Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 12-18-89 SpMtgSPECIAL SESSION ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL December 18, 1989 12:15 p.m. AGENDA 1. Calf to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Invocation. 4. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the America. 5. Statement of Purpose. Vice-Mayor Beverly T. 6. Briefing by the City Manager with regard to Recycling Program. 7. Adjournment. United States of Fitzpatrick~ Jr. the Solid Waste C)ffice of the Mayor December 14, 1989 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council, Generally, of the Roanoke City Charter, please be advised that I am calling a spe- cial meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, December 18, 1989, at 12:15 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, for the purpose of receiving a briefing by the City Manager on the Solid Waste Recycling Program. For your convenience, the City Clerk has arranged to have lunch catered in the Council's Conference Room at 11:45 a.m., followed by the briefing in the Council Chamber from 12:15 p.m. until 1:30 p.m. It is my understanding that the Audit Committee will meet in the Council's Conference Room from 1:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Noel C. Taylor, ~ayor City of Roanoke NCT:sw Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 452 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke. Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2444 Roanoke, Virginia December 18, 1989 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Council Members: Subject: Solid Waste Recycling Program I. Background: National concern and consciousness has been raised over the dilem~na of solid waste disposal. Recent National, State and Local examples have been: New York barge loaded with solid waste with no place to dock. 2. Kim-Stan Landfill in Allegheny County. Landfill siting efforts being undertaken by Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board (Regional Board), Roanoke City and Roanoke County. Hierarchy of preferred solid waste management methods at the National, State and Local level (Regional Board) all start with waste minimization and waste recycling. Recycling Task Force was established by this office on November 14, 1988 to study and advise me of a feasible program to reduce solid waste needing ultimate disposal. Task Force members include: Tamasin Roop Task Force Leader Office of Management & Budget William F. Clark Director of Public Works Gary N. Fenton Manager, Parks & Recreation/Grounds Maintenance James D. Grisso Deputy Director of Finance Cline C. Hollandsworth Superintendent of Grounds Maintenance Donald E. Keaton Manager, Refuse Collection Richard Kelley Executive for Business Affairs Roanoke City Public Schools Kit B. Kiser Director of Utilities & Operations Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 2 Carroll Swain Director of School Plants Roanoke City Public Schools Kelly M. Whitney Recycling Coordinator Clean Valley Council Scientific survey of City residents was conducted by the Recycling Task Force in March 1989. Appendix "A" is the Executive Summary giving results of the survey. Following are several findings: 93 percent were willing to recycle if materials are picked up at homes. (Household separation in all cases assumed the City would provide the container and collection) 91 percent were willing to place recyclable materials at curbside or alleys. o 60 percent currently place refuse at the curb or alley for pickup. Four (4) Recyclin~ Workshops were held, one in each quadrant of the City, on June 6, 8, 10, and 13, 1989. Citizen attendance was in the range of 20 to 40 at each workshop. Appendix "B" is the executive sunmmry from the workshops. Several key findings were: Multi-bin residential collection was the unanimous choice of all workshop groups; participants preferred roll-out units with lids. Emphasize education Consider mandatory proKram and enforcement techniques if volunteer program has low participation Increase efforts to market recycled materials. State leKislative mandates (H.B. 1743~ effective July 1, 1989, require each locality to establish a recycling program capable of meeting the following goals: 10 percent by 1991 15 percent by 1993 25 percent by 1995 Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 3 Method of calculating percentases are being developed by the State agency responsible for solid waste management. 