadway rights-of-way, abandoned
roadway corridors and river and stream corridors.
In addition, there are many publicly and privately owned open space lands within the
urban area that could be used for greenway development. As specific route planning
occurs, it will be important to consider these public and private lands for greenway
linkages.
Railroad Corridors
The Roanoke Valley has an active past in the railroad industry, and is still criss-cmssed
by many active rail lines. Norfolk Southern Railroad lines stretch across the Valley
linking Roanoke County, Salem, Roanoke, and Vinton. It is likely that some rail lines
in the Valley will be abandoned in the future. Be-
cause these corridors are often the last remaining
traffic-free linear corridors in urban areas,
abandoned rail lines present exciting opportunities
for multi-use trails.
It has become a national goal to protect these vital
corridors from loss by using a provision and pro-
cedure administered by the Interstate Commerce
Commission to "railbank" these vital corridors. A
legitimate and congressionally supported interim
use for milbanldng is the development of recre-
ational trails.
Former rail corridors, the rail bed and bridges
associated within these corridors are well suited to
trail development. The grades are normally flat to slightly sloped, and the bridges,
trestles and other support structures that lie within the corridor were developed to support
heavy and frequent rail-car use. It should be noted that existing railroad corridors also
make ideal trail settings because impact to native vegetation and soil has already taken
place, and cross drainage of storm waters has also been successfully resolved.
Railroad Corridor
Some of the problems typically encountered with rail corridors include: title issues
related to the possible use of the corridor (some titles may include rail use only); op-
position from landowners to conversion to trail use; presence of toxic chemicals in the
ballast, soil and surrounding vegetation; missing bridges, ballast and other facilities -
removed as part of the rail operators salvage of the abandoned corridor. Each project
ROANOKE VALL~;Y CONCEWruA L GREENWAY PLA N
PAGE 29
must be evaluated on an individual basis to determine its feasibility as a viable rail-trail
conversion.
Monitoring railroad activity in the Roanoke Valley will be vitally important in the future.
Low freight lines need to be identified and watched so that action may be taken quickly
should they become abandoned. Virginia's State Rail Plan is a source of information
on abandoned rail lines and low-use freight lines. Currently, according to the State Rail
Plan, there are no lines considered abandoned or low freight in the Roanoke Valley area.
However, the status of local lines could change in the future, depending on freight
demand, and short-line railroads could also become abandoned with only a brief public
notice to indicate their intent. Therefore, all railroad lines in the Valley should be pe-
riodically monitored to determine their current status.
Powerline Corridor
Utility Easements/Rights-of-Way
Utility easements in the Roanoke Valley include powerlines, which usually follow
straight paths, and sewer and waterline easements, which are usually found along streams
and rivers. In many cities across the country, utility easements and rights-of-way serve
a dual use as trail corridors. In utility corridors where the land is owned by the utility
company (termed a "right-of-way"), an agreement must be sought with that utility com-
pany. If the utility corridor exists as an easement, the land is owned by individual
property owners who must each be contacted for permission to develop a greenway.
Greenways are more difficult to establish in utility easements, particularly where these
easements extend through residential areas, due to
property owners' concerns about loss of privacy and
crime. This method of greenway development in resi-
dential areas is often far easier to implement in later
years of greenway development when greenways have
already been established and are widely popular among
residents.
Corridors of this type require careful coordination with
utility companies and adjacent land owners.
Landowner and utility company liability and risk
management should also be thoroughly resolved before
this type of corridor is accepted for trail development.
Additionally, the issue of electromagnetic fields and
their effects on trail users should be considered for each
corridor of this type. An excellent reference publica-
tion on this subject is "Trails on Electric Utility Lands:
A Model of Public-Private Parmershin," which was
produced jointly by American Trails and the Edison Electric Institute. A copy of this
publication is available from American Trails (see appendix for address).
Road Rights-of-Way
In urban areas, greenway systems inevitably connect to the existing street system. In
many cases, local streets are the only linear corridors available for bicycle and pedes-
trian use. Therefore, the most successful greenway systems across the country combine
off-read trails with an extensive on-road system of bicycle facilities and sidewalks.
This typo of network best suits the needs of people who bicycle and walk for transpor-
tation reasons, since all major destination points connect directly to the street system.
Some advantages of this approach include availability of publicly owned land, presence
of graded shoulder, ease of access and use, eSl~Cially by cyclists, and familiarity with
the street system. Disadvantages include proximity to automobile traffic, lack of pe-
destrian scale, and high volume intersections. The use of public roadways for trails
must be coordinated with the appropriate local and state departments of transportation.
River and Stream Corridors
Early settlers chose to live in the Valley for reasons such as its proximity to streams and
rivers. Perennial and intermittent streams flow through numerous subdivisions and
neighborhoods on their way to the Roanoke River. There are several major tributaries
of the Roanoke River within the study area, including Mason Creek, Tinker Creek, and
Back Creek. Mason Creek flows south along Highway 311 in Roanoke County and
through the City of Salem to the Roanoke River. T'mker Creek also flows south towards
the Roanoke River from the Hollins area through Roanoke, just west of the Vinton town
limits. Back Creek parallels Route 221 and runs east towards the river in the southern
part of Roanoke County. Along with these major tributaries, numerous streams, such
as Murray Run, Peters Creek, and Glade Creek all have potential as possible greenway
corridors.
Every natural water feature and flood plain in the urban
area has exporienced urban encroachment to some extent.
The increasing amounts of impervious surfaces within these
flood plains are taxing both the health and basic function
of these stream and river comdors, resulting in poor water ':~
quality and flooding during peak storms.
Comparatively spoaking, the larger stream corridors are less
urbanized than the smaller ones such as Murray Run. There
are several stretches of Tinker Creek, for example, that are
presently undeveloped and that should he preserved with
greenways. The threat of flooding has been somewhat of
a deterrent to development in several of the,~ corridors,
except for those who could afford to channelize the stream
(which has occurred in several areas). It will he critical in
the future to preserve these corridors with greenways, not
only to provide trail resources, but to also protect flood
plains from further degradation. Many communities are
also working to restore channelized streams to their original meandering and forested
condition, so that they can again serve the function of filtering and slowing stormwater.
The Roanoke River near
Downlown Roanoke
"Paper" Streets
Some roadways have been abandoned from future use, or may have never been built
by the municipalities. These rights-of-way are often called "paper streets". While papor
streets hold potential as publicly-owned, linear spaces, they are often short and discon-
tinuous. In some cases, plans for building these streets may have been abandoned be-
C~ ~ ~C~~ aOANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY PLAN
PACE 31
cause of environmental limitations that might also affect trail development. These
corridors should not be ruled out as potential trail connections, particularly for short
segments of a larger system of off-road trails. The use of dedicated, but unopened,
streets must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as the public may have only limited
rights for certain purposes.
ROA NO ~ VAI'J'gY CONC~'*n~TUAL GRF'INWAY Iwn'AN ~~~
Section 6: Conceptual Greenway Route Plan
A main objective of this plan is to produce a conceptual greenway route plan for dis-
cussion, study and implementation throughout the Roanoke Valley and as the basis for
further action by governing bodies. Several preparatory steps have taken place so that
this can happen. The following section explains the
process of identifying potential routes.
6.1 Route Planning
Route planning decisions made as part of this study
were primarily a function of public input combined with
input from the Greenways/Open Space Steering Corn-
mince and direction from the consultant. Excellent
turnout at public workshops enabled project planners
to identify specific corridors in high demand for im-
provements. Over 140 citizens attended the first public
workshop, held on July 24, 1995. Following keynote
presentation on greenways throughout the U.S., partici-
pants broke into five groups to "brainstorm" on poten-
tial goals and objectives for the greenway system, as
well as the destinations their ilteal greenway system
would link. All participants were given the opportunity to share their suggestions during
the break-out session. By this process, a set of goals was established. The goals were
divided into six categories and are discussed in detail in the Goals and Obiectives sec-
tion found earlier in this report.
Public Workshop
The linkages recorded during the break-out
session of the first workshop formed the basis
of the route plan. Additional routes were
added following the second and third public
workshops based on participants' input. Po-
tential greenway routes were established by
directly applying the desired linkages to the
existing features map. Where potentially vi-
able off-road corridors were known to exist,
a route was included on the plan. Where no
known viable off-road corridor existed, on-
road corridors were identified.
The Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway
Plan recommends many on-road bicycle and
pedestrian facilities throughout the metro-
politan area. In general, this system of on-
road bicycle and pedestrian facilities is de-
signed to capitalize on already-planned road
improvement projects. These are termed
Local Citizens vote on their
prior,ties for the Roanoke Valley
Greenway Systetn
"incidental" improvements, and are far less expensive than "independent" improvements
that are not combined with a regular roadway widening project.
Roadways scheduled for widening in the 20-Year Tcansportation Improvement Pre-
gram were evaluated for potential bicycle and pedestrian demand - as gauged by the
linkages requested by local citizens who participated in Workshop #1. Where these
streets satisfied public demand, they were identified on the Conceptual Greenway Route
Map.
6.2 Greenway Route Descriptions
Listed below are the numbered ~outes identified on the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Route Plan. This listing has bee ompiled in order to suggest potential routes for use
by local communities and the s~ mg committee in futura trail development. These
routes rangu in type and length, c ~nding on their location, which include both on-road
and off-read corridors. When reading these descriptions, it is important to remember
the following:
1) This is a conceptual plan, and fu~her detailed design and feasibility studies are
needed for each route.
2) Through further study, some may be deemed feasible, while others will be elimi-
nated- from consideration due to factors that are unknown at this time.
3) Other routes may be added as opportunities arise.
4) The Roanoke River (route 32) is the "spine" of the system.
It will be important to update and modify this plan often as the design process becomes
more detailed. Included in these descriptions is an explanation of historical resources.
Route 1: Highway 785/Blacksburg Road
This stretch of highway in the northern portion of Roanoke County runs east/west and
has been designated a bicentennial bikeway. It traverses the Catawba Valley. Named
for early Native American inhabitants, this valley qualifies for the National Register
designation of "Rural Historic District" due to the retention of cultural resources, some
of which date back to the 1760's. in this region is an outstanding collection of 19th
century architecture including farms, schools, churches and agricultural buildings.
Route 2: Highway 622/Bradshaw Road
This route, running almost parallel to and south of Hwy 785, is another popular on-road
link to Blacksburg and Virginia Tech.
Route 3: The Appalachian 'grail
This existing popular hiking trail runs from Craig County east through northern Roanoke
County into Botetourt County. The Appalachian Trail was designed in 1937, and has
long been considered the premiere multi-state scenic hiking trail, stretching from Georgia
to Maine.
ROA NO K~ VALLEY eONC[iNIJA L Gii EE/4WAY irl. A N
PAGE
Route 4: Mason Creek
Mason Creek runs south from the northern part of Roanoke County to the Roanoke
River. The stream, which parallels Hwy 311 for much of its distance, would make an
excellent off-ruad route linking Roanoke and Salem with the Appalachian Trail and the
northern on-road routes. Near the intersection of Routes 311 and 419 is the site of the
Battle of Hanging Rock, fought on June 21, 1864. Mason Creek also played a rule in
the settlement of the Valley. One of the earliest families in the region, the Garsts, built
Kessler Mill here. The mill went out of business in the 1920's.
Route S: Timberview Road
Timborview Road links Mason Creek and Carvins Cove. It runs east/west just north
of I-$1.
Route 6: Wood Haven Road
This on-road route is in the northern portion of the County of Roanoke. It serves as a
linkage from schools and suburban neighborhoods to both Mason Creek and Peters
Creek Road. Kingstown Community was once located in this area. This community
was established in the 1870's by freed slaves. A number of 19th century buildings and
descendants of the original inhabitants still remain in this area.
Route 7: Horse Pen Branch
This off-road route links with Timberview Road to complete the east/west corridor to
Carvins Cove. This links neighborhoods along Mason Creek in northern Salem and
Roanoke County with the outlying area of Carvins Cove.
Route 8: Link to Appalachian Trail
This route in the northeastern portion of Roanoke County serves the need for a future
linkage that could connect to the Appalachian Trail in Botetourt County.
Route 9: Carvin Creek
Carvin Creek runs south from Carvins Cove toward Roanoke City. It would provide
an ideal off-ruad linkage for neighborhoods and schools in the Hollins area.
Route 10: Paint Bank Branch
This small tributary of the Roanoke River runs north to south through the western portion
of Salem. This route would link neighborhoods in this area to Main Street and the
proposed Roanoke River Greenway.
Route 11: Horner's Branch
This tributary of the Roanoke River could serve as an off-road route for suburban
Salem neighborhoods linking to the Roanoke River Greenway.
Route 12: Roanoke River Tributary
The headwaters of this unnamed stream begin in the Havens Wildlife Management Area.
This stream mas through downtown Salem and could serve as an off-road corridor to
link Salem neighborhoods with both the wildlife area and the Roanoke River Green-
way.
Route 13: Red Lane
Red Lane could serve as an on-road corridor linking Salem neighborhoods with Ha-
vens Wildlife Management Area, north of Salem.
Route 14: Gish Branch
Gish Branch feeds into Mason Creek which eventually connects to the Roanoke River.
This stream could link neighborhoods in the northern area of Salem with the Hanging
Rock Trail (see Salem Rail Trail, Route 15).
Route 15: Salem Rail Trail
The Salem Rail Trail is the Roanoke Valley's first rail-to-trail conversion. This former
rail corridor runs north/south along Kessler Mill Road in Salem. It will link Hanging
Rock to Salem with an off-road trail that ends near Branch Street. There are several
neighborhoods nearby that will have access to the trail. The route ends near the site of
the Battle of Hanging Rock, fought in 1864. Also located near this route (on Mason
Creek) is the former site of Kessler's Mill. At one time, this was one of the area's largest
operating mills.
Route 16: Peters Creek Road/Green Ridge Road
This on-road corridor would link the northern part of the City of Roanoke with other
corridors that extend directly into downtown Salem and Roanoke. It would connect
schools and neighborhoods, such as Glen Cove Elementary and Meadow Wood Estates,
with other important transportation routes.
Route 17: Hershberger Road
Hershberger Road is an important east/west transportation route through the northern
part of the City of Roanoke. Parts of this busy road ate slated for improvement in the
20 Year Transportation Improvement plan(TIP). This creates an opportunity to imple-
ment provisions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Route 18: Plantation Road
This on-road corridor would mn north/south through the northern portions of Roanoke
City and County. It would link neighborhoods and schools in the Hollins area with
downtown Roanoke. Tombstone Cemetery is located along this corridor. This cem-
etery contains the Denton Monument, "Old Tombstone", which is listed on the National
Register.
Route 19: Hollins Road
Hollins Road parallels Plantation Road on the east. It would provide another linkage
between neighborhoods in this area, such as Meadewood and Bryant Heights. This
road served as a pioneer road in the 18th century.
PAGE ~6
Route 20: M~in Street, Salem
This east/west on-road route mns directly through downtown Salem linking many
important destinations. Shopping centers, schools and neighborhoods would be acces-
sible from this route. Downtown Salem is rich with both commercial and residential
historic architecture.
Route 21: Lick Run
Lick Run is a small stream that would provide an off-road corridor linking neighbor-
hoods, such as Fairland, with parks and schools, such as Washington Park and Lincoln
Terrace Elementary School.
Route 22: 10th Street
This corridor would provide an important on-road mute into downtown Roanoke from
the north. This portion of 10th Street is already slated for some improvements in the
20 Year Tlr' and should include provisions for pedesuian and bicycle traffic.
Route 23: Williamson Road
This on-road corridor would link the northern section of the City of Roanoke (Hollins
area) with downtown Roanoke.
Route 24: Tinker Creek
Tinker Creek is a major tributary of the Roanoke River. With its head waters near
Hollins, Tinker Creek mns north to south. This off-mad greenway route would create
an ideal link from Hollins area neighborhoods and schools to Roanoke and Vinton.
Tinker Creek is the Roanoke Valley's largest tributary to the Roanoke River. Settlement
along Tinker Creek dates back to the 1740's and 1750's and included farms, mills,
churches, and schools. (See "Routes Not Shown On Map" for more information on
Tinker Creek Routes.)
Route 25: Highway 460/Challenger Rd.
This on-road route would link outlying Roanoke County neighborhoods with Roanoke
City.
Route 26: Glade Creek
Glade Creek runs in a southwest direction from Roanoke County into Vinton. This
stream would serve as an off-mad route, linking schools and neighborhoods with each
other and downtown Vinton.
Route 27: Glenwood Horse ~-ail Link
This route would provide a connection with existing horse trails in Botatourt County,
to the northeast of Roanoke County.
(~ ~1~ ~(~~ ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWAY PLAN
PAGE 37
Route 28: River Tributary
This unnamed tributary from Twelve O'Clock Knob connects to the Roanoke River in
southern Salem. It would serve to link neighborhoods in this area with the proposed
Roanoke River G-reenway.
Route 29: Proposed Peters Creek Road Extension
Once built, this new section of roadway, extending south from the existing Peters Creek
Road, would link area neighborhoods with the proposed Roanoke River Greeaway, and
complete a portion of a bicycle transportation route toward downtown Salem and
Roanoke.
Rome 30: Lynchburg/Salem Turnpike
This roadway, when modified, could serve as a primary tcax~sportation route between
Salem and Roanoke.
Route 31: Dale Avenue/Virginia Avenue
Dale Avenue would serve as an on-road connection between downtown Roanoke and
Downtown Vinton (where it is called V~rginia Avenue). This congested urban route
would primarily serve commuters.
Route 32: The Roanoke River
The Roanoke River stretches through the middle of the Roanoke Valley. It crosses all
four jurisictions and would serve as the backbone for the greenway system. It links
numerous parks, schools, neighborhoods and shopping areas. Many historic features
can be found along the Roanoke River Corridor. "Nature's Own Swimming Hole" was
a popular recreation spot on the river located between the two historic communities of
Wabun and Glenvar. On the ~outheastern side of the county, the Niagara Dam, built in
1906, is still in operation. In the City of Roanoke, Memorial B ridge, built as a memorial
to Roanoke soldiers who died in World War 1, crosses the river to the west of Wasena
Park.
Route 33: Stewartsviile Road (State Route 24)
This on-road route would leave Vinton to the east and connect neighborhoods with the
Blue Ridge Parkway.
Route 34: Dry Hollow
This route would use a stream corridor to link a former YMCA camp (now owned by
Roanoke County) as well as a future reservoir recreation area to the proposed Roanoke
River Greenway.
Route 35: Highway 639fHarbourwood Road
This on-road route would serve as a connection to the Green Hill Park Equestrian Center
which is located in this part of Roanoke County.
ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREENWA¥ PLAN
PAGE 38
Route 36: Barnhardt Creek
This creek could serve as a linkage to the Roanoke River for several suburban neigh-
borhouds in southwest Roanoke, including Farmingdale, Medmont Lake, and Crest-
wood.
Route 37: Mudlick Creek
Mudlick Creek would be a valuable off-road corridor, providing linkages for many sub-
urban neighborhoods, schools, and libraries in the Cave Spring area of Roanoke County
and Southwest Roanoke City. This route passes by Cave Spring Comers Shopping
Center, Melody Acres and Lee Hy Gardens.
Route 38: Brandon Road
This short on-road corridor would link to Grandin Road, providing cyclists with a direct
route into downtown Roanoke from the southwest.
Route 39: Grandin Road
Grandin Road would provide a direct on-road route into downtown Roanoke from the
southwest. This route would link a densely populated suburban area with the Roanoke
River and other amenities such as schools and shopping centers.
Route 40: Colonial Avenue
Colonial Avenue is slated for improvements in the 20 Year 'I'IF which would provide
an opportunity to include provisions for bicycles and pedestrians. This is an important
corridor for commuter traffic in southwestern Roanoke City and County, and would
serve alternate transportation needs.
Route 41: Garnand Branch
Gamand Branch is a small stream located in southeast Roanoke City that could connect
neighborhoods, schools and parks in this area with the Roanoke River and downtown
Roanoke.
Route 42: Rutrough Road
This on-road corridor would link the Blue Ridge Parkway with the entrance to Explore
Park in southeast Roanoke County. This would provide on-mad access to Explore Park
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Route 43: Murray Run
This stream meanders through neighborhoods and parks in and around the Cave Spring
section of the Valley. This linkage would provide an important connection with the
Roanoke River.
Route 44: Routes to Mill Mountain
There are two routes that lead to Mill Mountain. The route on the north side of Mill
Mountain would utilize Prospect Road and connect the park at the summit with down-
town Roanoke. (This route is not shown on the map, due to scale) The other route
would link the south side of Mill Mountain with the Blue Ridge Parkway. Both would
serve as ideal on-road routes, providing scenic and functional ways to the park on top
of Mill Mountain. Mill Mountain is a popular tourist site and includes a zoo as well
as spectacular views of the Roanoke Valley. Mill Mountain was named for Evans Mill,
which was located at the base of the mountain. It is the original site of the "incline"
rail system that took visitors to Rocldedge Inn which was established in 1890's.
Route 45: Back Creek
Back Creek is a major tributary to the Roanoke River. It runs across much of the south
Roanoke County, paralleling Highway 221 and crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway. This
off-roM route would provide scenic access to this relatively lightly populated but de-
veloping area. Elijah Poage built a sawmill and grist mill in the vicinity of Back Creek
in 1848.
Route 46: Route to Smith Mountain Lake
Smith Mountain Lake is located southeast of Roanoke County and is fed by the Roanoke
River. The Roanoke River corridor could serve as a viable link to the Smith Mountain
Lake recreation area.
Route 47: Hwy 221/Brambleton Avenue
Parts of this on-road corridor are scheduled for improvement making this route a can-
didate for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. This could provide an iroportant al-
teroative transportation route in southwest Roanoke City and County.
Route 48: Highway 419
This route links parts of southwest Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and Salem with
Tanglewood Mall, which is an important shopping destination for area residents.
Route 49: Blue Ridge Parkway
The Blue Ridge Parkway already serves as a highly popular on-road scenic route and
draws tourists from all over the eastern U.S. It passes through the southeastern portion
of Roanoke County, offering some of the most scenic views of the Roanoke Valley. The
Parkway has been established as a greenway system for close to sixty years. The portion
of the Parkway that travels through Roanoke County was completed in the 1960's, and
incorporates many scenic views of the Roanoke Valley.
Route 50: Highway 220
This portion of 220 leaves Roanoke going south. As an on-road corridor it would link
communities in southern Roanoke with the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Route 51: Wolf Creek
This small tributary of the Roanoke River at the boundat3t of Vinton and Roanoke County
would link schools and neighborhoods with the Roanoke River corridor.
ROANO ~ VAt'I'I'''¥ ceNc'~''I~TUA L GRg~'I6VAY I%/~'NPAGE
6.3 Routes Not Shown On Map
The following is a list of routes, which due to size and scale could not be included on
the Greenway Route Plan but should be officially recognized as recommendations of
this document.
Route to Explore Park
A new road, providing direct access to Explore Park from the Blue Ridge Parkway, will
be constructed. It will be important to include on-mad facilities to accommodat~ bicycles
and pedestrians.
Roanoke City
Within the City of Roanoke there are many possibilities for greenway corridors utilizing
a combination of City streets, sidewalks, alleys and open space. Three categories of
corridors merit special attention:
· Linkages among and between neighborhoods, shopping areas, schools, and parks;
· Rail trails located on abandoned railway beds; and
· Corridors located on or near sewer interceptor lines or other utility fights-of-way.
Six corridors within the City of Roanoke have been identified for inclusion in this
conceptual plan.
· Mill Mountain to Downtown Roanoke: Mill Mountain is a resource to the entire
Roanoke Valley as are the City Market and the Central Business District. A cor-
ridor linking the park at the summit of Mill Mountain with the downtown, by way
of Prospect Road and including Riverview Park, would connect these two impor-
tant tourist attractions. This linkage could incorporate Elmwood Park and the City
Market and could be extended to the Hotel Roanoke and beyond, through the
Gainsboro neighborhood and Washington Park, to the Roanoke Civic Center.
· The Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology (RCIT) to Tinker Creek:
The newest of the City's industrial centers, the RCIT features clean and progressive
industries and corporations in a park-like setting. Tinker Creek was important to
the early development of the Roanoke Valley and contains valuable historic and
cultural resources. Preliminary designs for a Tinker Creek greenway have already
been developed.
· Mudlick Creek to Patrick Henry High School Complex: This corridor would
utilize City streets, sidewalks and alleys to connect Mudlick Creek and its tributar- ·
les-- and the adjacent Greater Deyerle and Raleigh Court neighborhoods -- with the
high school complex and surrounding community.
· Tanglewood Mall to Virginia Western Community College: This segment of the
greenway system could extend from the Tanglewood Mall through the old Jefferson
Hills Golf Course to Virginia Westem Community College and Madison Junior
High School and Fishbum Elementary schools. Extending this corddor to the Patrick
Henry High School complex by way of Shrine Hill Park would enable it to connect
to the corridor linking the high school complex with Mudlick Creek.
(~ ~1~ ~(~~ ROANOKE VALLEY COSC~PTUAL GRF.,F. JqWAY PLaN
PAGE 41
Fleming Ruffner Schools Complex to Lick Run: A corridor linking the Ruffner
Middle School/William Fleming High School complex to Lick Run would provide
educational resources as well as opportunities to expand in several directions,
possibly incorporating the Man'iott Hotel and the Sheraton Inn, Countryside Golf
Course and several multi-family housing developments in the area.
Valley View Mall to Lick Run: This segment would offer the opportunity to link
nearby neighborhoods with Lick Run by way of Valley View Mall, thus encourag-
ing pedestrian access and providing a means to reduce motor vehicle traffic to the
mall.
Downtown Salem and Downto,,~n Vinton
While no walking tours currently exist in these downtowns, many routes on the Green-
way Route Plan lead into these town centers. Here as greenway planning continues, it
will be important to design safe access for bicycles and pedestrians to these downtown
are~.
Equestrian Trails
Members of the Green Hill Park Equestrian Center have produced a map showing
proposed dedicated bridle paths throughout the Roanoke Valley. This trail map also
shows linkages with equestrian trails in Botetourt County. During planning for green-
ways throughout the Roanoke Valley, it will be important to include the proposed eques-
trian trails. They utilize existing utility corridors for the most part and extend through-
out the Valley. From the south they follow the Blue Ridge Parkway east toward the
Glenwood Horse trails, and to the west they criss-cross over Bent Mountain toward
Green Hill Park Equestrian Center. From the equestrian center they extend northeast
towards the Carvins Cove Reservoir.
6.4 Priorities for Route Development
Priorities for route development was a topic of discussion throughout the planning
process for the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan. During the first commu-
nity workshop, local citizens were asked what linkages they felt were most important.
During the third community workshop, participants voted on their top priority routes.
This process confirmed that Valley residents feel the top priority should be a greenway
along the Roanoke River, and that residents also want other trails located close to home
and linking nearby destinations. Creeks and streams scored high among local citizens
as potential greenway routes.
The Roanoke Valley Greenways/Open Space Steering Committee examined the public
input, along with the consultant's review, and developed the priority list below (list
does not imply any priority order):
mOA NOKE VALleY CONC~I~rUA L C I~INWAY Iq'A N
PAGE
· Roanoke River
· Mudlick Creek/Garst Mill
· Blue Ridge Parkway (on-road and off-road facilities)
· Salem Rail Trail (Hanging Rock)
· Tinker Creek
· Downtown Roanoke to Explore Park (via Mill Mountain)
· Connection to Appalachian Trail via Carvins Cove
· Electric Road/Rt. 419 (on-road and off-road facilities)
· Wolf Creek
· Stewartsville Road/Rt. 24 to the Blue Ridge Parkway
· Connection to existing horse trails
The mutes on the list above should be considered as "starting points" for greenway
implementation. While the list indicates the routes that are most desired for greenway
development, the actual feasibility of such routes is yet unknown. The availability of
land in these areas has not been determined, nor have potential trail alignments been
explored. These and related issues will be resolved during the next phase of greenway
planning and design.
Section 7: Getting the Greenway System Built
Development of this Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan is the initial step in
a process that will require more planning, on a ~'ail-by-trail basis. This plan does not
address the specifics of trail development along each corridor, such as land ownership,
trail installation, and environmental constraints.
An implementation schedule for the Roanoke Valley Greenway System is found in this
section of the report. This schedule addresses the practical aspects of greenway planning
and design (below), as well as the programmatic activities that should occur in the years
to come (reference "Strategies for Success*, Section 2).
7.1 Greenway Planning and Design
Step 1: Greenway Feasibility Studies
The first step in determining the viability of a priority route in the Roanoke Valley is
a feasibility study. This step is especially impotent in cases where corridor ownership
is in question or land acquisition will be necessary. The feasibility study also allows
for public input in the early stages of project planning and it allows municipalities to
determine citizen support for specific routes and political feasibility prior to making
firm commitments to develop particular trails. It also provides additional time to
disseminate information about the benefits of greenways to trail opponents, and to plan
for security issues.
A typical trail feasibility study would examine the following aspects of trail
development:
· What are the options for trail routing and what are the pros and cons of each?
· For comdors that are not presently owned by the local government: what is the
feasibility of either obtaining the land or getting a public-access easement to use the
land?
Are there special areas that would represent design challenges that may be
impossible or cost-prohibitive to resolve? If such challenges exist, it may be helpful
to enlist the help of a trail designer to provide possible solutions and their costs.
What are the estimated costs of each trail routing option?
Based on information obtained, which is the preferred routing alternative?
What agencies need to be involved to make this facility a reality? What permits
will be necessary?
· What is the targeted funding source of this facility, and is funding sufficient for
detailed trail design, surveying, land acquisition and construction? Does this funding
source have particular requirements that must be considered early in the trail
planning process? (If the source of funds is the Transportation Enhancements
Program, there are strict requirements for land acquisition and U'ail design).
PAGE 45
Step 2: Greenway Master Planning
Once a corridor has been selected for greenway development, and the corridor has been
acauired or leased for use. (see land acquisition techniques in this section) a master plan
should be developed. A master plan specifies the series of actions that must be carried
out by the agency that is responsible for greenway development. The master plan
examines all issues relevant to the consU'uction, maintenance and opomtion of the
greenway. The plan must also be defensible and should be prepared through a
participato~ process that involves local residents in key design decisions, such as the
location of access points to the corridor, the treatment of the interface between public
and private properties, the type of facilities to be located in the corridor and maintenance
and management of the facilities. The level of detail in a maser plan for a particular
corridor will vary from project to project, however, enough information should be
provided, both graphically and in written form so that local residents, government staff,
private-sector advocates and elected officials can understand the vision for the corridor
and the series of steps requited to implement the project.
The involvement of the public is a key component of developing a master plan. It is
suggested that a small working group, made up of local residents, greenway advocates,
government officials and other interested citizens, be established to work on the
preparation of the master plan. As the work of this group progresses, interim public
information meetings should be held to discuss the objectives of the master plan and
to receive input from other residents. When a final master plan has been completed,
it will need to be reviewed for compliance with local, state and federal laws. If the local
governments are asked to sponsor development of the greenway, the plan will need to
be reviewed and approved by the local officials.
Addressing Crime and Privacy Concerns of Local
Landowners
Greenways in the Roanoke Valley can provide safe recreational
environments. Some of the most effective deterrents to crime have
involved local citizens' becoming more aware of their neighbor-
hoods and participating in community watch programs. Green-
ways have proven to be an effective program for encouraging local
residents to participate in neighborhood outdoor programs.
In other communities, law enforcement officials have found that
parks and greenways are land uses that typically have the lowest
incident of reported criminal activity. By providing entrance
bollards or other such devices that restrict motor vehicles on the
greenway system, crime and vandalism is less likely to be a prob-
lem.
Loss of privacy for adjacent land owners can also be avoided
through sensitive trail development. Vegetation should be
preserved where it provides a natural screen. Where needed,
additional vegetative screens and fences can be constructed to
provide visual screens and barriers.
PAGE
PAGE 47
Step 3: Construction Documentation
Construction documents a~ drawings and specifications that describe the materials,
wodm~anship and finished form of all facilities to be built within the corridor. The
level of complexity of these drawings depends to a great extent upon the type of
greenway: a five foot wide hiking trail does not require the same construction
documentation as a ten foot paved multi-use greenway.
Construction documents must be prepared to meet minimum public-use standards
established by federal, stat~ and local governments. These will vary depending on the
type of users served by the greenway, and the type of landscape being traversed by the
corridor. National standards have been established for all paved trails designed for
bicycle transportation and can be referenced in the AASHTO publication, Guidelines
to the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
Conslruction drawings and specifications should describe materials, style and form for
all proposed facilities; they will be used to build the greenway. Documents can be
prepared in-house by local staff or by a consulting landscape architect and/or engineer.
They are typically produced at either 20 scale or 50 scale (1" = 50'), and should include
cross sections at 100' intervals. Trail details should include trail clearing and grading,
trail tread design, cross slope drainage, storm drainage design, erosion control measures,
signage placement and design, and any other design elements. Trail layout plans should
include stationing and curve data.
7.2 Finding Land for Greenway Development
Some of the off-road greenway corridors identified by the conceptual plan extend across
privately owned lands. This section of the report identifies mechanisms for obtaining
public access to these areas.
Greenway lands can be preserved and protected through a variety of mechanisms. The
amount of greenway land to be preserved in any given situation is based on two factors
- the size of a parcel of land and an evaluation of the parcel's greenway value. The most
successful greenway programs encourage voluntary involvement among landowners,
rather than relying on the power of eminent domain. Landowners should be given the
option of deciding what land they would view as being included in the greenway system.
Landowners should also he eligible to benefit from economic incentives for voluntary
participation in the program.
Landowners may have the following options in participating in a greenway program:
· Landowners can donate all or a portion of their land for greenway PU~P°ses, thereby
becoming eligible for Federal tax deductions. Property proposed for donation,
whether in fee-simple, conservation easement or other manner, must meet certain
eligibility requirements set forth by federal and state agencies to qualify for tax
benefits. In addition, only approved governmental and private agencies may be the
receiving organizations. The property owner may choose to dedicate greenway
lands in fee-simple title, or the owner may choose to convey a conservation easement
nOANOK~ VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GnE~4WAY I~AN ~ ~ ~~~n~
in which issues such as maintenance and public access are negotiated with the
receiving organization.
· Landowners can lease greenway lands to the responsible jurisdiction for long-term
public access and/or conservation.
Landowners can offer the jurisdiction first right of refusal in purchasing the land.
Purchase would be made using money from an established greenway trust fund or
another source of greenway funds.
7.21 Greenway Easements
The purpose of greenway easements is to establish legally binding contracts based on
a mutual understanding of the specific use, treatment and protection that greenway lands
will receive. Property owners who grant easements retain all rights to the property
except those which have been granted by the easement. The property owner is
responsible for all taxes associated with the property, less the value of the easement
granted. Easements are generally restricted to certain portions of property, although in
some cases an easement can be applied to an entire parcel. Easements are usually
transferable through title transactions, thus the easement can remain in effect in
perpetuity. Three typ~s of gree. nway easements which may be appropriate for use in the
Roanoke Valley are:
Conservation Easements
This type of easement generally establishes permanent limits on the use and develop-
ment of land in order to protect the natural resources of that land. Dedicated conservation
easements usually qualify for beth federal income tax deductions and state tax credits.
Preservation Easements
This type of easement is intended to protect the historical integrity of a stmctore or
important elements of the landscape by sound management practices. Preservation
easements may qualify for the same federal tax deductions and state tax credits as
conservation easements.
Public-Access Easements
Right-of-public-access easements provide the general public with the right to use a
specific parcel of property. Both conservation easements and preservation easements
may contain clauses for the right of public access and still be eligible for tax incentives.
7.22 Greenway Development through Regulation
The following are regulatory tools that can meet the challenges of projected urban and
suburban growth and development and, at the same time, conserve and protect greenway
resources. While many of the methods below can be used in Virginia others require
changes in state law. Some of the methods require zoning ordinances that do not
currently exist in the Valley, or do not exist for all local jurisdictions. Therefore, the
use of some of the methods would require ordinance revisions and staff resources to
implement the new requirements.
Reservation of Land
A reservation of land does not involve any transfer of property rights but simply
constitutes an obligation to keep property free from development for a stated period of
time. Reservations are normally subject to a specified period of time, such as 6 or 12
months. At the end of this period, if an agreement has not been reached to transfer
certain property rights, the reservation expires.
Conditional Zoning
Also known aa conditional rezoning, this mechanism can be used to create public and
private greenways through special conditions voluntarily offered by the property owner
requesting a rezoning. Conditional rezoning allows the owner to perform some act or
make site improvements to make the proposed rezoning more compatible with the
surrounding area. This mechanism allows planning officials to accommodate property
owners, to not conflict with the Land Use Plan, and to protect greenways within the
jurisdiction.
Buffer/Transition Zones
This mechanism recognizes the problem of reconciling different, potentially
incompatible, land uses by preserving greenways that function aa buffers or transition
zones between uses. Care must be taken to ensure that use of this mechanism is rea-
sonable, is narrowly and directly focused, and will not destroy the value of a property.
Density Bonuses
One regulatory method currently used in James City County, V'u~nia, is incentive zoning
- also termed density bonuses. Under this mechanism, developers am encouraged to
provide amenities within the community (such as trails, buffers, or scenic views) by
allowing greater densities than normally allowed by the zoning ordinance.
Conservation Overlay Zones
This mechanism could allow local jurisdictions to place a conservation development
zone in a location identified for greenway development. Conservation development
zones allow for a closer grouping of buildings on one part of a property so that the
remaining open land can be conserved and/or used for recreation (this is also called
"cluster zoning"). This would require a conservation-development-zoning ordinance.
Resource Overlay Zones
By establishing resource overlay zones through local zoning ordinances, Valley are~
governments can protect undeveloped land along streams and rivers. This method places
restrictions on development activity in and around important historic sites, or near
sensitive natural resources such as streams and rivers. While this method would not
require greenway development, it could preserve critical greenway lands from further
urban encroachment.
Planned-Unit Development Ordinances
A PUD ordinance can enable a jurisdiction to require a certain percentage of land area
to be set aside for recreation or for common open space. This zoning ordinance,
combined with a greenway plan that identifies a proposed route within the property, can
be used to secure additional greenway lands.
ROA NO Kg VA LLEY COI~ICEIq~A L C REI~'~IWAY I~,,A N
PAGE
Subdivision Exactions
A subdivision exaction is a condition of subdivision approval which requires the
subdivider/developer to provide for certain public improvements at its own expense.
Section 15.1-466 (A) (5) authorizes the exaction of certain improvements ("any right-
of-way located within any subdivision .... any street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, bicycle
trail, drainage or sewer system, water line as part of a public system or other improvement
dedicated for public use"). If authorized by local ordinance, this authorizes requiring
the developer to dedicate parts of its land for public use or to construct at its expense,
and in accordance with defined standards, needed facilities serving the subdivision.
The courts permit the needed facilites serving the subdivision. The courts permit the
use of on-site mandatory dedication and exactions when the need for pat~dcul~ facilities
can he closely related to the development.
Section 15.1-466 (A) (10) authorizes developers to pay for certain off-site improvments
for sewage, water and drainage facilities. There are statutory limitations and guidelines
for calculating the amount of the developer's pro-rata share of these improvements.
Section 15.1-466 (E) authorizes localities to include in local subdivision ordinances
reasonable provisions for voluntary funding of off-site road improvements.
Agricultural and Forestai Districts (AFDs)
AFD's are a land conservation and preservation effort that can only he enacted by a
landowner. Through this special district, the landowner agrees to limit development on
the property for the life of the agreement, which is usually 4-10 years. This method can
be used to preserve future greenway lands in developing areas, particularly where the
landowner desires to keep the property intact in the years prior to greenway development.
In return, the property owner is taxed on the use of the land, rather than its fair market
value.
7.23 Greenways Land Acquisition
The third method of developing greenways in the Roanoke Valley is through the
acquisition of property. A variety of methods can be used to acquire property for
greenway purposes, including: Donation/Tax Incentives, Fee-Simple Purchase,
Easement Purchase, Purchase/Lease Back, Bargain Sale, Option/First Right Of Refusal,
Condemnation, and Impact fees. Each of these is described in Appendix B.
7.3 Sources of Funding for Greenway Projects
The most common method for funding grecnways is to combine local, public-sector
and private-sector funds with funds from state, federal and additional private-sector
sources. Many communities involved with greenway implementation are choosing to
leverage local money as a match for outside funding sources, in essence multiplying
their resources.
During future greenway development in the Roanoke Valley, local advocates and
government staff should pursue a variety of funding sources for land acquisition and
greenway construction. A grecnway program that relies on limited funding sources
may one day come to a grinding halt should these funding sources dry up.