7 percent of solid waste is currently bein8 recycled in the Roanoke Valley according to a report prepared for the Regional Landfill Board. Most of this is attributable to the private sector at the present time. II. Current Situation: Recyclin8 Task Force has completed its study and made a recommendation for a program of residential collection of certain recyclable materials. Appendix "C" is an executive summary of that program. Recommended proKram would include the following basic components: o voluntary citizen participation phased-in throughout the City over four year period materials to be collected include newspaper, aluminum, glass, and plastics multi-bin containers furnished by the City to each household special designed trucks acquired by the City will collect recyclables on the same day as regular refuse pickup curbside/alleyside setout by citizens; provisions made for elderly/handicapped individuals who wish to participate interim drop-off stations strategically located throughout the City until collection service available to all residents 8. intensive and comprehensive education and promotion campaisn to provide citizens with information to secure maximum program participation recycling coordinator employed by the City to oversee the start-up, development, implementation, and ongoing operation of all City recycling activities. Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 4 C. City Council briefin~ is desirable prior to submitting a final recommendation for a City recycling program in the very near future. III. Issues: A. City Council Strategic Issues. B. Legal oblisation. C. Cost. D. Financins. E. Conmmnit~ support. IV. Alternatives: A. City of Roanoke implement a program for residential collection of certain recyclable materials in accordance with the Recycling Task Force recommendations. City Council Strategic Issues will be addressed in two respects: a. Enhancement of Environmental Quality Promotion of City's Image as a Progressive Community Legal obligation should be met by enabling the City to comply with State-mandated recycling goals. If a voluntary program does not result in sufficient quantities of materials being recycled to meet State requirements, modifications to the City program may be necessary in future years. 3. Cost is estimated as follows: Start-Up, January-June 1990 Collection vehicle $ 80,000 10,000 bins 189,000 Recycling Coordinator 15,150 Public information program 38,000 Drop-Off Stations 8il00 $ 330,250 Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 5 Bo First full year, July 1990-June 1991 2nd collection vehicle $ 80,000 Vehicle operating cost 2,500 Another 10,000 bins 189,000 Recycling Coordinator 31,452 Public information 76,000 Drop-Off Stations 16~200 $395,152 Financing for the start-up phase of the program is anticipated to come from existing capital funds and grant from the Regional Landfill Board. Future funding will be considered in the normal City budgeting process. Over time, there will be some offsetting revenues from the sale of recycled materials but the program is not expected to be self-supporting. A significant cost avoidance will also result from disposal fees not spent for materials normally taken to the regional landfill. This will be an increasingly sizeable sum as operating costs continue to escalate at the landfill. Co~mumity support for a residential recycling program has been expressed in a telephone survey conducted in March 1989, in neighborhood workshops held in June 1989, and in many telephone inquiries and letters continually received by the City. Further citizen understanding of the need and thus support for the program is anticipated from the public information aspect of the program. City of Roanoke not implement a program for residential collection of certain recyclable materials in accordance with the Recycling Task Force reco~endations. 1. City Council Strategic Issues will not be addressed. Legal obligations to comply with State-mandated recycling goals will likely not be met. Without a program to encourage and assist residents to recycle significant portions of household waste, it will be difficult to obtain the percentages of recycling required. Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 6 Cost of a recycling program will not be incurred. But the increasing expense of solid waste disposal will not be avoided in relation to materials which could have been recycled. Financial penalties for failure to meet State-mandates will also be incurred. ($10,000 per day) Financin8 for a recycling program will be moot. However, the funds for increased solid waste disposal will have to be included in future operating budgets. Community support for a residential recycling program will still exist. V. Recommendation: No action by City Council is required at this time. Administrative public hearing is being planned for early January 1990 to further explain the proposals to City residents, seek their input, and fine-tune the program prior to finalizing a recommendation to City Council. Such recommendation is anticipated to be made at your meeting on January 28~ 1990. Respectfully