ROANOK~ VALLI~Y CONCEPTUAL GREENWA¥ PLAN
PAGE 51
The funding sources cited below represent a few of the greenway funding opportunities
that have been pursued by o~her communities. This list provides a place to "get started".
(Addresses and phone numbers of national organizations which provide technical
assistance for greenway projects can be found in Appendix C of this report.)
7.31 Local Funding Sources
Bond Referendums for Greenways
Communities across the nation have successfully placed on local ballots propositions
to support g~enway development. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, NC, area passed
four consecutive referendums that generated more than $3 million for greenways.
Guilford County, NC, passed a referendum in 1986 that appropriated $1.6 million for
development of a specific greenway corridor. In Cheyenne, Wyoming, a greenway
bond referendum was used to fund the first three miles of local greenways.
Residents throughout the United States have consistently placed a high value on local
grcenway development and voted to raise their own taxes in support of greenway
implementation. Considering the popularity of greenways in the Roanoke Valley, bond
referendums may be successful.
Greenway Funding through Local Ci~'s
Perhaps the line measure of local government commitment to greenways is a yearly
appropriation for trail development in the Capital Improvements Program. In Raleigh,
NC, greenways continue to be built and maintained, year after year, due to a dedicated
source of annual funding (administered through the Parks and Recreation Department).
In addition, the City of Raleigh's Real Estate Department has its own line item budget
for greenway land acquisition.
Roanoke Valley Greenway ~'ust Fund
Another strategy used by several communities is the creation of a trust fund for land
acquisition and facility development that is administered by a private greenway advocacy
group, or by a local greenway commission. A trust fund can aid in the acquisition of
large parcels of high priority properties that may be lost if not acquired by private sector
initiative. Money may be contributed to the trust fund from a variety of sources,
including the municipal and county general funds, private grants, and gifts.
Local Private-Sector Funding
Local industries and private businesses may agree to provide support for greenway
development in the Valley through:
donations of cash to a specific greenway segment;
· donations of services by large corporations to reduce the cost of greenway
implementation, including equipment and labor to construct and install elements of
a specific grcenway;
· reductions in the cost of materials purchased from local businesses which support
greenway implementation and can supply essential products for facility
development.
[ROANOK~vALLEY CONc~P13JALGIO~P'~/WAY [~ANPAGIe ~'2
One example ora successful endeavor of this type is the Swif~ Creek Recycled Green-
way in Cary, NC. A total of $40,000 in donated constmctinn materials and labor made
this trail an award-winning demonstration project. This method of raising funds re-
quires a great deal of staff coordination. (Note: Some materials used in the "recycled
trail" were considered waste materials by local industries!)
7-32 Volunteer Assistance and SmalI-Seale Donation Programs
Greenway Sponsors
A sponsorship program for greenway amenities allows for smaller donations to be
received both from individuals and businesses. The program must be well planned and
organized, with design standards and associated costs established for each amenity.
Project elements which may be funded can include mile markers, call boxes, benches,
trash receptacles, entry signage and bollards, and picnic areas.
Volunteer Work
Community volunteers may help with greenway construction, as well as conduct fund-
raisers. Organizations in the Roanoke Valley could include the Boy Scouts, the Blue
Ridge Bicycle Club, the Sierra Club and local civic clubs such as the Kiwanis, Rotary
and Lions Clubs.
A point in case is Cheyenne, Wyoming's volunteer greenway program. The Greater
Cheyenne Grecnway has motivated an impressive amount of community support and
volunteer work. The program has the unusual problem of having to insist that volunteers
wait to begin landscaping the trail until construction is completed. A manual for
greenway volunteers was developed in 1994 to guide and regulate volunteer work. The
manual includes a description of appropriate volunteer efforts, request forms, waiver
and release forms, and a completion form (volunteers are asked to summarize their
accomplishments). Written guidelines are also provided for volunteer work in 100-year
floodplains.
To better organize volunteer activity, Cheyenne developed an "Adopt-a-Spot" program.
Participants who adopt a segment of trail are responsible for periodic trash pick-up, but
can also install landscaping, prune trail-side vegetation, develop wildlife enhancement
projects, and install site amenities. All improvements must be consistent with the
Greenway Development Plan and must be approved by the local Greenway Coordinator.
Adopt-a-Spot volunteers are allowed to display their names on a small sign along the
adopted section of greenway.
Volunteers have included the Boy Scouts, the Southeastern Wyoming Mental Health
Center, and F. E. Warren Air Force Base. Cheyenne's Job Training Partnership Program
has become involved in building trail-side benches and picnic tables. School groups
have also raised funds to build trail amenities. Other volunteers have participated in a
stream bank improvement project, donating labor and materials.
Estate Donations
Wills, estates and trusts may be also dedicated to the appropriate agency for use in
developing and/or operating the greenway system.
ROANOKE VALLEY cONC£PTUA L GREzNwAY PLAN
PAGE 53
"Buy-a-Foot" Programs
"Buy-a-Foot" programs have been successful in raising funds and awareness for trail
and greenway projects within North Carolina. Under local initiatives, citizens are
encouraged to purchase one linear foot of the greenway by donating the cost of
construction. An excellent example of a successful endeavor is the High Point Greenway
"Buy-a-Foot" campaign, in which linear greenway "feet" were sold at a cost of $25/
foot. Those who donated were given a greenway T-shirt and a certificate. This project
provided over $5,000 in funds.
7.33 State Government Funding Sources
Virginia Depa~a,~ent of 'l~ansportation (VDOT)
VDOT is the state agency that administers federal funding from the Intermedal Surface
Transportation Effciency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Along with the federal requirements
for this money, VDOT has application policies and procedures. The following list
provides key policies that apply to this source. (Excerpts below were taken from VDOT's
Enhancement Procedure Checklist and the Enhancement Program Reimbursement
Procedures and Match Requirements.)
· This is a reimbursment program, so costs are reimbursed only if they were incurred
after authorization. Approved costs include land acquisition and design services.
· Greenway lands must be owned as rights-of-way, rather than exist as easements
across private property. Furthermore, strict federal guidelines apply to land acqui-
sition for trail use (per the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac-
quisition Policies Act).
· An environmental document is required during the Preliminary Engineering Phase.
· Consultant selection for design-development services must conform to certain state
and federal procedures.
· Funding is contingent on a minimum 20 percent local match.
· Private contributions of donated right-of-way can be used to make the local match.
7.34 Federal Government Funding Sources
Some Federal programs offer financial aid for projects that aim to improve community
infrastructure, transportation, housing and recreation programs. Some of the Federal
programs that can be used to support the development of greenway systems include:
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
The primary source of federal funding for greenways is through the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which is authorized through fiscal year
1997. There are many sections of the Act that support the development of bicycle and
pedestrian transportation corridors. Those sections that apply to the creation of greenway
systems include:
· Section 1302: Symms National Recreational Trails Fund Act (NRTFA)
A component of ISTEA, the NRTFA is a funding source to assist with the
development of non-motmized and motorized trails. In fiscal year 1994, Congress
did not fund this national program, and it has become apparent that this funding
source is not as stable as it was once envisioned by the national trail community.
In 1993, Congress appropriated only $7.5 million ora $30 million apportionment.
The Act uses funds paid into the Highway Trost Fund from fees on non-highway
recreation fuel used by off-road vehicles and camping equipment.
Motorized and non-motorized trail projects receive a 30 percent share of annual
appropriations. Forty percent of the appropriation must be spent on projects that
accommodate both user groups. States can grant funds to private and public sector
organizations. NRTFA projects are 100 percent federally funded during the first
three years of the program. Beginning in 1995, grant recipients must provide a 20
percent match. Projects funded must be consistent with the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
· Section 1047: National Scenic Byways Program
This component of ISTEA is designed to protect and enhance America's designated
scenic roads. Money is available for planning, safety and facility improvements,
cultural and historic resource protection, and tourism information signage. Bicycle
and pedestrian facilities can be developed in conjunction with scenic roadway
projects. Some states with Scenic Byway Programs have developed greenways in
conjunction with this initiative.
· Section 1008: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Program
The CMAQ program was created to reduce congestion on local streets and improve
air quality. Funds arc available to urban communities designated as "non-
attainment" areas for air quality, meaning the air is more polluted than federal
standards allow. Since the Roanoke Valley is not currently classified as a non-
attainment area for air quality, it is not eligible for this funding. However, this
funding source should be considered in the event that the air quality in thc Valley
deteriorates.
The program is administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. A grant recipient
must demonstrate that its project will improve air quality throughout the community.
Funding requires a 20 percent local match.
Community Development Block Grant Program
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers financial grants
to communities for neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and
improvements to community facilities and services, especially in Iow and moderate-
income areas. Several communities have used HUD funds to develop grecnways,
including the Boscobel Heights' "Safe Walk" Grecnway in Nashville, TN.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grants
This Federal funding source was established in 1965 to provide "close-to-home" park
and recreation opportunities to residents throughout the United States. Money for the
fund comes from the sale or lease of nonrenewable resources, primarily federal offshore
oil and gas leases and surplus federal land sales. LWCF grants can be used by
communities to build a variety of park and recreation facilities, including trails and
greenways.
LWCF funds are distributed by the National Park Service to the states annually.
Communities must match LWCF grants with 50 percent of the local project costs through
in-kind services or cash. All projects funded by LWCF grants must be used exclusively
for recreation purposes, in perpetuity.
Couservatlon Reserve Prognm
The U. S. Deparunent of Agriculture (USDA), through its Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, provides payments to farm owners and operators to place highly
erodible or environmentally sensitive landscapes into a 10-15 year conservation contract.
The participant, in return for annual payments during this period, agrees to implement
a conservation plan approved by the local conservation disLrict for converting sensitive
lands to less intensive uses. Individuals, associations, corporations, estates, trusts, cities,
counties and other entities ate eligible for this program. Funds from this program can
be used to fund the maintenance of open space and non-public-use greenways, along
bodies of water and ridge lines.
Wetlands Reserve Progrmn
The U.S. Depamnent of Agriculture provides direct payments to private landowners
who agree to place sensitive wetlands under permanent easements. This program can
be used to fund the protection of open space and groenways within riparian corridors.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Small Watersheds) Grants
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provides funding to state
and local agencies or nonprofit organizations authorized to carry out, maintain and
operate watershed improvements involving less than 250,000 acres. The NRCS provides
financial and technical assistance to eligible projects to improve watershed protection,
flood prevention, sedimentation control, public water-based fish and wildlife
enhancements, and recreation planning. The NRCS requires a 50 percent local match
for public recreation, and fish and wildlife projects.
Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Program
The USDA provides small grants of up to $10,000 to communities for the purchase of
trees to plant along city streets and for greenways and parks. To qualify for this program,
a community must pledge to develop a stroet-tree inventory; a municipal tree ordinance;
a tree commission, committee or department; and an urban forestry-management plan.
Small Business Tree Planting Program
The Small Business Administration provides small grants of up to $10,000 to purchase
trees for planting along streets and within parks or greenways. Grants are used to develop
contracts with local businesses for the plantings.
Economic Development Grants for Public Works and Development of Facilities
The U. S. Department of Commerce, Economic Developmant Administration(EDA),
IROA ~qO ~ VALLI~Y CONcI~Iq'UAL G RF'EI~WAY tq'A NPACE
provides grants to states, counties and cities designated as redevelopment areas by EDA
for public works projects that can include developing trails and greenway facilities.
There is a 30 percent local match required, except in severely distressed areas where
federal contribution can reach 80 percent.
Design Arts Program
The National Endowment for the Arts provides grants to states and local agencies,
individuals and nonprofit organizations for projects that incorporate urban design,
.historic preservation, planning, architecture, landscape architecture and other community
~mprovement activities, including greenway development. Grants to organizations and
agencies must be matched by a 50 percent local contribution. Agencies can receive up
to $50,000.
7.35 Grants through Private Foundations and Corporations
Many communities have solicited greenway funding from a variety of private
foundations and other conservation-minded benefactors.
American Greenways DuPont Awards
The Conservation Fund's American Greenways Program has teamed with the DuPont
Corporation and the National Geographic Society to award small grants ($250 to $2000)
to stimulate the planning, design and development of greenways. The awards are
intended to:
1. Develop action-oriented greenway projects;
2. Assist grassroots greenway organizations;
3. Leverage other money for greenway development; and
4. Recognize and encourage greenway orghnizations.
Grant recipients are selected according to the following criteria:
1. The importance of the project to local greenway development efforts;
2. The extent to which the grant will result in matching funds or other support for
public or private sources;
3. Demonstrated community support for the project;
4. Likelihood of tangible results;
5. Capacity of the organization to complete the project; and
6. The degree to which the project serves as a model for planning and developing
greenways.
These grants can be used for activities such as mapping, conducting ecological assess-
ments, surveying land, holding conferences, developing brochures, producing interpre-
tive displays and audio-visual materials, incorporating land trusts, building trails and
greenway facilities, and other creative projects. Grants cannot be used for academic
research, institutional support, lobbying or political activities.
REI Environmental Grants
REI (Recreational Equipment Incorporated) awards grants to organizations interested
in protecting and enhancing natural resources for outdoor recreation. Grants of up to
$500 are available through this program and can be used for:
1. Preservation of wildlands and open space;
2. Advocacy-oriented education for the general public on conservation issues;
3. Building the membership base of a conservation organization;
4. Direct citizen action (lobbying) campaigns for public land and water recreation
issues; and
5. Projects that serve to organize a trails constituency or enhance the effectiveness of
a trail organization's work as an advocate.
Wnlldng Magazine ~ Restoration Fund
Walking Magazine, hoping to encourage more volunteer efforts among trail users,
established this fund for the restoration of urban, suburban or rural w~king trails. The
magazine provides small grants, generally from $200 to $500, to help walking clubs
and other groups purchase trail maintenance equipment or supplies.
Coors Pure Water 2000 Grants
Coors Brewing Company and its affiliated distributors provide funding and in-kind
services to grsssroots orgapi~'~fions that are working to solve local, regional and national
water-related problems. Coors provides grants, ranging from a few hundred dollars to
$$0,000, for pwjects such as dyer cleanups, aquatic habitat improvements, water quality
monitoring, wetlands protection, pollution prevention, water education efforts,
groundwater protection, water conservation and fisbefies.
World Wildlife Fund Innovative Grants Program
This organization awards small grants to local, regional and statewide non-profit
organizations to help implement innovative strategies for the conservation of natural
resources. Grants are offered to support projects which:
1. Conserve wetlands;
2. Protect endangered species;
3. Preserve migratory birds;
4. Conserve coastal resources; and
5. Establish and sustain protected natural areas, such as greenways.
Innovation grants can help pay for the administrative costs for projects including
planning, technical assistance, legal and other costs to facilitate the acquisition of critical
lands; retaining consultants and other experts; and preparing visual presentations and
brochures or other conservation activities. The maximum award for a single grant is
$10,000.
IR cA I~O~ v ALLgY cnN~IvrUAL On-AY XIq''A NPACE
Section 8: Greenway Maintenance and
Management
A maintenance and management program is critical to the long-term success of
greenways in the Roanoke Valley. Several issues should be addressed prior to the project
being approved for funding and implementation including: liability and risk manage-
ment, safety and security, and routine maintenance.
8.1 Liability/Risk Management
The design, development and management of each greenway project must be carefully
and competently planned and executed in order to provide a resource that protects the
health and welfare of the public.
Liability most often occur~ when a greenway has been inadequately designed to handle
the volume of use; when management of the facility is poor;, or when unexpected
accidents occur because potentially hazardous areas haven't been effectively dealt with.
The following measures should be taken to reduce liability:
· Develop a thorough maintenance program that defines appropriate duties and
designates a greenway management organization or agency.
· Prepare a risk management plan that describes potential liability and government
insurance issues for the greenway system. This should be reviewed by each
jurisdiction's legal department.
· Complete a safety and security plan for the greenway system that addresses law
enforcement (cooperatively with multiple jurisdictions if the project crosses
municipal boundaries), and establishes appropriate emergency-response
mechanisms.
Public use of greenways should be covered under existing municipal policies for the use
of parkland, public spaces and city property. Jurisdictions should exercise care in the
construction of greenway facilities to minimize hazardous and public nuisance situations.
Additionally, by setting specific hours of operation, any individual found using
greenways outside the permitted hours of operation would not be covered by the
insurance policies for public use.
8.2 Safety and Security Considerations
In order to provide a standard of care that offers reasonable safety measures, gmenway
management agencies should prepare and implement a safety and security plan. This
plan should address the following:
· law enforcement procedures;
· emergency and fire-response guidelines;
· user rules and regulations; and
· a system for accident reporting and analysis.
PAGE 59
Plans should identify all points of access to trails in the Roanoke Valley and should
provide details for making these access-points safe and secure, as well as accessible to
law enforcement officials. The plans should also specify if and where a system of
cellular-type emergency phones should be located along greenways.
Procedures for emergency response should be developed in conjunction with local fire
and rescue stations. An emergency response system should specify which agencies will
respond to 911 calls, and should provide easy-to-understand routing plans and access
points for emergency vehicles.
Greenway managers should discourage the general public from using any segment of
a greenway that is under construction. Such segments should not be considered officially
open for public use until a formal dedication ceremony and opening has occurred.
8.3 Routine Maintenance
Regular greenway maintenance is important to protecting the public health, safety and
welfare. Normal maintenance includes the removal of debris, trash, liter, and other
foreign matter.
Removal of vegetation should be done with discretion. The objective in controlling the
growth of existing vegetation should be to maintain clear and open lines of sight along
the edge of greenways, and to eliminate potential b~?~rds that could occur due to natural
growth, severe weather and other unacceptable conditions. The following are typical
guidelines for vegetation removal:
All vegetation should be clear cut a minimum distance of three (3) feet from each
edge of the greenway trail. Selective clearing of vegetation should be conducted
within a zone that is defined as being between three (3) to ten (10) feet from each
edge. At any point along the greenway, a user should have a clear, unobstructed
view along the centerline of the trail, 300 feet ahead and behind his/her position.
The only exception to this policy would be where terrain or curves in the trail serve
as the limiting factor. Removal of vegetation by individuals other than local
government employees or approved volunteers should be unlawful and subject to
fines and/or prosecution.
All greenway trail surfaces should be maintained in a safe and usable manner. Rough
edges, severe bumps or depressions and cracked/unevan pavement should be
repaired so that the surface is maintained as a continuous, even surface. The
greenway manager should minimize the number of areas where pending water
OCCURS.
Section 9: Trail Design
Trail design is a broad topic that covers many issues. For the purposes of the Roanoke
Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, the consultant has provided a general design
overview. Below are mferonces with other appropriate design standards that provide
moro in-depth information.
· Greenwavs - A Guide to Planning. Design and Develonmellt
Published by Island Press, 1993
Authors: Chuck Flink and Robert Seams
· Trails for the 21st Century_
Edited by Karun Lee Ryan, Rails-m-Trails Conservancy
· Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facili6~n*
Updated in 1991 by the American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials
· Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devic¢~
Published by the US Department of Transportation
· Mountain Bike Trails: Techniques for Design. Construction and
Maintenance. Published by BikeCentgnnial
· Construction and Maintenance of Hor~e Trail~
Published by Arkansas State Parks
*If the trail is intended for bicycle transportation or will be funded by Virginia
Department of Transportation, these minimum national standards must be followed.
9.1 Trail Tread Design
Trail design on a conceptual level typically occurs during the master planning process.
After the general route of the trail has been established
and the intended user groups identified, trail planners
should determine the most appropriate design for the
trail tread. The trail tread consists of the actual materials
and design specifics of the trail surface. Provided below
are several types of trail treads:
1) Single Tread/Single Use:
This tread is designed for single trail user groups, such
as walkers or bicyclists. These can include trails within
street/road/highway rights-of-way, off-road trails and
sidewalks outside of rights-of-ways, and other pedes-
trian ways and trails that meander through a variety of
urban, suburban, rural or wilderness landscapes: These
trails may have different uses depending upon the sea-
Single ~-ead/Single Use
(~ ~l~ ~~~- ROANO K~ VALLEY {~ONC~ISTUAL GREENWAY pLA N
PAGE 61
· 0-10Mi. ~ 10-20Mi.
Single TreaddMultiple Use Zones
son, such as a hiking trail that doubles as a cross-coun-
try ski trail in the winter.
2) Single Tread/Multiple Use: These txalls are de-
signed to accommodate multiple wail users on a single
tread or pathway, and are most common. Facilities vary
in width, from 5 feet to more than 20 feet. Some
facilities will have striping, signage or other usage
control features to separate users.
3) Single 2~.ad/Multiple Use Zones: Arelatively new
concept in the United States, trail zoning provides areas
or segments of a uail for different users, physically
separating conflicting uses by limiting them to a
specific distance they can travel. For example, ff a trail
is 30 miles long, walkers could use a segment between
milepost zero and I0, bicyclists could ride between
milepost 10 and 20, and horseback riders could ride
between mileposts 20 and 30. Zones can be rotated so
that all users can eventually experience all segments of
a pa~icolar trail.
4) Multiple Tread/Multiple Use: This approach al-
lows for multiple use within the same right-of-way, but
on separate treads. This tread typo generally requires
a wider right-of-way in order to accommodate the di-
versity of users. For example, a hard surfaced trail
would be developed for bicycle use and a walking path
would utilize an unsurfaced earthen trail. Treads could
be developed parallel along an entire corridor, or a por-
tion of it.
Multiple Tread/Maitre Use
9.2 Trail Tread Width
7~ypically, tread width depends on the amount of usable
land within the corridor, the uses of the uail, volume
of use, potential for conflict among users, desire for
one-way or two-way travel, environmental sensitiv-
ity, and the cost of constructing various tread types.
Individual treads can range from a 20-inch wide track
for hikers in remote wilderness terrain to more than
20 feet wide for multiple users in heavily congested
urban are. as. Speed of travel is also an important
consideration in determining trail width. For example,
the accommodation of bicyclists and rolierbladers on
the same trail tread would necessitate a wider trail.
The following chart provides standards that meet or
[ ROANOKE VALLEY coNeF. PTUALGItEF. h'WAY PtaNpAGE S2 (~ ~1~ ~C~~
exceed existing AASHTO standards for trail tread development in the Roanoke Valley,
based on the targeted user groups:
Recommended Trail Widths for Single-Use and Multi-Use Trails
Trail Users
Bicyclists only
Pedestrians, bicyclists and rollerbladers
HikersYCross-Count~y Skiers
Pedestrians only (wheelchair accessible)
Equeslxians only
Hikers and Equestrians
Equestrians and Mountain Bicycliats
10 foot minimum (2-way travel)
12 foot urban, 10 foot rural
5 foot urban; 4 foot rural
8 foot urban, 6 foot rural
5 foot urban and rural (8 foot cleared width)
6 foot urban, 5 foot rural (8 foot clear~ width)
(not recommended as dual use)
9.3 Design of the Trail Cross Section
Trail surfaces must be carefully designed and constructed to support long term use. It
is important to determine the design load for the tread cross section, and to determine
if the surface must withstand the weight of emergency and/or maintenance vehicles.
Once these issues are resolved, the component parts of the trail tread: sub-grade, sub-
base and surface course can be designed.
Advantages and Disadvantage of Trail Surface Materials
Surface Material
Native soil
Advantaees
Natural material; lowest cost;
low maintenance; can be altered
f6r future improvements
Disadvantages
Dusty, ruts under
heavy use;
not an all-weather
surface;uneven
surface; limited uses.
Soil Cement
Uses natural materials; supports
more usage than native soils;
smoother surface; Iow cost
unevenly; not an
all weather surface;
erodes; difficult to
achieve correct mix
Graded Aggregate Stone
Hard surface supports heavy use;
moderate costs; natural material;
accommodates multiple uses.
Angular stones can
require continuous
maintenance;
uneven surface;
erosion, ruts.
Granular stone
(limestone, cinders)
Shredded wood fiber
Soft but firm surface; natural
material; moderate costs;
smooth surface; accommodates
variety of modes.
Soft, spongy surface; good
for walking; moderate cost;
natural material.
Surface can wash
away; rats;
erosion; constant
maintenance to
keep smooth surface.
Decomposes under
high temperature,
moisture and sunlight;
(~ ~l~ ~C~~,- ROA NOI(~ VALLEn/CONCI~PTUAL GREENWAY PLAN
requires
replenishment; long
term expense
Wood
(boardwalks, bridge decking)
Pliable surface; excellent for
malti-use; natural material
blends with native landscape;
spans sueams, ecologically
sensitive areas, and soft soils;
only surface that places u'all user
above surrounding grade.
High installation cost,
easy to vandalize;
expensive to
maintain; deteriorates
with exposure to sun,
wind and water;
susceptible to fire
damage; can be
slippery when wet.
Asphalt Concrete
Hard surface; supports most
types of use; all weather; does
not erode; accommodates most
users simultaneously; Iow
High installation cost;
costly to mpal~; not
a naturel surface;
leaches toxic
thaw can crock
surface; difficult
access for
cons~'uction vehicles.
Concrete surface
Hardest surface; easy to form
to site conditions; supports
multiple use; low maintenance;
resists freeze/~haw;
can be colored; all weather.
Joints result in bumps,
high installation cost;
costly to repair;
not a natural looking
surface; access
for construction
vehicles difficult.
Source: Greenways, A Practical Guide to Planning, Design and Management, Island Press
1993
9.4 Bridges and Boardwalks
Many trails require the construction and installation of special structures. Structures
such as bridges, boardwalks, and ramped walkways are normally the mo~t expensive
items of trail development. It is usually advisable to use natural materials in construction,
so as to blend with the surrounding landscape. However, recycled materials and some
metals, such as cot-ten steel, can be suitable for use in trail projects.
Design and construction specifications for bridges vary greatly from project to project
and must be based on site specific criteria. Regardless of the type of bridge selected,
it is absolutely necessary to have them designed and/or checked for capability by a
structural engineer.
9.5 Trail Intersections
Since trail user safety is of prime importance, safe intersections with roadways is crucial.
A evaluation of potential conflict at all intersections should be performed for each
project. This would include examining: pedestrian/vehicle conflict potential; geometric
ROANOKE VALLEY CONCEPTUAL GREF. NW&Y PLAN (~1~ ~ g~
conditions of the intersection; speed of vehicles through intersection (not posted speed);
distance to alternative crossing points; traffic volume; and time of crossing based on
the most physically disadvantaged user. Treatments of intersections can range from
striping new crosswalks, installing flashing amber lights to warn motorists of the
intersection, and installing special signalization at the intersection to constructing
overpasses (bridges) or underpasses (tunnels).
9.6 Trail Signage
For each Roanoke Valley corridor project, siguage should be carefully designed and
appropriately installed to provide all users with essential information, guidance and
supplemental data that will serve to enhance the greenway experience. Avoid over-
signing a trail facility -- it can create visual and physical clutter, confusing messages,
and information overload.
Signage is the primary source of direct communication with each user, therefore, it must
be clear, concise, and legible to a wide variety of people. Pictographs, sometimes referred
to as "symbol signs", are the best way to communicate information to a wide range of
user groups.
There are several types of signs for trails:
1) I~ Orients users to their position within the trail system: "You are
here"; provides an overview of the types of facilities, programs and activities
available; and describe routes or modes of travel required to reach these facilities.
2) ~ Provides users with instructions regarding their bearing and route of
travel. Most directional signage is in the form of graphic symbols and brief
descriptions or listings. For example, directional siguage would include arrows that
indicate a heading (direction of travel), and descriptive text such as "this way,"
"keep to the right," or "south, one-mile."
3) RevulatQrv*; Describes the governing laws and regulations that apply within the
trail, such as permitted uses, hours of operation/accessibility, speed limit, allowable
activities, and legal requirements for use. Regulatory signs must be uniform and
standard in terms of size, location and information. All regulatory signs should
have black lettering on white reflective background. Regulatory information should
not conflict in any way with other components of the signage program, or vice-
versa.
4) Warning*: Used to caution trail users of various hazardous conditions, such as
sharp curves in the trail, slippery bridges, roadway crossings, steep downhill or
uphill conditions, blind intersections, changes in trail surface condition, and related
messages about environmental conditions of the greenway. All warning signs should
be of uniform size and shape, located a minimum of 50 feet in advance of the
condition the user is approaching, and labeled with black lettering on a reflective
yellow background.
5) ~: Also called interpretive signage, it is used to describe the unique
qualities or significance of natural or cultural features along the greanway. Edu-
cational signagn provides the user with specific information about the features, such
as age, habitat, and historical relevance.
*Regulatory and warning sign standards for bicycle transportation facilities are
contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (U.S. Department of
Transportation).
9.7 Site Furni. hings
There are a wide range of' iii and site furnishings that can enhance the experience or
improve the safety and f~ ion of a trail system. These include benches and seating
areas, trash cans and w,~ e disposal areas, water fountains, shelters, restrooms,
decorative landscaping, fencmg, safety railing, and others. Each trail in the Roanoke
Valley System will have unique needs and a different "personality." The greenway
designer will need to develop site furnishings for each trail that best suit its opportunities
and constraints.
9.8 Typical Trail Cost Estimates
The greenway designer/developer should thoroughly research funding sources and
determine costs for each and every greenway project within the Roanoke Valley. The
following provides typical development costs for recreational trails based on national
industry standards. The Virginia Department of Transportatinn should be able to assist
in the verifying these cost estimates.
Trail Development Costs for Grecnwavs
Trail development costs can vary from project to project depending on the existing
conditions at each individual site, and depending on the particular type of trail that is
to be developed. For instance, a 6 foot wide bare earth hiking path costs approximately
$5.00 per linear foot to construct, while a 12 foot wide asphalt multi-purpose trail costs
approximately $25.00 per linear foot to construct. These estimates are based on national
industry averages, and they account for the installation of only basic facilities. They
do not include costs for design, permitting, conformance with environmental protection,
contingencies, or other local regulatory considerations. Other aspects of trail
development not included in this cost estimate are signage, site furniture, parking lots
and general maintenance expenses.
ROANOK~ VALLEq/CONCEI'rUAL GIIEF-'NWAY PLAN (~ ~ ~C~~
PAGE ~6
Appendix
Appendix A:
Overview and chronology: the Roanoke Valley conceptual greenway planning
process
Two recent initiatives culminated in the publication of the Roanoke Valley Conceptual
Greenway Plan: interest and action on the part of Roanoke Valley citizens and graasroots
organizations which have resulted in increased awareneas of greenway oppommities,
and months of hard work by members of the regional Greenways/Open Space Steering
Committee and staffs of the Fifth Planning District Commission and the four Valley
governments. The following chronology traces these initiatives, and subsequent
planning activities, from late 1993 to November 1995.
October - December 1993:
Sponsored by the Valley Beautiful, Edward MeMahon, director of the American
Greenways Program, visits the Roanoke Valley.
An open-space study is reqaested by the City of Roanoke through the Fifth Planning
District Commission.
October - December 1994:
A citizens group supporting greenways sponsors a presentation by Sam Rogers,
one of the founders of the Tennessee greenway system. Enthusiastic response
results in a standing-room-only crowd.
Valley Beautiful President Lucy Ellett and area builder Bob Fetzer make
presentations on grecnways to elected officials of Valley governments and request
the appointment of a greenway commission in each jurisdiction.
January -March 1995:
Elected officials of the four Valley governments appoint representatives to serve
on the Roanoke Valley Greenways/Open Space Steering Committee. Staff support
for the steering committee is to be provided by the Fifth Planning District
Commission. The regional steering committee is comprised of: Barbara Duerk,
Lucy Ellett (Chairperson) and John Marlles, representing Roanoke City; Charles
Blankenship, Butch Kelly and Donald Witt, representing Roanoke County; Ed Riley
and Joe Yates, representing Salem; Bradley Grose, Anita McMillan and John Sell,
representing Vinton; and Lee Eddy, representing the Fifth Planning District
Commission.
Planning staff in each of the four Valley jurisdictions develop a map showing all
public and semi-public land.
Short-term objectives for the greenway planning effort are developed by the
steering committee.
Lucy Ellett is elected chairperson of the steering committee.
April - June 1995:
Steering Committee members view videos of Nashville, Tennessee's, greenway
symposium which featured nationally known greenway experts Randall Arendt,
Ron Flanagan, Chades Flink and Anne Lusk.
Based on a request from the Roanoke Valley Oreenways/Open Space Steering
Committee, local governments provide funding on a pro-ram basis to support
a greenway conceptual planning effort and to hire a greenway expert to work with
the steering committee. Funding is provided, as follows: City of Roanoke - $14,400;
Roanoke County - $10,800; City of Salem - $3,600; and Town of Vintun - $1,200.
Steering committee chairperson Lucy Ellett appears before each jurisdiction's
elect&l officials to explain the planning process and present the funding request.
The steering committee develops and approves a schedule of activities and target
completion dates for the conceptual planning process. Key components of the
planning process are: visits by the steering committee to see greenway systems in
North Carolina and Tennessee and to talk ',vith greenway staff; selection of a green-
ways expert to work with the steering committee to prepare the conceptual plan; a
series of three public workshops in the Valley to obtain input from residents on how
and where greenways should be developed; and the submittal of an application in
January 1996 for ISTEA funds to help in the construction of the first official cor-
ridor of the greenway system.
To assist the steering committee and provide continuity, a technical sub-committee
is formed which consists of staff planners for the four Valley governments and the
Fifth PDC.
To learn more directly about greenway systems, steering committee members and
planning staff make site visits to Kingsport and Knoxville, Tennessee, or Raleigh
and Durham, North Carolina. The greenway manager in each city conducts the tour
and provides information about the planning, development and implementation of
the corridors. Photos, slides and video footage of the site visits are taken for use
later.
A selection subcommittee is formed to oversee the hiring process for the greenway
expert. Subcommittee responsibilities include:
· developing a scope of work for the greenways expert;
· developing the Request for Proposal; (It was advertised in The Roanoke ~rnes
[ROANOK~ vALLEY CONC~I~rUAL GRzENWA¥ I~ANPAGE
and ~rginia Business Opportunities and sent to a listing of experts compiled by the
greenways steering committee and staff.)
· developing the criteria to use in ranking the proposals and the qualifications of
responding consulting fu'ms;
· ranking consultants' proposals and tn'ms and informing the steering committee
of which candidates are to be interviewed; and
· interviewing candidates and negotiating contract terms with the top-ranked can-
didate; (selection and terms are subject to final approval by the steering committee).
July. September 1995:
Green. ways Incorporated and Pr~ident, Chuck Flink, are hired by the steering
comnuttee to provide technical expertise and work with the group in preparing the
regional greenways conceptual plan.
The steering committee requests the help of the National Park Service's Riv-
ers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Division.
The first newsletter is published by the Roanoke Valley Greenways/Opcn Space
Steering Committee. Its purpose is to inform citizens about the regional greenway
planning effort and to promote attendance at the serie~ of three public workshops,
scheduled for July 24 at the Roanoke Civic Center, August 17 at William Byrd High
School in Vinton and August 30 at Salem High School.
On July 24, the first public workshop signals the official beginning of the re-
gional greenway planning effort. It is preceded by an extensive public information
campaign which includes the appearance of steering committee members and af-
filiated staff on area public interest programs, in-depth coverage of the greenway
issue by The Roanoke I~mes, the distribution of public service announcements to
the Valley's news media and the issuing of invitations to over 500 interest groups
and individuals.
A luncheon for about 100 elected officials and community leaders at the Vinton
War Memorial precedes the first workshop. The event is underwritten by The
Roanoke Iitmes and features as speaker Chuck Flink of Greenways Incoq~orated,
the newly hired greenways expert. His address and slide show focus on the benefits
of greenways, including their positive impact on economic development and qual-
ity of life.
The first workshop--at the Roanoke Civic Center Exhibition Hall--draws
approximately 130 citizens from across the Roanoke Valley. Chuck Flink and
Greenways Incorporated staff present a general information session on greenways
and discuss greenway opportunities in the Roanoke Valley. In breakout sessions,
citizens brainstorm goals for the regional greenway system and each participant
votes for his or her top-rated goals. Citizens also identify greenway corridors they
believe should be included in the regional conceptual greenway plan. Each of the
believe should be included in the regional conceptual greenway plan. Each of the
three workshops is preceded by a "drop-in session" for citizens at which they can
see the maps and plans for greenway systems in other communities as well as videos
on greenways by organizations such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
In order to update citizens on the goals they established and other input received
at the first public workshop, a s~ond newsletter is published and distributed early
in August by the regional greenways steering committee.
The second workshop is conducted August 17 at William Byrd High School in
Vinton. At this workshop, attended by approximately 60 people, the top ten goals
from the fa'st workshop am presented, as are proposed greenway mutes. In breakout
sessions, citizens discuss route and facility issues.
At the third workshop on August 30 at Salem High School, 54 area residents review
the proposed greenway route plan which was prepared by Greenways Incorporated
based on input provided at the earlier workshops; they also learn about historic and
cultural resources and linkages from a representative of the West Main Design
Collaborative of Charlottesville and vote for the greenway corridors in each locality
they consider the most important.
The greenways steering committee receives a $4,000 grant from Valley Beauti-
ful, the Urban ForesUy Council and the Virginia Department of Forestry to develop
a slide show to inform Roanoke Valley citizens about greenways and to promote
their support of a regional system. Greenways Incorporated is selected to produce
the show and the contract with the firm is amended to reflect the project.
Technical staff initiate preparations for an ISTEA application for regional
greenway funds and develop a timetable for the application process for steering
committee review and action.
October - December 1995:
The first complete draft of the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan is
received by the regional steering committee. A review process begins, involving
the steering committee and technical s~aff in frequent, often weekly, meetings. The
steering committee focuses special attention on the plan's goals and objectives/
strategies and the proposed greenway corridors, all of which were developed using
the input provided by citizens at the three public workshops. The steering committee
reviews the plan--refining it, rounding out information and ranking issues where
required--with the purpose of ensuring that when it is presented to local elected
officials for review later in the fall, it will be a comprehensive, accurate and usable
document.
Simultaneously, work leading to the preparation of an application for ISTEA funds
continues. If received, IS'lEA funding would be used to implement the fin-st official
corridor of the regional greenway system. The steering committee directs the
technical subcommittee to develop criteria for screening potential greenway
corridors and ranking and selecting a f'mal comdor. The criteria are presented and
approved and the steering committee narrows approximately 10 proposed corridors
to four.
Additional research and analysis for each of the four possible IS'lEA application
sit~s is conducted by local governments' planning staffs. The steering committee
ranks the sites and selects the corridor extending from Downtown Roanoke/City
Market to Explore Park in Roanoke County by way of Mill Mountain.
Next steps:
As the conceptual planning process and the initial work of the Roanoke Valley
Greenways/Open Space Steering Committee draw to a close, p~parations are being
made to:
(1) develop and submit an ISTEA application for funding the first phase of the
Downtown Roanoke to Explore Park corridor; and
(2) present the proposed regional conceptual greenway plan to the elected officials
of each Roanoke Valley government.
PAGE 71
Appendix B:
Following are descriptions of greenway land aquisition methods referenced in
Section 7.2.3;
Donation/Tax Incentives
A local government agency agrees to receive full title to a parcel of land at virtually no
cost In most cases, the donor is eligible to receive federal and state deductions on
personal income, as previously described under conservation easements. In addition,
property owners may he able to avoid inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes and recurring
property taxes.
Fee-Simple Purchase
This is a common method of acquisition where a local government agency or private
gteenway manager purchases property outright. Fee simple ownership conveys full
title to the land and the entire "bundle" of property rights including the right to possess
land, to exclude others, to use land, and to alienate or sell land.
Easement Purchase
This mechanism is the fee simple purchase of an easement. Full title to the land is not
purchased, only those rights granted in the easement agreement. Therefore the easement
purchase price is less than full title value.
Purchnse/Lense Back
A local government agency or private greenway organization can purchase a piece of
land and then lease it back to the seller for a specified period of time. The lease may
contain restrictions regarding the use and development of the property.
Bargain Sale
A property owner can sell property at a price less than the appraised fair market value
of the land. Sometimes the seller can derive the same benefits as if the property were
donated. Bargain Sale is attractive to sellers when the seller wants cash for the property,
the seller paid a low cash price and thus is not liable for high capital gains tax, and/or
the seller has a fairly high current income and could benefit from a donation of the
property as an income tax deduction.
Option/First Right of Refusal
A local govemment agency or private organization establishes an agreement with a
public agency or private property owner to provide the right of fcrst refusal on a parcel
of land that is scheduled to he sold. This form of agreement can be used in conjunction
with other techniques, such as an easement, to protect the land in the short term. An
option would provide the agency with sufficient time to obtain capital to purchase the
property or successfully negotiate some other means of conserving the greenway
reSOUrce.
Condemnation
The practice of condenming private land for use as greenways is viewed as a last resort
policy. Using condemnation to acquire property or property rights can be avoided if
private and public support for the Greenway Program is present. Other successful
"greenway communities" have seldom used condemnation for the purpose of dealing
with an unwilling property owner. In most cases, condemnation for greenway purposes
has been exercised when there has been absentee property ownership, when title to the
property is not clear, or when it becomes apparent that obtaining the consent for purchase
will be difficult because there are numerous heirs located in other parts of the United
States, or in different countries. The community must exercise caution in using Eminent
Domain.
It is reconu'nended that the right of eminent domain for a specific property be exercised
by the community only if all of the following conditions exist:
a) the property is valued by the community as an environmentally sensitive parcel of
land, significant natural resource, or critical parcel of land, and as such has been
defined by the community as an irreplaceable property;
b) written scientific justification for the community's claim that the property possesses
such value is prepared and offered to the property owner;
c) all efforts to negotiate with the property owner for the management, regulation and
acquisition of the property have been exhausted and that the property owner has
been given reasonable and fair offers for compensation and has rejected all offers;
d) due to the ownership of the property, the time frame for negotiating the acquisition
of the property will be unreasonable, and in the interest of pursuing a cost effective
method for acquiring the property, the community has deemed it necessary to
exercise the right of eminent domain.
Impact Fees
Impact fees are monetary one-time charges levied by a local government on new
development to offset some of the cost of providing public facilities for new
development. Unlike subdivision exactions, impact fees can be applied to finance
facilities located outside a specific land use development and can account for the impact
of a development on facilities beyond the boundary of the development. The purpose
of impact fees is not to raise revenue, but to ensure that adequate capital facilities will
be provided to serve and protect the public. They can be levied through the subdivision
or building permit process.
The Virginia General Assembly has granted certain local governments (any county
over 500,000 population, cities and counties adjacent thereto, cities contiguous to such
adjacent counties and cities, and towns therein) limited authority to assess impact fees
for "road improvements", defined to include construction of new roads or improvements
or expansion of existing roads to meet increased demand attributable to new
development. This legislation is quite specific as to the manner in which the impact fees
are assessed and used. Current State law would have to be amended to authorize the
use of impact fees for greenway purposes in the Roanoke Valley.
The Dolan vs. Tigard Supreme Court Case and it's
Effect on Greenways in the Roanoke Valley
In July 1994, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dolan v Ttgard examined
the circumstances under which a property owner could be required to transfer land to
ROANOKI~ VALLEY CONC~I~rUAL G REENWAY PLA N
PAGE 73
a local government, with no monetary compensation, for a bicycle-pedestrian trail, as
a condition of receiving a permit for enlarging an existing store. The Dolan family,
owners of a local plumbing supply store in Tigard, Oregon, were required by the City
to dedicate for public use a fifteen foot strip of land for a segment of the City's planned
greenway and bicycle/pedestrian corridor as a condition of receiving a pen'nit to enlarge
the store. Conditions such as these are commonly called "development exactions" or
"dedications" and are used extensively by local governments throughout the nation as
a mechanism for keeping pace with rapid population growth and land use development.
Local governments are burdened with the responsibility of providing services, facilities
and infrastructur~ to new developments and in the last ten years have begun to rely on
exactions as a method for "pay-as-you-go" community growth.
In 1987 the Supreme Court decided ~qollan vs. California Coastal Commission, holding
that an exaction must be directly related, both in nature and extent, the impact of the
proposed development. The Commission granted a permit to the Nollans to replace a
small bungalow on their beach front lot with a larger house upon the condition that they
allow the public an easement to pass along their beach, which was located between two
public beaches. The Nollans challenged the condition to the permit as an unconstitutional
taking. The Court agreed, holding that the imposition of the beach access easement
condition could not be treated as a reasonable exercise of its land use regulatory power
since the condition did not directly serve the public purposes related to the building
permit r&luirement. The court likened the requirement for this condition to "an out-
and-out plan of extortion". There must be a direct relationship between the reason for
the condition and what is being exacted.
Nollan cited Board of Su~rvisors vs. Rowe, a Virginia exaction case in support of its
decision. In Rowe the local zoning ordinance required landowners, as a condition to
the right to develop their land, to dedicate a portion of their property for the purpose
of providing a service road (including curbs, sidewalk, and landscaped median strip)
which was substantially generated by public traffic demands, rather than by the proposed
development. The Virginia Supreme Court found that the local ordinance constituted
an unconstitutional "taking" since the enabling legislation did not authorize this "tak-
ing'' and that it violated Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. This "taking"
was not so much for the benefit of the properties from which the land was to be acquired
as it was for a more general public good.
After this decision the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia opined that
subdividers may not be required to dedicate land for public park, school, or recreation
purposes or to make cash payments in lieu thereof, as a precondition for subdivision plat
approval, since these facilities are not specifically authorized by section 15.1-466.
Dolan added another requirement: that the exaction must be "roughly proportional" to
the impact of the new development. In applying this test, the Supreme Court first
recognized that a pedestrian/bicycle trail provides a useful alternative means of
transportation for workers and shoppers that could serve to reduce automobile congestion
and improve traffic flow. Nonetheless, the Court held that the dedication was a taking,
in the case of Dolan, because Tigard had failed to make an "individualized
determination" that the trail would or was likely to offset some of the additional traffic
IROANOKE VALLIjY cONcEPTUAL GREENWAY PLANPAGE
generated by the expanded store. Thus, where the u'ansfer of land is required as a
condition of receiving development approval, Dolan makes clear that local governments,
and not the property owner, are burdened with demonstrating that the condition of
approval bears the required relationship to the impacts of the proposed development
documented at the time of imposing the conditions.
Critical to the outcome of Dolan was Tigard's failure to include individualized findings
at the development site review stage, quantifying both the impacts of Dolan's
development and the extent to which the bicycle/pedestrian trail would respond to those
impacts. While the Court did not require mathematical precision in determining the
relationship of approval conditions to development impact, it does require that
assumptions must he justified by "rough proportionality."
Dolan v. Tigard served to clarify the rules under which local governments can
conditionally require the dedication of land for public-use facilities, such as greenways.
While some hail the Court's action as a "victory for private property owners," the more
accurate assessment of the decision is that it provides clearer definition for both
landowners and local governments engaged in land development review and approval.
For the Roanoke Valley, the decision clarifies the need for new programs, such as the
proposed Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan, to establish fair, equitable and justifiable
objectives for protecting the Valley's stream corridors and floodplains. The first step
in achieving these objectives is the adoption of this plan.
Appendix C:
Contacts for Technical Assistance
Federal Agencies
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - HEP 23
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366~5007
(httermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Funds)
US Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Rivers and Trails Technical
Assistance Program
Post Office Box 37127
Washington, DC 20013-7127
(202) 343-9578
(Planning and Design Assistance only)
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office for Community Planning
and Development
Main Street Program
Washington, DC 20410-7000
(CBDG project development only)
US Forest Service
Woodcrest Office Park
3205 John Knox Road, Suite F-100
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
(904) 422-1404
(Technical Assistance Forest Service related projects)
National Recreaflon and Parks Association
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
(703) 820-4940
(Planning and Technical Assistance)
National Organizations
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
1400 Sixteenth Street, NW
Suite 300
EOANOKE YALLEY CONCEPTUAL GEZm'NWAY PLAN (~ ~1~ ~~~
PAGE 76
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 797-5400
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 673-4000
(Cultural resource protection identification)
American Greenways Program
The Conservation Fund
1800 North Kent Street
Suite 1120
Arlington, Virginia 22209
(703) 525-6300
(Small Grants/Grecnway Projects)
Land Trust Alliance
900 17th Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
(Technical Assistance)
Bicycle Federation of America
1818 R Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 332-6986
(Technical Assistance)
American Trails
1400 Sixteenth Street, Nh3/
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
(Technical Assistance)
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
Cay Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #2-60-207-450
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33250-020397 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1996-97 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation
of $78,150.00 to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology Addition/Prol:~ly
Account, representing land sale proceeds from the sale of property to On/is Roanoke, Inc.,
for the purpose of marketing and developing the 140-acre RCIT Addition. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regul~'
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Phillip F. Sparks, Chief, Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33250-020397.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1996-97 Capital
Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
VVHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1996-97 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
General Government
RCIT Addition - Property (1) ..................................
$ 8,410,993
3,130,992
1) Appropriated from
General Revenue
(008-052-9629-9003) $ 78,150
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Dear Members of Council:
L
February 3, 1997
Subject:
Appropriation of $78,150 to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and
Technology CRCIT) Addition/property account from sale of property to
Orvis
Background:
City_ of Roanoke sold a 13.69 acre tract of land, Tax Map # 7210107, to the Orvis
Company for the purpose of expanding their business in the RCIT.
Land sale proceeds of $78.150 were deposited in Revenue Account # 008 008
1234 1157 in the Capital Fund entitled "Sale of Land to Orris".
Current Situation:
A. The City is marketing 140 acres in the RCIT Addition for industrial development.
Account # 008 052 9629 9003 entitled "RCIT Addition Property" has been
established for the purpose of providing funding for the development of the
available land in RCIT.
Issues.'
A. Funding.
B. E 'D mn.
Alternatives:
A. ' ' ' $78,150 in land sale proceeds to Account # 008 052
9629 9003 entitled "RCIT Addition Property" for marketing and developing the
140 acre RCIT Addition.
1. Funding is available in Revenue Account # 008 008 1234 1157 in the
Capital Fund entitled "Sale of Land to Orvis."
2. ' D v I n program ofthe City will be enhanced by providing
funds for the purpose of creating new jobs and new revenue for the City.
Mayor and Members of City Council
February 3, 1997
Page 2
B. City Council not appropriate $78,150 to Account # 008 052 9629 9003 entitled
"RCIT Addition Property" for marketing and developing the 140 acre RCIT
Addition.
Fdlg.0klg is not an issue.
Economic Development Pro_aram of the City will not progress in that
a~ppropriate funding will not be available to market and develop the RCIT
Addition.
Recommendation:
City Council an~ronriate $78,150 in land sale proceeds to Account # 008 052 9629 9003
entitled "RCI~ ~d~ition Property" for marketing and developing the 140 acre RCIT
Addition.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/EDC:kdc
cc: Director of Finance
Management and Budget
Assistant City Manager
Chief of Economic Development
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 10, 1997
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #72-110-137-200-326-412-450
J. Lee E. Osborne, Chairperson
Fifth Planning District Regional Steering Committee
P. O. Box 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Dear Mr. Osborne:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33251-020397 endorsing the creation of a regional
partnership to be known as the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance, and appointing
the Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor, and W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, as
members of the organizing Board of Directors of the Alliance. The abovereferenced
measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission,
P. O. Box2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33251-020397.
A RESOLUTION endorsing the establishment of the Fifth Planning District Regional
Alliance and making appointments to the organlzlng Board of Directors of the Alliance.
WHEREAS, §§15.1-1227.1 through 15.1-1227.5, Code of Vir.%,inia (1950), as
amended (Regional Competitiveness Act), permit counties, cities, and towns within a
planning district to establish a regional partnership for the purpose of encouraging local
governments to exercise the options provided by the Act for their mutual benefit and the
benefit of the Commonwealth;
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has coordinated the regional
Steering CommiRee to investigate establishing a regional parmership under the Act, and this
Committee has recommended the formation of the "Fifth Planning District Regional
Alliance";
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has agreed to provide
administrative staffand research support to the proposed Alliance; and
WHEREAS, the guidelines for Virginia's Regional Competitiveness program require
that participating local governments withl, the region adopt a resolution of participation;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Co,mcil of the City of Roanoke as follows'
1. Pursuant to the Regional Competitiveness Act (Act), this Council endorses
%
creation of a 'regional partnership to be known as the Fhgh Planning District Regional
Alliance and agrees to participate in such alliance with other local governments of the Fifda
Planning DisUict that agree to participate.
2. The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor, and W. Robert Herbert, City
Manager, are hereby appointed as members of the organizing Board of Directors of the
Alliance.
3. The Chair of the Fifth Planning District Commission shall also serve as a
member of the organizing Board of Directors of the Alliance.
4. The organizing Board of Directors shall nominate and select additional
members to serve on the Board of Directors of the Alliance to include the representation
enumerated in § 15.1-1227.4 of the Act.
5. The Board of Directors of the Alliance shall adopt by-laws for orgsni?ation and
operation of the Alliance.
6. RecommendAtions for distribution of any incentive funds under the Act shall
be approved by the governing body of each local government participating in the Alliance.
7. The Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to J. Lee
E. Osborne, Chairman, Regional Steering Committee.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
Report No. 97-03
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
SUBJECT: Formation of the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance
Under the Provisions of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act
Dear Mayor Bowers and Member of City Council:
I. BACKGROUND:
The Urban Partnership was created in 1994 which consisted of 18 of Virginia's
largest cities and counties, the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, and the Virginia
Business Council. The Partnership focused its attention on the economic
competitiveness of Virginia in regional, national and global markets, and the impact
of urban conditions on that competitiveness.
A Regional Development Plan was molded by the Urban Partnership after over
eighteen months of study, research and broad based community input from across the
State of Virginia. Two of the characteristics found by the Partnership to exist in high
performance regions of the southeast with which Virginia's regions compete are
collaborative regional governments and a lesser disparity among areas within the
region.
Major incentives would need to be provided to the State's regions to advance
regional decision making and counteract the reality of multiple political boundaries
with regions.
The Regional Competitiveness Act was approved by the Virginia General Assembly
during its 1996 session. The purpose of the Act was to encourage Virginia's cities,
counties and towns to exercise the options provided by the law to work together for
their mutual benefit and the benefit of the Commonwealth. The law requires several
specific elements:
The creation of an active "Regional Partnership" composed of local
government, business, education and civic leaders.
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Page Two
The Regional Partnership may be based on the geographical boundaries of
a planning district.
Each Regional Partnership must develop a regional strategic economic
development plan that identifies the critical issues of economic
competitiveness for its region.
Each regional partnership must issue an annual report describing a region's
progress with respect to median family income and job creation and its
progress in addressing the critical issues of economic competitiveness
identified in the regional strategic economic development plan.
Each regional partnership must identify existing and proposed joint activities
between and among the governments of a region.
The Fifth Plannim, District Commission expressed a willingness to coordinate with
local governments within the District to explore the formation of a partnership under
the Regional Competitiveness Act.
City Council unanimously endorsed a resolution on September 16, 1996 approving
the City of Roanoke's participation on a Steering Committee to investigate the
formation of a regional partnership under the terms of the Regional Competitiveness
Act.
Il.
CURRENT SITUATION
The Commonwealth of Virginia 1996-1998 biennium budget was allocated $3
million by the General Assembly to fund incentives for regional cooperation and $5
million is available from the Governor's Opportunities Fund.
Additional funding to bring the fund to $50 million has been requested from the
General Assembly at the 1997 Session with the ultimate goal to reach $200 million
to fully fund the incentive fund.
Roanoke City Council unanimously endorsed this fundinu formula in its 1997
Legislative Program.
D. Funding will be available to qualifying regions on July 1, 1997.
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Page Three
The Fifth Planning District Commission has agreed to provide administrative staff
and research support for the proposed partnership.
The State Guidelines for the Virginia Reoional Comt~etitiveness program require that
participating governments within a region adopt a resolution of participation.
IlL
ISSUES:
A. Timing
B. Incentive Funds
C. City Council's Vision
D. Legal
IV. ALTERNATIVES
City Council endorse (1) the formation ora regional partnership to be known as the
"Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance" and (2) the appointment of the Mayor
and the City Manager to serve on the organizing board of directors.
Timing is critical. Regions must begin to work immediately to meet all the
qualification criteria and to identify regional initiatives by July 1, 1997.
Incentive funds will be available to qualifying regions on or after July 1,
1997. Eligibility is based on meeting the guidelines of regional
configuration, partnership, strategic plan and receiving at least twenty points
in the scoring system incorporated in the law.
3.
City Council's Vision will be advanced by the spirit of the Act to encourage
partnership of leaders from local government, business, education, and civic
organizations to enhance the regional competitiveness of our region, and to
advance the quality of life and learning opportunities for our region and the
Commonwealth at large.
4. Legal re(~uirements of the Regional Competitiveness Act will be satisfied.
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Page Four
City Council not endorse (1) the formation of a regional partnership to be known as
the "Fifth Planning District Regional All ance nor (2) the appointment of the Mayor
and the City Manager to serve on the organizing board of directors.
1. Timing would not be an issue.
2. Incentive funds would not be available on or after July 1, 1997.
3. City Council Vision would not be advanced through this initiative.
4. Legal requirements of the Act would not be an issue.
Recommendation is that City Council an~rove Alternative "A" which would (1) endorse the
formation of a regional partnership to be known as the "Fifth Planning District Regional
Alliance" and (2) the appointment of the Mayor and the City Manager to serve on the
organizing board of directors.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/DJM/dh
Attachment
CC~
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Manager, Office of Management and Budget
FIFTH PLANNINGDISTRICT COMMISSION
313 Luck A,,enue, SW
Post Office Box 2569
E-mail: plan{i~e@infi.net Roanoke, Virginia 240! 0
http~//www, infi neL/~p[amive t540) 343-4417 · fax 1540) 343-44~6
January ~, I997
Mayo~ David A. Bowem
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
The Regional Steering Committee to investigate the formation of a regional partnership under the
1996 Regional Competitiveness Act has been meeting regularly for several months. The Committee
has had an opportunity to hear knowledgeable individuals discuss various issues related to forming
a regional partnership under the Competitiveness Act. The Steering Committee, at its December
Regional Allrance' be formed to serve as the Ptannfnf I)f~Tict's re~omtl IMFtner3tflg unckn-
the Regional Competitiveness Act.
A copy of the Steering Committee's report is enclosed for your review. The report presents the
following: (1) an overview of the Regional Competitiveness Act; (2) a brief review of the activities
of the Steering Committee; (3) the benefits of participating in the Competitiveness Act by local
governments in the Planning District; and (4) the recommendations of the Steering Committee to
member governments of the Plannin_~ District Commission.
Based on the ~ the formation of the proposed Alliance requires that each
participating local government adopt a resolution stating its commitment to joining the Alliance.
The Code also stipulates that the Alliance must be composed of representatives from local
governments, th~ b~!siness community, higher education, elementary/secondary education, and civic
asso¢ialiol~.. T[~ Steering CommiRee is recommending that local governments do the following:
( 1 ) Adopt th~ alt~ched resolution committing to participate in the Alliance by February 1, 1997.
(2)
Appoint the chief elected official and the chief administrative official to serve on the
Alliance as thc "Organizing Directors". The Organizing Directors shall include: (a) thc
highest elected official of each city, county and town (with a population of 3,500 or greater);
(b) the chief appointed official of each city, county and town (with a population of 3,500 or
greater); and (c) the chairman of the Fifth P~anning District Commission.
Serving Alleghany County, 8u~.=~..,urt CounW, Cliftan Forge, Cc~Jngton, Craig Courtty,
Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, and the Town of Vinton
Page -2-
Once every participating local government has adopted the resolution and appointed their
reptr..sentatives, the Organizin~ Directors will conveaa to develop bylaws for the organiTation and
will be the Dir~ors who represent business, higher education, elementary/secondary education and
civic associations).
On behalf of the Steering Committee, I want to express appreciation for the City of Roanoke's
interest in forming a regional trarmership under the Regional Competitiveness Act. The Steering
Committee hopes that Roanoke City will adopt their resolution of participation by February 1. I
would be willing to address City Council concerning the formation of the regional partnership if you
feel it would be helpful.
Sincerely,
J. Lee E. Osborne
~ StP.~ri.ll~ Committe~
Enclosures
cc: Members, Fifth Planning Dislrict Regional Steering Committee
REPORT OF THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION'S
STEERING COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE FORMATION
OF A REGION~tL PARTNERSHIP UNDER ~
REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT
Prepared by the Fifth Planning District Regional
Steering Committee for Member Governments
of the Fifth Planning District
December 1996
Executive Summary and Recommendations
In Sunc of 1996, the Fifth Planning District Commission contacted local governments within
the District seeking interest in the creation of a Steering Committee to investigate forming a regional
parmership under the provisions of the, 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act. The Act becam~
eff~ve on July 1, 1996. On Auguat 1, the PDCt'equested thateach locat govetm-ne~ interest~
in looking at the benefits of the Regional Competitiveness Program for the District, adopt a
resolution supporting the establishment of a steering committee and to appoint one elected official
arid the chief' adl:ll~.ts' 1la~ve Official tO serve on the committee. ~ steerln~ ¢ornmJtt~ wa~ fot'n~d.
and held its first meeting in September. Paz~ipating local governments on the Steering Committee
include tile CottaGes of Attegtlally, Botetou~, Craig, and Roanoke; the Cities of Roanoke and Salem;
and the Town of Vinton.
The Steering Committee report is intended to (I) provide local governing bodies an overview
of the Regional Competitiveness Act (its purpose and program guidelines); (2) review the activities
of the Steering Committee over the last four months; (3) discuss the benefits of the Competitiveness
Program; and (4) provide recommendations to member governments of the District.
According to the program guidelines for the-Competitiveness Act, the Competitiveness
Program is intended to both reward existing regional cooperative activities among local governments
~ A~lxty. Tim izmemive f*affds am ay ailable m loczlities wl~ci~ ct~aase m work together
to cart~ out new levels of regional cooperation. TI~ 1996-98 bicanium badger allocated $3 million
for the Compotitiveness Incentive Fund. These ~unds are available on July I, 1997. Additional
funding will most likely be considered during the 1997 session of the General Assembly.
The Act calls for the following sectors of the community to be involved in a partnership to
help improve regional economic competitiveness: government, business, education and civic
leaders. All of these groups must participate to create a successful partnership. The Steering
Committ~- ~ IX) L~7.QI:I]Z~ t~ ~ L~Ut,lO~e~ ~ tO bl~ e,w~t,.~4 ~
Competitiveness Act be called the TW& Planning District Regional Alliance" so that there would
be no confusion between this group and the existing Roanoke Valley Economic Development
Partnership.
In its deliberations, the Steering Committee determined that some of the benefits to local
gow,-~,~--r* ~ in ttm Coa~.~'v~.~s Program iaclude:
The Regional Competitiveness Act provides a financial incentive (i.e., a "carrot") for local
governments to work together in adclressing regional problems and opportunities without
a State mandate to do so (i.e., the "stick" approach). Because of the incentive funding, the
Competitiveness Act provides for "win-win" simadon for all pa~dcipating local governments
in the Planning District.
Local governments will receive funds directly as a result of their cooperative regional
activities.
-1-
The Act requires representatives of local governments, the business community, higher
education, elementary/secondary education and civic organizations to work together to
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the region and to identify goals to enhance regional
economic competitiveness.
become members of n ~ezmersbip. Ttmy must also ~p~ove ~e ~md~g formuh f'or
distributing competitiveness funds in the region. Additionally, local elected officials and
admini.~zative officials must serve on the parmership's Board of Directors. Therefore, local
government will be integrally involved in the direction and goals of the partnership.
Since the Fifth PDC has agreed to assist in c.~adina~n of the parmership, and to provida
research support as the partnership is formed, there will be no additional costs to local
governments who elect to participate in this cooperative effort.
One of the key issues discussed by the Steering Committee involved how the proposed
regional partnership should be structured. The Committee recommended that the following
organization process be followed.
The partnership should have an initial, or Organizing Board of Directors that will be
composed of the chief elected official and the' chief administrative official from each
participating local govermnent in tbe Planning District. The Chairman of the Fu~ PDC will
business, education and civic or~api~,ntlons. The Organizing Board will also begin work on
bylaws and may choose to adopt a charter.
Once the full Board of Directors is in place, the Board will adopt bylaws and recommend a
funding formula for distribution of Competitiveness Funds to be approved by resolution of
each participating local government.
Based on the months of discussion and review of issues critical to the formation of a regional
pazmmsl~as auu'mea~ ~ tim 1~ Rexiom~l Comlmifiveam$ ~ the Semsiag Commitme is
recommending that the local governments of the ~fth Planning District take the following actions.
. Pass a resolution by February 1, 1977 which commits the local government to participate in
the partnership (known as the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance) following the
provision~ of tbe Regional Competitivenms Act. The Cnmmittee has prepared a resolution
Appoint th~ chief elected official and the chief administrative offi~;ial ~o serve as members
of the Orgnni~Jng Boal'd of Directors.
-2-
Introduction
In June of 1996. the Fifth Planning District Commission contacted local governments within
the District asking support for the creation of a Steering Committee to investigate forming a regional
partnership under the provisions of the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act which waa goin~ into
eiYecr on Suly 1, I996. OnAu~ast LthcPEIC ~ ii, each local goverms~t,
looking at the benefits of the Regional Competitiveness Program for the District, adopt a resolution
supporting the establishment ora steering committee and to appoint one elected official and thc chief
administrative official to serve on the committee. The steering committee was formed and held its
f'u~t meeting in September. Seven of the nine member governments in the Planning District have
ac. tivaly par, ic~p~_ on tha commio~.
This report is intended to (1) provide local governing bodies an overview of the Regional
Competitiveness Act (its purpose and program guidelines); (2) review the activities of the Steering
Committee over the last four months; (3) discuss the benefits of the Competitiveness Program; and
(4) provide recommendations to member governments of the District.
General Overview of the RegiOnal Competitiveness Act
(Section 15.1-1227.1.15.1-12275 of the Code of Virginia)
During its 1996 session, Vir~nia's General Assembly adopted the Regional Competitiveness
Act. The purpose of the Act is to encourage Virginia's counties, cities and towns to exercise the
options provided by law to work together for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the
Commonwealth. To can3, out this purpose, the Act established an incentive fund to promote joint
activities designed to address regional economic competitiveness needs. The 1996-98 biennium
budget ~ $3 rnill!aa loc th,,, ("orn.rv,,.titiVe_ne.ss l, age. ali~ ~ The~ ~ a~ available on
July 1, 1997. Additional fundin~ will most likely be considervd during tl~ 1997 session of the
General Assembly.
· According to the program guidelines for the Act, the Competitiveness Program is intended
to both reward existing regional cooperative activities among local governments and to stimulate
regional thinking and action toward new initiatives. This Program was not mandated by. the General
Assembly. TI~ finds ~ht~ to localities whi~ ~ m ~ ~ to c-~ry out
new levels of regional cooperation. Regions which do not demonstrate a "significant increase" in
regional activity will not qualify for incentive funding.
The Act calls for va-ions sectors of the community to be involved in a partnership to help
improve regional economic competitiveness. The Act calls on government, business, education and
civic leaders to assist in charting a course to help address regional competitiveness. All of these
groups must participate to create a successful partnership.
-3-
An Advisory Committee was appointed by Govemor Allen in the fall of 1996 to provide
policy guidance in the development of the Competitiveness Program. The Pro~'am Guidelines arose
f~'~ C~ l~:~at~a~:li~.o~l~ona~ pul~d~ ~r~'~e'~t!'~'~ ~ ~fmm inpu~ from
the (]overnor's Advisory Commi~"" Thc following are highli/laa of tha Pml~un Guidelines.
Orgnn~=a~on of
Regional Partnerships ---
A re~ion comprises ~ae cities, counties and towns above 3,500
population within a planning district commission which indicate their
commitment to forming a regional partnership thm~h a~solution
of their governing body. Any other configuration of a region requires
prior approval from the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development (VDHCD). VDHCD will determine if a
non-PDC based configuration might result in fragmentation of the
region.
* A region's funding eligibility will be based on meeting the
guidelines on regional configuration, partnership and strategic plan
and receiving at least 20 points in the scoring system.
* Once the partnerships eligible for funding have been determined,
the population of ail eligible regions will be totaled. Each eligible
that population total.
* Within eligible regions, the incentive funds shall be distributed to
the localities on the basis of a formula mutually agreed to by all of the
localities of the region.
* Eligible regions will receive annual incentive fund payments for
a five-year period as long as the regional partnership continues to
exist and function effectively.
* There is no requiremeut fo~ matching funds from tim pal:mcrship
oc fmmA~.ali~ies within tl~
* There must be a resolution adopted by local governing bodies of
the region giving the pannership approval to carry out the provisions
of the Regional Competitiveness Act.
* To tim ~reatest extent po_~ihlc, timm must be the following
and the chief administrative officer of each member locality;
corporate leaders within the region; the president of each institution
of higher education in the region; one or more chairman of local
school boards (or school superintendents); and board chairs of local
civic associations whose missions are relevant to addressing issues
affecting regional competitiveness.
* Each partnership shall adopt bylaws which will outline sector
group representation, bow members will be selected and how
decisions.~ be made and implemented by the organization.
Regional Strategic
Plan Required
Scoring System
Performance
Accountability
* Any agreed upon formula for fund distribution shall be endorsed
by resolution from each governing body.
* The Competitiveness Program is intended to encourage regional
efforts to identify key issues aff~.ing econou~ competitive~s and
support ~tive, ~ional initiativ~ designed to address those
issues. The method for identifying those key issues and building
consensus for action is the regional economic competitiveness
strategic plan.
* F3cisting local aud regional strategic plans should be reviewed by
the pa~tu~rship in the beginning of its deliberations to provide
baseline information.
* Members of the partnership shall play an active role in reviewing
and analyzing regional information; shall participate in completing a
critical analysis of the region; shall participate in identifying and
prioritizing issues of regional competitiveness; and shall identify key
actions necessary to address competitiveness issues.
* The partnership shall solicit public participation in, the process.
* The partnership shall.officially adopt the strategic plan.
* Parmerships shall make application to VDHC'D to be scored under
20 poh~ is mquiratt m qualify for funding.
* No more than 10 points shall be awarded for joint activities in
existence prior to July 1, 1996. A minimum of 10 points is required
from expanded or new joint activities to qualify for Regional
Competitiveness Funds.
* No more than 10 points shall be awarded for activities within a
single issue area.
* Existing joint activities which ar~ expanded in scope or number of
loeali~s may be cn.~i.-~,,.,~ a ~ join~ activity bat shall not r~eive
the full value of points.
* VDHCD will evaluate each existing and proposed joint activity
using the following criteria: (1) significance of the activity based on
its impact on the region - 50%; (2) significance of the activity on
improving cooperative working relationships among local
govemmeam- 35%; (3) tho ~ ia c.a~iag out tl~ activity
- 5~; (4) tim amount of riscal resources committed to
implementation- 5%; and (5) the number of localities participating
in the activity - 5%.
* Eligible regions must submit an annual report identifying progress
in reaching imp~ milestones described in tim funding
application. Annual reports will be due to VDHCD in May prior to
July funding distribution.
-5-
* Eligible regions that show satisfactory implementation will
automatically receive the next year's funding allocation. Those
regions that have not been able to show progress toward
implementation will not receive funds unless the region can show
pmseni'~ and accepted by VDHCD, the region will b_ave 6 mnnth~ in
which to "catch up".
* Changes to a region's configuration and partnership structure may
impact implementation of its joint activities. VDHCD will review
such changes with the parmenhip to determine the impac~ on
implementation and the region's funding eligibility.
Activities of the Fifth Planning District Regionni Steering Committee
The Steering Committee is composed of an elected official and an administrative official
from the following local governments: the Counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke;
the Cities of Roanoke and Salem; and the Town of Vinton. As of December, 1996, ~he Cities of
Clifton Forge and Covington have not adopted resolutions indicating an interest in participating on
the Regional Steering CommiRee.
TI~ first meming ofth~ Col~nvaite~ wa~ held on Sepmm~ 18, 1996. ~. Bill ~elmn,
~u~ ~t~ for ~e V~ ~nt of Hom~g md Co~u~ ~velopmetu (~HCD), w~
~ked to a~nd to ~scu~ ~e ~nt of ~e Re~on~ Com~veness Act, m review ~ssible
~i~ ming to e~b~ f~ m~om, md m ~nd to s~ific qu~om ~m ~e Co~ttee.
~. Shelton m~ewed ~e Act ~d ~g~ ~ wo~ of ~e ~vemofs Adviso~ Co~R~ on ~e
Compe~veness ~. It wm nord ~at ~. ~ ~dy, a ~m~r of ~e Re~on~ Stee~ng
Co~R~, wm g~g on ~e Advi~ Co~. Some of ~e key issues ~scussed d~ng ~e
~g w~ ~
(1) Would both large and small communities benefit from participating in the regional
partnership? Response.- Yes, the Competitiveness Program is a *'win-win" situation in that
. implementation of the required regional suategic plan will assist all communities in
becoming mom economically competitive. Economic impmvemants in one community can
assist in economic ~rov,~h in adjacent communities. All participating local governments will
(2) Would the amount of money in the competitiveness fund be increased by the General
Assembly? Response: There is a good chance that the funds for the competitiveness
program will be increased. The Urban Parmership and other organizations wRI be lobbying
to increase the funds. Governor Holton will aasist in this lobbying effort. A key to
increasing funding will be evidence of interest shown by regions to form regional
partnerships a~l their interest ia the Competitiveness Act. If several regions are in the
process of fo~ning partnerships, this will show the General Assembly that the Act is
(3) When does a regional partnership have to be in place to ensure thai the region is eligible
for funding? Response: Partnerships should be in place by July 1, 1997. It is important to
move as quickly as possible in forming a partnership so that a region can be eligible for
funding after July 1.
The next meeting of the Steering Cow. n'dttee was held on October ~. Mr. Barry Duval,
President and CEO of the Hampton Roads Partnership, ~tt~ded to discuss the history and the
organi~a, tional structure of that region's partnership. Additionally, Ms. Linda McMinimy, Project
Director for the Urban Partxler~hi~, atrellded the meeting to discuss the history and activities of the
u~~
Mr. Duval noted that the Hampton Roads Partnership was formed as a result of a possible
crisis in the economy when the federal government was threatening to close some military
installations in the region. The local governments worked with the private sector to find a way to
work more closely together and the idea of forming a partnership was established. The local
governments and the private sector pooled their financial resources and created the partnership. Each
local governing body was required to adopt a resolution to become a member of the ParTnership and
had to contribute funds to the group. Approximately $300,000 in public and private funds were
obtained to open the Partnership's office and hire staff. The Hampton Roads Partnership currently
has about 55 Board members representing local governments, the business community, educational
provides technical support to the Parmership as a part of the PDCs regiotmi service to ttmir local
governments. The Hampton Roads Partnership felt that the chief elected official and chief
adm!nistrative official needed to serve on the Partnership along with the most influential business
people in the region. The Board of Directors of the Partnership meets only twice a year while its
executive committee meets monthly. Most of the work of the partnership gets done through special
colnrnittees.
Ms. McI~dinimy discussed the role of the Urban Partnership in spea~beading the Regional
Compe~ Acc The Urbs~ P'arme~hip, formed in 1994, is an atlisnc~ of 18 local
governments, business representatives from each of these localities, and the Virginia Chamber of
Commerce. The Partnership saw the Regional Competitiveness Act as a way for the State to provide
a "carrot" to local governments to encourage them to work together to e.nhance economic
development. Th~ Act does not tell regions what their goals should be; instead, the Act recognizes
thai each region.of tl~ Commonwealth possesses different needs and will have differing goals. Thc
Ufaa~ ~_~. ~ltlm~ l~ayiag ti~ ~ As~m~y to ~ tim c,,,,,~. ',i~ Funding
to $50 million over the next two years.
Some of the central issues that arose out of the October 22 meeting were --
(1) Before forming a pannership, it is important that an area identify itself as a region and
thai it possess some commonalities.
(2) The main idea behind ti~ Competitiveness Act is not to rewaid communities for work
that is al~ady being done; but instead, to reward them for reaching a greater level of regional
coo~ra~io~ ~ ~ i~i~v~ or ~xpa~led cool~z~v¢
(3) It is important that key government officials, influential business representatives, and
leaders of education all participate actively in the partnership.
The Steering Committee meetings held on November 13, December 3, and December 19
Di.sUict to paxxicipato iix a regional partnership; wha~ are the po~-~il~to ways to or2~-~?~ suclx ~
l~hip; who shoukl participate on the pax~hip's board of di~; will oper~ng a
partner*ap cost the localities any money; if a partnership is recommended for the re~iou, how should
the Committee [a*OC~ on this recommendation; when does a pannership need to be in place in
order to I~ quaii~ed for Competitiveness Funds; and wha~ o~*r issues should tbe Steering
Committee continue to discuss. These issues, as well as other items, were discussed at length. The
following reflect the conclusions of the Committee concerning (I) the benefits of forming a
partnership under the Competitiveness Act; (2) the organization of the partnership; and (3)
recommendations for local governments in the District related to forming a partnership.
Benefits to Local Governments and the Region
The Regional Competitiveness Act provides a financial incentive (i.e., a "carrot") for local
governments to work toieth~ in addressing regional problems and opportunities without
Competitiveness Act pxovides a 'win-win" situation for all particll~iag local govenunen~s
in the Plaoning District.
Local governments will receive funds directly as a result of their cooperative regional
activities.
The Act requires representatives of local governments, the business community, higher
education, elementary/secondary education and civic organizations to work together to
identify the sUengths and weaknesses of the region and to identify goals to enhance regional
Bec~mse of tbe way th~ legislation is w~c~eu, ~ ~wvm~ must adopt resolutioe, s to
become members of a partnership. They must also approve the funding formula for
distributing competitiveness funds in the region. Additionally, local elected officials and
admires' trative officials must serve on the pattuership*s Board of Directors. Therefore, local
government will be inte~'ally involved in the direction and goals of the pm'tuership.
Sinc~ the Fn'X,.h PDC has agreed to assist in coordination of the partnership, and to provide
governments who elect to participate in this cooperative effort.
Organization of the Partnership
The partnership should have an initial, or Organizing, Board of Directors that will be
composed of the chief elected official and the chief administrative official from each
~rdl'ti~l~ lo{~l go~rlllLr!_ _ _~'~_ _ m ~ Hanrtin~ Di~l~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ will
also serve on the Organizing Board of Directors.
TI~ Organizing Board will be responsible for nominating other Board members from
business, education and civic organizations. The Organizing Board will also begin work on
bylaws and may choose to adopt a charter and incorporate.
Once tl~ full Boatxi of ~ i~ in place, the Board will adopt bylaws and recommend a
funding formula for distribution of Competitiveness Funds to be approved by resolution of
each participating local government.
Steering Committee Recommendations to Local Governments
Pass a resolution by February 1, 1977 which commits the local government to pacdcipate in
the partnership (known as the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance)' following the
provisions of the Regional Competitiveness Act.
Appoint the chief elected official and the chief administrative official to serve as members
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A REGIONAL ALLIANCE
UNDER THE 1996 VIRGINIA REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT
A RESOLUTION' providing for the establishment of a regional alliance and for the
appointme~ of local et~ and local appointed officials to serve as members of the Organizing Directors
of th~ full Board of Directors of the Alliance.
WHEREAS, Section 15. I-1227. I through Section I$.1-1227.$, ~, as
amended, permits counties, cities, and towns within a planning district to establish a regional partnership
for the purpose of encouraging local governments to exercise the options provided by law to work together
for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the Commonwealth (known as the Regional Competitiveness
Act); and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission has coordinated the regional Steering
Committee to investigate establishing a regional alliance under the Regional CompetitiVeness Act and this
Committee has recommended the formation of the "Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance"; and
staffand r~seereh ~ m the proposed Alliance; and
WHEREAS, the guidelines for Virginia's Regional Competitiveness program require that
participating local governments within the region adopt a resolution of participation;
(1)
(2)
that:
(1)
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the (city or county of} agrees to:
Establish the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance, under ~ provisions of tho 1996 Regional
Comp~,tiv~s ~ in c~,.juu,.~k,~ with ~ other panicipel~g m~mber governments of the Fifth
Plannln~ District; and
Ai~point the chief elected official (mayor or chair of the board of supervisors) and chief
appointed official (city/town mml~ger or county administrator) as members of the Organizing
Board of Directors, The Chair of the Fifth Planning District Commission will also serve as a
BE IT THEREFORE FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (city or county_ nO understands
The .O~.ganizing Board of Directors will nominate and select other Board members to carry out the
provlszons of the Regional Competitiveness Act. The Board of Directors will prepare and adopt
the organization's bylaws; and
5pec. if~meommend,ations f-or determining distritnv, ion of Regional Competi~'eness funds must
be endorsed by each governing body.
Mary F, Parker, CMC/AAE
city c~
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #27-60-468
James D. Gdsso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Gdsso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33252-020397 amending and reordaining certain sections of
the 1996-97 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $30,200.00 from
a Capital Account for design and related work for connection of the Tinker Creek interceptor sipho~
box, on the plant side of the Roanoke River, to the headworks at the Water Pollution Control PlanL
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regula~
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Eric.
pc:
The Honorable Marsha C. Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Steven L. Walker, Manager, Water Pollution Control Plant
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Chades M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33252-020397.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1996-97 Sewage
Treatment Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1996-97 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriations, be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Capital Outlay
Tinker Creek Interceptor Construction (1-2) .......................