submitted, City Manager WRH:WFC:pr Attachments CC: Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Recycling Task Force Members APPENDIx A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECYCLYING SURVEY REPORT CITY OF ROANOKE RECYCLING SURVEY Prepared By Thomas C. Macmichael, Melinda R. Moran and Patricia K. Edwards, Virginia Tech With the Assistance of Nancy 8. Bloebaum, Rick E. Chaffin, Timothy J. McGucken and Jennifer A. O'Rourke,. Virginia Tech Edited By Tamasin Roop Under the Direction of Tamasin Roop Recycling Task Force Leader and Budget/Management Analyst City of Roanoke, Virginia JUNE, 1989 ~-~CUTlV~. SU~HARy This doctment provides an indepth report of the Roanoke City Recycling Survey which waa conducted by telephone March 13 through 20, 1989. The survey questionnaire used for this study was designed and written by Dr. Patrlcia K. Edwards, Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tach; a team of six graduate students from Dr. Edwards' Advanced Research Methods clasa~ and Tamasin Roop, City Recycling Task Force Leader. Survey results have been used to establish the current attitudes, Preferences, practices and awareness levels of Roanoke City households and residents toward the .recycling of household refuse and related issues las of March 1989). The heads, spousea or other adult residents of 419 city households were interviewed by telephone, USing a aeries of 62 questions related to recycling and solid waste disposal issues in the Roanoke Valley. The unit of analysis for the survey was houaeholde~ however, of necessity, the survey also obtained the Personal opinions of household heads or representatives. The survey was commissioned by the city's Recycling Task Force so tha~ it would have baseline information, representative of the city's residential population, to help in the Plamling of c~ty recycling activities. The task force is charged with providing a report on feasible recycling alternatives and a recommended Plan of action to City Hanager Robert Herbert. F°ll°win~are highlights of the major findings contained in this document. o 84 percent of survey participants were aware that the regional landfill used by the City is near capacity and will soon close. o 0nly 38 percent of survey respondents were aware of the increased solid waste disposal costs associated with constructing and operating m new landfill. o Older respondents tended to be more aware of the increased costs associated with a new landfill tha~ other respondents. o Survey participants with higher levels of educational achievement were more likely than other survey participants to be aware of current landfill conditions. o Over 82 percent of respondents believed that the City of Roanoke should initiate some sort of residential recycling program. o Local newspapers and television were the most often reported sources of surveF Participants' information on recycling issues. o Local newspapers ranked ahead of television as the most important source of information for those survey participants who were the most knowledgeable about regional recycling and solid waste disposal issues. o 36 percent of households surveyed were placing their trash at curbsids for pick-up by city sanitation crews. o There was some variation, by quadrant, in households' placement of refuse for collection by the city: -- 60 percent of households in the Northeast quadrant were placing their refuse at the street for pick-up (am opposed to $6 percent for the entire sample); and -- 52 percent of householdm in the Southeast quadrant were placing their trash in an alley (as opposed to 24 percent for the sample population as a wholeJ. o 2L-percent of households were USing the Clean Valley Council/Cycle Systems drop-off recycling center. Host of these (85 percent) were taking recyclable materials to the center once a month or leas frequently. o Households with higher incomes were slightly sore likely to be using the Clean Valley Council/Cycle Systems drop-off center than other households surveyed. o ApProxAmately 19 Percent of households reported USing local buy-back recycling centers. Most of these (91 percent) were selling aluminum to buy-back centers, and some (25 percent) were selling newspapers. o Mo significant correlation was found between household income and the use of buy-back centers. ~eSDondente' Wlllinanees and Prs~Srence _ o 93 percen~ of respondents said they would be willing to recycle if the recyclable materials they saved were picked up at their homes. o 91 percent of survey partici a willing to mlac- .......... P nra said they would be -- ~ - '--~AaoAe ma~erial$ on the street or at the aAAey to help minimize coats to the city for residential collection of these materials. However, a strong negative relationship was found between willingness to participate in curbside recycling and respondents, ages. o 78 percent of survey participants were "very willing' Co commingle recyclablee (put all recyclable materials into' ~ne container, separate from Other hous 57 percent were "vm-~ --4,,,__,, _ ehold refuse) and recycling (sort ne~an~;~n~,.~? Participate in multiple-bin separate, stackable ~o~t~e~;~.Anum and glass into three o With regard to separating recyclablee from Other ~ouaehold refuse for home collection ~rticip&nta had no rob , 62_percent of surve ,, parc.at had no o, storag, spec.; y ----,, ~ =~me required to recycle. _ __nt had no ~ .... o_Wh~n given a choice among three recyclin . - ~ru~n= aT respondents cited · ommingling ae their first choice. o ApProximately one-third ri/ling" to us- ~---- .... of respondents were "very - --~ orr and buy-back canters for recycling. o 11 to 16 percent of survey participants said they would experience problems with transportation (11 Percent), health ~16 percent~ and lack of time {16 percent} in USing drop-off centers ~o recycle. o Respondents with lower incomes were much more l~kel~ to report trenepor~ation aea proble~ with the ~ - z center recycling method than other reepondente.~r°p-°ff respondents also were more ,4~.,~ ,_ LOwer-l~_ as a deterrent to the use of drop-off c~ ',~mA~n Problems _ ---rs. These results indicate that lower income householde may be fac-~ .=~. ~:~t~ in using drop-off cen~ere than h/ghe;~-'Acs more S -A~come APPENDIX B EXECUTIVE SUMMARy OF REPORT ON RECYCLING WORKSHOPS REPORT ON PUBLIC RECYCLING WORKSHOPS JUNE 6 - 13, 1989 Prepared By Rick Chaffin Intern, Office of Management and Budget and Tamasin Rool~ Recycling Task Force Leader City of Roanoke, Virginia JULY 1989 x CUT W Roanoke City has considered input from City residents Vital to effective Plannin citY-wide rec~c,~-- . g for, and the ~,,.-__ as four Public recycling conducted by the ROanoke City RecyCling Task Force June 6 through 13, 1989; one workshop was held in each of the city's quadrants. The Primary objective of the workshops was to Obtain id and input toward the design of r ems findings from th- ~_~.~lng workshop rss,,~_cl~· ~e households cond ~n~r~c ~ecycling surv2~'~ a~ng With Citv_W~- - U.~ ~n ~rch to ~-~-~ -~ ~ C~y _ ~ ~ recycling Proart- .~-~v~aop raco~msndat~ n ~la 9 of action will b- f__ ", ~neae recommends,.--_ o ~ for · The four workshops Were he,d: ~esdey, June P.m. at William Flaming High School. to g p.m. ,~ ~onter.7 E/em.nt.r, Sc~o~r:~::~ ~-j from . to l~ noon at R~l~gh Cou~t S=hool, and ~esday, j~e ~3, · Each workshop ~n=lu~e~: an e~u=at~onal ~og~, smal grou~ sessions, ~e~o~ts of quest~on-and-answe~ Pem~od. each g~oup~s con=~us~ons an~la -- Each of the four two-hour Workshops be ~n ~}9~te education&l proar-- -~, .... g With _ ' ~ Wrov~e infor~.,4_- ~ .w. ~ · new recFc~l~g lad to S--' - -~,w~ aoout the benefi by the c~--,- - _A~e~n recycling o~t~-- -: One-hour sma~! group sessions followed the ecucational Progrmm. Grou s ~ersons, rests ~-~ .... P , coaprised of 8 ~ach mro,,~ ~[:n..~.~ rave qtleltiOnl -- ~OllOWing thl o---- ''' "~ · rlCorder. -~ ~our aellio~l, groupl rellllablsd and reported their conclusions. -- Each workshop concluded with a question-and-answer per~odo · Two recycling hmndouts were given to workshop The7 included lnfOrmmtion about: -- recycling options being Considered by the t&sk force and some prom and cone of emch; -- regional so,id waste problems; -- recycling rec~lirements under the new state law 1743); -- a summary of the findings of the recently conducted scient~fic survey of city households; -- locations of drop-off centers and used oil collection stations An the city; -- recycling activities currently being Conducted by the City government and school system; and. -- a g~ossary cont&~ning some frequentlF used recycling terms. The questions addressed by each group of Participants and a brief summary of the most frequent responses are provided below. ..~nmt are the beat ways to encourage pm=t~c~ tko rem~aent~al recycling &cravat ..... P~ n ~n aee or the c~tF? (Each group was ae~ed to bra~n~tozl ~r..d select the~ top two choices.) · Of the combined responmes from &ll workmho one-half I~tg~leeted g n~foumth c~ed convenience. ~d ~he · A few reePonsem suggested that citizens who choose not to Pmrt~c~pmte An rea~dant~al recycling should be penalized in soma way. Should the city Provide conmingled ~ multi-bin resAdential recycling, and why? · The multA-b~n res~dential recyclAng system was the unanAmous cho~ce of all groups An all workshops. The most frequently C~ted reason was that the mult~-bin system would be less eXPensAve than the commingled method. What k/nde of PrOblems would you anticipate for recycling activities within the city? (Each group was asks to brainstorm ideas and then sole d problems they had ~dentified? ct the two Salt important · The problem most often Adentified was the pass,b! of low c~t~zen Participation ~n it recycling program, a voluntary resident~a! Y b .e Start-up costs aesoc£ated with recycling programs arrears to Part~c~pation for older and were also Ad ly and disabled res ent~f~ed as pOtentAal Problems. Adente ~05~ ~:~0~' 0 O~ ~0~ ~ O~ZON ~3. The mos~ frequent response ~o ~hls ~eot~on was education (~n response ~o CAe problem of volun~ar~ par=~c~paC~on identified ~n Question 93~. · Other Suggestions for a Participation r-*-- - ddreseing Iow ,,~, ~m were to mandatory and to impose d---~aka ~ssidentlal recyclin~ unsorted refuse. ~ .