Additional Tinker Creek Interceptor (3-4) .........................
$ 26,880,743
6,226,695
30,200
1) Appropriated from
Bonds
2) Appropriated from
Other Govemments
3) Appropriated from
Bonds
4) Appropriated from
Other G~temments
(003-056-8467-9001)
(003-056-8467-8999)
(oo3-o56-84 -9ool)
(003-056-8466-8999)
$ (13,862)
(16,338)
13,862
16,338
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
Council Report No. 97-111
Honorable Mayor and Members o~ City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
CONNECTING SEWER LINE AND ADDITIONAL WORK
FOR TINKER CREEK SEWER, HEADWORKS, AND CONNECTION BOX
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
Backoround on the subject in chronological order is as follows:
Haves. Seav. Mattern & Mattern. Inc., desioned the Tinker Creek Sewer
InterceD1;~)r. Their contract included the river crossing siphon and the siphon
boxes on either side of the river, but stops when the sewer pipe gets on sewer
plant property.
Malcolm Pirnie. Inc.. was employed to desian the addition to the sewer olant
starting with the new headworks (the interceptor box that receives the new
Tinker Creek and Roanoke River trunk lines).
The Roanoke River interceotor desian starts with the headwork~ and proceeds
upriver.
There is no contract for the desian of the 54" sewer (which is approximately
20' deep and runs along the river for approximately 1,243') that connects the
Tinker Creek siohon box on the olant side of the river to a new connection box
at the headworks.
Malcolm Pirnie. Inc.'s sub-consultant for site work and local coordination i,-,
r r i . They have quoted a fee of $20.700 for the design of the
trunk line, ~3,200 for design of a connection box (15'0" x 19'8" x 20'0" deep)
and $4,800 to design a sump pump used to empty several of the aeration-
nitrification basins that drain into the old Tinker Creek interceptor that is to be
abandoned.
II.
~ is as follows:
A. Desian work needs to be funded for the connection of the Tinker Creek siDh0n
box, on the olant side of the river, to the headworks.
Ill.
Issue~ in order of importance are as follows:
A. Fundino
B. Timina
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
CONNECTING SEWER LINE AND ADDITIONAL WORK
FOR TINKER CREEK SEWER, HEADWORKS, AND CONNECTION BOX
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
February 3, 1997
Page 2
iV.
Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows:
City Council authorize the transfer of fuqdir~g from a Capital Account for the
design of the Tinker Creek interceptor from the plant side siphon box to the
headworks and related work.
Funding for the design of this project is available in the Tinker Creek
Interceptor Sewer Construction Account. The construction cost for this
work is estimated to be $800,000 to $1,000,000, which should be
available in the Plant Expansion funding.
Timino is essential to connect the Tinker Creek trunk line to the
headworks.
B. City Council not authorize the transfer of fund.~ for the design work.
1. Fundino would have to be encumbered from another source.
=
Timino delay would not permit the connection of the Tinker Creek trunk
line to the headworks of the plant.
V=
~is as follows:
City Council concur in alternative "A" and take the following action:
A=
Authorize the transfer of funding as follows from the Tinker Creek Interceptor
Construction Account no. 003-056-8467-9001 and 003-056-8467-8999 to a
design account as established by the Director of Finance entitled "Additional
Tinker Creek Interceptor."
Trunk line design $20,700
Sewer pump design 4,800
Connection box 3,200
Contingency 1.500
Total $30,200
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
CONNECTING SEWER LINE AND ADDITIONAL WORK
FOR TINKER CREEK SEWER, HEADWORKS, AND CONNECTION BOX
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
February 3, 1997
Page 3
WRH/LBC/kh
Attachments
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Manager, Office of Supply Management
Commissioner of Revenue
M~ry F. Parker, CMCIAAE
c~y c~rk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #27-53-237-405-468-514
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, February 3,
1997, Council Member Swain inquired as to the number of pending storm drain projects
in the City, estimated cost broken down by project, and timetable for completion.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc: Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office.
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
cay Ck~rk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #27-53-60-237-405-468-514
8andra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Gdsso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33253-020397 amending and reordaining certain sections of
the 1996-97 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $45,000.00 from
1996 General Obligation Bond proceeds to fund an engineering contract with T. P. Parker & Son,
Engineers & Surveyors, Ltd., for design of the Baker Street Drainage Project. The abovereferenced
measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:am
Enc.
pc:
The Honorable Marsha C. Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Chades M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
Delores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33253-020397.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1996-97 Capital
Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, f~ the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1996-97 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
ADDrODrlationa
Sanitation
Baker Street Drainage Project (1). ..............................
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1996 (2) ......................
$ 290,699
45,000
$19,776,731
16,993,076
1) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
2) Storm Drains
(008-052-9642-9001) $ 45,000
(008-052-9701-9176) (45,000)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
Al-rEST:
City Clerk.
February 3,1997
Council Report No. 97-112
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
SUBJECT: BAKER STREET DRAINAGE PROJECT
~_~JTJ~.q.~z~!J~ on the subject in chronological order is as follows:
A sionificant drainaoe oroblem has existed for over 20 years on Shenandoah
Avenue between Baker Street and Luckett Avenue. Shenandoah Avenue
carries over 14,000 vehicles per day and is frequently flooded to depths that
slow or impede traffic. Also, several businesses located in this area of
Shenandoah Avenue are repeatedly flooded by the lack of proper drainage.
The Baker Street Drainaoe Proiect received a hioh Drioritv ratino and fundin¢l
was established in the 1996 General Oblioation Bond Issue, The Engineering
Department has established a priority index system for rating drainage projects,
and the Baker Street Drainage Project is currently one of the highest rated
projects due to its impact on the traveling public and existing businesses.
II.
~is as follows:
An advertisement for consultant services for the desion of the Baker Street
Drainaoe Proiect was oublished in the November 3, 1996, issue of The Roanoke
Times.
T. P. Parker & Son. Enoineers & Surveyors. Ltd.. was selected to perform design
services following review of consultant qualifications and interviews.
The orooosed contract with T. P. Parker & Son. Enoineers & Surveyors. Ltd..
orovides for an enoineerino desion of the Baker Street Drainaoe Proiect to stay
within the existing construction budget of $595,000. The engineering design
will extend storm drain improvements, as allowed within budgetary constraints,
from the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Baker Street to the intersection
of Luckett Street and Shenandoah Avenue.
III.
Issues in order of importance are as follows:
A. P_U _bJJ C,_s_g f_e_~
B. Fundino
C. Schedules
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
BAKER STREET DRAINAGE PROJECT
February 3, 1997
Page 2
IV.
~ in order of feasibility are as follows:
ri 4 from the 1996 General Obligation Bond proceeds to fund
an engineering contract with T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, Ltd.,
for design of the the Baker Street Drainage Project.
~ will be improved with construction of the proposed
drainage improvements.
Fundino totaling $45.000 is available from the Storm Drain Category of
the 1996 General Obligation Bonds and may be appropriated to an
account to be entitled "Baker Street Drainage Project."
~7,Jg_e,_~LL~ for the construction of the proposed improvements will be
expedited by having a consultant perform the design.
Do not aDgroDriate $45,000 from the 1996 General Obligation Bond proceeds
to fund an engineering contract with T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors,
Ltd., for design of the Baker Street Drainage Project.
~ will not be improved with construction of the proposed
drainage improvements.
Fundino totaling $45,000 will remain available from the 1996 General
Obligation Bonds.
Schedules for the construction of the proposed improvements will be
delayed.
~3J3~u~ is that City Council concur in Alternative A, and take the following
specific action:
A ri 4 from the 1996 General Obligation Bond proceeds account
number 008-052-9701-9176 to an account to be entitled "Baker Street
Drainage Project."
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/JGR/kh
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
BAKER STREET DRAINAGE PROJECT
February 3, 1997
Page 3
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Manager, Office of Supply Management
Commissioner of Revenue
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W,, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 10, 1997
File #144-253
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Depuly City Clerk
Rebecca S. Baker, General Manager
Kav Kan Disposal
P. O. Box 325
Daleville, Virginia 24083
Donald Bensen, Operation Manager
Virginia Container Service
701 Irvine Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Chris Rooney, Division President
Waste Management of Virginia - Blue Ridge
2508 W. Main Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Ms. Baker and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33254-020397 accepting the bid of BFI Waste
Systems, Inc., made to the City to provide bulk container collection service, for a period
of one year, with an option to renew for two additional one-year periods, at a cost of
$24.88 per unit, per pick-up; and rejecting all other bids made to the City. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011~1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 10, 1997
File #144-253
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~t? Clerk
Scott Axelson
District Vice-President
BFI Waste Systems, Inc.
341 - 24th Street, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Mr. Axelson:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33254-020397 accepting the bid of BFI Waste Systems, Inc.,
made to the City to provide bulk container collection service, for a pedod of one year, with an option
to renew for two additional one-year pedods, at a cost of $24.88 per unit, per pick-up; and rejecting
all other bids made to the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attomey
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. KJser, Director, Utilities and Operations
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet and Solid Waste Management
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33254-020397.
A RESOLUTION accepting a bid made to the City for providing bulk container
collection service; and rejecting all other bids made to the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The low bid of BFI Waste Systen~ Inc., made to the City, offering to provide,
for a period of one year, with an option to renew for two additional one-year periods, Bulk
Container Collection Service at a cost of $24.88 per unit, per pick-up, which bid is on file
in the Office of Supply Management, is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. Thc City's Manager of Supply Management is hereby authorized to issue the
requisite purchase order therefor, incorporating into said order the City's specifications, the
terms of said bidder's proposal, and the terms and provisions of this resolution, as more
particularly set out in a report to this Council dated February 3, 1997.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid service are hereby
REJECTED; and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each
the City's aplm~:iation fo~ such bids.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
February 3, 1997
97-312
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Bids on Bulk Container Collection
Service, Bid No. 96-12-1
I. Background on the subject in chronological order is:
Bulk Refuse Containers are located at various City Facilities and
require collection services to be performed on a scheduled basis.
The container locations and pick up schedule is shown on
Attachment "A" of this report.
In a coo erative effort with the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, specifications were developed and along with
Request For Quotations were sent to Ten (10) vendors currently
listed on the City's bid list. A public advertisement was also
published in the Roanoke Times and Roanoke Tribune.
The Roanoke City Schools could not participate at this time as they
currently are under an agreement for this service. This bid did
provide for the Schools ability to participate at the expiration of their
existing agreement.
Bids were _received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on
December 18, 1996 in the Office of the Manager of Supply
Management.
S~3ecifications requires that all bulk collections be delivered to and
emptied at the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Solid Waste
Transfer Station.
A bid tabulation is attached. The Eight (8) cubic yard containers
are the City's. The other units belong to the Housing Authority.
Bulk Container Collection Services
Bid No. 96-12-1
Page 2
I1.
II1.
IV.
Current Situation is:
All bids received were evaluated in a consistent manner by
representatives of Public Works, Solid Waste Management, Supply
Management and Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
At present the City's Bulk Collection Service is being provided by
BFI Waste Systems, Inc. at a cost of $25.00 per each Eight (8) cu.
yd. units.
Bids specification reauested that the collection service be provided
for a period of One (1) year with the option to renew for Two (2)
additional One (1) year periods.
The lowest responsible bid is submitted by BFI Waste Systems,
Inc. meeting all required specifications.
Issues in order of importance are:
A. License reauirements
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Funding
Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
City Council award the bid to provide Bulk Container Collection
Services to BFI Waste Systems, Inc. for a period of One (1) year
with the option to renew for Two (2) additional One (1) year periods
for the cost of $24.88 per unit, per pick up.
License reauirements to operate a bulk container collection
service have been met by BFI Waste Systems, Inc.
Compliance with Specifications has been met with the bid
submitted by BFI Waste Systems, Inc.
Funding for this necessary service is available in Solid
Waste Management account 001-052-4210-2010.
Bulk Container Collection Service
Bid No. 96-12-1
Page 3
CC~
1. License re uirement would not be a factor in this alternative.
Compliance with Specifications would not be a factor in this
alternative.
Funding available and designated for this service would not
be expended at this time.
Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" to
award the bid to provide Bulk Container Collection Service to BFI Waste
Systems, Inc. for a period of One (1) year with the option to renew for Two
(2) additional One (1) year periods for the cost of $24.88 per unit, per pick
up and reject all other bids.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Director, Public Works
Management & Budget
Manager, Solid Waste Management
Manager, Supply Management
E
E
0
Department of Finance
City of Roanoke, Virginia
February 3, 1997
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
December Financial Report
This financial report covers the first half of the 1996-97 fiscal year. The following narrative discusses
revenue and expenditure trends to date.
REVENUE
Total General Fund revenues reflect an increase of 4.47% or $2,308,000, on a year-to-date basis, compared
to FY96. Variances in specific categories of revenue are as follows:
General Property Taxes are up .76% or $159,000 due to an increase in real estate tax revenues, offset by
decreases in personal property and public service tax revenues. The second half of real estate taxes, due
April 1, 1997, and personal property taxes, due May 31, 1997, are anticipated to increase to the adopted
estimate increase of 3.78%.
Other Local Taxes are up 3.19% compared to 4.9% increase projected in the annual revenue estimate.
Year to date sales tax revenues are up 4.72% with utility tax and business license tax trailing our projected
increase. Prepared food and beverage tax is up 4.2%. Business license tax due date is March 1 and decal
fees are due May 31. The performance of this category will improve during the second half of the fiscal
year and is expected to meet the adopted estimate.
Permits, Fees and Licenses are up 13.01% or $41,000 due to increased revenues from building inspections
and street opening permits. Street opening permits have more than doubled since FY96 due to a more
stringent enforcement of the requirements to obtain such permits.
Fines and Forfeitures increased $55,000 or 11.89% due to increased General District Court fines which
have risen as a result of increases in several traffic fines and a more aggressive collection approach. General
District Court and Circuit Court collection fees have also increased.
Revenue from the Use of Money and Property decreased $160,000 or 25.45% due to a decline in interest
earnings. This decrease has resulted from a reduction in the General Fund's cash balances which occurred
when the new Risk Management Internal Service Fund was established July 1. The Risk Management
function was previously part of the General Fund.
Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
February 3, 1997
Page 2
Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth have increased $1,538,000 or 13.98%. Revenue from shared expenses
has grown by $512,000 due to increased revenue for the Sheriff's department which has more employees
in FY97 as a result of the City Jail expansion. Welfare related revenues have risen by more than $1.0
million, with increases in Day Care, Foster Care and Comprehensive Services Act making up the majority
of the growth.
Grants-in-Aid-Federal Government are up about $10,000 due to higher FEMA payments this year.
Miscellaneous Revenue has increased $18,000 or 14.44% due to increased revenues from the sale of
surplus items.
Internal Services have increased 9.32%, adding $75,000 in revenues. Cross Connection inspections are
a new source of interfund revenues, and they have generated $50,000, as budgeted. Increased building
maintenance billings contribute to the remaining growth in this category.
EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES
Expenditures and encumbrances in the General Fund have increased 4.11% or $3,201,000 since FY96.
Variances in individual expenditure categories are discussed as follows:
General Government expenditures have decreased $102,000 or 2% following the establishment of a new
Internal Service Fund to separately account for Risk Management activities. As mentioned before, Risk
Management was previously part of the General Fund.
Health and Welfare expenditures have increased $1,365,000 or 16.63%. Cultural and Human Services
contributions have increased by $227,000, mostly because some contributions previously included in the
Parks, Recreation and Cultural category are now in Health and Welfare. As such, the contributions to the
Center in the Square, the Virginia Museum of Transportation, Harrison Cultural Center, Roanoke Sister
Cities, and Explore Park are now in this category. Social Services costs have risen due to increased
personnel costs, higher CIS charges, and increased foster care, daycare, and subsidized adoption
expenditures. CSA expenditures have risen by over $700,000, continuing the trend exhibited over the past
year of increased children in the program and more at very expensive facilities due to the high level of
supervised care they require.
Parks, Recreation and Cultural expenditures have decreased $101,000 or 3.58% due to a decrease in
cultural contributions. As mentioned above, contributions to cultural and human services organizations,
which were included in this category in the past, are now reported as Health and Welfare expenditures.
Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
February 3, 1997
Page 3
I would be pleased to answer any questions which City Council may have regarding the monthly financial
statements.
IDG/AHA/pac
Attachments
Director of Finance
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
GENERAL FUND
CONTINGENCY BALANCE
DECEMBER 31, 1996
Balance July 1,1996
Ordinance
Number
33067
33O75
33105
CMT045
33175
CMT087
33200
33213
Department
Director of Utilities and Operations
Recreation
Dues, Memberships and Affiliations
City Attorney
Social Services - Services
Planning & Community Development
Commonwealth's Attomey
Juvenile Detention Home
Balance December 3'1, 1996
Purpose
City's Share of Governmental
Electric Rat~ Negotiation Costs
Roanoke City Boxing Association
Equipment Purchases
Graenways/Open Space Steering
Committee
Local Government Attorneys of
Virginia Membership
Family Preservation Program
Ward System Task Force
Additional Funds for Personal
Services
Additional Staffing
$367,576
(23,086)
(15,000)
(28,800)
(1,8oo)
(7,563)
(3,000)
(6,882)
(55,119)
$226,326
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
GENERAL FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUE
General Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Permits, Fees and Licenses
Fines and Fon'eitures
Revenue from Use of Money and Property
Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth
Grants-in-Aid Federal Government
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenue
Internal Sen,ices
Total
Year to Data for fire Period
July 1- De~ 31 July 1- Dee 31 Percentage
1996-96 1996-97 of Change
Current Fiscal Year
Percent of
Revised Revenue
Revenue Estimata
Estimates Received
$21,018,666 $21,177,983
15,596,166 16,094,047
315,451 356,482
460,497 515,260
631,919 471,126
11,004,863 12,543,361
16,154 26,247
1,641,399 1,716,340
120,195 137,547
802,882 877,704
0.76 % $62,236,700 34.03%
3.19 % 48,446,356 33.22%
13.01% 562,200 63.41%
11.89 % 875,500 58.85%
(25.45)% 1,138,326 41.39%
13.98 % 34,082,348 36.80%
62.48 % 25,000 104.99%
4.57 % 3,312,010 51.82%
14.44 % 310,500 44.30%
9.32 % 1,824,000 48.12%
$81,608~192 $83~916~097
4.47 % $182~812~940 36.28%
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES
Expenditures
Year to Data for the Period
Current Fiscal Year
July 1- Dec 31 July 1- Dec 31 Percentage Unencumbered
1996-96 1996-97 of Change Balance
Percent of
Revised Budget
Appropriations Obligated
General Government $5,127,917
Judicial Administra~on 1,984,824
Public Safety 17,542,346
Pu blic Works 12,255,616
Health and Welfare 8,201,427
Parks, Recrea~on and
Cultural 2,801,635
Community Development 595,266
Transfer to Debt Service
Fund 6,444,356
Transfer to School Fund 19,099,593
Nondepartmental 3,804,555
Total
$77,857,635
$5,025,523 (2.00)% $5,164,294 $10,189,817 49.32%
1,923,404 (3.09) % 2,216,855 4,140,259 46.46%
18,171,517 3.59 % 19,218,054 37,389,571 48.60%
12,700,771 3.63 % 10,479,691 23,180,462 54.79%
9,565,679 16.63 % 10,531,962 20,097,641 47.60%
2,701,365 (3.58)% 2,315,938 5,017,303 53.84%
602,096 1.15 % 775,125 1,377,221 43.72%
6,776,714 5.16 % 2,534,086
19,750,603 3.41% 19,313,703
3,841,648 0.97 % 2,349,565
9,310,800 72.78%
39,064,306 50.56%
6,191,213 62.05%
81.97%
$81,089,320
4.11% $74,899,273 $166,958,593
2
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
SCHOOL FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUE
Revenue Source
State Sales Tax
Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth
Grants-in-Aid Federal Government
Charges for Services
Transfer from General Fund
Special Purpose Grants
Total
Year to Date for the Period
Current Fiscal Year
Percent of
Revised Revenue
July 1-Dec 31 July 1-Dec 31 Percentage Revenue Estimate
1995-96 1996-97 of Change Estimates Received
$3,547,037 $3,327,720 (6.18)% $8,090,895 41.13%
15,410,321 15,267,904 (0.92)% 30,904,880 49.40%
572,066 851,605 48.86 % 2,353,996 36.18%
831,872 871,260 4.73 % 2,850,206 30.57%
19,099,593 19,750,603 3.41% 39,064,306 50.56%
5,155,182 4,591,514 (10.93)% 5,287,844 N/A
$4~4,616,071 $44,660,606 0.10 % $88,552,127 50.43%
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES
Year to Date for the Period Current Fiscal Year
Percent of
July l-Dec 31 July 1-Dec 31 Percentage Unencumbered Revised Budget
1995-96 1996-97 of Change Balance Appropriations Obligated
Exl~enditures
Instruction
General Support
Transportation
Operation and
Maintenance of Plant
Food Services
Facilities
Other Uses of Funds
Specia{ Purpose Grants
Total
$26,180,487 $27,637,642 5.57 % $34,082,973 $61,720,615 44.78%
1,327,648 1,268,272 (4.47)% 1,888,054 3,156,326 40.18%
1,331,208 1,197,272 (10.06)% 1,656,619 2,853,891 41.95%
4,347,232 4,410,348 1.45 % 5,096,223 9,506,571 46.39%
1,480,884 1,633,869 10.33 % 1,931,827 3,565,696 45.82%
2,588,718 1,959,166 (24.32)% 1,959,166 100.00%
2,203,947 2,916,849 32.35 % 383,592 3,300,441 88.38%
5,228,440 5,287,844 1.14 % 5,287,844 N/A
$44,688,564 $46,311,262 3,63 % $45,039,288 $91,350,550_ 50.70%
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES, ENCUMBRANCES, AND
UNENCUMBERED APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996
Expenditures Unexpended Outstanding Unencumbered
Budget To Data Balance Encumbrances Balance
General Government $8,332,343 $5,397,847 $2,934,496 $270,155 $2,664,341
Public Safety 9,694,206 9,406,761 287,445 101,952 185,493
Educa~on 19,890,309 14,328,510 5,561,799 4,894,787 667,012
Community Development 1,041,000 82,269 958,731 958,731
Recreation 692,879 279,933 412,946 129, 703 283,243
Streets and Bridges 13,781,357 10,505,936 3,275,421 1,208,506 2,066,915
Sanitation Projects 245,699 93,285 152,414 100,756 51,658
Traffic Engineering & Communications 1,775,300 1,380,188 395,112 51,960 343,152
Other Infl'astructure Projects 7,304,034 3,355,522 3,948,512 170,892 3,777,620
Capital Improvement Reserve 19,821,731 19,821,731 19,821,731
Total $82,578,868 $44,830,251 $37,748,607 $7,887,442 $29,861,165
4
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
WATER FUND
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
Operating Revenue
Commercial Sales
Domestic Sales
Indus~al Sales
Town of Vinton
County of Roanoke
City of Salem
Customer Services
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses)
Interest on Investments
Rent
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Expense
Total Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses)
Net Income
1996 1995
$1,616,027 $1,642,964
1,432,680 1,498,945
119,868 129,226
11,997 22,344
975,957 998,536
4,268 1,606
240,462 184,830
4,401,259 4,478,451
707,100 704,313
1,835,677 1,559,744
469,385 469,385
3,012,162 2,733,442
1,389,097 1,745,009
135,176 35,117
1,516 1,650
19,692 17,310
(791,430)(1}
(635,046) 54,077
$754,051 $1,799,086
Note (1)
This amount represents interest paid on the 1992 Water Bonds. Interest was previously
capitalized as part of the construction costs related to the Carvins Cove improvements,
which were substantially complete in February 1996.
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
SEWAGE TREATMENT FUND
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
Operating Revenue
Sewage Charges - City
Sewage Charges - Roanoke County
Sewage Charges - Vinton
Sewage Charges - Salem
Sewage Charges - Botetourt County
Customer Services
Interfund Services
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenue
Interest on Investments
Miscellaneous Revenue
Total Nonoperating Revenue
Net Income
1996
$3,717,798
463,265
132,160
459,194
55,851
77,238
46,205
4,951,711
829,758
2,531,954
467,732
3,829,454
1,122,257
204,745
7,192
211,937
$1,334,194
1995
$3,342,835
378,946
77,345
345,919
51,158
49,499
45,638
4,291,340
845,518
1,838,090
467,732
3,151,340
1,140,000
107,778
10,556
118,334
$1,258,334
6
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CiViC CENTER FUND
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
Operating Revenue
Rentals
Parking Fee
Event Expenses
^dverlJsing
Admissions Tax
Commissions
Novelty Fees
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Loss
Nonoperating Revenue
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from Materials Control Fund
Interest on Investments
Miscellaneous
Total Nonoperating Revenue
Net Income
1996
$172,529
64,966
56,254
1,025
44,272
102,581
33,877
475,504
554,803
563,468
191,579
1,309,850
(834,346)
929,771
16,405
3,770
949,946
$115,600
1995
$212,250
59,137
40,069
925
47,009
51,609
5,422
416,421
525,228
513,845
191,579
1,230,652
(814,231)
779,636
114,896
18,173
1,741
914,446
$100,215
7
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
TRANSPORTATION FUND
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
Operating Revenue
Century Station Parking Garage
Williamson Road Parking Garage
Market Square Parking Garage
Church Avenue Parking Garage
Tower Parking Garage
Surface Parking Lots
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Operating Expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income
Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses)
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from Materials Control Fund
Operating Subsidy for GRTC
Interest on Investments
Interest Expense
Miscellaneous
Total Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses)
Net Income
1996
$154,584
202,635
81,767
200,992
109,538
54,519
804,035
350,504
260,257
610,761
193,274
1,001,133
(400,000)
(2,149)
(365,542)
6,263
239,705
$432,979
1995
$144,574
159,741
87,622
209,087
108,049
62,337
771,410
266,849
260,257
527,106
244,304
872,665
43,165
(300,00O)
5,944
(329,869)
2,994
294,899
$539,203
8
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
NURSING HOME FUND
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
Operating Revenue
Private Patient Fees
Medicaid Patient Fees
Medicaid Reimbursements
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expenses
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Loss
Nonoperating Revenue
Transfer from General Fund
Interest on Investments
Total Nonoperating Revenue
Net Income
1996
$3,29S
150,586
459,677
613,559
646,372
272,652
11,814
930,838
(317,279)
545,022
18,905
563,927
$246,648
1995
$16,586
145,985
486,694
649,265
652,193
261,798
11,814
(276,540)
504,210
10,267
514,477
$237,937
9
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER FUND
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
1996
CONFERENCE
COMMISSION (1) CENTER (2) TOTAL
1995
Operating Revenue
Commission
Conference Center
$ $ $ $
1,131,268 1,131,268 751,147
Total Operating Revenue
1,131,268 1,131,268 751,147
Operating Expenses
Commission
Conference Center
Depreciation Expense
40,975 40,975 46,678
925,766 925,766 793,258
222,038 22,434 244,472 222,038
Total Operating Expenses
263,013_ 948,200 1,211,213 1,061,974
(263,013) 183,068 (79,945) (310,827)
Operating Income (Loss)
Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses)
City Subsidy
Virginia Tech Subsidy
Proceeds from Brick Sales
Interest on Investments
Conference Center
175,000 175,000 175,000
175,000 175,000 175,000
150 150 1,025
2,728 2,728 5,421
2,527 2,527 (23,633)
Total Nonoperating Revenue
(Expenses)
352,878 2,527 355,405 332,813
$89,865 $185,595 $275,460 $21,986
Net Income
Notes to Financial Statement:
(1) The column entitled "Commission" represents Commission activity in the City's financial records.
(2) The column entitled "Conference Center" represents actual revenue and expenses of the Conference
Center, as provided by Doubletree Management.
10
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
TOTALS
Operating Revenue
Charges for Services
Total Operating Revenue
Operating Expense.
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Depreciation
Total OpM'ating Expenzee
Operating In(~ome (Lou)
Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses)
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from Materials Coatrol Fund
Transfer from School Board
Transfer to Civic Center Fund
Transfer to City Information System
Transfer to Transportation Fund
53,534 (3,753) 5,542 34,988 30,152 239,571 360,034
177,692 67,253 244,945
66,572
212,600
20,000
(114,8~6)
(212,600)
(43,165)
Nat Nonoperating Revenue
(Expeneea)
231,226 (3,763) E,642 34,888 87,406 238,671 ~04,978 40,2:~4
Net Income
NMe (t) The Rick Management Fund was eatabllshed on July t, 18N.
11
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CITY TREASURER'S OFFICE
GENERAl STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
TO THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
GENERAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA FOR
THE FUNDS OF SAID CITY FOR THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996.
GENERAL ($385,910.75) $5,925,780.87 $11,718,412.86
WATER 5,937,199.27 503,917.40 111,795.97
SEWAGE 22,466,814.36 1,605,568.08 1,413,493.25
CIVIC CENTER 586,132.44 220,267.96 268,409.53
TRANSPORTATION 228,544.36 109,776.90 87,754.26
CAPITAL PROJECTS 35,023,262.74 227,107.15 1,251,702.75
NURSING HOME 1,015,747.69 102,999.88 123,675.38
CONFERENCE CENTER 215,523.78 172,615.00 0.00
DEBT SERVICE 8,932,471.30 37,781.72 0.00
CITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,045,815.97 85,597.92 76,170.40
MATERIALS CONTROL (120,660.69) 112,438.99
MANAGEMENT SERVICES 217,194.97 11,918~08 4,733.90
UTILITY LINE SERVICES 1,399,642.47 4.55
FLEET MANAGEMENT 1,060,817.42 4,812.50 80,210.42 i
PAYROLL (11,971,511.96) 13,423,781.28 12,409,255.16
RISK MANAGEMENT 10,329,692.42 479,586.76 1,343,168.88
SCHOOL BOARD 10,704,033.69 5,239,934.65 5,141,644.57:.
FDETC (131,141.95) 299,477.87 91,885.72
GRANT 514,830.30 342,968.96 351,083.76
TOTAL $87,969,832.26 $30,412,838.15 $35
CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE STATEMENT OF MY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CITY
OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS THEREOF FOR THE MONTH ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996. THAT SAID FOREGOING:
CASH:
CASH ON HAND
CASH IN TRANSIT
INVESTMENTS ACQUIRED FROM COMPETmVE PROPOSALS:
COMMERCIAL PAPER
OVERNIGHT INVESTMENT
REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
VIRGINIA AIM PROGRAM (U. S. SECURITIES)
TOTAL
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1997
DAVID C. ANDERSON, TREASURER
12
CITY OF ROANOKE PENSION PLAN
STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES
FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996
Revenue
Contributions
Investment Income
Gain on Sale of Investments
Bond Discount Amortization
TotalRevenue
1996
$2,995,294
2,404,375
3,165,574
27,517
$8,592,760
1998
$3,132,361
2,371,491
2,712,473
115,316
$8,331,641
Exoenses
Pension Payments
Fees for Professional Services
Bond Premium Amortization
Administrative Expense
Total Expenses
Net Income
$4,066,860
205,821
153,964
183,852
4,610,497
__$3,982,263
$4,026,328
202,093
78,672
137,766
4,444,859
$3,886,782
13
CITY OF ROANOKE PENSION PLAN
BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 1996
A__ssets
Cash
Investments:
(marketvalue: 1996 $226,745,212
1995 $201,936,131)
Due from Other Funds
Other Assets
Total Assets
1996
$723,440
177,302,079
0
18,000
$178,043,51
1995
$893,361
162,671,800
717
18,000
$163,583,878
Liabilities a~!d Furl~ Balance
Liabilities:
Due to Other Funds
Total Liabilities
$848,295
848,295
173,212,961
3,982,263
177,195,224
$178~43,519
$768,893
768,893
158,928,203
3,886,782
162,814,985
$1631583,878__
Fund Balance:
Fund Balance, July 1
Net Income - Year to Date
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
14
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 3, 1997
File ff.467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Pursuant to Chapter 9, ~[U.~.JJg. D, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
establishing a procedure for the election of School Board Trustees, this is to advise you that the
three year terms of Mafilyn L. Curtis, Marsha W. Ellison, and John H. Saunders will expire on
June 30, 1997.
On June 30, 1997, Mrs. Curtis will complete her third consecutive three-year term of office and is
not eligible for reappointment.
Pursuant to Section 9-16 of the City Code, on or before February 15 of each year, Council shall
announce its intention to elect trustees of the Roanoke City School Board for terms commencing
July 1 through (1) public announcement of such intention at two consecutive regular sessions of the
Council and (2) advertisement of such intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
twice a week for two consecutive weeks.
Section 9-17 of the City Code provides that applications must be filed in the City Clerk's Office by
March 10 of each year. Application forms will be available in the City Clerk's Office and may be
obtained between the hours of 8:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Information
describing the duties and responsibilities of School Board Trustees will also be available.
During the next four months, I will keep the Council informed as to the various steps required to be
followed throughout the selection process.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Mary CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
H:'~SCHOOL'~NNOUNCE.WPD
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandm H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ft80-467
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Dibling:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, Februmy 3,
1997, you were requested to prepare the proper measure recognizing the service of
Marilyn L. Curtis as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board from May 2, 1988 to
June 30, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S,W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone; (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ~-467
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Please note the following dates on your calendar with regard to the School Board selection
process:
(1)
On Monday, March 17 at 6:00 p.m., Council will hold an
informal meeting (reception), which will be open to the public
with all candidates for school trustee in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, first floor of
the Municipal Building.
(2)
On Monday, March 17 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard, Council as a Committee of the
VVhole, will review and consider all candidates for the position
of school trustee. At such meeting, Council shall review all
applications filed for the position and may elect to interview
candidates for such positions.
(3)
On Monday, April 7 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, Council will, by public vote, select from
the field of candidates, those candidates to be accorded the
formal interview and all other candidates will be eliminated
from the school trustee selection process. The number of
candidates to be granted the interview will not exceed three
times the number of positions available on the Roanoke City
School Board, should there be so many candidates.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
February 10, 1997
Page 2
(4)
On Monday, April 21 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, Council will hold a public hearing to
receive the views of citizens.
(5)
On Thursday, April 24 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council
Chamber, Council will hold a meeting for the purpose of
conducting a public interview of the candidates for school
trustee. I have arranged for the interviews to be taped by
RVTV Channel 3 to be televised at a later date.
(6)
On Monday, May 5 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, Council will hold an election to fill the
three vacancies on the Roanoke City School Board for terms
commencing July 1, 1997, and ending June 30, 2000.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary F. Pad,er, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc:
Marsha W. Ellison, Chairperson, Roanoke City School Board, 2030 Knollwood
Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
M. Michelle Bono, Public Information Officer
Angela J. McPeak, Cable Television Government Access Director,
RVTV Channel 3, Suite 145, Jefferson Center, 541 Luck Avenue, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24016
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853 2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
February 3, 1997
File ~-467
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
On June 30, 1997, the three year terms of Marilyn L. Curtis, Marsha W. Ellison, and
John H. Saunders as Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board will expire. Ms. Curtis
is not eligible for reappointment.
Pursuant to Chapter 9, Education, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
establishing a procedure for the election of School Board Trustees, Council must hold
certain meetings and take certain actions during the months of March, April and May to
conform with the selection process. Therefore, I have discussed the matter with the Mayor
and request the concurrence of Council in establishing the following dates:
(1)
On Monday, March 17 at 6:00 p.m., Council will hold an informal meeting
(reception) which will be open to the public with all candidates for school
trustee in the EOC Conference Room, Room 159, first floor of the Municipal
Building.
(2)
On Monday, March 17 at 2:00 p.m., Council as a Committee of the Whole,
will review and consider all candidates for the position of school trustee. At
such meeting, Council shall review all applications filed for the position and
may elect to interview candidates for such positions.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
February 3, 1997
Page 2
(3)
On Monday, April 7 at 2:00 p.m., Council will, by public vote, select from the
field of candidates, those candidates to be accorded the formal interview and
all other candidates will be eliminated from the school trustee selection
process. The number of candidates to be granted the interview shall not
exceed three times the number of positions available on the Roanoke City
School Board, should there be so many candidates.
(4)
On Monday, April 21 at 7:00 p.m., Council will hold a public hearing to
receive the views of citizens.
(5)
On Thursday, April 24 at 6:00 p.m., Council will hold a meeting for the
purpose of conducting a public interview of candidates for the position of
school trustee. With the concurrence of Council, I will arrange for the
interviews to be taped by RVTV Channel 3 to be televised at a later date.
(6)
On Monday, May 5 at 2:00 p.m., Council will hold an election to fill the three
vacancies for terms commencing July 1, 1997, and ending June 30, 2000.
Your concurrence in the abovestated dates will be appreciated in order that applicants may
be advised of the proposed schedule.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
MARY IF. PARKER, CMC]AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853~1145
February 10, 1997
File #192
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~t? Clerk
Alyce Fuller
General Manager
Ticketmaster-New York, Inc.
4456 Corporation Lane, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462
Dear Ms. Fuller:.
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33255-020397 renewing the computerized ticketing serwce
contract agreement between the City of Roanoke and Ticketmaster-New York, Inc., formerly knowrt
as Ticketmaster-Mid-Atlantic, Inc., for a period of five years from February 3, 1997 and terminati~
on February 2, 2002. The abovereferencod measure was adopted by the Council of the Ci~ o{
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
James W. Stephens, Chairperson, Roanoke Civic Center Commission, 2130 Deyerie
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attomey
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Bobby E. Chapman, Manager, Civic Center Facilities
Vivian D. Nelson, Secretary, Roanoke Civic Center Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33255-020397.
A RESOLUTION renewing the computerized ticketing service contract agreement between
the City of Roanoke and Ticketmaster-New York, Inc., formerly known as Ticketmaster-Mid-
Atlantic, Inc., for a period of five years.
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Civic Center Commission has decided that the ticketing service
contract between the City of Roanoke and Ticketmaster-New York, Inc., should be renewed for a
period of five years; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Civic Center Commission has reported to the Council of the City
of Roanoke the above decision for implementation.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The computerized ticketing service contract agreement dated February 3, 1992,
between the City of Roanoke and Ticketmaster-New York, Inc., formerly known as Ticketmaster-
Mid-Atlantic, Inc., providing for computerized ticketing services for the Roanoke Civic Center, is
hereby renewed for a period of five years from February 3, 1997, and terminating February 2, 2002,
all as more particulan'y set forth in the report to this Council dated February 3, 1997, which includes
a revised service and handling charge schedule as set forth in that report.
2. Tha City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, the contract renewal with
Ticketmaster-New York, Inc., said contract renewal to be in such form as is approved by the City
Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Report No. 97-313
Roanoke, Virginia
February 3, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Computerized Ticketing Service for the Roanoke
Civic Center
I concur with the Roanoke Civic Center Commission's recommendation
relative to the above subject and submit it to you for appropriate
action.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachment
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities and Operations
Chairman and Members, Civic Center Commission
Civic Center Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
February 3, 1997
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Computerized Ticketing Service for the Roanoke
Civic Center
I. Backaround
ae
Civic Center ticket sales have been contracted thru
major computer ticketing firms since January, 1983.
Be
City solicited bids in September, 1990 from the major
computer ticketing firms throughout the country,
pursuant to the Procurement Chapter of the Roanoke City
Code.
C. Bids were received from Ticketron and Ticketmaster.
De
City Council adopted a resolution on January 7, 1991 to
accept the bid of Ticketron.
Contract with Ticketron was never executed by Ticketron
officials, possibly because of knowledge that a take-
over by Ticketmaster was imminent.
City received notice that Ticketmaster took over all
Ticketron assets on June 1. 1991.
City entered into an aqreement with Ticketmaster Mid-
Atlantic. Inc. on February 3, 1992 to provide
computerized ticketing service for the Roanoke Civic
Center. This contract provides for one (1) additional
five (5) year renewal by mutual agreement of the
parties.
II. Current Situation
Current contract with Ticketmaster Mid-Atlantic, Inc
expires February 3, 1997.
Be
Notice was qiven to City in writing by Ms. Alyce
Fuller, General Manager, that Ticketmaster Mid-
Atlantic, Inc. would like to exercise the additional
five (5) year renewal.
Ticketmaster is the only computerized ticketing service
of its kind available in the market. Ticketmaster
requires no up-front capital expenditure and provides
equipment, hardware, software, supplies and outlet
support.
D. Ticketmaster's customer service char~es and internal
per ticket charge cover their operating costs.
At the January 21, 1997 meetinq, the Civic Center
Commission voted to extend the contract with
Ticketmaster Mid-Atlantic, Inc. for five (5) additional
years, subject to approval by the Council of the City
of Roanoke.
III. Issues
A. Competitive Procurement
B. Timing
C. Continuity of Service
D. Fees
IV. Alternatives
Renew current contract with Ticketmaster Mid-Atlantic,
Inc. for five (5) years to provide computerized
ticketing service for the Roanoke Civic Center.
Competitive procurement. Ticketmaster is the only
source practicably available for the needed
electronic ticketing service.
Timing is important to ensure continued
pt '
uninterru ed service.
Continuity of servic~ would be maintained at
present level by a proven provider of the required
service.
4. Fees are as follows:
ae
Ticketmaster's charqe to the City shall
remain the same as follows:
(1) Box Office - .07¢ per ticket
(2) Outlets - .10¢ per ticket
(3) Telephone - 2.8% of gross sales
Service and handlina charqes to the customer
will be as per Attachment nB" which
references increases to the Customer
Convenience Charges and Handling Fees for the
next five (5) years of the agreement.
Ve
DO not renew contract with Ticketmaster Mid-Atlantic,
Inc. to provide computerized ticketing service for the
Roanoke Civic Center.
1. Competitive procurement would not be an issue.
2. Timinq would become a problem.
Continuitv of serv~c~ may be interrupted and level
of service to Civic Center patrons would decrease.
4. Fees by Ticketmaster would not be an issue.
Recommendation
JWS:vn
Attachment
CC
Council concur with Alternative ~A" and authorize the
City Manager to renew the current contract with
Ticketmaster Mid-Atlantic, Inc. for five (5) years to
provide computerized ticketing service for the Roanoke
Civic Center.
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Chairman and Members, Civic Center Commission
Civic Center Manager
ATTACHMENT "B"
SERVICE AND HANDLING CHARGES
Per Ticket
Outlet
Service Charge
YEAR# 6
Sports $2.00 $2.85
Con/Non $2.25 $3.40
Family $1.75 $2.25
YEAR#7
Sports $2.00 $2.85
Con/Non $2.25 $3.40
Family $1.75 $2.50
YEAR# 8
Sports *$2.25 *$3.00
Con/Non $2.50 $3.65
Family $2.00 $2.75
YEAR# 9
Sports *$2.25 *$3.00
Con/Non $2.75 $3.75
Family $2.00 $2.75
Per Ticket
Telephone
Service Charge
Per Order
HaDdlin,~
Charge On Telephone Sales
$1.50
$1.50
$1.50
$1.50
$1.75
$1.50
$1.75
$1.75
$1.50
$1.75
$2.00
$1.75
YEAR # 10
Sports *$2.25 *$3.00 $1.75
Con/Non $2.75 $3.75 $2.00
Family $2.00 $2.75 $1.75
*If there is an increase in the cost of Sporting Event Tickets in year 8 of the Agreement this service
charge is applicable. Otherwise, there is no increase.
Ringling Bros./Disney On Ice Tickets will be per Ringling's national deal with Ticketmaster.
$1.75 per Ticket for each Ticket sold at the outlets and $2.00 per Ticket for each Ticket sold by
Telephone, with a cap of $8.00 per order on Telephone sales. Increases as Ticketmaster & Ringling Bros.
agree upon.
MARY lq'. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFHCE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 10, 1997
File #192
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Stanley G. Breakell, President
Breakell, Inc.
2314 Patterson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Breakell:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 33257-020397 accepting the bid of Breakell, Inc., to construct
a new roof over the entrance to the Exhibit Hall at the Roanoke Civic Center, in the amount of
$126,702.00, to include additive Bid Item Nos. 1 and 2, upon certain terms and conditions;
authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work; and rejecting all
other bids made to the City for the work. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Eno.
pc:
The Honorable Marsha C. Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
D. Dan&in Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Bobby E. Chapman, Manager, Civic Center Facilities
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Chadie M. Anderson, Project Manager
Ellen $. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
Diane S. Akere, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: 1540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #192
John P. Whittle, President
Thor, Inc. General Contractor
P. O. Box 13127
Roanoke, Virginia 24031-3127
Dear Mr. Whittle:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 33257-020397 accepting the bid of Breakell, Inc.,
to construct a new roof over the entrance to the Roanoke Exhibit Hall at the Civic Center,
in the amount of $126,702.00, to include additive Bid Item Nos. 1 and 2, upon certain
terms and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract
for such work; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your
bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP'.sm
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33257-020397.
AN ORDINANCE ~pfingthebid ofBreak~l, ~c.,to construct anew roofoverthe
euhance to the Exhibit Hall at the Civic Center, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a
contract th~efor, authori~ng the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work;
rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid of Breakell, Inc., to construct a new roof over the entrance to the Exhibit Hall
at the Civic Center, in the total amount of $126,702 to include additive Bid Item No. 1 and 2, as is
more particularly set forth in the February 3, 1997, report to this Council, such bid being in full
compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract
documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby
ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the
successful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the City's spec'ffications made therefor,
said contra~ to be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said work to be
paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by Council.
3. Any end all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid work are hereby REIECTED,
and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File f/60-192
James D. Gdsso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grlsso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33256-020397 amending and reordaining certain sections of
the 1996-97 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $139,500.00, in
connection with construction of a new (roof) cover over the entrance to the Exhibit Hall at the
Roanoke Civic Center. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
ERC.
pc:
The Honorable Marsha C. Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Bobby E. Chapman, Manager, Civic Center Facilities
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Charlie M. Anderson, Project Manager
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33256-020397.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1996-97 Capital
Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1996-97 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
ADDrODrlatlons
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1996 (1) ....................
$19,682,231
16,898,576
General Government $ 8,471,843
Cover at Entrance to Exhibit Hall (2) .......................... 139,500
1) Buildings
2) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
(008-052-9701-9183)
(008-052-9697-9001)
$ (139,500)
139,500
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
AI-I'EST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
Council Report No. 97-102
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
COVER AT ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
710 Williamson Road, N.E.
Bid No. 96-12-05 and 96-12-62
I concur with the Bid Committee recommendation relative to the above project and
recommend it to you for appropriate action.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/CMA/kh
Attachment: Tabulation of Bids
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
Manager, Civic Center
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
Manager, Supply Management
City Engineer
Project Manager
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Commissioner of Revenue
February 3, 1997
Council Report No. 97-102
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
COVER AT ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
710 Williamson Road, N.E.
Bid No. 96-12-05 and 96-12-62
We, the undersigned Bid Committee, hereby submit the attached report and recommend
it to you for approval.
Respectfully sub~
~Chairman
JHP/CMH/kh
Attachment: Tabulation of Bids
C:
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
Manager, Civic Center
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
Manager, Supply Management
City Engineer
Project Manager
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Commissioner of Revenue
February 3, 1997
Council Report No. 97-102
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
COVER AT ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
710 Williamson Road, N.E.
Bid No. 96-12-05 and 96-12-62
Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows:
A. Public access to the Exhibit Hall at the Civic Center is accommodated via a series
of steps which lead down from the parking lot level to the floor level
approximately 15 feet below. Since there is no roof cover (canopy) above this
entrance way, the steps and landings are susceptible to the accumulation of snow
and ice; and, the lower and intermediate landings and a number of individual steps
pond water following periods of precipitation. With colder temperatures, these
areas freeze over and thus become potential safety hazards to the public using the
facility.
The current Capital Improvements Program includes a project to provide a cover
(roof closure) over the entrance to the Exhibit Hall. The complete project, part of
an overall on-going improvements program at the Civic Center, was estimated to
cost about $100,000, which includes the cost of protective louvers to prevent
driving rain from penetrating the open end on the western side of the canopy, and
new ground mounted flagpoles to replace the present wall mounted flagpoles
which conflict with the installation of the new roof cover.
Several preliminary desiqn concepts for roof cover were prepared by the staff of
the Office of City Engineer and reviewed with representatives of the Civic Center
and the City administration.
The scope of work for the project, based on the approved preliminary concept,
includes construction of a structural standing metal roof system supported on steel
purlins, structural steel frames and concrete columns, and new light fixtures. Final
construction plans and contract documents were also prepared by the Office of
City Engineer with two alternate (additive) bid items included in the bid package -
the first to provide protective louvers at the west end of the roof cover; a second
to provide new flagpoles, lighting and associated pavement.
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
COVER AT ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
February 3, 1997
Page 2
To reduce costs, the decision was made to solicit separate bicl~ to furnish and
install new shrubbery and ground cover landscaping materials in plant beds located
at each side of the entrance steps to the Exhibit Hall. The existing trees must be
removed and the remaining plant stock will be severely damaged by construction
work required for the new roof canopy.
II. Current situation is as follows:
"Notice of Invitation to Bid" was advertised in The Roanoke Times on December
8, 1996 and The Roanoke Tribune on December 12, 1996. A (non-mandatory)
pre-bid conference, held at the Civic Center on December 17, 1996, was attended
by two potential bidders.
Two (2) bids were received, publicly opened and read aloud before the Manager
of Supply Management on January 7, 1997, with Breakell, Inc. submitting the Iow
bid in the amount of $126,702, which includes both alternate (additive) bid items,
and a time of construction of ninety (90) consecutive calendar days.
Separate quotations were requested from four local landscape contractors to
provide new landscaping materials in plant beds adjacent to entrance steps. Two
(2) bids were received, publicly opened and read aloud before the Manager of
Supply Management on January 7, 1997, with Laurel Creek Nursery submitting
the Iow bid in the amount of $2,980.
III. Issues in order of importance are as follows:
A. Public safety
B. Amount of the bid
C. FundinR
D. Completion time
IV.
Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows:
A. Award a contract to Breakell, Inc., in the amount of $126,702, to include Additive
Bid Items No. 1 and No. 2, in accordance with the contract documents.
1. Public safety concerns will be alleviated.
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
COVER AT ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
February 3, 1997
Page 3
Amount of the bid is acceptable.
Funding for the project is being provided through General Obligation Bonds
approved by voters in the 1994 bond referendum and available in the 1996
issue.
Completion time will be ninety (90) consecutive calendar days, which is
acceptable.
B. Reiect all bids and do not award a contract at this time.
1. Public safety would continue to be a concern.
2. Amount of the bid will likely increase if rebid at a later date.
3. Funding would not be encumbered at this time.
4. Completion time will be extended.
Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative A, and take the following
specific actions:
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contractual aqreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, with Breakell, Inc. in the amount of $126,702,
to include Additive Bid Items No. 1 and 2, and (90) consecutive calendar days, to
construct a new (roof) cover over the entrance to the Exhibit Hall at the Civic
Center in accordance with the contract documents.
Office of City En,qineer will issue a purchase order to Laurel Creek Nursery in the
amount of $2,980 to provide the landscaping materials for plant beds.
Transfer $139,500 from proceeds from the sale of 1996 bonds (Account No. 008-
052-9701-9183) to a new Capital Projects Fund account entitled "Cover at
Entrance to Exhibit Hall, Roanoke Civic Center." The breakdown shown on page
that follows provides for the installation of new signage to identify the Exhibit Hall
entrance, services to be provided during the construction phase by the Office of
City Engineer, technical services from an outside consultant, services of an
independent testing laboratory that might be required during construction, a
contract contingency of approximately three percent (3%), and $250 in expenses
related to publicly advertising the project for bids.
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
COVER AT ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
February 3, 1997
Page 4
ITEM
Contract Amount
Landscaping
Signage
City Engineer's Services
Consultant Services
Testing Services
Contingency
Advertising
Total
D. Reiect all other bids received.
COST
26,702
2,980
500
2,000
2,250
1,000
3,818
250
39,500
JHP/CMA/ca
Attachment: Tabulation of Bids (each project)
C:
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
Manager, Civic Center
Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Manager, Supply Management
City Engineer
Project Manager
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Commissioner of Revenue
0
0
0
0
._o
o
BID TABULATION
LANDSCAPING OF TWO PLANT BEDS
ENTRANCE TO EXHIBIT HALL
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER
710 Williamson Road, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia
Bid Number 96-12-62
Bids Received: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 7, 1997
BIDDER BASE BID
LAUREL CREEK NURSERY $ 2,980.00
PLANTATION NURSERY No Bid
YAGLE NURSERY, INC. $ 3,300.00
Estimated Cost: $3,000 to $4,000
Office of the City Engineer
Roanoke, Virginia
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
C~y C;erk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #162-362-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 33258-020397 amending the Environmental Policy Relat~g
to Acquisition of Real Property adopted by City Council on July 26, 1993, pursuant to Resolution No.
31605-072693. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
Wilbum C, Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Chades M. Huffine, City Engineer
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33258-020397.
A RESOLUTION amending the Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of
Real Property adopted by this City Council on July 26, 1993, pursuant to Resolution No.
31605-0'/2693.
WHE~, by Resolution No. 31605-0'/2693, adopted by this Council on July 26,
1993, Council approved an Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real
Property; and
WHEREAS, there is a desire to amend such Policy with respect to reporting
requirements only;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Environmental Policy Relating to the Acquisition of Real Property adopted
by this Council on July 26, 1993, pursuant to Resolution No. 31605-072693, is hereby
amended by the deletion of the last sentence of the first paragraph under Policy on Page I,
and by substitution of the following language for the deleted language:
The City Mm~iger shall semi-annually transmit a summary
report of all such approvals, which shall for each such approval
contain a statement of the grounds for not conducting a
complete environmental assessment, to the City Council and to
the City Attorney.
2. The Environmental Policy relating to the Acquisition of Real Property
except to the extent amended by this Resolution, remain in full force and effect.
3. Resolution No. 31605-072693, adopted July 26, 1993, is hereby amended to
the extent of any inconsistency with this Resolution. Except to the extent of any
inconsistency with this Resolution, such Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
Report No. 97-302
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Notification Letter - Environmental Site Assessments
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its
regular meeting on January 21, 1997. The Committee recommends that Council amend the
Environmental Policy relating to Real Property Acquisition to provide for a semi-annual
summary report, in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
(inCa F. Wyatt, Ch~i rio e rs~-c n~>
LFW:KBK: afm
Attachment
Water Resources Committee
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Report No. 97-302
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
January 21, 1997
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
Members, Water Resources Committee
Direct~.~_~tilities & Operations
Rob ~'~
W. ert HerlSert, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Notification Letter - Environmental Site Assessments
I. Background:
The first page of the Environmental Policy relating to the Acquisition
of Real Property, adopted per the attached July 26, 1993 report to
Council, requires "the City Manager shall immediately transmit a
copy of any letter approving the acquisition of property rights without
a complete environmental assessment to City Council and the City
Attomey".
Numerous instances of property rights acquisition do occur for which
a complete environmental assessment is not felt warranted. This
results in numerous letters to Council.
Co
Some members of Council have indicated that the receipt of these
numerous letters is not meaningful and would ~ual
summa~_ report instead.
II. Issues:
A. Timely notifications
B. Meaningful correspondence
Page 2
III. Alternatives:
A. Water Resources Committee recommend that the Environmental
Policy relating to the Acquisition of Real Property be amended to
require a semi-annual summary report to members of Council for
property right( s) acquisition( s) for which a complete environmental
assessment is not performed noting that any member of Council is
always welcome to call the City's Environmental Compliance Officer
should there be any question regarding any contemplated property
right acquisition.
. 1. Timely notification will not be as prompt; however, any
available information can be given to members of Council at
any time if there are questions or concerns.
2. Meaningful correspondence will be provided.
B. Water Resources Committee not recommend any changes to the
current policy of notifying Council.
1. Timely notification is provided; however, it does not seem to
meet the needs of some members of Council.
2. Meaningful correspondence will continue to be in question.
IV. Recommendation: Water Resources Committee recommend that Counci 1
amend the Environmental Policy relating to Real Property Acquisition to
provide for a semi-annual summary 'report in accordance with Alternative
"A" .
KBK:afm
Attachment
cc: Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles M. Huffme, City Engineer
;';"}roI f ~.. _ . ..
"" -~
;;1 .~~
'-
Roanoke, Virginia
July 26, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Property Acquisition - EnVironmental Audits
I. Backqround:
A. Property acquisition for the purpose of this document
includes any property interest, e.g. fee simple,
easements, rights-ot-way, leasehold interests, etc.
B. Types of real property transactions typically engaged
in by the City are:
I. Lessee of Property
2. Lessor of Property
3. Right of Entry for inspection, survey, and/or
construction
4. Easement on property on which another easement is
already owned
5. Easement on property on which no other interest i9
already owned
G. Easements needed for which the City ham an option
as to whether or not to proceed
-~o. Easements needed for which the City has no
practical option as to whethe~ or not to proceed
00 Easements 1n anticipation of land disturbance or
excavation
9. Easements in anticlp~tion of a right-of-way or
above surface cle~~lnq only with no or minimal
land disturbance
10. Fee ~imple acqul$ltlofi where no other property
~i9ht, e.qo ea~emene" exi~t~
Page 2
11. Fee simple acquisition where other property right,
e.g. easement, exists
12. Property interest adjacent to property suspected
of being contaminated
13. Property interest adjacent to property not
suspected of being contaminated
14.
Property interest donated to the City as part of a
subdivision or other development with no land
disturbance or excavation immediately prior to
donation, e.g. an easement for a future utility
pipe or a drainage right-of-way
15.
Property interest donated to the City as part of a
subdivision or other development immediately
following land disturbance or excavation, e.g. a
street or utility easement after construction is
completed
16. Various combinations of the above examples
Environmental site assessments are typically completed
in three (3) phases after a preliminary evaluation.
Preli~inary evaluation - Walk over which
indicates if there has been any substantive
human activity on site or adjacent sites or a
site that has already been stripped to
undisturbed earth.
1. Phase I
s
Chain of title search for a period of at
least 60 years to determine prior owners and
uses of property.
Review historic data from transferor, Tax
Assessor, Fire Marshall, Building Inspector,
state and federal agencies.
Conduct walk-through survey of site and
buildings on site.
Page 3
Check for asbestos in buildings built prior
to 1978.
2. Phase II (when recommended based on Phase I data)
Additional research and testing (e.g. radon
testing, ground water & ·oil testing).
Conduct very detailed and specific
investigation.
3. Phase III (if required)
· Develop remediation plan.
· Usually requires regulatory approval.
Environmental laws that potentially place liability on
the purchaser in land acquisitions are:
Comprehensive Environmental Response~ Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); 42 U.S.C.
Sections 9601-9657 (1982 and Supplement III 1985)
a)
Imposes liability on organizations and
persons which may have caused environmental
problems with hazardous substances (excludes
petroleum products). Potentially responsible
parties include owner, generators,
transporters, and lenders (management or
foreclosure).
b)
Liability may be imposed without regard to
fault and is usually assigned by EPA to "deep
pockets".
c)
Only protection: Third party defense
incorporating claims of "Innocent Landowner"
or exercise of eminent domain by federal,
state, and local governments.
Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act,
(SARA), P.L. 99-499
a)
Includes additional authorizations and
amendments to CERCLA.
b) Includes "Community Right-to-Know"
provisions.
Page 4
Establishes reporting requirements for
hazardous and toxic materials.
Notification requirement for
uncontrolled releases.
c)
Only protection: Third party defense
incorporating claims of "Innocent Landowner"
or exercise of eminent domain by federal,
state and local governments.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901-6987
a)
Regulates generation, transport, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials (including
petroleum products).
b)
Requires clean-up of sites posing imminent or
substantial danger to health and environment.
c)
Includes leaking underground storage tanks
under disposal.
d) Does not include any exemptions from
liability.
Innocent landowner can only be used as a defense to
liability under CERCLA and SARA by establishing the
following:
The environmental contamination was caused solely
by the act of a third party with whom the innocent
landowner does not have a direct or indirect
contractual relationship.
2. Due care with hazardous substances was exercised.
Precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions
of the third party were taken.
At. the time of the acquisition the innocent
landowner did not know and had no reason to know
that any hazardous substance had been disposed of
on site.
The property was acquired after the hazardous
waste had been disposed.
The use of an environmental site assessment prior to
purchase and routine site inspections can be used as
Page 5
evidence that the purchase conducted an appropriate
inquiry regarding the site and therefore satisfies
condition number 4 known as the "innocent landowner"
defense.
II. Current situation:
Phase I environmental site assessments are currently
recommended for all land acquisitions by the City in a
memorandum dated March 12, 1991 from the City Attorney.
Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project is an example of
a project currently on hold subject to negotiations on
acceptable levels of hazardous materials. With respect
to the Roanoke River project, the environmental
concerns on "hold" are related not only to acquisition
but also to earth moving and disposal issues arising
out of construction. These concerns are not addressed
by this report. This issue is further complicated due
to the lack of guidelines from federal and state
agencies as to what are acceptable levels of
contamination which in turn is dependent on the types
of activity and potential exposure which will occur on
the area. Typically, acceptable levels are only
defined on a site-by-site case during the mitigation
and clean-up phase (Phase III) after very lengthy
negotiation procedures with regulatory agencies.
Future pro~ectS°such as sanitary sewers, water lines,
storm drains, and Jail expansion could be adversely
affected like the Roanoke River project. A land
acquisition policy will help ensure all reasonable
efforts are made to make decisions as expeditiously as
possible.
De
Few areas, if any, in the City have been exempt from
human activity or the effects of human activity. It
would be helpful for the City to designate a qualified
person to weigh future additional risk to the City for
property interest acquisition under a policy adopted by
the City Council which balances the need to protect the
City from undue risk and liabilities without preventing
projects and facilities needed for the health and
welfare of our citizens and the orderly development of
the City.
Page 6
III. Issues:
A. Liability
B. Leqal
C. Cost
D. Tlminq
IV. Alternatives:
Adopt the attached land acquisition policy that
requires some form of environmental site assessment
evaluation for all property interest purchases. Ail
properties shall be walked by the Director of Utilities
and Operations or his designee to determine to the
extent field conditions Justify an environmental site
assessment.
Liability to the City would be recognized on those
parcels on which the City has little or no choice
as to whether or not to proceed or already had a
property interest. Where the City has option on
if or how to proceed and there is evidence of land
disturbance, a more informed decision can be made
based on formal assessment procedure results.
Leqal obligations to prove innocent landowner and
to avoid underground petroleum storage tanks will
be met on virtually all parcels to be acquired.
Cost to the City for a Level I environmental site
assessment is usually $1,500 to $2,000 each.
Given that most non-fee simple land acquisitions
are of values less than $1,500 to $2,000, this
policy attempts to strike a balance between
potential liability and cost of avoiding
liability.
Timinq on most projects would be enhanced by this
policy by reducing the number or need for
environmental site assessments.
Establish a City land acquisition policy that requires
a detailed formal environmental site assessment for ali
parcels.
Liability would be limited to City parcels
currently owned that were improperly used in
past.
the
Page 7
Legal requirements under CERCLA, SARA, and RCRA
would be met.
Cost to the City would be astronomical.
Currently, the City purchases approximately 250
parcels a year. This would require an expenditure
of nearly $500,000 for Level I environmental
assessments. This cost assumes that the City
would require developers to submit a complete
environmental site assessment for all subdivisions
that dedicate property to the City.
Timinq - The City would literally delay most City
projects for a minimum of one (1) year.
Establish a City land acquisition policy that does not
require any environmental site assessments.
Liability to the City would be enormous. One
industrial parcel in the City could cost over $27
million to clean up.
Legal requirements under CERCLA, SARA, and RCRA
would not be met.
Cost to the City in potential liability cannot be
determined~ but would certainly exceed all land
values acquired.
4. Timinq on project would be a moot issue.
V. Recommendation:
Council concur with Alternative "A" by adopting the attached
City land acquisition policy that requires some form of
environmental site evaluation on all property interest
purchases.
WRH:KBK:afm
Attachment
cc: City Attorney
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Aqting Director of Finance
~-D~irector of Utilities and Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
r. NVIRONMENTAL POLICY RELATING
TO THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
It is the intent of this policy to protect the City from
environmental liability in the acquisition of any interest in real
property. This policy attempts to protect the City from
environmental risks and liabilities associated with property
acquisition without prejudicing the ability of the City to carry
out projects needed to advance the health, welfare and safety of
our citizens and the orderly development of the City.
POLICY
Except as hereinafter provided, prior to the acquisition of
any interest in real property by the City, an environmental
assessment shall be conducted by a qualified staff member with
environmental expertise or an environmental consultant retained by
the City. Upon written approval of the City Manager, after
consultation with the Environmental Compliance Officer, Risk
Management Officer and City Attorney, the City may purchase or
othe~wise acquire property without conducting the complete
environmental assessment defined below. The City Manager shall
immediately transmit a copy of any such approval, which shall
contain a statement of the grounds for not conducting a complete
environmental assessment, to Clty Council and the City Attorney.
If the results of the Phase I environmental assessment
indicate the need for further analysis of the potential
environmental liability associated with the property, the City's
Environmental Compliance Officer, in consultation with the Risk
Management Officer and the City Attorney, shall assess the
potential environmental liability associated with the proposed
acquisition and make a recommendation to the City Manager whether
to proceed to a Phase II environmental assessment prior to making
the decision whether and on what terms and conditions to proceed
with the acquisition.
The City shall not accept any interest in real property by
gift without a satisfactory environmental assessment of the
property performed by a qualified staff member with environmental
expertise or by an environmental consultant of the city's choice,
which at the sole discretion of the City may be at the expense of
the grantor or donor.
Definitions
Environmental Compliance Officer shall mean
that individual desigRated by the City Manager
to initiate, monitor and evaluate
environmental compliance and risks for the
City.
Interest in real property shall include but
not be limited to fee simple title, easement
interests, leasehold interests, and rights of
way.
Environmental Assessment shall mean a series
of studies regarding a property to determine
if there are any potential or actual
environmental hazards or hazardous substances
present on or adjacent to the pr~mtsss, or in
any structure located on the premises· The
purpose of an environmental assessment is to
permit the City to qualify and quantify the
environmental risks associated with property
acquisition.
4. Phase I Environmental Assessment shall include:
A®
A chain of title search for a period of
at least sixty (60) years to determine
the nature of prior owners and uses of
the proper~y;
Review of data and documents from the
transferor, prior site owners and
occupants, and neighbors which should
include prior uses, environmental
compliance data, and data on prior
enforcement actions and/or lawsuits;
Ce
Review of data and documents from
governmental agencies, including the EPA
and other federal agencies as well as
state and local entities such as the
local Building Commissioner (e.g.
building and demolition permits;
Property inspection of the site and the
interior of each building on the
property, including prior review of
descriptions and maps of the property;
A search for the location of and
determination of the contents of any
underground storage tanks·
Phase II Environmental Assessment shall
include sampling and analysis of site
materials to determine the nature and extent
of the contamination.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 10, 1997
File #209-354-373-468
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~I~ Clerk
Robert D. Smith, President
Quantum Medical Business
Service, Inc.
2840 Electric Road, B. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33261-020397 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
contract with Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc., to provide emergency medical service billing
and collection services for a term commencing February 1, 1997 and ending January 31, 1998, ,anttt
the City Manager having the option to renew the contract for two additional one-year terms. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Griseo, Director of Finance
D. Dana Long, Chief, Billings and Collections
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
William F. Clerk, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Diane S. Akera, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
James Grigsby, Chief, Fire/Emergency Medical Services Department
IN THECOUNCILOFTHECITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA~
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33261-020397.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract with Quantum
Medical Business Services, Inc., to provide Emergency Medical Service billing and collection
services.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with Quantum
Medical Business Services, Inc., to perform Emergency Medical Service billing and collection
services for a monthly rate of 8% of net collections if net collections per month do not exceed
$94,916 and 8.45% of net collections if net collections per month exceed $94,916.
2. The term of the agreement shall commence February 1, 1997 and end January 31,
1998, with the City Manager's having an option to renew the contract on behalf of the City for two
(2) additional one (1) year terms.
3. The colih'act shall contain such other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the
City Manager, and the form of the contract shall be approved by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
Report No. 97-309
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Contract and Lease for Emergency Medical Services Billing
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its
regular meeting on January 21, 1997. The Committee recommends that Council authorize
the execution of a new contract for EMS billing and collection services and lease of City
property to Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc., in accordance with conditions stated in
the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson
Water Resources Committee
LFW:KBK:~m
Attachment
CC~
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
George C. Snead, Director of Public Safety
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles M. Huff.me, City Engineer
Diane S. Akers, Budget Adminisu'ator
James Grigsby, Chief, Fire/EMS
D. D. Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
97-309
January 21, 1997
.mbers, Water Resources Committee --
Kiser, Director, Utilities & Operations thru W. Robert Herbert, City
Manager
Contract and Lease for Emergency Medical Services Billing
II.
Background on the subject in chronological order is:
~j~L~LpjL~3~ contracts for billing and collection services related to
EMS Ambulance transports.
~ with Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc. was at
the rate of 10% for the first $50,000 per month collected and 13% all over
$50,000 collected.
A Dart of the Contract was a Lease Agreement for use of City property in
the Municipal Building to provide space for the provider's billing clerk to
handle City accounts.
Soecifications were developed for the EMS billing and collection services.
Request for proposals were sent to Eleven (11 ) Firms providing such
services. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke
Times and Roanoke Tribune.
Current Situation is:
~ were received. The Firms submitting proposals are as
follows:
Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc.
SoftWise, Inc.
Interviews were conducted with both Firms in accordance to the
requirement of the Code of the City of Roanoke by representatives of
Fire/EMS, Billings & Collections and Supply Management.
Quantum Medical Business Services. Inc. was determined to be ranked
first after the interview process. Negotiations were conducted.
Lease Aareement for the space for the billing clerk needs to be authorized
for the same period as the Contract to provide EMS billings and collection
services.
Emergency Medical Services Billing
Page 2
III.
IV.
Issues in order of importance are:
A. Need of City.
B. Need of Contract Provider
C. Timin(3
D. Revenue
Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
Water Resources Committee recommends that City Council authorize the
following:
CitY Manager to execute a contract in a Form approved by the City
Attorney, with Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc. to provide
EMS billing and collection services for a period of One (1) year with
the City having the option to renew for Two (2) additional One (1)
year periods. The billing service commission shall be calculated
based on the net monthly collections which shall mean gross cash
receipts less refunds. If the monthly net collections total less than
$94,916.00, the commission shall be 8% of collections. If the net
monthly collections total $94,916.00 or more, the commission shall
be calculated at a rate of 8.45%.
City Mana(3er to execute a new Lease Agreement in a Form
approved by the City Attorney, with Quantum Medical Business
Services, Inc. for a term of One (1) year with the City having the
option to renew for Two (2) additional years in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
Need to City is to have EMS transporting services billed and
collected.
Need to contract Provider is to have appropriate space to
provide requested billing and collection services.
Timing will allow for the new Contract and Lease Agreement
to be implemented at the same time.
Revenue estimate as the result of the Contract and Lease
Agreement is anticipated to be ~ annually.
Emergency Medical Services Billing
Page 3
Ve
Water Resource Committee not recommend that City Council
authorize a new Contract for EMS billing and collection services or
Lease Agreement for space in Municipal Building.
~ to have EMS billing and collection services
provided would not be met.
Need to Contract Provider to use City property would not be
met.
Timino for Contract and Lease Agreement to be concurrent
would not be a factor in this alternative.
4. Revenue anticipated will be zero with this alternative.
Water Resource Committee recommendation is that City Council authorize
execution of New Contract for EMS billing and collection services and Lease of
City Property to Quantum Medical Business Services, Inc. in accordance with
Alternative "A" of this report.
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director, Public Safety
Director, Public Works
Director, Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Management & Budget
Chief, Fire/EMS
Manager, Supply Management
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
C~y Clark
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #166-262-383-468
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 33263-020397 approving and adopting the City of Roanoke
Policy with regard to wireless telecommunications facilities located on City property dated
January 21, 1997, in accordance with the recommendation set forth in a report of the Water
Resources Committee under date of February 3, 1997. The abovereferenced measure was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parkar, CMC/ME
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
Donald F. Matey, President, DanCell, Inc,, 821 8. Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Flodda
32507-3334
Thomas Whiffaker, Director, Network Operations, CFW Wirelees, P. O. Box 1990,
Waynesboro, Virginia 22980-7590
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operatioas
Jesse H. Perdue, Manager, Water Department
Ronald L. Wade, Acting Manager, Communications Department
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
John R. Marlles, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
[N THECOUNCILO~THEClTYO~ KOANOKE, VI~GU~,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33263-020397.
AN RESOLUTION approving and adopting the City of Roanoke Policy as to Wireless
Telecoi~mnications Facilities located on City property dated January 21, 1997, in accordance with
the recommendation of the Water Resources Committee report to this Council dated February 3,
1997.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. This Council approves and adopts the City of Roanoke Policy as to Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities located on City property dated January 21, 1997 in accordance with
the Water Resources Committee report dated February 3, 1997.
2. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to take appropriate action to
implement this Policy.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
Report No. 96-365
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Communication Antenna on City Owned Facilities
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its
regular meeting on January 21, 1997. The Committee recommends that Council adopt the
attached policy to authorize providers to place antenna on City facilities for a negotiated fee,
in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
Li~n~a F Wyatt, Chairperso~n~
Water Resources Committee
LFW:KBK:afm
Attachment
CC~
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, Water Department Manager
Ronald L. Wade, Acting Communications Manager
Evelyn Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Donald F. Matey, U. S. Cellular
Tom Whittaker, CFW Wireless
Report No. 96-365
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
January 21, 1997
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
Members, Water Resources Committee
K'~i~B/~K~ser~. 'D~rector of
· . ' , ' Utilities&Operations
W. Robert Herb~ ,, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Communication Antenna on City Owned Facilities
I. Background:
A desire to locate cellular (Cell) and/or Personal Communication
System (PCS) antenna on two of our water tanks has been expressed
by CFW Wireless, a PCS provider, and by United States Cellular, a
Cell provider. These systems provide communication service via car
phones and/or portable hand held phones.
Four (4) to twelve (12) antenna per provider would be placed around
the top of, but not projecting above, each water tank in question. As
of this writing, there are only two requests and these requests are for
two different tank sites. CFW is interested in the Washington Heights
tank, located just south of Hershberger Road, N.W. United States
Cellular is interested in the 220 tank located adjacent to the Summit
Apartment complex beside U. S. Route 220 as it exits the southern
City limits.
Personal communication devices are becoming an even greater
demand, therefore, there will be ever increasing need for antenna
towers, or other fixtures supporting antenna, to support the personal
communication devices.
Page 2
Local government's role, e.g. your role as the governing body of the
City of Roanoke, will be to decide siting issues dealing with:
The use of City owned facilities
Possible interfacing with the 911 emergency phone
system
Zoning issues
Aesthetics
Neighborhood issues
Precedent setting is a major concem since it is quite possible that if
one company is allowed to place antenna on a City-owned facility,
then we may not be able to prevent other companies from also placing
antenna on the facilities. A proliferation of antenna on a water tank
under different company controls could create conflicts, should a
problem arise with the City facility, that would not be easily resolved.
Other amenities., other than antenna placement, will be the need for
telephone and electrical service plus a ground lease for cabinets or a
building for each company on which to place their communication
hardware.
A general policy is desired which addresses the placement of antenna
on City facilities, to include but not limited to water tanks.
Ho
Financially, each company is expected to offer $600 to $1,000 per
month per site.
II.
Current situation: A policy is needed regarding if, and if so, how
communication antenna are to be placed on City facilities.
III. Issues:
A. Precedent setting
B. Accountability
Page 3
C. Zoning
D. Neighborhood concerns
E. Citizen desire for continuous communication service
F. Revenue
IV. Alternatives:
Ao
Committee recommend that Council adopt the attached policy for
leasing space on City owned facilities on the basis of non-interference
with City operations. The policy generally provides for the following:
Space will be provided on a first come basis as
long as space is available. Should there be
conflicts between providers, it will be up to the
providers to resolve conflicts or the last provider
leaves the facility.
ii.
A design will be presented to the City by a
registered professional structural engineer,
showing the method of attachment of the antenna
and appurtenance and a statement that the
installation will not damage the City facility or
interfere with its operation.
iii.
The City Manager, or his designee, will determine
whether there is space available for ground lease
for a building for the communication equipment,
telephone and electrical access, ice bridge, etc. If
space is not available for proper operations and
maintenance of the facility, then the facilities will
not be leased.
iv. Term of lease shall not exceed five (5) years.
Page 4
Payments for lease shall be established on a
negotiated basis and will be generally $600 -
$1,000 per site per provider per month with $750
being the standard and adjusted annually based on
the increase in the Consumer Price Index as of
January 1, 1997 and January 1 of each year
thereafter.
vi.
Antenna and appurtenances shall not extend above
the height of the City facility. Antenna and
appurtenances shall be painted to match, or closely
match, the color of the City facility.
vii.
Provider shall indemnify and hold the City
harmless from any and all claims for property
damage or personal injury. Appropriate general
liability insurance shall be provided with the City
named as additional insured and in the amount of
$3,000,000 per location or such other limits as
recommended by the City's Risk Manager.
viii.
There cannot be any conflicts with zoning, or if so,
the burden to resolve these conflicts rests with the
provider.
1. Precedent setting will be established in a controllable fashion.
2. Accountability will be provided.
3. Zoning will be addressed by the potential provider.
Neighborhood concerns may continue to be an issue, but are
better served by this policy rather than stand alone towers.
o
Citizen desire for continuous communication service will be
realistically addressed.
Page 5
6. Revenue will be $750 per month per tank site per provider as a
general rule.
B. Committee not recommend that Council change the current operating
policy of using City facility for public purposes only.
1. Precedent setting will not be an issue.
2. Accountability will not be an issue.
3. Zoning will be a significant issue as providers seek to establish
communication towers at high elevations.
4. Neighborhood concerns could be a significant issue with stand
alone communication towers
5. Citizen desire for continuous communication service will
continue to increase.
6. Revenue will not be an issue.
Recommendation: Committee recommend that Council adopt the attached
policy to authorize providers to place antenna on City facilities for a
negotiated fee in accordance with Alternative "A".
go
KBK:afm
Attachment
cc: City Attomey
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Water Department Manager
Acting Communications Manager
Zoning Administrator
Donald F. Matey, U. S. Cellular
Tom Whittaker, CFW Wireless
CITY OF ROANOKE
POLICY AS TO WIRELESS TELECOM~CATIONS FACILITIES
LOCATED ON CITY PROPERTY
January 21, 1997
Wireless telecommunications facilities (towers, antenna and buildings) may be located on City
of Roanoke (City) property pursuant to written lease with the approval of City Council.
Grant of the privilege of using City property for such facilities shall be made on a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis. No such lease shall exceed five (5) years
in length, and all such leases, which shall be negotiated by the City Manager or his designee,
shall require payment of fair and reasonable monthly rental fees or equivalent compensation
and incorporate the terms of this policy.
All applicants who wish to locate a wireless telecommunication antenna or tower on City
owned property must submit to the City Manager a completed application and detailed plan
along with other pertinent information requested by the City.
Ail wireless telecommunications facilities shall comply with all applicable City zoning and
development ordinances and regulations, all applicable building, electrical, plumbing,
mechanical and property maintenance codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and
regulations of the City.
All wireless fac'flities shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations,
including Federal Communications Commission regulations.
No wireless facility shall interfere with the use of City property or any City facility for the
purpose for which it is intended by the City. Furthermore, the location of any wireless facility
shall be subject to City approval and a determination that sufficient space is available.
Recognizing that there is limited space available for wireless telecommunications facilities on
City property, the privilege of using City property for such facilities shall be awarded on the
following priority of use. Priority for the use of City owned land or any City owned tower,
building, or other structure (City facility) for wireless telecommunication facilities will be
given to the following entities in descending order:
A. City of Roanoke;
Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services
which are not part of the City of Roanoke and private entities with a public
safety agreement with the City of Roanoke;
Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety;
and
Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services
including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR),
paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner of any wireless telecommunications facility located
on City property to maintain such facility in an attractive, clean, safe and sanitary condition
and to ensure such facility will not have any significant adverse impact on surrounding private
property.
The owner of any wireless telecommunications facility located on City property shall be
responsible for providing or causing to be provided any utilities (electricity, gas, telephone,
water, sewer, etc.) required to serve such facility. The cost of utility services shall be billed
directly to the owner and paid promptly.
The structural integrity and safety of any wireless telecommunications facility located on City
property shall be certified to the City by an independent professional engineer licensed to
practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The engineer will be selected by mutual
agreement of the City and Lessee, but all costs and expenses shall be paid by Lessee. When
a wireless telecommunications facility is attached to or located on a City facility, such
certificate shall state that the structural integrity and safety of the City facility will not be
adversely affected by the attachment or location of the owner's wireless telecommunications
facility.
In the event any interference is caused to any television, radio, telephone, electronic, or other
communications device on or off of City property by a wireless telecommunications facility
located on City property, it shall be the responsibility of the owner of the wireless
telecommunications facility located on City property to resolve any complaints in a timely
fashion or remove its facility.
Aesthetics of wireless telecommunications facilities are a primary concern of the City.
Wireless telecommunications facilities located in City parks, in City right-of-way or on other
City property shall be designed to blend into their natural environment and be painted a color
intended to blend into such environment. Any wireless telecommunications facility located
on the ground shall be adequately screened by a dense planting of evergreen trees or shrubs
which shall be maintained in good condition by the owner oftbe wireless telecommunications
facility. Vegetative screening plans shall be approved in advance by the City Manager or his
designee. Wireless telecommunications facilities attached to or located on any City facility
shall be painted the same color as the City facility or such other color as the City may
designate and shall be no higher than such City facility.
Insurance of the types and in the amounts specified by the City's Risk Manager shall be
provided by the owner of each wireless telecommunications facility.
Indemnification and/or security approved by the City Attorney shall be required of the owner
of each wireless telecommunications facility.
The owner or operator of any wireless telecommunications facility shall cooperate with the
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
City's objective to promote co-location and thus minimize the number of tower or antenna
sites that may be requested or required.
When a wireless telecommunications facility is to be placed on or near City water towers or
near any City water supply, the owner of such facility shall satisfy the City that such facility
will not increase the risk of contamination of the City's water supply.
The presence of a wireless telecommunications facility on City property or City facility shall
not increase the upkeep or maintenance cost of the City property or City facility.
The City Council reserves the right and may terminate any lease [fit determines that any of
the following conditions exist:
A potential user with higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the
potential use of such higher priority user would be incompatible with the existing use
of the wireless telecommunications facility;
A user's frequency broadcasts unreasonably interferes with other users of higher
priority, regardless of whether or not this interference is adequately predicted in the
technical analysis; or
An owner or operator of a wireless telecommunications facility located on City
property or City facilities violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions
attached to the City permission to use City property or City facilities or violates any
of the provisions of the lease with the City.
Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the owner of the wireless
telecommunications facility of the intent of termination and reasons for it and provide an
opportunity for the owner to address City Council regarding the proposed termination action.
This procedure need not be followed in an emergency situation.
Notwithstanding anything set forth in the above policy, City Council hereby reserves the right
to deny, for any reason, the use of any or all City property or City facilities by any one or all
owners of wireless telecommunications facilities seeking to use City property or City
facilities.
This policy shall be effective after its adoption by the City Council.
3
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #165-166-188-237-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33265-020397 approving the Garden City Property/Relocation
Program - Acquisition Policy; authorizing you, or your designee, to execute the appropriate
documents to implement the program; authorizing the fee simple acquisition of properties in
conformance with the Acquisition Policy;, and authorizing you to fix a certain limit on the consideration
to be offered by the City. The aboveraferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting heed on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities end Operations
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Chade$ M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
Diane $. Akera, Budget Administrator, Office of Management end Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33265-020397.
AN ORDINANCE approving the Garden City Property/Relocation
Program - Acquisition Policy; authorizing the City Manager, or his
designee, to execute the appropriate documents to implement this
program; authorizing the fee simple acquisition of the properties
in conformance with the Acquisition Policy; authorizing the City
Manager to fix a certain limit on the consideration to be offered
by the City; and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, the Garden City Neighborhood experienced extensive
flooding on June 28, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City received a Presidential Declaration of Major
Disaster on July 1, 1995; and
WHEREAS, this Council adopted Resolution No. 32553-070695
declaring a local emergency and authorized the City Manager to make
application for Federal and State assistance; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1996, the City received notification
of the approval of the application and obligation of the funds by
the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (VDES) and Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the
Property/Relocation Program.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of
Roanoke that:
1. This Council approves and adopts the
Property/Relocation Program - Acquisition Policy,
Attachment A of the Water Resources Committee
Garden City
the City of
Garden City
as set forth in
report to this
Council dated February 3, 1997.
2. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized
to execute the appropriate documents, in form approved by the City
Attorney, to implement this program.
3. The proper City officials are authorized to acquire for
the City in accordance with the Garden City Property/Relocation
Program - Acquisition Policy, the fee simple interest of property
as identified in the Water Resources Committee Report and
Attachments thereto dated February 3, 1997. Such acquisitions
shall be for such consideration as deemed appropriate by the City
Manager, subject to certain limitations and applicable statutory
guidelines, as more specifically set forth in the Water Resources
Report and Attachments thereto to this Council dated February 3,
1997. Upon the acceptance of any offer and upon delivery to the
City of a deed or option, approved as to form and execution by the
City Attorney, the Director of Finance is directed to pay the
respective consideration to the owners of the interest conveyed.
4. The total amount of City funds to be expended for this
program shall not exceed $500,000 without additional authorization
by this Council.
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.
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ft60-165-166-188-237-468
James D. Grlsso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grlsso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33264-020397 amending and reordaining certain sections of
the 1996-97 General and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of funds
in connection with the Garden City Property/Relocation Program Acquisition Policy. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Delores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fiffon, Engineering coordinator
Diane $. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33264-020397.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1996-97 General
and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
VVHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1996-97 General and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and
the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Aoorooriations
Nondepartmental
Transfers to Other Funds (1) .................................
Fund Balance
Reserved for CMERP - City (2) ................................
$55,111,306
55,142,829
$ 3,551,717
Capital Prolect~ Fund
A~OroDriatione.~
General Government
Garden City Property/Relocation Program (3-5) ..................
Revenue
Due from Federal Government (6) .............................
Due from State Government (7) ...............................
$11,010,244
2,538,401
$ 1,952,~1
~,400
1 ) Transfer to Capital
Projects Fund
2) Reserved CMERP-City
3) Appropriated from
General Revenue
4) Appropriated from Federal
Grant Funds
5) Appropriated from State
Grant Funds
6) Due from FEMA
7) Due from VDES
(001-004-9310-9508) $ 500,000
(001-3323) (500,000)
(008-056-9696-9003) 500,000
(008-056-9696-9002) 1,952,001
(008-056-9696-9007) 86,400
(008-1236) 1,952,001
(008-1235) 86,400
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
Al-rEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council'
SUBJECT:
Garden City Property/Relocation Program -
Acquisition Policy
Please reserve space on your agenda for a 15 minute briefing
regarding the above subject.
Respectfully,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:WFC:pr
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
February 3, 1997
Report No. 97-311
HonOrable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Garden City Property/Relocation Program - Acquisition
Policy
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its
regular meeting on January 21, 1997. The Committee recommends that Council take the
following actions in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report:
Approve the Garden City Property/Relocation Program Acquisition
Policy and authorize the purchase of properties set forth in Exhibit B
attached to the Policy for the Garden City Property/Relocation Program
in conformance with the attached Acquisition Policy and to further
authorize the City Manager or his authorized representative to execute
the appropriate documents to implement this program.
Appropriate $500,000 which has been reserved in the prior year
CMERP funds for the Garden City Property/Relocation Program to a
new Capital Programs fund to be established by the Director of Finance
entitled "Garden City Property/Relocation Program". Appropriate
FEMA grant funds of $1,952,001 and state grant funds of $86,400 to
the same account and establish a receivable account for the grant
reimbursements.
LFW:KBK:afm
Attachment
CC2
Respectfully submitted,
da F. Wyatt, Chairpersol5
Water Resources Committee
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
Delores D. Daniels, Assistant City Manager for Community Relations
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
Rosemary Trussell, Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
Report No. 97-311
(REVISED)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
January 21, 1997
~.e ~~.e.i~.~er Resources Committee
~ ~ieSr~ r ,H ~ri~U~ il iMt iaer~ ~ Operations
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM - ACQUISITION POMCY
J~ on the subject in chronological order is as follows:
The Garden City Neiohborhood exoerienced extensive floodino on
~ This neighborhood is located south of Riverland Road and east
of Mill Mountain in the extreme southeast quadrant of the City. The Garnand
Branch watershed which flows through this neighborhood is mountainous and
subject to flash flooding conditions.
On July 1. 1995. the City of Roanoke received a Presidential Declaration of
~ As a result of this declaration, the City became eligible to apply
to the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (VDES) for a Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant.
On July 6, 1995. the City Council oassed Resolution No. 32553-070695
declarino a local emeroencv and authorizino the City Manaoer to make
aoolication for Federal and State assistance. A task force made up of
neighborhood citizens and Public Works Department representatives was formed
to study the flooding problems in this neighborhood and review possible
solutions. The task force recommended a ten-phase stormwater management
plan for the Garden City Neighborhood. One phase of the proposed solutions
was the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. For this phase, the task force
supported the City's application for a FEMA grant to purchase 42 structures and
the related properties which had been damaged by repetitive flooding. The City
submitted application to the VDES for a FEMA grant in November, 1995.
On November 15. 1996. the City was notified bv VDES that FEMA had
aooroved the aoolication and oblioated funds for the Garden Citv
Prooertv/Relocation Prooram. This is the first property acquisition program
implemented under FEMA in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The approved
program included purchasing all 42 structures at an estimated total cost of
$2,553,950. FEMA obligated $1,915,462 (75% of total program) for program
costs and an additional $36,539 for administrative costs. The remaining
funding (25% of total program) will be the responsibility of the City. The
Commonwealth of Virginia has committed to contribute $86,400 toward the
h\REED~WRC\GCBUYOUT REV
Members, Water Resources Committee
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM - ACQUISITION POLICY
January 21, 1997
Page 2
City's 25% responsibility, and may have additional funds available in their next
fiscal year budget.
II.
~is as follows:
Ao
Under the Hazard Mitioation Grant Prooram. the City of Roanoke is reouired to
ourchase and maintain oermanent future open soace on any property included
iR the oro(3ram. The purpose of FEMA's program is to remove future flooding
liabilities from the community. As a result, this program requires the City to
control future development on these properties by maintaining public ownership.
Following acquisition, the City will be responsible to maintain these properties
for conservation, recreation, or other approved open space uses for perpetuity.
Future maintenance costs will be the responsibility of the City. Following
purchase of these properties by the City, no new structures or improvements
may be constructed other than restrooms or other public facilities that are open
on all sides and functionally related to the open space. Also following purchase
by the City, these properties will not be considered for any future disaster
assistance from any Federal source.
The Garden City Prooertv/Relocation Prooram Acouisition Policy establishes a
uniform criteria for the ourchase of orooerties under this Drooram. This
Acquisition Policy has been written to conform with the requirements of FEMA
and VDES.
Under this Droaram. the City of Roanoke is not obli(3ated to
purchase any oarticular orooerties and the orooertv owners must
voluntarily sell their properties, No powers of eminent domain
can be used for this program,
Market value aooraisals will be oerformed for each orooertv by an
independent, licensed appraiser, selected by the City. This
appraisal will form the basis for the purchase price.
Aoorooriate environmental assessments will be performed on
each property prior to purchase.
All renters must be relocated in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
(URA).
All existin(3 structures must be removed from the property
following purchase and relocation of tenants.
Once ourchased, the orooerties must remain as oublic ooen
soace, and cannot be developed at any time in the future for
other than approved uses.
I:\REED~WRC~GCBUYOUT.REV
Members, Water Resources Committee
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM - ACQUISITION POLICY
January 21, 1997
Page 3
III.
Issues in order of importance are as follows:
A. ~
B. Funding
IV.
Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows:
Aoorove the Garden City Property/Relocation ProGram Acouisition Policy and
authorize ourchase of orooerties set forth in Exhibit B attached to the Policy for
the Garden City ProDertv/Relocation ProGram in conformance with the attached
ProGram schedules will be maintained. Property owners who are
currently waiting for financial relief from flood related damages could
begin the Acquisition process. A tentative program schedule could be
targeted:
· February 3, 1997 - Acquisition Policy approved by City Council
· February, 1997 - Public meeting with Program property owners
· March, 1997 - Begin meetings with individual Program property
owners to initiate appraisals and environmental surveys
· May, 1997 - Begin offers to Program property owners
· September, 1997 - Begin closings
This represents a very aggressive schedule, which would be targeted for
the most critical properties. The remaining properties would be
processed over a slightly longer time frame. Due to the complicated
nature of a program of this type, circumstances will undoubtedly delay
this acquisition process for many property owners. It is estimated that
completion of this Program for all included properties will require from 18
to 24 months.
Funding is available from FEMA on a reimbursement basis for 75% of the
actual costs up to $1,952,001. Funding is available from the
Commonwealth of Virginia in the amount of $86,400. Funding is available
from the City of Roanoke Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program (CMERP) funds in the amount of $500.000.
Being a voluntary program, some property owners may choose not to
participate, which would reduce the total program cost. However, actual
program costs may be higher than those estimated, which would increase
the total program cost. If the total estimated program cost is achieved, the
City would be responsible for an additional ~52,088. However, the
appropriation of $500,000 is considered adequate in light of the many
program variables at this time. The $500,000 City appropriation will
Members, Water Resources Committee
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM - ACQUISITION POLICY
January 21, 1997
Page 4
represent the working funds for this program. Expenses will be submitted
to VDES for reimbursement on a monthly basis as work proceeds.
Do ilot aoorove the Garden City Property/Relocation Prooram Acauisition Policy and
do not authorize ourchase of Drooerties for the Garden City Property/Relocation
Pro,ram.
1. ~g~33.~[~ will be indefinitely delayed.
2. Fundin~ from FEMA and the Commonwealth of Virginia will be lost.
Committee's recommendation is that City Council concur in Alternative A, and take the
following specific actions:
AoDrove the Garden City Property/Relocation Prooram Acouisition Policy and
~uthorize the ourchase of properties set forth in Exhibit B attached to the Policy for
the Garden City Prooertv/Relocation Prooram in conformance with the attached
~ and to further authorize the City Manager or his authorized
representative to execute appropriate documents to implement this program.
Al~roDriate $500.000 which has been reserved in the prior year CMERP funds for
the Garden City Property/Relocation Prooram to a new Capital Programs fund to
be established by the Director of Finance entitled "Garden City Property/Relocation
Program." Appropriate FEMA grant funds of $1,952,001 and state grant funds of
$86,400 to the same account and establish a receivable account for the grant
reimbursements.
WRHIKBK/JGRIkh
Attachments
C.'
City Attorney
City Clerk -.
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Engineering Coordinator
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
I:\REED~WRCIGCBUYOUT REV
GARDEN CITY
PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
ACQUISITION POLICY
,lanuary 21, 1997
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Program Summary 1
Garden City Neighborhood Acquisition Policy 2
Acquisition Worksheet 7
Voluntary Transaction Agreement 1 1
Request to Withdraw From Consideration 1 2
Request for Addition to Waiting List 13
Map of the Garden City Program Area 14
Listing of Property Owners in Current Program 1 5
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
PROGRAM SUMMARY
The purpose .of the Garden City Property/Relocation Program is to reduce the number
of structures located in the floodplain and subject to flooding damages. The federal
government is involved in this Program and considers it to be cost beneficial because
it will reduce the demand for disaster assistance in the event of additional flooding in
the future.
The governing agencies involved in this acquisition program are the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Virginia Department of Emergency Services (VDES),
and the City of Roanoke.
The program will be funded with 75% from FEMA Section 404 Hazard Mitigation grant
funds, and with 25% from a combination of Commonwealth of Virginia and City of
Roanoke funds.
The acquisition program is voluntary, meaning that the City of Roanoke is not obligated
to purchase any particular properties and the property owners must voluntarily sell their
properties to the City of Roanoke. The City of Roanoke will not use the power of
eminent domain for this particular program.
Once purchased, the properties must be publicly maintained for conservation,
recreation, or other suitable open space designation for perpetuity. No future federal
disaster assistance will be available for the subject properties purchased under this
program.
This acquisition program is subject to the 75% funding from FEMA. Should this
funding not be provided in whole or in part, the program may be reduced in scope or
terminated.
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
City of Roanoke, Virginia
January 21, 1997
Following are the procedures and polices for the program:
Definitions
Disaster Declaration Date:
FEMA:
NFIP:
Post-flood:
Pre-flood:
Program:
VDES:
SBA:
URA:
July 1, 1995
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Flood Insurance Program
Following the flood of June 28, 1995
Prior to the flood of June 28, 1995
Garden City Property/Relocation Program
Virginia Department of Emergency Services
Small Business Administration
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
I. Priorities of Acouisition Prooram:
Properties located in the floodway or floodplain in the Garden City Neighborhood, as
shown on the attached map, marked as Exhibit A, and whose owners have indicated
an interest in selling, are the priority target areas for this acquisition program.
Properties included in the original list submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for approval will be given first consideration. This
original list is attached and marked as Exhibit B.
Upon conclusion of the acquisition process for properties on the original list,
property owners in the Garden City Neighborhood that meet the eligibility criteria
and have requested to be included in the acquisition program by adding their
property(les) to the waiting list, will be considered in the order the request to be
placed on the waiting list is received by the City.
Ao
II. -- - ' :
The following eligibility requirements will be used for this program:
Garages or outbuildings must be located on the same property to be considered a
part of the program property.
Vacant lots can be purchased in the acquisition when the property is contiguous to
and assessed with the primary structure to be included in the program.
The tit!e must be clear of all liens before the City of Roanoke will take title to the
property. The property owner will agree to satisfy all liens or have the lien amount
deducted from the purchase offer prior to the acquisition and authorize the City to
pay off alt liens at the closing with those funds.
All acquisition applicants will sign a statement recognizing that the program is
voluntary. Ir~ addition, the City of Roanoke may, in its sole discretion, reject a
property for acquisition based on the eligibility requirements, limitation of available
grant funds, or for any other considerations.
Current property owners will be responsible for the property taxes on the structure
from the first of the year through the date of the closing on a pro-rated basis.
Demolition costs and liability expenses for a flood damaged structure will be the
responsibility of the City of Roanoke only after completion of the closing. The
property owner remains solely responsible for the property and the structure and the
risk of all loss remains with the property owner until completion of the closing.
The warranty deed on all purchased properties will include covenants to ensure that
the properties must be publicly maintained for conservation, recreation, or other
suitable open space designation for perpetuity. No future federal disaster assistance
will be available for the subject properties purchased under this program.
This acquisition program is subject to the 75% funding from FEMA. Should this
funding not be provided in whole or in part, the program may be reduced in scope or
terminated.
III. Market Value Determination:
The following procedures w/l/be used to establish fair market value of the structures to be
purchased:
A licensed, independent appraiser, selected by the City, will conduct a pre-flood
appraisal of the property, land and structures, to be purchased. Based on this
appraisal, property owners will be offered pre-flood fair market value less any
duplication of benefits as defined in the following section.
Propertyowners will be afforded the opportunity to provide information to the
appraiser regarding major pre-flood improvements to the property which can be
documented.
In the event that a structure(s) has already been demolished due to health and/or
safety concerns prior to the date of appraisal, the appraiser shall determine an
appraisal price for the structure(s) based on the pre-flood market value for
comparable structures in the area and the City of Roanoke assessment for June
1995.
In the event that the appraisal less duplication of benefits is a negative figure and
the property owner still desires to sell the property in the acquisition, the property
3 I:\REED\WRC\BUYPOLIC
owner will be offered the assessed value of the land only (not the structure) as
determined by the pre-flood City of Roanoke assessment. However, the City of
Roanoke will take fee simple ownership to both the structure and the land.
For tracts of land over one acre in size, the City of Roanoke will have the option to
include only the land under and immediately around the structure (1 acre or less) to
be agreed upon by the property owner and the City of Roanoke. The cost to survey
and record the smaller parcel and necessary attorney's fees will be paid by the
acquisition program.
If the property owner purchased the property after the disaster declaration, then the
City of Roanoke cannot offer the owner more than the post-flood fair market value.
The property owner will not be offered pre-flood fair market value if they were not
the property owner during the flood of June 28,1995. In addition, any benefits the
previous property owner received for repair of the property will not be deducted
from the offer to purchase.
The City of Roanoke reserves the right to modify any guideline in this policy to
conform with state or federal regulations or as otherwise deemed necessary by the
City.
Federal regulations require that previous federal dollars related to structural home
repair or replacement will be considered an offset (cash advance) toward the
purchase price of the acquisition property. The offset amount must be deducted
from the settlement offer, unless the property owner is able to produce
documentation that the awards were reinvested into the flooded property.
Review of the Hazard Mitigation Duplication of Benefits is managed by FEMA.
Process
A preliminary review of each property on the original list (not waiting list) will be
submitted to FEMA including the damaged dwellings address, homeowner's name,
address, and phone number; and any information regarding assistance received for
the flooded property.
An official duplication of benefits request will be submitted on each property after
the appraisal has been completed. Information on benefits received will be provided
by FEMA to the Iocat community for the purpose of determining the purchase offer
only. This information will be considered privileged information and will only be
provided to the property owner and the grant administrator. This information will
not voluntarily be provided to any other entities unless required by applicable laws
or regulations.
4 I;\REED~WRC~BUYPOLIC,
C. Tyoes of Duplication of Benefits
The following are the types of assistance that will be deducted from fair market
value above:
National Flood insurance Program (NFIP) Settlements - NFIP deductions will be
researched and figured for any homeowners involved in the acquisition that have
received NFIP settlements for real property. The real property settlement is the only
portion of an NFIP settlement that will be considered. Any settlement for contents
will not be deducted from the purchase offer. If the homeowner has already made
repairs as outlined in the Property Information section of the Garden City
Property/Relocation Program Worksheet, the amount verified by repair receipts will
not be deducted.
Funding from other federal state or local agencies received specifically for structural
repairs. If the homeowner has already made repairs as outlined in the Property
Information section of the Garden City Property/Relocation Program Worksheet, the
amount verified by repair receipts will not be deducted.
V. ReDlacement Reouirements:
In the event that the property owner obtained a post-flood Small Business
Administration (SBA) loan to repair and/or replace a structure included in the
program, any proceeds from the acquisition must first be applied to the SBA loan. If
there is a balance on the SBA loan, the balance will be transferred as a lien on the
new property purchased by the property owner with the loan funds.
Any properties involved in the acquisition that were rented a minimum of 90 days
prior to the presentation of the acquisition offer, the property owner will be required
to follow the requirements of the URA. Renters will be offered relocation assistance
directly from the grant funds. Rental relocation assistance will be figured as
follows: the new rental amount (comparable housing) plus average utilities minus
the old rental amount times 42 months OR $5,250.00, whichever is less.
Rental or lease-to-own properties will be addressed on a case-by-case basis
depending on contract stipulations.
In the event that FEMA modifies the relocation policy for renters, the City of
Roanoke reserves the right to modify this acquisition policy to reflect the national
guidelines.
Each property owner is responsible for any and all applicable taxes on any proceeds
from this program.
VI. Steos of Acauisition Process:
The following is a brief outline of the steps of the acquisition process for property owners:
A. Public meeting with program overview.
B. Appraisal/title search completed.
C. Duplication of benefits determined.
D. Property owner presented the offer to purchase (appraisal less any duplication of
benefits). Property owner given 60 days from receipt of the offer to consider the
offer.
E. Meet with property owners to accept or reject the offer to purchase after the
consideration period. If accepted, purchase agreement to be signed by the property
owner.
F. Appropriate site and structural environmental assessments
G. Property owner has 90 days to remove all belongings and salvage material from
structure prior to closing. This time period may be reduced or eliminated at the
request of the property owner and upon agreement of the parties.
H. Meet with property owners following required time period to close on property and
transfer title to City of Roanoke.
I. Demolition contract bid and commencement of demolition of purchased structures.
J. Demolition completed.
K. Reuse plan for properties implemented by the City of Roanoke.
If any provision of this program, or the application of any provision hereof to a particular
entity or circumstance, shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of the program shall not be affected and all
other terms and conditions of the program shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest
extent permitted by law.
I:IREED~WRCIBUY POLIC
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
Worksheet
Name(s) as they
appear on the
property deed:
Owner Suoolied Information
Name Social Security No.
Date of Birth
2. Current mailing address:
Telephone Number:
Address of flooded property:
(Home)
(Work)
Tax Parcel Number:
Type of Property (circle one):
Commercial Residential House Mobile Home
Outbuilding Garage Other (specify);
Property Owner's Estimate of Value of the Structure: $
Property Owner's Estimate of Value of the Land: $
Combined Value: $
Amount of Structural Damage from June 28, 1995 (do not
include personal property damage): $
Owner Occupied
Secondary Dwelling
(vacation home)
10. Have repairs been made on the structure? (circle one) Yes/No
If repairs have been made, what is the total amount of
repairs which can be documented with receipts? $
11. Was the structure covered by flood insurance at the
time of the June 28, 1995 flood? Yes/No
If yes, policy number:
Amount of structure insurance coverage: $.
Amount of claim payment for structure only: $.
12. Are there any liens against the flood damaged property? Yes/No
If yes, list the liens against the property:
Name of lien holder:
Name of lien holder:
Name of lien holder:
Occuoancv Information
13. On the date of disaster (June 28, 1995), was the property: (circle one)
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant Secondary Dwelling
(vacation home)
14. What is the current occupancy status of the structure: (circle one)
Renter Occupied Vacant
Demolished Other (specify):
If the property is currently ~, provide the following information
regarding the tenants:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
15.
16.
17.
Have you relocated from the flood damaged structure?
(circle one)
Have you PU.rchased a new home? (circle one)
If yes, answer #17; if no, answer #18.
If yes, address of new home:
Yes/No
Yes/No
18.
19.
20.
Purchase price of new home: $
Is the new home outside of the 100-year flood plain?
(circle one)
If no, (a new home has not been purchased), answer the following:
What type of residence are you currently residing in?
Yes/No
Apartment Rental Home
Family Member Residence Other:
Do you plan on purchasing a new home?
Rental Trailer
Nursing Home
Yes/No
Do you need assistance in obtaining permanent housing?
Family size:
Did you receive any grant or assistance for flood damage
repairs to your property?
If yes, list the types and amounts of assistance:
Amount
Yes/No
Yes/No
If you received FEMA assistance, FEMA Control #:
9 I:\REED\WRC\BUYFOLIC
21.
Yes/No
Did you receive any flood insurance settlement(s) for
structural damage(s)?
If yes, list the types and amount of assistance:
. Type Amount
Date
22, Did you receive a Small Business Administration (SBA) Loan?
Yes/No
Name of lender and amount of mortgage:
Lender:
Amount:
SBA Control #:
~)wner Statement of Interest
As a property owner(s), by signature it is hereby stated that I/we request participation in
the Garden City Neighborhood voluntary property acquisition program.
It is understood that any misleading or fraudulent information contained herein may result
in disqualification or delays in the voluntary acquisition of the property.
Further, by signature, I/we hereby authorize the City of Roanoke to gather information from
FEMA, SBA, National Flood Insurance or my homeowner's insurance, and other applicable
sources or agencies pertaining to the flood recovery programs to determine non-duplication
of benefits.
Property Owner{s):
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
1 0 I:IREED~WRC~BUY POLIC
I/we
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
Voluntary Transaction Aaraement
am/are the owner(s) of the property identified by the following address:
Tax Parcel Number(s):
I/we have been notified by the City of Roanoke of their interest in purchasing the
above property, and that, if I/we agree to sell, it will be necessary for the property
to be permanently vacated.
I/we have been notified by the City of Roanoke that pre-flood market value of the
property will be offered as determined by an appraisal process.
I/we have been informed by the City of Roanoke in writing that I/we are not required
to sell the above property to the City of Roanoke and that the City of Roanoke will
not use the power of eminent domain in connection with this particular program.
I/we understand that this means that I/we do not have to sell this property to the
City of Roanoke,
I/we have been notified by the City of Roanoke that, if the above property is sold
voluntarily, I am not entitled to relocation benefits provided by the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, which is available
to persons forced to abandon their property involuntarily, and I/we will not claim any
such benefits.
The City of Roanoke stipulates and agrees that the above property as of the date
noted below is not a part of an intended, planned, or designated project area where
all or substantially all of the property within the area would be acquired within a
specific time frame; and that the information described in paragraphs 2 through 5
has been provided to the property owner(s) noted herein,
Property Owner(s):
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
City Manager/Assistant City Manager
Date
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
Reouest to Withdraw from Consideration
I/we, (property owner[s]
names) hereby certi~fy that I/we are the rightful owners to the following property (address
of flooded property,):
Tax Parcel Number:
I/we hereby wish to notify the City of Roanoke of our desire to remove our property from
consideration the Garden City Neighborhood Acquisition Program.
I/we hereby acknowledge that by signature of this form the above property will not be
appraised, and that I/we will not be given the opportunity to sell the above property to the
City of Roanoke to be purchased under the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Program.
I/we conclude that by signing, I/we forfeit all of our rights of opportunity for consideration
for the Garden City Neighborhood Acquisition Program.
Property Owner(s):
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
*All property owners listed on the warranty deed to the property must sign this form.
In the event th~t there are questions regarding the withdrawal from consideration for the
acquisition, the following is an address and phone number at which the above property
owners may be reached:
Address:
Phone:
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
Reouest to be added to Waitim] List
(//st of all property owners listed on the warranty deeo~ hereby certify that we are the
rightful property owners to the following property (address of floodedpropertyJ:
Tax Parcel Number:
I/we hereby would like to request being added to the waiting list for consideration of the ·
voluntary acquisition program for the Garden City Neighborhood.
I/we understand that in the event of an excess of funds after the initial list of properties
has been considered, that our property will be considered for acquisition in the order of the
date of receipt of this request by the City of Roanoke, subject to eligibility requirements.
I/we also understand that the acquisition remains voluntary and that by signing this form,
I/we have only expressed a request to be considered for future purchase in the acquisition
program, and that I/we can withdraw this request at any time prior to signing a Purchase
Agreement.
I/we also understand that a future or expanded acquisition program may not be funded, in
which case, my property would not be eligible for purchase.
Property Owner(s):
signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
Signature Print Full Name Date
*All property owners listed on the warranty deed to the property must sign this form.
EXHIBIT A
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION
PROGRAM
FLOODPLAIN AREA MAP
DATE:
FLOODPLAIN JANUARY 1997
SCALE:
1" = 1,600'
EXHIBIT B
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
ORIGINAL PROPERTY LIST
Tax Parcel
Number Last Name First Name Property Address
2310 Garden City Blvd.
I 4360302 Adams Eldridge L: Roanoke, VA 24014
2608 Bandy Road
2 4370436 Adams EId~idg& L. Roanoke, VA 24014
1013 Gearhart Road
3 4290110 Anderson Donald M., Roanoke, VA 24014
2340 Garden City Blvd.
4 4360404 Asbury E. $. Roanoke, VA 24014
1014 Ray Road
I
5 4290102 ~.tkins Nelson W. Roanoke, VA 24014
1323 Craig Robertson Rd
6 4370404 Bally Paul G. Roanoke, VA 24014
2609 Bandy Road
7 4370501 Bikuladge Isobel P. Roanoke, VA 24014
2912 Bonlyn CircJe
8 4190522 Cofer Robert E. Roanoke, VA 24014
1315 Rose Ave.
9 4360305 Combs David M. Roanoke, VA 24014
2442 Garden City Blvd.
10 4360504 Dearing Richard A. Roanoke, VA 24014
2414 Garden City Blvd.
11 4380517 Dearing Richard A. Roanoke, VA 24014
4360503 2430 Garden City Blvd.
12 4380502 Dearing Richard A. Roanoke, Va 24014
2725 Garden City Blvd.
13 4260304 Drummond Lewis M., Sr. Roanoke, VA 24014
1013 Ray Road
14 4290204 Ferguson Jeffrey Lynn Roanoke, VA 24014
1301 Rose Ave.
15 4380301 Ferguson William Brooks Roanoke, VA 24014
1315 Craig Robertson Rd.
16 4370403 Ferguson William Brooks Roanoke, VA 24014
4380405 2346 Garden City Blvd.
17 4380406 Gillespie James W., Jr. Roanoke, VA 24014
1004 Ethel Road
18 4290218 Gray Robert W. Roanoke, VA 24014
2508 Garden City Blvd.
19 4370402 Hicks John A. Roanoke, VA 24014
1319 Thomason Road
20 4380520 Horsley Gray Roanoke, VA 24014
2402 Garden City Blvd.
21 4380516 Jackson Melvin E. Roanoke, VA 24014
3047 Welcome Valley Rd.
22 4520208 Johns Elizabeth D. Roanoke, VA 24014
1320 Thomason Road
23 4380423 Johnson Gordon H. Roanoke, VA 24014
1/22/97
GCLIST1 .XLS
EXHIBIT B 1 2 /97
GARDEN CITY PROPERTY/RELOCATION PROGRAM
ORIGINAL PROPERTY LIST
Tax Parcel
Number Last Name First Name Property Address
1320 Findlay Ave.
24 4260506 Leonard Katherine Roanoke, VA 24014
1314 Findlay Ave.
25 4260505 Leonard Ronald E. Roanoke, VA 24014
2336 Garden City Blvd.
26 4360403 McComas Robert R. Roanoke, VA 24014
4290318
4290319
4290320 1020 Tipton Ave.
27 4290321 McGhee Wayne M. Roanoke, VA 24014
2502 Garden City Blvd.
28 4370401 McNutt Myd N. Roanoke, VA 24014
4290303 1013 Ethel Road Roanoke,
29 4290304 Mills Clinton H. VA 24014
1311 Findlay Ave.
30 4260507 Mitchell Pamela M. Roanoke, VA 24014
2673 Garden City Blvd.
31 4260111 Moore Michael D. Roanoke, VA 24014
4290301 1005 Ethel Rd
32 4290302 ;Murphy Patsy Weaver Roanoke, VA 24014
1009 Ray Road
33 4290203 Patsel Nancy Mary Roanoke, VA 24014
2913 Bonlyn Circle
34 4190519 Roach Clyde M. Roanoke, VA 24014
2907 Bonlyn Circle
35 4190518 Stinette John M. Roanoke, VA 24014
1018 Ethel Road Roanoke,
38 4290219 Stump Clyde C., Jr. VA 24014
4380303 2314 Garden City Blvd.
37 4380304 Taylor Wendell D. Roanoke, VA 24014
1016 Tipton Ave. Roanoke
38 4290317 Williams Janice L. Va 24014
4360401 2328 Garden City Blvd.
39 4380402 Wilson Kathy C. Roanoke, VA 24014
2667 Garden City Blvd.
40 4260110 Wimmer Phyllis Cook Roanoke, VA 24014
2662 Garden City Blvd.
41 4260504 Wood Robert L., Jr. Roanoke, VA 24014
GCMSTI.XL$
Gamand Branch Drainage Study March 1, 1996
Report to the City Manager
GARNAND BRANCH
DRAINAGE STUDY
Prepared by the
Garden City Drainage Task Force
and
Office of the City Engineer
Office of the City Engineer
Room 350, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, V'u'ginia 24011-1587
(540) 981-2731
City of Roanoke, Oilic~ of the City En~neer page I
Garnand Branch Drainage Study March 1, 1996
I. BACKGROUND
The Garnand Branch watershed is located in the southeastern section of the City of Roanoke in an
area known as Garden City. This 2,100 acre watershed is mountainous with over 1,200 feet of
vertical relief, and has many existing buildings located within the 100 year floodplain. A previous
drainage study of this watershed was prepared by the City's Engineering Department in 1992. The
purpose of the previous study was to identify substandard drainage facilities which contributed to
flooding, and to recommend conceptual improvements. This study proposed increasing the
channel and bridge capacities to convey a 10 year storm. The estimated cost for this work in 1992
dollars was $6.5 million. Since that time, one of the bridges (Craig Robertson Road) within the
study area has been replaced with a new bridge in conformance with the recommendations of the
drainage study. The 1992 study concentrated on the lower and more severely affected areas of the
watershed, and did not include Phase IV or Phases VII through X of this study.
On June 28, 1995, the G-arnand Branch watershed received over 4 inches ofrainfail within a 75
minute period. For five of the previous seven days leading up to June 28, rain had saturated the
ground in this watershed. The resulting runofffi.om this intense storm and saturated ground
caused severe flash flooding and flood stages approximately equal to a 40 year storm in the
Garnand Branch and Gum Spring channels. The estimated damage to private property fi.om this
storm alone was over $700,000.
There are currently about 85 buildings located within the 100 year Federal Emergency
Management Agency CinEMA) floodplain and 31 of these structures are within the FEMA
floodway. Many of these buildings have experienced flooding on a nearly annual basis. The
FEMA floodplain in the Garden City area is approximately 11,200 feet in length and represents
about 5% of the regulated floodplain within the City of Roanoke.
As a result of the June 28, 1995 storm, the Garden City area received a presidential disaster
declaration for individual assistance (business and residential) and became eligible for a FEMA
HnT~rd Mitigation Grant. This Federal Grant was established to reduce future flooding damages
by modifying the flood-prone buildings as opposed to increasing channel and bridge capacities. In
order to take advantage of this Federal Grant, the 1992 study has been moditied to replace some
of the proposed channelization with the proposed purchase and removal of flood-prone buildings.
The resulting project is Phase II of the attached report.
Following a meeting on July 6, 1995 between the residents of Crarden City, and representatives of
the City of Roanoke, State and Federal agencies, a Task Force made up of eight citizens fi.om the
Garden City area was formed. The Task Force was requested to review the flooding problems in
this watershed with City Engin~g staff, and to prepare a pre 'luninary report with
recommendations to the City Manager by February, 1996. The attached report is the result of
eleven meetings of this Task Force, community wide questionnaires and resulting studies by City
Engineering Department staff..
City of Roanoke, Office of the City Engine~ page 2
Garnand Branch Drainage Study March 1, 1996
2. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
The recommendations of the Garden City Drainage Task Force and the City Engineering
Department for addressing the flooding problems in the Garnand Branch watershed are presented
in the following paragraphs.
Phase I - Consists of the replacement of two bridges crossing Gamand Branch, one on Thomason
Road and the other on Bandy Road. Funding is currently in place for these bridges and
construction is scheduled to be~n in the summer of 1996. The attached map shows the location of
this project.
Estimated Cost
$670,000
Phase ri. Consists ora FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant project to purchase and remove
approximately 42 buildings fi.om the floodplain of Gamand and Gum Spring Branches. This
project would remove the buildings in this watershed which are the most vulnerable to serious and
repetitive flooding. This project will begin as soon as it is approved by FEMA and the funds
become available. The grant application is being administered by the Vir~nia Department of
Emergency Services (VDES). Following their review, the VDES recommended full funding and
forwarded the application to FEMA for their review in mid January, 1996. The attached map
shows the location of this project.
Estimated FEMA Cost $2,022,000
Estimated State & City Cost $ 674,000
Total $2,696,000
Phase m - Consists of a channe!iTation and culvert replacement project on Gum Spring Branch
between Garden City Blvd. and Gearhart Road and installation of stormdraln between Gearhart
Rd. and Tipton Ave. This project would increase the size of the Gum Spring Branch channel and
the corresponding street culverts to convey a 10-year storm within the channel banks. This project
also includes replacing two culverts on Yellow Mountain Road. The attached map shows the
location of this project.
$2,661,000
Phase IV - Consists ofedding a neighborhood stormdraln system along Springvale, Bear,
Baltimore and Spring Branch Roads. The attached map shows the location of this project.
Estimated Cost
$1,260,000
City of Roanoke, O~ce of the City En~inee~ p~e 3
Garnand Branch Drainage Study March 1, 1996
Phase V - Consists of replacing the bridge at Riverland Road, charmelization of Garnand Branch
between the Roanoke River and Rose Avenue, and between Bandy Road and Sample Avenue.
This project would protect Riverland Road and Garden City Blvd. fi.om flooding from up to a
twenty five-year storm.
Estimated Cost
$ 1,652,000
Phase VI - Consists of clearing and limited channelization along Crarnand Branch fi.om its
confluence with Gum Spring Branch to Yellow Mountain Road. The attached map shows the
location of the Phase VI project.
Estimated Cost
$ 400,000
Phase VII - Consists of instal!inS a culvert on Yellow Mountain Road east of Garden City
Boulevard to reduce flooding to business proper~ on Yellow Mountain Road. The attached map
shows the location of the phase VI~ project.
Estimated Cost $ 128,000
Phase VIH - Consists of grading a ditch along Welcome Vailey Road fi.om its intersection with
Yellow Mountain Road, upstream approximately 600 feet, to reduce flooding along Welcome
Valley Road. The attached map shows the location of the Phase IX project.
Estimated Cost $ 79,000
Phase IX - Consists of installing a stormdrain along Sample Avenue to reduce flooding of 2812
and 2816 Sample Ave., due to street water rising above Curb level and flowing down driveways
and into basements. The attached map shows the location of the Phase VII project.
Estimated Cost $ 81,000
Phase X - Consists of rngrading and adding curb and gutter to Moran Street and Hlllview Avenue,
between Mabry Avenue and Gamand Branch, to reduce flooding to private residences caused by
street runoff crossing private property. The attached map shows the location of the Phase X
project.
Estimated Cost $ 250,000
City of Ro,~oke, Offi~ ofth~ City En~n,~*r pa~ 4
Garnand Branch Drainage Study March 1, 1996
3. FUNDING SUM_MARY
City & State Funds FEMA Grant Total
Phase I $ 670,000
Phase II $ 674,000 $2,022,000 $2,696,000
Phase III $2,661,000
Phase IV $1,260,000
Phase V $1,652,000
Phase VI $ 400,000
Phase VII $ 81,000
Phase VILI $ 128,000
Phase IX $ 79,000
Phase X $ 250,000
Totals $7,855,000 $2,022,000 $9,877,000
4. PROJECT SUMMARY
When completed, the above drainage improvements for the Garden City area would provide a
minimum of 10-year storm protection for the majority of this community. Funding for these
projects will be a primary determining factor in their timing. The Phase II project is unique in its
potemial to be funded primarily fi.om State and Federal sources. If the FEMA Ha-~rd Mitigation
Grant is approved for Phase R, it would represent the first time that this type of federal grant has
been received by the City of Roanoke. Early indications fi.om both the State and Federal review
agencies have been positive regarding the potential for grant approval, however, as of this date,
these fimding sources have not been secured.
If the funding fi.om FEMA is not approved, the City may be required to fund the Phase II project
with local funds. The FEMA grant is primarily set up to mitigate private building dsm~es as
opposed to channeli-~tion. On a locally fimded project, the City would not be under these same
constraints. The City could construct the channelization project proposed by the 1992 report
instead of removing structures. Although the cost would be similar for both options, the
channelization option would not provide as much protection as the proposed purchase and
removal option listed in this report. Therefore, at this time, the purchase and removal option is
recommended for Phase II regardless of funding sources. Phase I is the only project which is
currently funded and the remaining phases will require additional future fimding sources.
City of Roanoke, Office of the City Et~neer p~e 5
GARNAND
BRANCH
PHASE
II
WATERSHED ~
I t° = 600'
GARNAND BRANCH
PHASE
WATERSHED
III
II
600'
NI
t
GARNAND
BRANCH VATERSHED
PHASE I V
BATE'
$CALE'
1 ° = ,600'
ARNAN]3 t~RANCH WATERSHED
PHASE V
600'
III
GARNAND BRANCH WATERSHED
PHASE VI
]ARNAND BRANCH WATERSHED
PHASE VII TO X
600'
MeW F, Perker, CMC/AAE
Cay Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
8andre H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File f~24-120-353
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke; Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33243-020397 amending and reordaining subsection (c) el'
§20-76, Parkina sDeDes reserved for Demons with disabilities, and subsection (c) of §20~1.
Exemotions from certain reauirements of Derkina meter reaulationn, Code of the City of Rom'toke
(1979), as amended, by limiting to four hours the time in which a vehicle displaying a disal~l
license tag or placard may be parked in a parking zone limited as to time or in a metered ~
without paying the required fee. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council ~ N
City of Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, also adopted by the Coum:~ o~
second reading on Monday, February 3, 1997, and will be in full force and effect ten days foilow~
the date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
February 10, 1997
Page 2
pc:
Christine A. Montgomery, President, Mayor's Committee for the Disabled, 622-A Walnut
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Evelyn Jefferson, Vice-President - Supplements, Municipal Code Corporation,
P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Flodda 32304
Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest Virginia Building,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable G. O. Clemens, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Richard C. Pattisall, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
The Honorable George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable William D. Broadhurst, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Distdct Court
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Distdct Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III, Clerk, Circuit Court
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
Bobby D. Casey, Office of the Magistrate
Michael Meise, Acting Law Librarian
Patsy A. Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
James L. Viar, Acting Chief, Police Department
~NTHECOUNC]LOFTHECITy OF ROANOK~,VIRG~NT~
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33243-020397.
AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining subsection (c) of {}20-76, ~aces
reserved for persons with disabilities and subsection (e) of §20-81, Exemptions bom certain
reauirements of parking meter re~,,Jlations. Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by
limiting to four hours the time in which a vehicle displaying a disabled license tag or placard may be
parked in a parking zone limited as to time or in a metered space without paying the required fee.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Subsection (c) of§20-76, Parkins~ spaces reserved for Demons with disabilities. Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as
follows:
§20-76. Parkinn suaces reserved for persons with disabilit~
(c)
A disabled person, vehicle owner or volunteer for an institution or
organi:,~,fion to which disabled parking license permits, organizational
removable windshield placards, permanent windshield placards or
temporary windshield placards are issued or any person to whom
disabled parking license plates have been issued under section 46.2-
739 Code of V'u'ginia (1950), as amended, shall be allowed to park the
vehicle on which such license plates or placards are displayed for up
to four (4) hours in parking zones restricted as to length of parking
time permitted and for up to four (4) hours in parking meter zones
without paying parking meter fees. This subsection shall not apply to
any provision of this chapter which creates parking zones for special
types of vehicles nor shall it apply to any provision of this chapter
which prohibits parking during heavy traffic periods, during specified
rush hours or where parking would clearly present a traffic hazard.
2. Subsection (c) of §20-81, Exemptions from certain reouirements of parking meter
regulations, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained to
read and provide as follows:
§20-81. Exemptions from certain requirements of Darklne meter re~.!nt~o=-
A disabled person, vehicle owner, or volunteer for an institution or
organization to which disabled parking license plates, organizational
removable windshield placards, permanent windshield placards, or
tempormy windshield placards are issued or any person to whom
disabled parking license plates have been issued under §46.2-739 of
the Cede of Vil~inia (1950), as amended, shall be allowed to park the
vehicle on which such license plates or placards are displayed for up
to four (4) hours in I:Ut~'king meter zones without paying parking meter
fees.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING,
CITY A~i'OR NEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GLADYS L. YATES
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
ASSISTANT CiTY ATTORNEYS
January 21, 1997
The Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA
Re: Proposed Amendments to §§20-76(c) and 20-81 (c) of the Code of the City of Roanoke
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
Section 46.2-731 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, provides that persons operating
vehicles displaying a parking permit for disabled persons shall be permitted to park in a metered
parking space without paying a fee for up to four hours. Such persons may also park in parking zones
limited as to length of parking time for up to four hours. The State Code provision states that it takes
precedence over all local ordinances. Currently, §§20-76(c) and 20-81(c) &the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, permit such persons to park for an unlimited time in metered parking
places.
It is my recommendation that City Council adopt the enclosed ordinance which would amend
the City Code to conform to the requirements of the state statute. The City Manager and Chief of
Police concur in this recommendation. I will be pleased to answer any questions which members of
Council may have about this matter.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WCD/lsc
cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
George C. Snead, Jr., Director Public Safety
ChiefM David Hooper, Police Department
H:'v~M ISCUIN DP RK.COU
MaW F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandm H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ft-467-514
The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III
Clerk of Circuit Court
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Crush:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33247-010697, for proper recordation in your office,
authorizing the alteration and closing, by barricade, of the easternmost terminus of Mount
Holland Drive, S. W., near the rear entrance of Hidden Valley Junior High School. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first
reading on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, also adopted by the Council on second reading
on Monday, February 3, 1997, and will be in full force and effect ten days following lt~
date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
C~y C~rk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ft-467-514
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33247-020397 authorizing the alteration and closing, by
barricade, of the easternmost terminus of Mount Holland Drive, $. W., near the rear entrance of
Hidden Valley Junior High School. The aboverafemnced measure was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, also adopted by the Council on
second reading on Monday, February 3, 1997, and will be in full force and effect ten days following
the date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Clement B. Binnings, 1701 Driftwood Lane, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools, 5937 Cove Road, N. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. Jack Butcher, 4904 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Estate of Marion B. Via, c/o Moss & Rocovich, P. C., P. O. Box 13606, Roanoke, Virginia
24035
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, County of Roanoke, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
W. Robed Herbed, City Manager
February 10,1997
Page 2
pc:
Mr. and Mrs. W. David Pdce, 4930 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Lubbs, 5007 Mount Holland Ddve, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Elizabeth Brooks, 4950 Mount Holland Ddve, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Edmund M. Donohue, 5020 Bruceton Road, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Rebecca Cheatwood, 5004 Mount Holland Ddve, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. James Helba, 5025 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Reverend and Mrs. Andrew Berkner, 5012 Mount Holland Ddve, 8. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. Albert 8choester, 5055 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Suzanne E. Barnett, 5031 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Thacker, 4929 Mount Holland Ddve, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Fox, 5031 Gatewood Avenue, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Todd E. Stafford, 4924 Mount Holland Ddve, $. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Sharon S. Mitchell, 4938 Mount Holland Drive, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018-1630
Mr. Richard L. Stroupe, 2072 Mcvitty Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
MS. Anne Tilley, 4956 Mount Holland Ddve, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. James Walker, 4950 Keithwood Street, 8. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Rutledge Robertson, 1514 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. John L. Aker, 1709 Ddf[wood Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
David Blevins, Principal, Hidden Valley Junior High School, 4902 Hidden Valley S~
Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Sherry Buckner, President, Parent Teacher Association, Hidden Valley Junior High School,
c/o Hidden Valley Junior High School, 4902 Hidden Valley School Road, S. W., Roanoke.
Virginia 24018
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation
Nancy J. Brown, Appraiser Aide, Real Estate Valuation
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner, w/enclosura
John R. Madles, Agent, City Planning Commission, w/enclosure
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator, w/enclosure
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33247-020397.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the alteration and closing by
barricade of a certain public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, as more particularly described hereinafter.
WHEREAS, the City Manager filed an Application with the
Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with law,
requesting the Council to alter and close by barricade the public
right-of-way described hereinafter; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving
proper notice to all concerned as required by S30-14, Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
public hearing on the matter, has
Council; and
WHEREAS, public hearing was
and after having conducted a
made its recommendation to
held on said Application by the
City Council on January 21, 1997, after due and timely notice
thereof as required by S30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens
were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said Application; and
WHEREAS, it appearing from the foregoing that the land
proprietors affected by the requested closure by barricade of the
subject public right-of-way have been properly notified; and
WHEREAS, Mount Holland Drive, S.W., and other local streets
connecting it to Route 419 are narrow, winding streets which are
residential in nature; and
WHEREAS, opening Mount Holland Drive, S.W., on a permanent
basis to traffic coming from, or going to, Hidden Valley Junior
High School is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and would
adversely affect the public safety, welfare and convenience; and
WHEREAS, the safety of the persons attending Hidden Valley
Junior High School is also a concern to the Council; and
WHEREAS, a traversable barrier at the easternmost terminus of
Mount Holland Drive, S.W., would permit vehicles in the event of an
emergency to enter and exit the property on which Hidden Valley
Junior High School is located; and
WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, the Council considers that
no substantial inconvenience will result to any individual or to
the public from altering and closing by barricade said public
right-of-way, on the conditions set forth below, and that such
alteration will promote the safety, welfare and convenience of
those using the subject public right-of-way and the right-of-way in
the vicinity of the right-of-way to be closed.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, that the public right-of-way situate in the City
of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
The easternmost terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.,
near the entrance to Hidden Valley Junior High School,
be, and hereby is, altered and closed byway of a barricade capable
of being traversed by police, fire, rescue and other emergency
vehicles in the event of any future emergency on Hidden Valley
Junior High School property.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that City forces install appropriate
curbing to effect the alteration by closure of the easterly
terminus in the form of a landscaped island, and install
landscaping material, shrubs, etc., at a controlled height,
sufficient to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles over the
barricade, in the event of any future emergency on Hidden Valley
Junior High School property, the design of which shall also provide
for pedestrian and bicycle access.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, and he is,
directed to mark "altered and closed by barricade" on said right-
of-way on all maps and plats on file in his office on which said
right-of-way is shown, referring to the book and page of ordinances
and resolutions of the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
wherein this Ordinance shall be spread.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerk deliver to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, an
attested copy of this ordinance in order that said Clerk may make
proper notations, if any, of the alteration and closing by
barricade as described above on all maps and plats recorded in that
office on which Mount Holland Drive, S.W., appears.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
4938 Mo=t Holl~n~l Dr;v, S. W.
Roanoke, Virgi,,i~ 24018-1630
SUPERINTENDENT GORDON'S REMARKS TO THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A SEGMENT OF MT. HOLLAND DRIVE
JANUARY 21, 1997
Good evening Mr. Bowers--Members of City Council
I am Deanna Gordon, Superintendent of Roanoke Coanty Schools. I appear on behalfofthe
Roanoke County School Board to ask that the City not vacate any portion of Mt. Holland Drive
as has been recommended by the Planning Commission.
This road is important to Hidden Valley School, its patrons, its staffand its students. You know
the history of Mt. Holland Road and you know that it is not currently used, but it has not been
vacated.
In the past two decades, growth in traffic on Route 419 has been significant, and the unsignalized
intersection at Hidden Valley School Road has grown increasingly dangerous. As has been
reported, there have been several accidents at the intersection and there is the certain prospect of
others. You and the Roanoke County School Board have a mutual obligation to act to assure the
safety of our children. Retaining the opportunity for the school to have access to Mount Holland
Road and a signalized intersection at Keagy Road will advance that cause dramatically.
We are advised by our counsel that the City does indeed have the authority to vacate its streets.
But this authority possesses reasonable limits. The City may act only on a finding that the
vacation of any portion of a street will not unduly create inconvenience to the traveling public.
The focus is therefore on the use to which a public way may be placed. The question that the
General Assembly has required to be asked is not wl~ether those who reside along that street will
be inconvenienced by its use. Moreover, the focus is not on the inconvenience that will be
occasioned by the retention of a street in use, but by its discontinuance.
Thus the General Assembly has created a presumption that a public right-of-way once created is
to remain a public right-of-way. Streets are properly vacated when there is no need for them, not
when the need is great and growing. In analogous circumstances involving the vacation of
streets by counties, our Supreme Court has said that it was not the General Assembly's purpose
to deprive interested parties of access to a public highway by abandoning any part of that orad,
and that it is not necessary to show that a road is indispensable for travel, but only that it is
necessary for "reasonable accommodation" to the traveling public.
Here, it is simply not possible to conclude that the discontinuance of Mt. Holland Road will
inconvenience anyone other than the students, parents and faculty of Hidden Valley Junior High
School, who have the lawful right to the use ora public way that was voluntarily not used--at a
time when alternative access by Hidden Valley School Road was superior and did not present the
hazard that time and growth have created. Vacating a segment of Mt. Holland will defeat the
interests of the traveling public, and particularly the traffic safety interests of the children of the
school.
We feel that we must take steps to protect our students, teachers, and administrators, and we
know that you do not disagree with that goal. We also know that this a better solution would be
the placement of traffic signals at the intersection of Mt. Holland and Route//419. There seems
to be no indication that this will happen.
We have also indicated that we do not intend to use the connection as a principal access to the
school. We are interested primarily in assuring that Mt. Holland remains available for restricted
use. We have seen the City Manager's report and are aware that the proposal is to construct a
barrier that can be breached in emergencies. We remain concerned that the vacation of this street
creates legal questions as to the ownership of the underlying right-of-way, and that it may be
extended to more dramatic restriction of the school's rights.
We ask that this connection not be vacated.
Roanoke City Planning Commission
January 21, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Request from the City of Roanoke to alter by closure with barricades, the
eastern terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W., pursuant to Section 30-14
of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
Terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W., as requested for closure is located east of
the Route 419/Keagy Road intersection. Street terminus abuts property owned by
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and occupied by Hidden Valley Junior
High School.
Hidden Valley Junior High School opened in 1972. School's original access to
Route 419 was provided by way of Mount Holland Drive and McVitty Road (see
attached map). School property was at that time located in Roanoke County. School
property was subsequently annexed into the City on January 1, 1976.
Residents in the Mount Holland Drive area expressed strong objections and protests
at that time over the County's decision to route heavy school traffic through their
neighborhood.
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors consequently adopted a resolution in which
it resolved that the public welfare and safety of its citizens, including its school
children, would best be served by having a single and sole means of access for all
traffic to the school property, by way of Dean Road from State Rout~ 419.
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors subsequently adopted a resolution on April
10, 1973, in which it resolved that a dire need existed for a satisfactory entrance to
Hidden Valley School due to the following existing conditions:
There has been much confusion and objection in the residential areas over the
channeling of school traffic through the adjoining subdivisions; and
Room162 MunicipaIBuilding 215ChurchAvenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia24011 (703)981-2344
Members of Council
Page 2
the Dean Road entrance originally considered is now deemed to be
unsatisfactory and dangerous even after the future development of State
Route 419.
Resolution further accepted a proposal from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) for the design and construction of a new accessway to
Hidden Valley School.
Hidden Valley_ School Road, $.W., (Route 1442) was constructed shortly thereafter.
VDOT determined, at that time, that a signal light was not needed at the new road's
intersection with Route 419.
Accesswav to Route 419. via Mount Hollan0 Drive was closed offat that time and
a gated barricade was installed on school property just beyond the terminus of Mount
Holland Drive. According to County officials, this accessway has not been reopened
or used for school traffic during the past 23 years.
~ was installed in 1994 at the intersection of Keagy Road and Route 419.
Hidden Valley school officials have since raised the question of reopening, on a
permanent basis, the previously barricaded accessway via Mount Holland Drive,
S.W., to allow school traffic to access this signalized intersection.
Public meeting was held on July 30, 1996, at Hidden Valley Junior High School.
Meeting was scheduled by Roanoke County school officials for the purpose of
meeting and discussing with residents of the affected neighborhood, the possible re-
opening of the Mount Holland Drive accessway.
Residents in attendance at the meeting voiced strong objections to all suggestions of
re-routing school traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Residents
were advised that school officials would provide them with at least a 24 hour notice
prior to any future opening of the existing Mount Holland barricade (gate).
City Council, on August 19, 1996, directed the City Manager to file a petition to
vacate or close by barricade, Mount Holland Drive, S.W. City Manager was further
directed to take necessary and appropriate action to support Roanoke County's
request to VDOT for a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 419 and Hidden
Valley School Road, S.W.
Application to close Mount Holland Drive, S.W., was filed on September 4, 1996,
and a public hearing was scheduled for the matter to be heard by the Planning
Commission on September 18, 1996.
Members of Council
Page 3
Request for the matter to be nostponed for a period of 60 days was thereafter
submitted to the City Manager by Deanna W. Gordon, Superintendent of Roanoke
County Schools. Request proposed that an interim meeting be held between
representatives of the Roanoke County School Board, Roanoke City Council, and
citizens of the neighborhood to develop an appropriate and responsible approach to
resolving the matter.
.P~1131~I111~5~ at the request of the City Manager, postponed its scheduled
hearing on the subject closure until its December 4, 1996, meeting.
Representatives of the Roanoke County School Board. Roanoke City Council. and
citizens of the affected nei~,hborhooda met on the evening of October 1, 1996, in an
effort to resolve the matter in a fair and reasonable manner. After considerable
discussion, all parties present acknowledged that a mutual agreement on the matter
could not be reached.
~, at its regular meeting of December 4, 1996, reviewed the
City's application to alter by closure with barricades, the eastern terminus of Mount
Holland Drive, S.W. A copy of the draft minutes are attached for Council's
information.
In response to the Commission's request for public comment, the following
individuals expressed their concerns and opposition to the proposed closure:
Deanna Gordon, Superintendent of Roanoke County Schools (Ms. Gordon's
comments are attached to this report).
2. Dave Blevins, Principal at Hidden Valley Junior High School
Sherry Buckner, President, Parent Teacher Association, Hidden Valley
Junior High School
The following residents expressed their support for the closure of the eastern
terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
5.
6.
7.
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Lubbs, 5007 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
Anne Tilley, 4956 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
Linda Donahue, 5020 Bruceton Road, S.W. Ms. Donahue also presented
written comments to the Commission, which are attached to this report.
Jim Walker, corner of Keithwood and Bruceton, S.W.
Todd Stafford, 4942 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
Rutledge Robertson, 1514 Bruceton Road, S.W.
Lin Price, 4930 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
Members of Council
Page 4
III. Issues:
Albert Schoester, 5055 Bruceton Road, S.W. Mr. Schoester also presented
a written statement from the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association
expressing their support for the proposed closure of the eastern terminus of
Mount Holland Drive, S.W. (statement attached).
C. Public safety_.
D. Creation of a dead-end street
E. Relationship to the comnrehensive plan.
IV. Alternatives:
Am)rove the City's apnlication tO 0,1ter by closure with barricade the easterly
terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.,thereby authorizing the City Manager to take
certain actions as outlined in Section V. of this report.
Existing barricade (gate) is located on Hidden Valley school property
and can be opened or removed at any time by school officials.
Closure by installation of a second barricade at anoint within the
~ of Mount Holland Drive will ensure that this
former accessway is not re-opened for school traffic in the future.
Hidden Valley Junior High School will continue to use Hidden
Valley School Road as its single means of access to Route 419 as
initially intended by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (see
attached resolution).
City will support Roanoke County's request for a traffic signal at the
intersection of Route 419 and Hidden Valley Road as a means of
facilitating the County's efforts to improve ingress and egress of
school traffic to and from Route 419.
Members of Council
Page 5
2. Traffic impact:
Closure by barricade of the terminus of Mount Holland Road will
have no impact on the exi,fing traffic conditions in the Mount
Holland Drive area.
Closure will have no impact on Hidden Valley school traffic. School
traffic will continue to access Route 419 in the same manner that it
has accessed Route 419 for the past 23 years.
Closure will ensure that ~ will occur in the existing
traffic conditions of the area.
3. Public safety_:
Closure will effect no change in the existing and current conditions
as they relate to public safety in the general area.
Traffic signal at Route 419 and Hidden Valley School Road is needed
to increase the level of public safety at that intersection.
Proposed use of Mount Holland Road as a means of access for school
traffic would be detrimental to the existing residential environment
and public safety of the adjacent neighborhoods.
Creation of a dead-end ~treet Mount Holland Drive has existed as a dead-
end street for the past 23 years. Closure will preserve the existing dead-end
status of this street.
Relationshin to the comprehensive plan. Closure would be consistent with
the intent of the comprehensive plan in that it will ensure that: (a) safe and
convenient vehicular and pedestrian movement on adjacent neighborhood
streets will be preserved; and (b) the character and stability of adjacent
neighborhoods will be protected and maintained.
Deny the City's application to alter by closure with barricade the easterly terminus
of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
1. N i hborh odim a t:
Existing barricade on Hidden Valley school property could be
removed at any time in the future to allow school traffic access
through the adjacent neighborhood to the signalized intersection at
Keagy Road/Route 419.
Members of Council
Page 6
Character and stability of the adjacent neighborhood could be
undermined.
2. Traffic impact:
Existing level of vehicular and pedestrian activities within the
adjacent neighborhoods could be adversely affected by a radical
change in traffic conditions.
Level of school traffic accessing Route 419 from Hidden Valley
School Road may decrease.
Public safe~_: Safety level for pedestrian and vehicular movements within the
adjacent neighborhoods may decrease.
4. Creation ora dead-end street: Dead-end street could be reopened.
Relationshin to the comprehensiv0 plan: Denial of the request to close, by
barricade, the terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W., would be inconsistent
with the intent of the comprehensive plan for the following reasons: (a)
Roanoke County school officials could subsequently remove the existing
barricade on their property to allow school traffic to access neighborhood
streets; and (b) character and stability of the adjacent neighborhoods could
be sacrificed in an effort to alleviate a school traffic problem.
V. R omm ndation:
Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0-1 (Mrs. Coles and Mr. Butler absent and Mr. Jones
abstaining) recommends that City Council approve the City's application to alter by closure
with barricade the existing easterly terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W., and authorize
the City Manager to undertake the following actions:
Direct City forces to thereafter install appropriate curbing to effect the alteration by
closure of the easterly terminus of Mount Holland Drive in the form of a landscaped
island.
Install landscaping material, shrubs, etc., at a controlled height, sufficient to allow
for the passage of emergency vehicles over the barricade, in the event of any future
emergency on Hidden Valley Junior High School property. The design of the barrier
shall provide for pedestrian and bicycle access.
Members of Council
Page 7
JRM:ERT:mpf
attachments
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn H. Coles, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 981-2541
Fax: (540) 224-3145
January 10, 1997
File ff.467-514
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on
Monday, Apdl 6, 1981, I have advertised a public headng to be held on Tuesday, January 21, 1997,
at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request'of the City of
Roanoke to close and discontinue, by barricade, the easternmost terminus of Mount Holland Ddve,
$. W., near the rear entrance of Hidden Valley Junior High School.
I am attaching copy of a report of the City Planning Commission recommending approval of the City's
request. If you have questions, please contact John R. Marries, Chief of Planning and Community
Development, at 853-2344.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
EH(:.
pc:
Mr. Clement B. Binninga, 1701 Driftwood Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Deanna Gordon, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools, 5937 Cove Road, N. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. Jack Butcher, 4904 Mount Holland Ddve, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Estate of Madon B. Via, c/o Moss & Rocovich, P. C., P. O. Box 13606, Roanoke, virginia
240035
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator, County of Roanoke, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. W. David Price, 4930 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Lubbs, 5007 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Elizabeth Brooks, 4950 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Edmund M. Donohue, 5020 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
W. Robert Hart)art
City Manager
January 10, 1997
Page 2
po:
Ms. Rebecca Cheatwood, 5004 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. James Helba, 5025 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Reverend and Mrs. Andrew Berkner, 5012 Mount Holland Ddve, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Mr. Albert Schoester, 5055 Bmceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Suzanne E. Barnett, 5031 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Thacker, 4929 Mount Holland Drive, $. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Fox, 5031 Gatewood Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Todd E. Stafford, 4924 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Sharon S. Mitchell, 4938 Mount Holland Drive, $. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018-1630
Mr. Richard L. Stroupe, 2072 McVitty Road, $. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Anne Tilley, 4956 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. James Walker, 4950 Keithwood Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Rutledga Robertson, 1514 Bruceton Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 2,~018
Mr. and Mrs. John L. Aker, 1709 Driftwood Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
David Blevins, Principal, Hidden Valley JUnior High School, 4902 Hidden Valley School
Road, $. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Sherry Buckner, President, Parent Teacher Association, Hidden Valley Junior High School,
c/o Hidden Valley Junior High School, 4902 Hidden Valley School Road, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Ad Number: 10387003
Publisher's Fee: $51.20
MARY F. PARKER, CITY CLE
ROOM 456, MUNICIPAL BUIL
215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W.
ROANOKE, VA 24011-1536
The Roanoke Times
STATE of VIRGINIA
CITY of ROANOKE
AFFIDAVIT of PUBLICATION
I, (the undersigned) an authorized
representative of the Times-World Cor-
poration, which corporation is publisher
of The Roanoke Times, a daily newspaper
published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed
notice was published in said newspapers
on the following dates:
01/03/97 FULL RUN - Friday
Witness, this 6th day of January 1997
Authorized Signature
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing
on Tuesday, January 21, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the issue of whether to close
and discontinue by barricade, the following public right-of-way:
The easternmost terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.,
near the rear entrance of Hidden Valley Junior High
School.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in
the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All
parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on
the question.
GIVEN under my hand this 31st day of December , 1996.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Publish in the Roanoke Times, once on Friday, January 3, 1997, and once on Friday,
January 10, 1997.
Send publisher's affidavit and bill to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Room 456, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Publish in the Roanoke Tribune. once on Thursday, January 9, 1997, and once on ·
Thursday, January 16, 1997.
Send publisher's affidavit and bill to:
Mary F. Parker, City Cleric
Room 456, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, January 8, 1997,
at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider the following:
Application to amend Section 36.1-25. Zoning, Code of City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended, by
amending the definition of"Lot coverage" as contained in Section 36.1-25. Definitions.
A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Community
Development, Room 162, Municipal Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Please prim in newspaper on Tuesday, December 24, 1996 and December 31, 1996
Please bill and send affidavit of publication to:
Department of Planning and Community Development
Room 162, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Application of the City of Roanoke
to alter by closure with barricades,
the eastern terminus of Mount Holland
Drive, S.W., pursuant to S30-14 of
the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended
) APPLICATION FOR
) ALTERING AND
) CLOSING A PUBLIC
) STREET
)
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
The City of Roanoke hereby applies, pursuant to the Motion
adopted by City Council on August 19, 1996, to alter by closure
with barricades, the eastern terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.,
pursuant to Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
The City of Roanoke, Virginia, states that the grounds for
this application are as follows:
An existing gate at the entrance to Hidden Valley Junior
High School at the eastern terminus of Mount Holland
Drive has been proposed to be opened. Opening of such
gate will result in Mount Holland Drive and adjoining
neighborhood streets becom/ng ways of ingress and egress
to and from the School for school personnel, students,
parents and other visitors, and will result in heavy
volumes of vehicular traffic on Mount Holland Drive and
adjoining neighborhood streets.
Such heavy volumes of traffic will negatively affect the
health, safety and welfare of residents of Mount Holland
Drive and the surrounding neighborhood, are incompatible
with the Comprehensive Plan, and will cause great public
inconvenience.
Residents of Mount Holland Drive support the closure of
Mount Holland Drive at the above-described location.
T~ie~Applicant proposes to close Mount Holland Drive at
the. above-described location by removal of pavement,
install'atlon of curb, guttering and fill, and other
appropriate measures.
The location of the above-described barricades is described in
the attached maps. (Exhibits A, B.)
A llst of the adjoining landowners affected by the subject
closure is attached. (Exhibit C.)
WHEREFORE, the City of Roanoke, Virginia, respectfully
requests that the above-described location on Mount Holland Drive,
S.W., be altered by closure with barricades, on a permanent basis,
as described herein.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
~(Date)
__Approved as to form
~ssi~t~nt C ty Attorney
~ATI=
Pl~OPo~
'"r'I~F'FIC
I~f~TBXT A
Street Closing
Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
Adjoining 9roperl:¥ owners=
Official Tax No. 5110201
Clement B. Blnnings
1701 Driftwood Ln., S.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Official Tax No. 5120115
Roanoke County School Board
5937 Cove Road, N.W.
Roanoke, VA 24019
Official Tax No. 5120209
Jack Butcher
4904 Mt. Holland Dr.,
Roanoke, VA 24018
Se We
Official Tax No. 5120308
Marion B. Via Estate
c/o Moss & Rocovich, P.C.
P. O. Box 13606
Roanoke, VA 24035
N=,h:L,b~L I: C
T (2) ,nov dlyl included - if n~ 4ed, April
b..~ma paid holidayl for teachers Imf ItUdenci.
~r. Gillispb, Supervisor of Transportation, presented the request
i ~tch prices Co purchase from Ward B~y Co.any, Co~y~ Ar~naas~
bodies for the 13 ~s chaee~e pr~ouely app~v~ by the ~ard; and 7
additional 67 passenger bue~e and one add~t~o~l ~8 passenger special
education ~s co. laCe vtCh l~fc sacs ~m BO~F ~r~n~ IncorreCt,
· c scats bid price. ~ ~C~on of ~. Fisher, seeond~ by ~e. Rueh~ns,
the Soard app~v~ porchaoins the ~ses as Listed belay:
13 ea.
7 ea.
7 ea.
el.
es,
Ward bodies FOB Convey, Arkansas @ $3,633.00 $&7,229.00
International Chassis v/paver steering and
'l~o~e Bodies FOB High Point, R.C. @ $7,902.00
$$$,31&.00
48 passenger spuetal education bus .-
International chassis and
Thomas Body v/lift gate $ 8,67%
The Superintendent referred to a letter from N~. H. E. Wood, Jr.,
District gnsineer of the Virginia Deparement of RIshvaye, advising of
· desisned ney access Co ~dd~ Vall~ Znee~inCe S~ool.
access ~uld ~M ~C onto
(Route LAA2). ~e cecal ~.e of the p~Jeee b ..C~c~ ac
$116,L91.~ of ~t~ She S~I ~a~ ut asa ~. After carehl
r~t~ of she maser, the ~a~, on melon sE ~. T. C. Fisher, Jr.,
second~ by ~e. Pal ~sh~g,
Xtghvay D~a~nC ~ drafed ~e foll~ resoluC~ so stacks
ice incenc~
~EREAS, the Roanoke County School Board Im dire need for a
esttsfacCory nCranca to the Hidden Valley lntoreedtate School, vhich
is both safe'and acceptable for the traffic of both the school bus
transportation syot~el sod tho ge~orel public ~or activities during
and beyond school honess ami
I~REAS, the Dean Itoad eutrnoe or~ginally considered in nov
deemed to be un~at~-faceory and dangerous evu after the fut~lra
: develolmmnlr of Se~te louts AIg, and
~ the Seb~.. 1 Bead in mluatin$ the possibility of
constructing yet anouer school on the Hidden Valley' grounds uhich
· veil came additional traffic eateries ~onte &lO, and
I~RKAf, h~Fin$ df~aeaod vith the Vlrgtnv- Department of Wishvaye
che-Sch~l Boerdee interest in · peemanant, sntiehatory entrance to
Chess schools,
Bo ?'* .Tn U .U. ss rt _USOLVn the coue schoo
arm eoan neee ~ eJ~ 0ti an oat ~' ' '
of HIahueye es mere in ~he esot for ~his p~oJee4 as ~d~c~ in
cor~ee~ndence pree~C~ chLo da7 dit~ hr~ ~9~ 1973 fm ~. ~
~d, Jr., Die~rXct ~8~ee~, .~
~ a re~ ~ce. ~ero o~ she ~a~ ~e~ as foll~:
R~h~s0 T. C. F~aher,
~ys ~ ~ne
~rchels c
New School
Resolution
Rev Accesa
to Ridden
Valley
Iuteruedta:
School
4/10/73
~uu~\C' '. TO STATE ROUTE 419 BY WJ OF DEAN I'.OAD:
AND U. ZI4G 9lIE; ROANUKE COUNTY SCIIOOL BOARD TO
PROVI bt.: SAYIE
UE IT RE$OLVLD, that the Board of Supervisors et Ro~ok~
Cot,.~.¥ ,s o~ ~hc c]~tl~dn that the P~lic welfare and safety of
its c~ i ze~l~din~ f~s school children,, would best be se=red
[,y hav,.q a simile and sole matins o~ access for all tralfio to the
~ch~)ol I.rol,erty (fo~rl~ the (;rah~ property) located adjacent
tr~ Stat,. Ire.re 419 be by way of Doan Road from State Route 419~
,uJd
u.ar, t ,,! Supervisors betfsg advised--that the Department of llighways
-would .-t rc£Uso the use et th~ said bean Rofd foe such purpose; and
el; IT FURTlf~R RESO~D tha~ the Cl~rk of this Board
transmit c~rtified copieu of this Resolution to the Superintendent
of tho I'ounoke County Schools and to the Ro~oke County School Board.
~)n motion of l;upervisor C. Lawrence ~8on, st]conded
hY l;ul'l'l ',taut R. K. lillton, Jr. and adopted by the following
IH.: IT FURTIIER RESOLV/:D, that the Board o~'S perv£sors
County · '--' '- /' .
tho ~o~ Co~t~ School,'to provide suc~.~
t~-xC~gltofl Of othe~. M~I of access., the
it YL;S:
(:. Lawra.n.~ D~....aon,--Rlg. h_!.r_q_C._Flora, a. ~.
'lq,omae: l~tleby~
llllto~:, Jr., J.
:;i;:;'l'A[IJl..I,: ,;ohn G. Seibel
IE~.~be~ W. Stokes
Board of Su;ervisom, Roanoke Court/y, Va.
Hidden Vall, Road/Route 419 Intersection
Proposed Barricade
Keagy Road Intersection
Existing Barricade
Residential Neighborhood
Fax Cover Page
Date/Time:
Subject:
From;
To:
Pages:
November 27, 1996 / 9:0lAM
Planning Commission Public Hearing ~ Dec. 4, 1996
Mike 'l'hacker
Planning Commission Members
I, including this.
It has been a couple of months since th~ issue of the closure of Mt. Holland Dr. was 0rigi-
nally scheduled to be heard by your C~mmission. I spoke ~ most, if not all, of~ou
priOr tO the originally scheduled meeting and urged you to carefully review this request
and endorse thc recommendation of staff to permanently close Mt. Holland Dr.. Tlie
.t?e.at.to this community of traffic to 4d from Hidden Valley Junior High School t~ not
.dimmashed. In fact, recently publicized plans to increase enrollment at the school further
increase the potential for the County tct attempt to solve their problem at the expenge of
City residents and the int~egrity of our ~eighborhood. I again urge you to recommend to
City Council that Mt. Holland Dr. be closed in a manner that allows access only b~
emergency vehicles.
Your COOl. ration and ' ~ '
support will be greatly appr~cmt~d.
TOTIqL P. m~
ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 4, 1996
MINUTES
DRAYl'
The regular meeting of the Roanoke City Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, December
4, 1996. The meeting was called to by Richard Jones, Vice Chairman, at 1:45 p.m. Attendance was
as follows:
Present:
John Bradshaw
Kent Chrisman
Barbara Duerk
Melvin Hill
Richard Jones
Absent: Gilbert Butler
Carolyn Coles
The following items were discussed:
1. Approval of Minutes -October 2. 1996 and November 12, 1996
Mr. Jones asked for additions and/or corrections to the October 2, 1996, minutes. Mr. Chrisman
moved the minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hill. Mrs. Duerk stated that she
would like her remarks on page 2, third paragraph from the bottom, stricken from the record since
they did not relate to the subject. There being no further additions and/or corrections, Mr. Chrisman
moved the minutes be approved as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hill and approved
5-0.
Mr. Jones asked for additions and/or corrections to the November 12, 1996, minutes. Motion was
made by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Duerk and unanimously approved to approve the minutes.
Reauest from the City of Roanoke to alter bv closure with barricades, the eastern terminu~
of Mount Holland Drive. S.W.. pursuant to Section 30-14 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979~. as amended.
Stating he had a conflict of interest, Mr. Jones removed himself from discussion and vote on the
above matter.
Mrs. Duerk nominated Mr. Bradshaw as temporary chairman. The nomination was seconded by Mr.
Hill and approved 4-0.
Mr. Bradshaw opened the hearing by stating the Commission understood there were sentiments both
for and against the closure of Mount Holland Drive. He said that this particular closure affected
both the City and the County and he understood that the road had been closed for all intents and
Roanoke City Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
December 4, 1996
purposes for many years. He advised that the Commission could not close any street within the City,
but would make a recommendation to City Council.
Mr. Ted Tucker, City Planner, gave the staffpresentation on the matter. He said that the request was
to close Mount Holland Drive at its terminus. Using a graphic display, Mr. Tucker pointed out the
surrounding streets and neighborhood as well as the location of the proposed barricade and school
property. He noted that the area had been annexed into the City in 1976. Mr. Tucker presented all
information outlined in the written staff report which had been mailed to the Commission
previously. He said that it was staff's opinion that the Commission should recommend to City
Council that the street be altered by barricade to insure the integrity and stability of the adjoining
neighborhood, as outlined in the City's comprehensive plan. He said that safety was both a concern
with the school and the neighborhood. He also noted that the City would do what they could to
assist the school in securing a traffic light at Hidden Valley School Road and Route 419.
Mr. Chrisman questioned the emergency egress and what types of vehicles would be able to use the
egress.
Mr. Tucker responded that emergency egress would not be an open and shut type gate, but would
be a traversable barrier, which could be crossed by any vehicle, with the exception of those Iow to
the ground. He also noted that the barricade could easily be traversed by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Bradshaw asked if the egress would go in either direction.
Mr. Tucker said that it would.
Ms. Deanna Gordon, Superintendent of Roanoke County Schools, appeared before the Commission
and read from a prepared statement, which is attached to and made part of these minutes.
Mr. Hill asked Ms. Gordon to explain her statement about the use of egress for emergencies and then
the statement that the exit should be open to any type of vehicular traffic.
Ms. Gordon stated that there could possibly be emergencies where parents would have to pick up
their children at school or buses will have to transport children through the emergency egress.
Mrs. Duerk asked if there was ingress/egress from Dean Road.
Ms. Gordon responded that there was not.
Mr. Bradshaw asked MS. Gordon if he understood that the school board had no objection to a gate,
but had objection to a Iow, planted area.
Roanoke City Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
December 4, 1996
Ms. Gordon said that the closure was the objection and that barricades were on other people's terms.
She said that a gate could be opened and closed. She also noted that if the school's gate were
removed and the barricade installed, that vandalism would be more likely to occur.
Mr. Bradshaw stated there were a number of low barriers within the City and that four-wheel drive
vehicles could traverse them. He said that if there was a gate, with a lock and key, then someone
would have to be responsible for that.
Mr. Dave Blevins, Principal at Hidden Valley Junior High School, appeared before the Commission
and thanked them for the opportunity to speak. He spoke about the changes that had taken place in
the area of I-Iidden Valley Junior High school since annexation and that it was not a simple task to
the leave the school property. Mr. Blevins said that when the traffic light was installed at Keagy
Road, school officials had thought about opening the gate for traffic because of the congestion on
Route 419. He said that had not happened. He also said that the school had never advocated taking
the gate down, however, there had been suggestions that at times during the school year another
ingress/egress was necessary through the neighborhood. He said that to his knowledge, the gate had
never been opened. He said there was a gate currently in place that might never be opened, but
could be in case of emergency. He then asked that the road not be closed with a permanent
barricade.
Mr. Hill said that he was not clear on whether the concern was that closure would eliminate the
street for emergency use or whether closure would eliminate a street that could be opened for
convenience.
Mr. Blevins said there were two issues: (1) whether the road was available for school use; and (2)
whether the road would be permanently closed. He said that the gate might never be opened, but
that if the street were closed by barricade and the gate remained, there was a safety issue.
Mr. Hill said that he was still confused about whether Mr. Blevins was opposed to closure for
convenience or emergency.
Mr. Blevins said that the issue was whether or not it was appropriate tc~ close the street by permanent
barricade that could be used for an emergency exit.
Mr. Chrisman asked if most children were evacuated by school bus in emergency.
Mr. Blevins said that was correct, but some parents did pick their children up.
There was continued discussion of the type of barricade proposed for the area and Mr. Tucker
explained that any vehicle with a 13"-15" wheel base should be able to traverse the barricade. He
said that plantings would have to be reinstalled if the barricade were traversed.
Roanoke City Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
December 4, 1996
Mrs. Duerk referenced a letter she had received from Hidden Valley School and asked if the school
had access to traffic control on Route 419.
Mr. Blevins responded that Roanoke County police provided a crossing guard 90% of the time and
that ifthera were evening activities, school officials called the County police before dismissal and
were sometimes successful in securing a police officer to direct traffic from the school grounds.
Ms. Sherry Buckner, President of the PTA, appeared before the Commission and stated that she had
been involved in the neighborhood meetings and understood the concerns of the neighborhood. She
said that the issue of opening the gate one time a year had been raised and the PTA planned to limit
the cars. She said that the PTA was concerned about the health and safety of the children and were
also concerned about a permanent barricade. She said that she now understood what type of
barricade was being proposed, but wanted to keep the gate in place. She again stated that the PTA
did not want to let cars out on the neighborhood streets anytime they desired, but were concerned
about the type of barricade installed.
Mr. Chrisman said that it seemed that several concerns raised centered on vehicular access for the
average citizen over the barricade. He asked ifa second gate had ever been considered by the City
of Roanoke.
Mr. Tucker said that to his knowledge there had never been any discussion about. He said that a
second gate would mean another key and someone would have to be responsible for that. Mr.
Tucker further stated that over the years, traversable barriers had become psychologically
acceptable.
Mr. Daniel Lubbs (5007 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated
that the Hidden Valley PTA newsletter had been circulating which had stated that the gate was being
permanently closed and emergency vehicle use would be prevented. He said that the newsletter had
caused some of the problem in the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood had appreciated
the closure for over 23 years and that their neighborhood had changed very little over the years. He
further noted that there were a number of streets throughout the City which had been closed by
barricade. He asked the Commission approve the request.
Mr. Bradshaw clarified for the record that some of the closures by barricade were not traversable,
and other were.
Mrs. Anne Tilley (4956 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and
commented on the quiet, peaceful neighborhood. She said that she crossed her street many times
a day to visit her daughter and enjoyed the neighborhood. She also mentioned that a number of
joggers and pedestrians used the neighborhood streets. She noted there were seven retired senior
citizens in the area.
Mr. Bradshaw asked Ms. Tilley if she were opposed to the emergency vehicles using the street.
Roanoke City Planning Commission Minutes
Page 5
December 4, 1996
Mrs. Tilley said she was not.
Mrs. Tilley said she had no objection to that at all, but objected to the gate being opened for PTA
meetings.
Mrs. Chris Lubbs (5007 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated
she was committed to her neighborhood and the neighbors looked out for each other. She said that
the neighborhood afforded the residents a sense of security and safety. She said that there was no
problem with emergency vehicles going through the neighborhood and that was not an issue.
Linda Donohue (5020 Bruceton Road, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated that she
had children at Hidden Valley Junior High School and was concerned about safety at the school.
She asked what the County was doing to solve the problem with traffic, noting that Hidden Valley
School Road was a major problem. She suggested that the road could possibly be widened to allow
vehicles making a left turn to have a separate lane. Ms. Donohue stated she was concerned about
how many times a month the gate would be opened for activities and was not opposed to the use of
the roadway for emergency vehicles. Ms. Donohue presented a written statement detailing the
reasons to install a permanent barrier to close the end of Mount Holland Road, such statement is on
file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. Ms. Donohue also stated that the
County needed to address the issue from their side.
Mr. Jim Walker (comer of Keithwood and Bruceton) appeared before the Commission and stated
he was opposed to opening up the gate. He said that he would like to see a barricade a little higher
than the one being proposed and would like the barricade to be installed so that only emergency
vehicles could traverse it. He said that he was also disappointed that Roanoke County had not made
any improvements to Hidden Valley School Road. Mr. Walker stated he had had discussions with
Delegate Morgan Griffith about the possibility of the General Assembly asking for a traffic light at
the intersection of Hidden Valley School Road and Route 419. He also stated that sensors could be
put in Hidden Valley School Road that would trigger the lights at Allstate and Keagy Road. He
again stated he would like a higher barricade.
Mr. Todd Stafford (4942 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated
that the Hidden Valley PTA had approached the neighborhood with a compromise of opening the
gate for a couple of nights. He said that the neighborhood's problem with that was that it was a
short-term issue, but the potential existed for the situation to get even worse. He said that he was
in favor of the barricade for emergency egress only. He said that the problem was not going away
and it was very important for him and his family that the streets in the neighborhood remain as they
are.
Rutledge Robertson (1514 Bmceton Road, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated that
with increases in traffic, real estate values declined. He handed out a map depicting the traffic
pattern and its eff'ect on the homes on Bmceton, Mount Holland and Keithwood, if the gate were
opened in the flature.
Roanoke City Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
December 4, 1996
Mr. Albert Schoester (5055 Bruceton Road, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated that
a petition had been circulated and the neighborhood was unanimously in favor of a permanent
barricade. He said there was no objection at all to passage of emergency vehicles. He further stated
he had a copy of a letter from Jeff Rodgers, President of the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood
Association, supporting the request to close.
Ms. Lin Price (4930 Mount Holland Drive, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated that
she would be opposed to children being picked up at the terminus of Mount Holland Drive. She also
questioned who de~ermined when an emergency situation arose.
Mr. Bradshaw said that the emergency would have to be determined by the principal since Hidden
Valley School's gate would still be in place and locked.
Ms. Price said that installation of another gate had been mentioned. She said that she did not want
that. She said that she did not want anything to happen to any of the students nor to the
neighborhood residents. She noted, however, that she wanted the neighborhood protected.
Ms. Gordon commented that she would like it clarified that the City, under State Code, built and
maintained their own roadways; whereas the County had no funding for building and maintaining
streets. She said that VDOT was responsible for that. She also noted that the only way the school
could improve Hidden Valley School Road would be through VDOT.
Mr. Marlles stated that was basically correct, however, Roanoke County did have input into the
programming process of VDOT.
Mr. Bradshaw also noted that the roadway was located on school property and the school was
responsible for it. He then declared the public hearing portion of the meeting adjourned.
Mrs. Duerk said that the City supported strong neighborhoods and one of the issues has been cut
through traffic. She said that the closure request was not a City/County issue, but a neighborhood
concern.
Mr. Hill commented that the Commission should base their decisions on the City's comprehensive
plan, which states that closures should ensure the preservation of safe and convenient vehicular and
pedestrian movement on adjacent neighborhood streets and the protection of the character and
stability of adjacent neighborhoods. He said that the barricade would allow emergency access.
Mr. Bradshaw asked if there was a motion to approve the City's recommendation. Motion was made
by Mr. Hill, seconded by Barbara Duerk and approved 4-0-1 (Mr. Jones abstaining) to approve the
barricade of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
3. Other Discussion
Roanoke City Planning Commission Minutes
Page 7
December 4, 1996
Mrs. Duerk advised the Commission that a Transportation/Utilities/Facilities
Subcommittee meeting had been held on November 25, 1996 and the following had
been discussed: intersection design at Bennington, S.E; design of bridge at Main
and Wasena, S.W.; 10th Street widening project and how that might interface with
greenway and bicycle plan; and 1-581 ramp. She also commented that the ISTEA
application would be due in January; that the public hearing on the bicycle plan
would be held in January; and that the greenway plan should be coming to the
Commission in the near future.
Mrs. Duerk stated she would like information on how the demolition on the two
structures in Gainsboro occurred. Mr. Marlles briefed the Commission on what he
knew about the demolitions, noting that demolitions were approved and permitted
by the Building Department, not by the Planning Department.
Mr. Marlles stated that he would like for the Commission to give him permission to
schedule a public heating on possible zoning amendments. Mr. Bradshaw moved to
schedule a public hearing for the Commission's January meeting. He said that in the
meantime he would talk with the Subcommittee. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Hill and approved 5-0.
Mrs. Duerk stated that the Commission had raised the issue of the status of the
Roanoke River Corridor Study at the joint City/County meeting. She asked if staff
had pursued the matter. Mr. Marlles responded that he had discussed the matter with
the City Attorney and the City Attorney had asked him to prioritize the five
ordinances currently under review. He said that the City Attorney had also stated
that a number of ordinances were close to completion and suggested that those
ordinances be given top priority. He said the City Attorney would provide him with
a timetable.
Mr. Marlles introduced Madam 3dam, Partnership Coordinator, and Chris Chittum,
Neighborhood Planner
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
COMMENTS TO THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ON THE MATYER OF CLOSING THE EASTERN TERM/NUS OF MOUNT HOLLAND
ROAD BY BARRICADE
DECEMBER 11, 1996
My name is Deanna Gordon. I am superintendent of Roanoke County Schools and I come before
you today to represent the interests of the Roanoke Count' School Board and the staff, students
and parents of Hidden Valley Junior High School which is located at the eastern terminns of
Mount Holland Road.
I would first like to make the point that the schools have tried to be considerate neighbors to the
residents of the Mt. Holland area. The gate has been kept closed for more I'han twenty years.
When we began to receive requests fi:om the parents of Hidden Valley School smdants that they
have some limited access to Mt. Holland Road as a safer and more convenient exit fi:om the
school, we responded by inviting the city residents of that area to come to the school to talk with
us about that possibility. We took no rash action and we tried to seek all other alternatives to
provide for safe exiting fi:om the school without increasing traffic through this neighborhood.
Never, at any time, did we propose or consider routing buses through the neighborhood. Never
did we consider full access to the use of Mt. Holland Road.
We believe that it is an overreaction for the City of Roanoke to move fi:om an open discussion
about the possibility of limited use of a street to full barricading of a street that is an essential
part of any emergency plan for rapid evacuation of the students fi:om Hidden Valley School. I do
not believe that the members of this commission would want to leave as the only access to this
school a single, faixly narrow road that could be easily blocked by any number of possible
accidents on Route g419, by flooding, or other highly unlikely, but possible disastrous events.
I repeat. This exit is absolutely required as an emergency exit. It must be open to any type of
vehicular traffic, not just large emergency vehicles that might be able to nm over trees, shrubs
and concrete curbing.
Further, as a moral issue and as a issue of regional cooperation, I find it unconscionable that
Roanoke City policy makers and decision makers would erect yet another banicade between
these two political entities. All of us are interested in finding ways to work together and today
you are being asked to erect a barricade that will loom as high and as wide as the infamous Berlin
Wall in the minds of hundreds of Roanoke County citizens whose children attend Hidden Valley
School. How can we hope to break down the political differences that separate us, if we erect a
bamcade that makes a mockery oftaik about regional cooperation?
Ia the interest of the safety and welfare of the children who attend Hidden Valley and in the
interest of being good neighbors, I call upon you to refuse to recommend the erection of a
barricade between Roanoke City and Roanoke County. The street is still closed by a gate. Gates
indicate friendly relationships between neighbors. Barricades indicate ill wilt.
' I a LD
REASONS TO INSTALL A PERMANENT BARRIER TO CLOSE THE END OF MT
HOLLAND DR TO HVJI-I SCHOOL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN:
1. LIMITED TRAFFIC THROUGH THE BRUCETON/KEITHWOOD/MT HOLLAND
NEIGHBORHOOD.
2. SAFETY:
- RESIDENTS; BOTH ELDERLY AND ADULTS WALKING OUR STREETS DURING
THE DAYTIME AND AFTER DARK.
- CHILDREN; PLAYING IN THE ROAD, ROLLERBLADING, SKATEBOARDING, AND
PLAYING BALL IN THE ROAD.
-PROPERTY; FROM ACCIDENTS AS WELL AS VANDALISM.
-NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS; WHO ROUTINELY USE OUR STREETS TO JOG,
WALK, AND ROLLERBLADE.
-HVJH TRACK AND CSHS CROSS COUNTRY TEAMS BOTH UTILIZE THE SAFETY
OF OUR STREETS TO RUN/TRAIN
3. MAINTAIN OUR SAFE/SECURE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAS LITTLE OR NO
VANDALISM/CRIME.
4. MAINTAIN PROPERTY VALUES.
REASONS HVZI-I SCHOOL/PARENTS MIGHT WANT TO OPEN THE GATE AT MT
HOLLAND DR TO TRAFFIC AT HVJH:
1. SAFETY; DRIVERS COMING/LEAVING HVJH PROPERTY WOULD HAVE AN
ACCESS TO THE TRAFFIC LIGHT ONTO RT 419 AT KEAGY.
2. ESTABLISH A SECOND ENTRANCE/EXIT FROM I-1VJH DURING AND AFTER
SCHOOL HOURS (24 HRS DAY/7DAYS WEEK).
HOW COULD WE PROTECT THE SAFETY OF ALL THOSE NEEDING ACCESS TO
HVJH PROPERTY WITHOUT OPENING THE MT HOLLAND GATE?
1. WIDEN THE HVJH ACCESS RD (HVJH RD) TO ACCOMMODATE TWO LANES
EXITING AND ONE LANE ENTERING HVJH DR. (CURRENTLY, THE FIRST AND
SECOND CARS IN LINE ESTABLISH THE BACKUP OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE THERE IS
NO ROOM FOR THE TI-IIRD OR SUBSEQUENT CARS TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN ONTO
RT 419. EVERY DRIVER MUST WAIT UNTIL THE FIRST AND SECOND CARS HAVE
PULLED OUT ONTO RT 419 IN ORDER FOR THEMSELVES TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
INTO POSITION TO TUKN LEFT OR RIGHT.
2. ESTABLISH A LIGHT AT RT 419 AND HVJH DR THAT WILL ONLY TRIGGER
WHEN SIDE TRAFFIC HAS PULLED UP TO THE INTERSECTION. (COULDN'T THE
DISTANCE BE GAUGED SO THAT, AS AN EXAMPLE, A DISTANCE OF 4 CAR
LENGTHS WOULD NEED TO BACK UP BEFORE THE LIGHT WOULD TRIGGER?
IE: ONE OR TWO CARS AT HVJH DR WOULD NOT TRIGGER A LIGHT CHANGE.)
WHAT TRAFFIC CURRENTLY USES HVJH DR AND, IF THE I-IVJH GATE WERE TO BE
OPENED AT THE END OF MT HOLLAND DR, WHAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WOULD
POSSIBLY USE THIS ACCESS AND WHAT AFFECT WOULD IT HAVE ON THE
BRUCETON/KEITHWOOD/MT HOLLAND AREA?
(IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ONCE THE GATE IS OPENED, IT WILL BE OPEN
24 I-IRS A DAY, EVERY DAY. WE FEEL THIS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN BASED
UPON THE FACT THAT HVJH LAST WINTER INCURRED REPEATED VANDALISM ON
AT LEAST 3 OCCASIONS. THIS VANDALISM WAS DONE BY MOTOR VEHICLE, AND
COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IF THE MAIN GATE CROSSING HVJH DR NEAR THE
SOCCER FIELD HAD BEEN CLOSED AFTER SCHOOL HOURS. IF THE SCHOOL DID
NOT LIMIT ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY FOLLOWING THE FIRST INCIDENT OF
VANDALISM, IT MUST BE REASONABLE TO ASSUME THE GATE WOULD NEVER
CLOSE. AND THEREFORE, THE BRUCETON/KEITHWOOD/MT HOLLAND AREA
WILL BE ACCESSIBLE FROM HVJH AT ALL TIMES.)
1. 900+ STUDENTS CURRENTLY ATTEND HVJH. NOT ALL STUDENTS RIDE THE
BUS TO SCHOOL. NON-RESIDENTS, EARLY (0 PERIOD) STUDENTS, TUTORED, AND
THOSE NOT WISHING TO RIDE A SCHOOL BUS DAILY ARE DROPPED OFF
BETWEEN THE MORNING HOURS OF 7:30 TO 8:20 AM, WITH THE MAJORITY OF
STUDENTS AND ALL 15 SCHOOL BUSES ARRIVING AND LEAVING I-IVJI--I BETWEEN
8:05 AND 8:25 AM.
2. APPROXIMATELY 88 FACULTY/OFFICE PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED TO HVJH.
3. NEXT SCHOOL YEAR, (1997-98), ROANOKE COUNTY WILL BEGIN SENDING
RISING JR. HIGH STUDENTS FROM CAVE SPRING ELEMENTARY TO HVJH. UP TO
THIS TIME, CAVE SPRING ELEM. STUDENTS DO NOT ATTEND HVJH UNLESS THEY
VOLUNTEER TO ATTEND. NEXT YEAR, THEY WILL AUTOMATICALLY ATTEND
I-IVJH UNLESS THERE IS AN OLDER SIBLING CURRENTLY ATTENDING CAVE
SPRING JR HIGH, IN WHICH CASE THE STUDENT MAY OPT TO ATTEND CSJH
RATHER THAN HVJH. TI-I~S WILL INCREASE ENROLLMENT AT HVJH AND WILL
INCREASE TRAFFIC.
AFFECT: ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BUSES ARE IN THE BRUCETON/KEITHWOOD/
NiT HOLLAND AREA TO PICK UP STUDENTS AT THE FOLLOWING TIMES:
MIDDLE SCHOOL: 7:15 AM
HIGH SCHOOL : 7:55 AM
ELEMENTARY : 8:25 AM
(NOTE: ROANOKE CITY STUDENTS ARE WALKING TO ONE OF ONLY TWO BUS
STOPS IN THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MANY ARE CROSSING AN
INTERSECTION AND WALKING TO THE BUS STOP BY WAY OF EITHER A BLIND
CURVE OR AN APPROXIMATE 30 DEGREE GRADE HILL. ) CITY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS WOULD BE WALKING TO OR WAITING AT THEIR BUS STOP AT
THE SAME TIME THAT FACULTY/PERSONNEL/BUS/AND CAR-RIDING HVJH
STUDENTS WOULD BE DRIVING TO HVJH THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS
SITUATION WOULD CAUSE A DEFINITE CONCERN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
CHII DREN'S SAFETY.
4. HVJH STUDENTS/BUSES/FACULTY ARE ARRIVLNG AND LEAVING THE SCHOOL
IN THE AFTERNOON PRIMARILY BETWEEN THE TLME OF 2:45 AND 3:30 PM.
AFFECT: ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BUSES ARE DROPPING OFF NEIGHBORHOOD
CHILDREN AT THE FOLLOWING TIMES:
MIDDLE SCHOOL : 2:30PM
HIGH SCHOOL 3:00 PM
ELEMENTARY 3:30 PM
ONCE AGAIN, HVJH TRAFFIC WOULD BE COMING THROUGH THE CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE SAME TIME OUR CHILDREN WOULD BE GETTING OFF
THE SCHOOL BUS AND WALKING HOME.
5. HVJH DANCES: SCHOOL DANCES ARE SCHEDULED ON FRIDAY NIGHTS
APPROXIMATELY 6 TIMES DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR. SIXTH GRADERS
ATTENDING THE DANCES MUST BE PICKED UP AT 9:30 PM. OLDER STUDENTS
ARE PICKED UP AT 10:00 PM.
AFFECT: THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE INUNDATED WITH 100'S OF CARS
DROPPING OFF, PICKING UP, AND EXITING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD 6
TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF ONE DANCE!
6. PTA MEETINGS, CLASS FIELD TRIPS, VARIOUS MEETINGS HELD AT HVJH,
ROANOKE COUNTY ADULT ED CLASSES, HVJH TEAM SPORT PRACTICES AND
GAMES, CAVE SPRING HIGH SCHOOL TEAM SPORT PRACTICES, AND ROANOKE
COUNTY REC DEPARTMENT TEAM SPORTS PRACTICES AND GAMES, WILL ALL
ADD TO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WANTING TO ACCESS THE TRAFFIC LIGHT ON RT
419 BY WAY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD!
(ROANOKE CO. REC DEPARTMENT UTILIZES THE SOCCER AND BASEBALL
FACILITIES LOCATED ON HVJH DR 4 TO 6 DAYS A WEEK FROM APRIL UNTIL
OCTOBER, USING THE FACILITIES FOR PRACTICE AS WELL AS GAMES.)
WE WOULD INVITE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO DRIVE
THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU WILL FIND THAT WE ARE A SMALL
COMMUNITY WITH BASICALLY ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT (DUE TO A
DIVIDED MEDIUM STRIP WHICH LLMITS ACCESS INTO AND OUT OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.) WE HAVE WITHIN OUR 3 STREETS AND A SECTION OF
MCVITTY RD, 4 BLIND CURVES AND TWO STEEP HILLS. RESIDENTS DAILY PARK
THEIR CARS IN AND AROUND TWO OF THESE BLIND CURVES WHICH MEANS
THAT VEHICLES ARE ROUTINELY DRIVEN LEFT OF CENTER THROUGH THESE
CURVES. AREA RESIDENTS ARE AWARE OF THESE PARKED CARS AND MAKE
ACCOMMODATIONS. HOWEVER, WOULD OR COULD WE EXPECT THAT 100'S OF
NEW DRIVERS COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IN A HURRY TO GET WHERE
THEY'RE GOING AND GET OUT, WOULD BE AS CAUTIOUS AND
ACCOMMODATING?
HAVING LIVED ON THE BLIND CURVE ON THE LOWER END OF BRUCETON RD
FOR 23+ YEARS, WE HAVE RESIDED HERE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE WITNESSED
THE TEENAGERS WHO ROUNDED THE FIRST BLIND CURVE TOO FAST AND LOST
CONTROL OF THEIR CAR AND WOUND UP AGAINST A TREE 1N THE FRONT YARD
AT 5055 BRUCETON.
WE CAN RECALL THE TEENAGER WHO LATE ONE NIGHT LOST CONTROL OF HIS
CAR AND RAN INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S TRUCK PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AT 5026
BRUCETON. THIS ACCIDENT WAS PARTICULARLY UNNERVING TO US SINCE IF
HE HAD NOT HIT THE TRUCK AND STOPPED, HE WOULD HAVE RUN INTO THE
CORNER OF OUR HOUSE WHERE OUR INFANT DAUGHTER WAS ASLEEP IN HER
CRIB NOT 15 FEET FROM THE PARKED TRUCK!
OR HOW ABOUT THE TWO ACCIDENTS WHICH OCCURRED 1N THE SECOND BLIND
CURVE. ONE ACCIDENT TOOK DOWN THE MAILBOX AND THE OTHER ACCIDENT
INVOLVED THE CAR CRASHING INTO A ROW OF PINE TREES. AGAIN, Il: THE TREE
HADN'T STOPPED THE CAR, IT ALSO COULD HAVE DRIVEN INTO THE HOUSE.
WE ARE NOT ASKING THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES BE BARRED FROM ENTERING
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO ACCESS HVJI-I SCHOOL. THEY MIGHT REQUIRE
ANOTHER ENTRANCE IN AN EMERGENCY. WE ARE ASKING THAT A BARRIER BE
PLACED AT THE END OF MT HOLLAND DR TO BAR HVJI-I CAR/TRUCK/BUS
TRAFFIC FROM ACCESSING THE SCHOOL THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
NO ONE WOULD DENY THAT HVJH SCHOOL HAS A MAJOR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
PROBLEM. AND IT IS A SITUATION THAT MUST HAVE A RESOLUTION SOON.
BEFORE SOMEONE IS INJURED OR KILLED TRYING TO PULL OUT ONTO RT 419
FROM I-IVJH DR. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM MUST BE ADDRESSED BY ROANOKE
COUNTY RESIDENTS AND A RESOLUTION ARRIVED AT THAT DOES NOT
JEOPARDIZE THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF ROANOKE CITY NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTS WHO WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED!
LINDA M. DONOHUE
EDMUND M. DONOHUE
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE STREET CLOSURE REQUEST OF:
Request from City of Roanoke to close by barricade Mount
Holland Drive, S.W., at its eastern terminus.
)
)AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the
Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own
personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-431, Code
of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke,
she has sent by first-class mail on the 25th day of November, 1996, notices of a public hearing
to be held on the 4th day of December, 1996, on the closure captioned above to the owner or
agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address:
Parcel Owner. Aeent or Occupant Address
5110201 Clement B. Binnings
5120115 Roanoke County School Board
5120209 Jack Butcher
5120308
Marion B. Via Estate
c/o Moss & Rocovich, PC
Others Notified:
Elmer C. Hodge, Co. Administrator
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Mr. and Mrs. W. David Price
4930 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Lubbs
5007 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. John L. Aker
1709 Driftwood Lane, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
1701 Driftwood Ln., SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
5937 Cove Road, NW
Roanoke, VA 24019
4904 Mount Holland Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
P. O. Box 13606
Roanoke, VA 24035
Mr. and Mrs. James Helba
5025 Bmceton Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Elizabeth Brooks
4950 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Edmund M. Donohue
5020 Bruceton Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Rebecca Cheatwood
5004 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Reverend & Mrs. Andrew Berkner
5012 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. Albert Schoester
5055 Bruceton Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Suzanne E. Barnett
5031 Bruceton Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Thacker
4929 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Fox
5031 Gatewood Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. Todd E. Stafford
4942 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Sharon S. Mitchell
4938 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018-1630
Mr. Richard L. Stroupe
2072 McVitty Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Anne Tilley
4956 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
~fi~lart~a Pace'Franidl-n
SIJBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 25th day of November, ~96.
My Commission Expires: ~J~/ /qq~7
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE STREET CLosuRE REQUEST OF:
Request from City of Roanoke to close by barricade Mount
Holland Drive, S.W., at its eastern terminus.
)
)AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the
Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own
personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-431, Code
of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke,
she has sent by first-class mall on the 9th day of September, 1996, notices of a public hearing
to be held on the 18th day of September, 1996, on the closure captioned above to the owner or
agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address:
Parcel Owner. Aeent or Occupant
5110201 Clement B. Binnings
5120115 Roanoke County School Board
5120209 Jack Butcher
5120308
Marion B. Via Estate
c/o Moss & Rocovich, PC
Others Notified:
Elmer C. Hodge, Co. Administrator
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Mr. and Mrs. W. David Price
4930 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Lubbs
5007 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. John L. Aker
1709 Driftwood Lane, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Address
1701 Driftwood Ln., SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
5937 Cove Road, N3V
Roanoke, VA 24019
4904 Mount Holland Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018
P. O. Box 13606
Roanoke, VA 24035
Mr. and Mrs. James Helba
5025 Bmceton Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Elizabeth Brooks
4950 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Edmund M. Donohue
5020 Bmceton Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Rebecca Cheatwood
5004 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Reverend & Mrs. Andrew Berkner
5012 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. Albert Schoester
5055 Bruceton Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Suzanne E. Barnett
5031 Bruceton Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Thacker
4929 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Fox
5031 Gatewood Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. Todd E. Stafford
4942 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Sharon S. Mitchell
4938 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018-1630
Mr. Richard L. Stroupe
2072 McVitty Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Ms. Anne Tilley
4956 Mount Holland Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Martha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 9th day of September, ~1996.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 4,
1996, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor,
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider the following:
Request fi.om the City of Roanoke that the easternmost terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W., near
the rear entrance to Hidden Valley Junior High School, be altered, by closure, with barricade,
pursuant to Section 30-14 of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended.
A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Community
Development, Room 162, Municipal Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Thursday, August 22, 1996 and Wednesday, August 28, 1996
Please bill and send affidavit of publication to:
Department of Planning and Community Development
Room 162, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.V~, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 981-2541
Fax: (540) 224-3145
September 4, 1996
File #514
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Carolyn H. Coles, Chairperson
City Planning Commission
1501 Cove Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Ms. Coles:
Pursuant to Section 30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or alleys; fees
therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of
an application from the City of Roanoke requesting that the eastern terminus of Mount
Holland Drive, S. W., be altered by closure with barricades on a permanent basis.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
Mr. C. Michael Thacker, 4929 Mount Holland Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24018
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN RE:
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
Application of the City of Roanoke
to alter by closure with barricades,
the eastern terminus of Mount Holland
Drive, S.W., pursuant to §30-14 of
the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended
VIRGINIA
) APPLICATION FOR
) ALTERING AND
) CLOSING A PUBLIC
) STREET
)
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
The City of Roanoke hereby applies, pursuant to the Motion
adopted by City Council on August 19, 1996, to alter by closure
with barricades, the eastern terminus of Mount Holland Drive, S.W.,
pursuant to Section 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
The City of Roanoke, Virginia, states that the grounds for
this application are as follows:
An existing gate at the entrance to Hidden Valley Junior
High School at the eastern terminus of Mount Holland
Drive has been proposed to be opened. Opening of such
gate will result in Mount Holland Drive and adjoining
neighborhood streets becoming ways of ingress and egress
to and from the School for school personnel, students,
parents and other visitors, and will result in heavy
volumes of vehicular traffic on Mount Holland Drive and
adjoining neighborhood streets.
Such heavy volumes of traffic will negatively affect the
health, safety and welfare of residents of Mount Holland
Drive and the surrounding neighborhood, are incompatible
with the Comprehensive Plan, and will cause great public
inconvenience.
Residents of Mount Holland Drive support the closure of
Mount Holland Drive at the above-described location.
The Applicant proposes to close Mount Holland Drive at
the above-described location by removal of pavement,
installation of curb, guttering and fill, and other
appropriate measures.
The location of the above-described barricades is described in
the attached maps. (Exhibits A, B.)
A list of the adjoining landowners affected by the subject
closure is attached. (Exhibit C.)
WHEREFORE, the City of Roanoke, Virginia, respectfully
requests that the above-described location on Mount Holland Drive,
S.W., be altered by closure with barricades, on a permanent basis,
as described herein.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Date )
_Approved as to form
~.ssistant City Attorney
HOSP~T'AL.
r~
pRoPosE, b
~__.. LOSU R:~.
Street Closing
Mount Holland Drive, S.W.
Adjoining property owners:
Official Tax No. 5110201
Clement B. Binnings
1701 Driftwood Ln.,
Roanoke, VA 24018
So W,
Official Tax No. 5120115
Roanoke County School Buard
5937 Cove Road, N.W.
Roanoke, VA 24019
Official Tax No. 5120209
Jack Butcher
4904 Mt. Holland Dr., S. W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Official Tax No. 5120308
Marion B. Via Estate
c/o Moss & Rocovich, P.C.
P. O. Box 13606
Roanoke, VA 24035
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
Cily Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S,W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 ~-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: /540) 8534 145
February 10, 1997
File #15-110-207
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Cit~ Clerk
William L. Bova
2719 Lofton Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Bova:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33266-020397 appointing you as a Director of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to fill the remaining portion of the four year
term of Stanley R. Hale, which commenced on October 21, 1993, and will expire on October 20,
1997. Resolution No. 33266-020397 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
I am also enclosing a Certificate of your election. Your Oath of Office was administered on
January 22, 1997, and is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court and the City Clerk's Office.
Pursuant to Section 2.1-341.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am enclosing copy of the
Freedom of Information ACt.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your
willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
Samuel H. McGhee, III, Chairperson, Industrial Development Authority, 701 First
Street, S. W, Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Margaret R. Baker, Secretary, Industrial Development Authority, 2140 VVindsor
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy 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 third day of February, 1997, WILLIAM L BOVA was appointed as a
Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to fill the
remaining portion of a four year term of Stanley R. Hale, which commenced on October 21,
1993, and will expire on October 20, 1997.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this tenth day of
February, 1997.
City Clerk
1NTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33266-020397.
A RESOLUTION appointing a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of
the City of Roanoke, to fill the remaining portion of a four (4) year term on its Board of
Directors.
WHEREAS, the Council is advised that Stanley R. Hale, a Director of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Vir~nia, resigned effective May 22, 1995,
and the vacancy has not been filled;
WHEREAS, § 15.1-1377 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides that
appointments made by the governing body of such Directors shall, after initial appointment,
be made for terms of four (4) years.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke tha~
William L. Bova is hereby appointed as a Director on the Board of Directors of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, V~ginia, to fill the remaining portion of the
four (4) year term of Stanley R. Hale which commenced on October 21, 1993, and will
expire on Octobe~ 20, 1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Cily Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ~0-132
Ms. Patricia W. Kost, Clerk
City of Lynchburg
900 Church Street
Lynchburg, Virginia 24504
Dear Ms. Kost:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33267-020397 memorializing the late Junius A.
Haskins, Jr., Member, Lynchburg City Council. The Members of the Roanoke City Council
and the citizens of the City of Roanoke extend their deepest regrets and sympathy. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ~80-132
Mrs. Claudette S. Haskins
1510 Madison Street
Lynchburg, Virginia 24504
Dear Mrs. Haskins:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33267-020397 memorializing the late Junius A.
Haskins, Jr., Member, Lynchburg City Council. The Members of the Roanoke City Council
and the citizens of the City of Roanoke extend their deepest regrets and sympathy. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGIlqIA,
The 3~cl day of February, 1997.
No. 33267-020397.
A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Junius A. Haskins, Jr., Member, Lynchburg
City Council.
WHEREAS, the members of this Council have learned, with sorrow, of the passing
on January 17, 1997, of the Honorable Junius A. Haskins, Jr., Member, Lynchburg City
Council;
WHEREAS, Mr. Haskln~ had served on the Lynchburg City Council since 1992 and
died in the service of his City while on a trip to Washington, D.C., and he had also served
as a member of the Lynchburg City School Board from 1985 to 1992;
WHEREAS, Mr. Haskins had served as the President of the Lynchburg Chapter of the
NAACP for twelve years and was dedicated to the principles of equal rights and justice for
all people;
WHEREAS, the influence of Mr. Haskins, who had recently been elected to the
Executive Commiltee of the Vil~'ni~ Municipal League, extended far beyond the boundaries
of the City of Lynchburg, and this dedicated public servant was widely known throughout
the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Haskinn' friends on the City Council of the City of Roanoke desire
to take special notice of the passing of this distinguished Vir~t, inlan;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Council adopts this means of recording its deepest regrets at the
passing of the Honorable Junius A. Haskins, Jr., Member, Lynchburg City Council, and
extends to Claudette S. Haskins, his widow, the sympathy of this Council and that of the
citizens of this City.
2. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to
Mrs. Haskins and to the Clerk of the Lynchburg City Council.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/A~.E
c~ Cl~k
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #11-178-227
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, February 3,
1997, Council Member VVhite referred to a newspaper article which appeared in the
Thursday, January 30 edition of the Roanoke Times listing Roanoke as the most
segregated City in Virginia. You were requested to report to Council with regard to
data/factors which were used to compile the national study. Council Member Swain
requested that Council be apprised of any irregularities reported to the Fair Housing
Board.
Sincerely, /~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc:
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office
IN TH~COUNCI~OFTHECITYOF ROANOKE, VIRGrNIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33268-020397.
ARESOLUTIONauthorizingsettlement ora claim.
WHEREAS, commencing in 1991, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia ~Blue Cross)
served as third party administrator for the City's health care plan;
WHEREAS, Blue Cross negotiated provider discounts with various hospitals in and about
the Roanoke area;
WHEREAS, the City believes that the discounts were improperly withheld from the City;
WHF.~REAS, Blue Cross maintains it had the right to retain part or all of the hospital discounts
under its contract with the City; and
WHEREAS, to avoid the costs of litigation, the City and Blue Cross have agreed to settle
their dispute over the allocation of hospital discount credits between the City and Blue Cross.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a settlement
agreement and general release with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia.
2. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the City shall receive the sum of $193,951 on
or before February 10, 1997.
3. By ~ecutin$ the settlement agreement and general release, the City shall release B
Cross from any and ail claims which the City may have arising out of the crediting or retention of
provider discounts.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File 20-132-178-277
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, February 3,
1997, Council Member Parrott requested that the matter of providing parking for persons
residing in downtown Roanoke be referred to you for study, report and recommendation.
He celled attention to the practice of some Iocelities of issuing a sticker to be applied to
the windshield of the vehicle. Vice-Mayor Wyatt asked that you explore the feasibility of
providing parking in the downtown parking garages.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc: Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
c~y Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
February 10, 1997
File #5-132
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, February 3,
1997, Council Member Swain addressed the isaue of additional space needs of the Police
Department. He requested a report on the feasibility of police substations, and called
attention to the former Best Products building on Hershberger Road as a possible location.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parke~, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
George C. Sneed, Jr., Director, Public Safety
James L. Viar, Acting Chief, Police Department
Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S,W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1]45
February 10, 1997
File #15-110-200
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Ci[) Clerk
Ms. Carolyn H. Coles
1501 Cove Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Ms. Coles:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, February 3, t997, you
were reelected as a member of the City Planning Cornmissio~ for a ten~ ending December 31, 2000.
Enclosed you will find a Certificate of your reele,~tlon and an Oath or Affirmation of Office
which may be administered by the Clerk of the Cimuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located
on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 45~ in the Municipal Building pdor to serving
in the capacity to which you were reelected.
For your information and pursuant to Section 2.1-341.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am
enclosing copy of the Freedom of Information Act.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City council, I would like to express appreciation for your
willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a member of the City Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Park~', CMC. JAAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
John R. Marllas, Agent, City Planning Commission
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Sandm H. Eakin, Deputy 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 third day of February, 1997, CAROLYN H. COLES was reappointed
as a member of the City Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2000.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this tenth day of
February, 1997.
City Clerk
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 10, 1997
File #15-110-200
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Willard G. "Bill" Light
2066 Kenwood Boulevard, $. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24013
Dear Mr. Light:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, February 3, 1997, you
were reelected as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term ending December 31, 1999.
I am enclosing a Certificate of your reelection. Your Oath of Office was administered on February 4,
1997, and is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court and the City Clerk's Office.
Pursuant to Section 2.1-341.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, I am also enclosing copy of the
Freedom of Information Act.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your
willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
pc:
Robert R. Copty, Chairperson, Board of Zoning Appeals, 3009 Bumleigh Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Evelyn D. Doreey, Zoning Administrator
Lisa cooper, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Sandre H. Eakin, Deputy 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 third day of February, 1997, WILLARD G. "BILL" LIGHT was
reappointed as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term ending December 31,
1999.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this tenth day of
February, 1997.
City Clerk
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540} 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Depuly C~t~, Clerk
February 10, 1997
File ~58-501
S. Owen Hunt
Associate Counsel
Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield
P. O. Box 27401
Richmond, Virginia 23279
Dear Mr. Hunt:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33268-020397 authorizing settlement of a claim w~th
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia, in the amount of $193,951.00, on or befo~'e
February 10, 1997. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 3, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
Enc.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
I~THECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFROANOKE, V~RGINIA,
The 3rd day of February, 1997.
No. 33268-020397.
ARESOLUTIONauthorizing settlement of a ~aim.
WHEREAS, commencing in 1991, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia (Blue Cross)
served aa third party administrator for the City's health care plan;
WHEREAS, Blue Cross negotiated provider discounts with various hospitals in and about
the Roanoke area;
WHEREAS, the City believes that the discounts were improperly withheld from the City;
WHEREAS, Blue Cross maintains it had the right to retain part or all of the hospital discounts
under its contract with the City; and
WHEREAS, to avoid the costs of litigatiou, the City and Blue Cross have agreed to settle
their dispute over the allocation of hospital discount credits between the City and Blue Cross.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by th~ Council of the City of Roanoke aa follows:
1. The City Attorney is he~9oy authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a settlement
agreement and general release with Blue Cross and B~uz Shield of Virginia.
2. Pursuant to the settlement agreeme~ the City shall receive the sum of $193,951 on
or before February 10, 1997.
3. By executing the settlement agreemmt and general releaae, the City shall release Blue
Cross from any and all claims which the City may have arising out of the crediting or retention of
provider discounts.
Al-l't~ST:
City Clerk.