~mm or fees for collection Nl~t qvaetione do YOU have group, w~? asked to · _ about recyclin ? they Aa~ ~-.--- _ elect the two moat - ..... g (Each anser seoo~oa.~ - ~ro~ during tho · Concerns abou~ ~he sca - --- -.u =fie kinds of ma~er~.~.-.T'~~ o~.o~n8 which would ~he nsec ~esC~ono free Works '''' ~o oe collected generated ~er~od. P V~ded during tAe _ p _el to ~eot~on ~d-~ewer APPENDIX C: EXECUTIVE SU~%RY OF RECYCLING TASK FORCE REPORT AND RECO~ENDATIONS SUBMI'I'I'~) TO CITY MANAGER EXECUTIVE SUI~ARY The Problem * With only 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. each year produces 70 percent of the world's wastes. * Of approximately 14,000 landfills operating in the U.S. in 1978, 70 percent have already closed and more than half of the 5,500 remaining landfills will be out of space within 8 years. * 39 percent of the wastes received at the regional landfill in 1986 and 1987 were residential (70,600 tons/ year), while 36 percent were commercial/industrial (67,000 tons/year) and 25 percent were construction/debris (45,800 tons/year). * In the Roanoke Valley, 6.2 pounds of refuse are produced per person per day, counting all sources. The national average is 5 pounds per person per day. * Without recycling, higher disposal fees at the new regional landfill will result in greatly increased refuse disposal costs for the City. The disposal fee is projected to be $30-35 per ton when the landfill opens, compared with $11 per ton in December 1988. * When the new landfill opens, the City's refuse disposal costs are projected to increase as follows: December 1988 Tipping Fee: $11/ton x 50,194 tons 552,134 July 1989 Tipping Fee: $16/ton x 50,194 tons (45% increase over 1988} = $ 803,104 Anticipated Tipping Fee FY 93: $30/ton x 50,194 tons (173% increase over 1988) $1,505,820 Solid Waste Manaaement and Recvclina in Vir~inJ~ Virginia's Waste Management Hierarchy: 1st priority -- source reduction (waste minimization); 2nd priority -- re-use; 3rd priority -- recycling; 4th priority -- resource recovery (waste-to-energy) ; 5th priority -- incineration (volume reduction) ; lowest priority -- landfilling. Virginia's recycling mandates call for recycling 10 percent of localities' solid waste stream by 1991, 15 percent by 1993 and 25 percent by 1995. Local solid waste management plans, due July 1991, must demonstrate to the Virginia Department of Waste Management, how localities will accomplish 10 percent recycling by 1991. Major Recvclinu Task Force Plannina Activitie~ * Public participation: -- Recycling survey: Collected baseline data, representative of City households, on residents' attitudes, knowledge levels and behaviors regarding solid waste and recycling issues. -- Four public workshops: Obtained residents' direct input and ideas to the planning of City recycling activities; also, increased public awareness of solid waste issues and the need for and benefits of recycling. * Assessment of recommendations contained in Olver, Inc., recycling evaluation and development of recommendations regarding regional recycling approaches. * Meeting with private-sector recyclers. * Two-day fact-finding trip and tour of Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, NC, recycling program. Recommended Recvclina Pro.ram: Residential Collect$on * Phased implementation of residential collection program; full implementaton by June 30, 1993. * Voluntary participation. * Curbside/alley collection; backyard collection for households unable to place recyclable materials at the curb or alley. * Recycling containers furnished by the City. * Weekly collection, the same day refuse is collected. * Collection of newspaper, glass, aluminum and certain plastics. * Use of private-sector recycler, at least initially, for processing and marketing of materials collected by City. * Intensive and comprehensive public education program to promote participation through public's understanding of recycling issues. 2 * Use of interim drop-off stations during phasing-in of residential collection program so that all City residents can recycle conveniently. Hiring of City recycling coordinator to oversee start-up, development, implementation, ongoing operation and evaluation of residential collection program and all other City recycling activities. * Monitoring and evaluation of all City recycling activities to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency. Other Recommended Recvclina Activities * Promote waste minimization (reduction of waste at its source~. * Expand recycling activities within City government. * Promote re-use of white goods (large appliances) and furniture. * Discourage waste of food which could be used by persons in need. * Support recycling through City purchase of recycled materials. * Promote/enable recycling through the revision of City ordinances, as needed, WFC:TR SPECIAL SESSION ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL December 18, 1989 Immediately following the Regular Meeting of Council scheduled to commence at 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 2. 3. 4. Call to Order. Roll Call· Invocation· The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Statement of Purpose. Mayor Noel C. Taylor. Matter with regard to an Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters requiring provision of legal advice by counsel, being the terms and conditions of a consolidation agreement and other legal documents currently being negotiated with other local governments, pursuant to Section 2·1-344 (A) (7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Certification of Executive Session. Adjournment. Office of~eMoyor December 14, 1989 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council, Generally, of the Roanoke City Charter, please be advised that ~ am calling a special meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, December 18, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Exhibit Hall of the Roanoke Civic Center, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on the Charter for the proposed Roanoke Metropolitan Government. Sincerely, Noel C. Taylor,~layor City of Roanoke NCT:sw cc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 452 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, ',,'irginio 244911 ]703) 981-2444 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY OF ROANOKE AND COUNTY OF ROANOKE IN RE: GOVERNMENTAL CHARTER FOR THE ROANOKE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17 of Title 15.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and specifically Section 15.1-835, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke and the City Council of the City of Roanoke hereby give notice of public hearings to be held as follows: City of Roanoke, December 18, 1989, 7:30 p.m. Roanoke Civic Center Exhibit Hall 710 Williamson Road, NE Roanoke, Virginia County of Roanoke, December 19, 1989, 7:00 p.m. Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia so that the citizens of the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke shall have an opportunity to comment upon the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke's request that the 1990 General Assembly grant the Roanoke Metropolitan Government a charter. An informative summary of this governmental charter is as follows: CHARTER OF THE ROANOKE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT Incorporation; Powers; Governing Body; Metropolitan Manager; Constitutional Officers; Personnel Rules and Regulations; Administration; Department of Law; Department of Finance; Other Appointed Officers; Planning and Zoning; Department of Public Health; Department of Social Services; Deparb'f~ent of Education; Financial Adminisb'ation; Budget; Borrowing; Intergovernmental Relationships; Power of Eminent Domain; Ordinances; and Miscellaneous A copy of the proposed new charter is on file in the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke and the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. Paul M. Mahoney, County Attor,~ey County of Roano~ Mary Parker,'Olerk City of Roanoke Publish on the following date in the morning and evening edition: December 8, 1989 Send invoice to: Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 AD NUMBER 120611121 PUbLIShER'S h~E - ~loO.3b ROANdKb COUNTY bOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3738 dR~M~LETON S~ P O OUX 29~00 ROANOKE VA 24015 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY CF ROANOKE AFFIOAVIT OF PUBLICATION i, (THE UNDERSIGNED} AN AUTHORIZEO REPRtSENTATivm CE THm TiMeS-WORLD COR- PORATION, ~HICH CORPORATION IS PU6LISHER OF THE ROANOKE TIMES g WCRLO-NEmSt A DAILY NEmSPAPER PU~LISH~G IN ROANOKE~ IN THE STATE OF FIRGINIAt DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNExEO NOTICE WAS PU~LISHEO iN SAID NEWSPAPERS GN THE FOLLONING DATES I2/08/89 MORiNIN~ I2/08/89 EVENING ViITNES~s llTH OAY OF DECEMBER 1989 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE