HomeMy WebLinkAboutReel 33 (3/01/1971 - 1/17/1972)COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, March 1, 1971.
The Council or the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting In the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, March 1o 1971, at 2 p.w** the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas,
James O. Trout, Vincent S. #heeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber
ARSENT: Councilman David K. Lisk 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager. Mr. Byron E. Bauer,
Assistant City Manager. Mr. James N. Klncanon, City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend Ernest
E. Runtzing, Pastor, Hollins Road Church of the Brethren.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
February 22, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of
Dr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof
was dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
MATER DEPARTMENT-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to notice of advertisement
for bids on miscellaneous, small area improved hard snrface street and sidewalk
restoration occasioned by the normal daily operations of the Mater Department for a
period of twelve months commencing April 3, 1971, said proposals to be received by
the City Clerk until 2 p.mo. Monday. March 1, 1971, and to be opened at that hour
before Council, Mayor Nebber asked if anyone present had any questions about the
advertisement and no representative present raising any question, the Mayor instruct-
ed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids, whereupon, the City Clerk
opened and read the following bids:
Adams Construction Company - $ 44.973.95
John A. Hall ~ Company. Incorporated - 47.307.75
Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc. - 48,867.50
Mr. Thomas moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be
appointed by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the
City Attorney to prepare the proper measure in accordance with the recommendation
of the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber appointed ~essrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman, Kit B. Eiser and
William F. Clark as mehbers of the committee.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday
March 1, 1971, on the request of the City of Roanoke that a portion of Gilmer Avenue,
N. W., bounded by the east right of may of Interstate Route 581 to the westerly edge
of a cul-de-sac on Gilmer Avenue, N. H., be vacated, discontinued end closed, the
matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloming
report recommending that the request be granted:
'February 18, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of February l?, 1971.
Hr. £dmard Natt, Assistant City Attorney, appeared before the
Planning Commission nnd noted that this street closure represented
a piece of the old right-of-way of Gilmer Avenue lying between the
nam cul-de-sac (Gilmer) and the Interstate. This portion of the
old Gilmer Avenue, part of the Kimball Urban Renemal Project Area,
was so designated for closure on the project plans but was. however,
inadvertly omitted.
Hr. Lawrence,member of the Planning Commission, inquired about
the division of ownership of this portion of the old Gilmer Avenue.
Hr. Parrott noted that it would revert to the abutting property
owners (Travelodge Motel and the Redevelopment and Housing
Authority).
Accordingly. motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S! John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman~
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
lng that they have viemed the street in question and the neighboring property and
are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience would result either to any
individual ar to the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing the street.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the street. Mr. Trout moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(Ulg~O) AN ORDINANCE permanently Yacating. discontinuing and closing
all of that certain portion of Gilmer Avenue, N. £., extending from the east right-
of-way line of Interstate Route Humber $81 to the westerly edge of a cul-de-sac on
Gilmor Avenue, H. E., the title to which said street shall revert to the abutting
owners; and authorizing payment of viewers in connection with said street closing.
NHEREAS, the Council has heretofore on its own motion proposed the permane~
closing, vacating, and discontinuing of a portion of the street hereinafter described
and did, by Resolution No. 19518, appoint viewers to view said street and to report
to the Council as provided by law; and did further refer to the City Planning
Commission the proposal to permanently close, vacate and discontinue said portion
of said street; and
NREREAS, Messrs. Harold H. Harris. Jr.. #illiam P. Nallace, and J. Tote
McRroom, three of the viewers heretofore appointed as aforesaid, after making oath
that they would faithfully and impartially discharge their duties as viewers, have
viewed said street and bare reported that the Council in mriting under date of Februaz
8, lg?l, that in their opinion no inconvenience would result, either to any indfvidu
or to the public, from permanently vacating, closing and discontinuing said street:
end the City Planning Commission, upon consideration of the proposal has recommended
to.the Council in writing that said portion of said street be permanently vacated,
closed and discontinued; and
W0EREAS, at a public hearing on the question of the closing of said street
held at the Council meeting on the 1st of March, lgTl, at 2:00 o'clock, p.m., in
the Council Chambers, after due and timely notice of such public hearing published
a local neuspaper, no person appeared in opposition to the closing of the same as
hereinafter provided: nod
MOEREAS, the Council, Js itself, of opinion that no inconvenience would
result, either to any individual or to the public, from permnnently vacating,
closing and discontinuing that certain street described in the aforesaid Resolution
and in said Report of Viewers and hereinafter described, and that the same should be
permanently vacated, closed and discontinued as a public street, the fee simple title
to which will revert to the abutting landowners.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
following described portion of Gilmer Avenue, N. E., situate in the City of Roanohe.
to-wit:
BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Gilmer Avenue,
N. E., 331.16 feet westerly from the intersection of the
northerly lineof Gilmer Avenue with the west line of
Fourth Street. N. E.: thence. N. 88° 47' #. 46.11 feet
to a point; thence with the east right of way line of
Interstate Route Number $81 a curve to the right whose
radius is 4397.10 feet, an arc distance of 61.21 feet
and a chord bearing and distance of S. 10o 10'
61.21 feet to a point on the south side of Gilmer Avenue;
thence with the south side of Gilmer Avenue S. DO° 4?*
E., 34 feet to a point; thence with the end of a cul-de-
sac in Gilmer Avenue, a curved line to the left whose
radius is 40 feet, and arc distance of 67.84 feet and a
chord bearing and distance of No. 1° 13' E., 60 feet to
a point on the north side of Gilmer Avenue, the Place of
Beginniog; and
BEING a portion of Gilmer Avenue, N. E., as shown on Map
of Commonwealth Redevelopment Project VA-7-1 dated March
10, lg65, in Map Book 1, Page 173, in the Clerk's Office
of the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke, Viroinia:
and being a portion of Oilmer Avenue, N. g., as shown on
the City of Roanohe, Virginia, Official Tax Appraisal Map
without an official number given thereto.
be. and is hereby permanently VACATED, DISCONTINUED and CLOSED as a public street, an
that all right, title and interest of the public in general in and to said former
street, as a public street and thoroughfare of the City, is hereby terminated and
released insofar as this Council is empowered so to do, the fee sinple title in said
portion of Gilmer Avenue reverting to the abuttin9 landowners, the City of Roanoke
in its corporate capacity reserving unto itself homever, all of its right heretofore
acquired in the nature of an existing mater main and any other utility rights-of-may
resent in said street.
HE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, *nd he In hereby directe¢
to wsrh *permanently vacated, discontinued and closed' that former portion of Gllmer
Avenue herein Vacated on all maps and plats in his office, referring to the boob
and page of resolutions and ordinances of the Council of the City of Roanoke wherein
this ordinance shall be spread.
EE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerh forthwith deliver to the Clerk
of the Hostings Court of the City of Roanoke an attested copy of this ordinance iD
order that the same be recorded in said lustmentioned Clerk*s Office and be spread
in the current deed book therein, proper notice to be made on all maps and plats
recorded in said Clerkts Office upon which are shown that certain street hereinabove
permanently vacated, discontinued and closed.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that the Cc*ocli, pursuant to Section 15.1-364 of
1950 Code of Virginia. as amended, doth hereby authorize and direct the City*s
payment of $10.00 to each of the £olloming named viewers who have acted in this
matter in payment for their services, viz: Harold M. Harris, Jr., Nilliam P. Wallac*
and J. Tate McBroom; the Council, further does hereby express its appreciation to the
aforesaid viewers for their services in this regard.
' The motion was seconded by Mr. Nheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .6.
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
POLICE DEPARTMENT-INTEDRATION-SEGR£CATION: Mr. J. T. Carter, President
of the Roanoke Valley Ousiness League, appeared before Council and presented a peti-
tion signed by 194 citizens of the northwest section of the City of Roanoke in con-
nection with expressing their approach to combating the increase of vandalism and
crime in the northwest section of the Citl of Roanoke, proposing that at least
fifteen of the 33 new Roanoke City policemen to be hired be recruited and employed
from the northwest section of the ciaI and requesting that the Community Relations
Committee encoura9e the creation and development of a Community Relations Office
and Program for northwest Roanoke.
In this connection, Mr. Carter also presented a communication from Mr.
George N. Harris, Jr** President of the Hoard of Directors of the Southwest
Virginia Community Development Fund, Incorporated, advising that the Hoard of
Directors of the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund along with repre-
sentatives from 17 urban and rural community organizations endorse and support the
efforts of residents in northwest Roanoke to obtain additional police protection.
With further reference to the matter, Mr. dames H. Stamper, Director,
TAP Program Planning and Evaluation, appeared before Council and presented a commune
cation in connection with ways to reduce crime and vandalism in low-income neighbor-
hoods.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the communications
and petition be referred to the City Manager for his consideration along with other
requests be has received on the matter. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted,
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: Mr. Robert G. Jones (Bob J) appeared before the
body and requested that Council appropriate $100,00 to be used toward the goal of a
Detoxification and Methadone Clinic.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the request be
referred to the City Manager and DF. James H, Fagan, Commissioner Of Health. for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The notion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board, requesting
that Council appropriate $375,000.00 for the purpose of purchasing 50 new school
buses at an estimated cost of $?,500.00 each, was before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Samuel P. McNeil, Chairnan of the Roanoke City
School Board, appeared before Council, and requested the immediate approval of a
Resolution empowering the School Board to procure bids and award a contract for the
purchase of the 50 school buses not later than March 15, 1971.
Mithreference to the matter, the City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with the matter, transmitting three initial points of which he
would suggest note:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The request has been received today that is going to the City
Council recommending the purchase of buses with the public school
system taking over the transportation of students. The reasoning
behind the School Board*s wish to assume this operation is undoubt-
edly a matter that they will present but hurried reading of their
recommendation poses three initial points to which I would
suggest aote.
The first is concern of an appropriation of the size as pro-
posed for capital expenditure out of a mid-budget point rather than
being considered in respect to a total budget and other needs
and requirements of the City. AS all are aware, supplemental
appropriations have been extensive this lear. 'As I previously
commented before City Council this has been of concern. I do not
presume the City is out of money but appropriations of this nature
out of regard of the balance of expenditures and revenue is a
matter of question.
Reviewing, ~ a second point, the computations of the School
Board of unit cost, it is noted that for comparison between the
present cost and the unit cost of the proposal, there has been
omitted the capital expense of the proposal and there is a sizable
difference in the number of students used for calculations. I
attach notes hurriedly put on their sheet.
As a third point. It is anticipated that ia the event of
annexation, the City will assume the present Roanoke CountI public
school transportation system. This will be of obvious advantages
to the present County in routing and unit cost. There should not
be construed that the City cannot and will not go into the school
bus business or that it can not operate a system, for it can,
For the present City it is n matter of proper budget conaider-
ation and comparison of cost nnd benefits.
Respectfully sobmitte'd,
$/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager#
In this connection, Mr. Max Herman, Co-President of the Central Council
PTA, appeared before the body and advised that the Executive Hoard of the Central
Council PTA, urges the members of Council to vote aye to the request of the Roanoke
City School Hoard and that the proposal be referred to the T~ansportation Committee
and that the committee be requested to report back to Council by March fl ned no
later than March 15, 1971, in order for the buses to be purchased in time for
use next fall.
Also in connection Mith the matter, communications from Mr. and Mrs. E.
Snyder, Mrs. C. R. Gray, Mrs. K. L. Furrow, Mrs. Paul C. Harris, Mrs. Joseph E.
Brumber9, Mrs. C. F. Phillips, Mrs. Joseph R. Bazlegrove, Mrs. Vivianne Somder,
Mrs. James H. Sumpter, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Goodman, Mr. and Mrs. M. T. Henahan,
Mr. Alan Calm*s, Mr. and Mrs. John H. Voit, Mrs. Paul B. Snyder. Mrs. Robert R.
Norfleet. Mr. and Mrs. R. M. Rice, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Karmas and Mr. Arthur L.
Dillon, Jr., supporting the request of the Roanoke City School Board. were before
Council.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the request be
referred to a committee composed of Messrs. Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Vincent S.
Mb.el.r, J. Robert Thomas and Julian F. Hirst for study, report and recommendation
to Council. that the Urban Area Transit Study report be referred to the committee
for review in connection with their Study of the matter and that they be requested
to meet with members of the Fifth Planning District Commission for any suggestions
they may have prior to reporting bach to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-BUDGET: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $25.4H0.00 be appropriated to Section ~?000, ~Schools - Emergency
School Assistance Pr*gram,* of the 1970-71 budget of the Roanoke City School Board,
said amount to continue to be one hundred per cent reimbursed from federal funds,
before Council.
Mr. Rheeler moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19551) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #67000, *Schools-
Emergency School Assistance Program.* of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for an emergency,
(For full text of. Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 1HO.)
Books and Materials,~ of the lg?O-?l budget of the Roanoke City School Board, the
School Board to be reimbursed one hundred per cent of actual expeLditures, sas
before Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~19552) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~70000, "Schools-
Library Books and Materials," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Nhee~r moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley,.
Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
transmitting a check in the amount of $31.787o66 representing payment to the City
of Roanoke in l~u of taxes for shelter rents from the Lansdowne Park Rousin9
project, the Lincoln Terrace Housing Project. the Hurt Park Housing Project and the
Highland Manor Housing Project for the fiscal year ended September 30, lgTO, was
before Council.
Mr. Nheeler moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Coaxial Communications, Incor-
porated, requesting the grant of a non-exclusive franchise in the name of its
subsidiary, Coaxial Communications of Roanoke, Incorporated, authorizing the
construction, operation and maintenance of a community antenna television system
within the City of Roanoke, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas m~ved that the communication be referred to Mr. Vincent S.
#heeler for his information in connection with his study of the question of permit-
tingthe construction of a community antenna television system in the City of Roanok~
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
r8
CITY ENGINEER: A communication from Hr. E. C. Churchill, Jr., Associate,
Fomlhes ~ Kefouver, In connection with the proposed service center for the City of
Roanoke, uae before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved the, the communication be referred to the City Manager
for study and report to Council. The motion nas seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted.
INTEGRATION-SE'REGATION-RECREAYION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAVGROUNDS-
TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY: A communication from Mr. James H.
Stamper, Director, TAP Program Planning ~ Evaluation, advising that Total Action
Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley mill not be able to reoem in 1971 i.ts lease on
the swimming pools owned by the City of Roanoke located in Hurt Path, Eureka Park
and Mashing,on Park, mas before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nheeler and
unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: An application from Mr. Ronald M. Ayers, Attorney,
representing Rova Corporation, requesting that a portion of Janette Avenue, S.
between Fourth Street and Franklin Road, S. W.o be vacated, discontinued and closed,
was before Council.
Mr. hheeler moved that the application be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion sas seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then offered the following Resolution providing for the
appointment of viewers in connection w~th vacating, discontinuing and closing the
street:
(n19553) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five freeholders,
any three of dlom may act, as viewers in connect ion with t he application of Rova
Corporation to permanently vacate, discontinue and close that portion of Janette
Avenue, S. M., between Fourth Street, S. M., and Franklin Road, S. M., more
specifically described below.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book Ho. 35, page IRl.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption Of the Resolution. Yhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: .None O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Talfourd H. Kemper, Attorney, represeoting
Mr. B. W. Porterfield, Jr., and Mr. T. C. Porterfield, requesting that property
located on the westerly side of Gth Street, S. W., described as Lot 8. Section 26,
Map of the Wasena Corporation, Official Tax No. 1130511, he rezoned from RD, Duplex
Residential District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, was before Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS: The City Manager submitted a written
report recommending that $flO.O0 be appropriated to Office Furniture and Equipment-
Replacement under Section a46, #Department of Buildings." of the 1970-71 budget, to
provide funds for a nam secretarial chair to be used in the office of the Building
Commissioner.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur h the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~19554) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u49. "Department of
Buildings. ~ of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 162.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor ~
Webber
NAys: None O. (Mr. Link absent)
AUDITORICM-COLISEUR: The City Manager submitted the following report in~t
connection with parking at the Roanoke Civic Center advising that the City of Roano~
Redevelopment and Housing Authority has agreed to allow the City of Roanoke to rent
two blocks mithin the Kimball Redevelopment area and situated immediately across
Milliamson Road from the main entrance to the Civic Center for parking purposes, that
the city would rent this property on a 30 du~'basls automatically renewable for
successive 30 day periods until terminated by either party ut a rate of $275.00 per
month:
~Roanoke, Virginia
March 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
AS has been recognized ~ince the commencement of the Civic
Center project, w~ are going to be faced mith limited available
public parking space upon the opening of tee facility. The area
around the Center, bounded by Milliumson Road, Orange Avenue and
Interstate 581, will reasonably accommodate 1700 vehicles.
Translating this into the seating capacity of the coliseum and the
seating capacity of both the coliseum and auditorium, mben both
would be in use at the same time, it is easily foreseeable that
there will not be sufficient apace on the site.
I will not go into all of the considerations that have been
going on through the past tmo years or so as to how this might be
remedied. In large part, this has been a matter of several reports
¸lO
to City Council, A project 'or projects to provide total requirements,
based on maximum occupancy, will have to be major in scope and high la
price. It may be that the Justification for a major approach will
not be apparent to the community until the actual operation is
underway and there is the knowledge of experience.
Mithin the past five or six months, we hare been earnestly
striving to come up with some arrangement that mould give us at
least a degree Of temporary relief at the time of the opening or
as soon thereafter aa possible. Through the cooperative interest
of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, ue have Just now
arrived at n project that offers help. A few specific details still
have to be settled and me mould hope that these can be resolved within
a few days, if the City Council is formally receptive to the objective.
This involves rental by the C~y from the Authority of substantially
two bi,cbs mitbin the Kimball Redevelopment area and situated immedi-
ately across Milliamson Road from the main entrance into the Civic
Center. The property lles between Rutherfoord Avenue and Malher
Avenue and runs from mJthin three blocks of Milllamson Road on the
west to 5th Street on the east. Allowing for grading exceptions,
there would be approximately 120,000 square feet in these two blocks.
Rased on the standard policy of the Authority and the formula'for
rent determination as used with all occupauts of redevelopmeut areas,
the City would rent this property at $2?5 per month. This is deter-
mined by 3 1/2 percent of the cost of acquisition of the property.
It is termed interest recovery cost.
The City would grade the two blocks to generally the grade
proposed in the overall Kimball Redevelopment area or this immediate
'area. Our present approach, which has not been totally resolved as
to specifics, is that the Authority would reimburse the City for the
cost of grading as such work is a part of the ultimate redevelopment
program.
The City would rent the property on a 30 day basis, automatically
renewable for successive 30 days until terminated by either party.
The City*s use for temporary parking would have to be subject to such
time as the ultimate redevelopment progFnm would need this immediate
area. The standard lease form used by the Authority would be exer-
cised with specific stipulations.' The City's use would be limited
to public parking as adjacent to Civic Center purposes.
It would be proposed that the area would be graveled--not hard
surfaced. It would also be fenced.
In conjunction with this, it is proposed, and requisitions have
already been prepared, that street lighting would be thoroughly
installed in the area. This would be not only f~ the benefit of
parking but would provide good lighting from Williamson Road along
Rutherfoord to Kimball Avenues, then north along 7th Street to
Orange Avenue. This affords on-street parking in that area and a
well-lite alternate access from the Civic Center out to Orange
Avenue. The cost of this lighting is estimated at $155 per month,
a major part of which is a part of the ultimate requirement in the
Kimball redevelopment.
A very rough estimate is about 325 cars off-street parking
additional with a't0Cal, including on-street in the area, of about
400 to 450. This still does not reach the ultimate desired number
and we are going to have to beg the indulgence of the public as we
work Out parking locations and as they adjust to the various parking
areas within the Civic Center vicinity.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Mannger~
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopt~d.
CITY MARKET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Cannel having referred to the City
Manager the report of a committee recommending that either the City Market be
*laced on a reasonable self-sustaining basis or the market building be razed and th~
tbe City Manager be authorized to negotiate with present tenants in connection with
the proposed program and revised rental r~tes, subject ~ final approval of Council,
the City Manager submitted the followingreport making certain reconaendationswith
regard to the matter:
*Rounoke, Virginia
March 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Several months ago a committee appointed by City Council
reviewed the operation of the City Market to determine what action
might be taken to place the ~y Market on a break-even basis.
This committee, headed by former Councilman John M. Boswell,
provided City Council with a report which recommended the increasing
of both the rental and cnrhside market rates and with a corres-
ponding reduction in operating expense through the elimination of
certain refrigeration an~l electrical services to the meat'market
users. Hlth this reduction in service there Mould be a reduction
in personnel spaces. City Council, upon receiving the conmittee*s
report, lu~tructed the City Manager*s office to endeavor to imple-
ment its provisions.
For.sometime now discussions have been held with the tenants
of the City Market in an effort to implement the provisions of this
report.
To date the majority of the tenants contacted have expressed
their willingness to pay the increased rentals listed in the commit-
tm*ts report. These tenants are primarily interested in keepJrsj the
market building open and in operation. The tenants of the meat
market are all aware of the decision to discontinue the operation
of the refrigeration system and realizing the need for th~ action,
most of them have agreed that they would install their own refriger-
ation systems.
At the same time these contacts Mere being made with the meat
market tenants, the Virginia Department of Agriculture, under federal
law, performed an inspection of several of the neat businesses and
determined that the operations of two of the larger meat retailers
included abel*sale meat activities which did not comply with t he
federal meat processing standards and that these of necessity would
have to modify their operations. This non-compliance is not n
criticism of the health and sanitation procedures of these two
operators but is rather a matter of physical arrangement of facilities
to be consistent with federal law. To comply it would be necessary
to completely separate all wholesale activity f~om retail activity
with no physical connection between the two activities. Mr.
Hannabass who bas a rather active wholesale meat activity with
certain hotels and restaurants investigated the possibilities of
relocating his wholesale activities and concluded the cost to be
prohibitive.
As a result, the City was asked to consider the possibility
of blocking off one end of the existing meat market for the use
of the various tenants for wholesale meat activity as well as other
purposes. This would entail the removal of the cold storage
boxes which exists in that end of the meat market, sealing up the
floor drains in this area, installing a suspended ceiling and lights
and installing toilets and wash areas for the workers. The public
would be prohibited from the wholesale meat processing area. It
would be proposed that all of the walls and floor of the meat
processing area be tiled to provide adequate cleaning capability.
The City Engineer*s office has prepared an estimate as to the cost
of performing this remodeling work and it would cost the City '
approximately $25.012; A copy of the City Eugineer*s estimate
is attached.
At the present time several present tenants, Hr~'Hnnnnbass,
Mr. Conner and Mr. Parker. would propose to utilize this renovated
area. Under the present configuration and rates the existing ten
neat market stalls and refrigeration would lease for $870 a month
or $10,440 a year, if completely occupied. Currently many are
unoccupied and the City only realizes $340 a month or $4,080 a year.
Should City Council agree to modify the current structure ss
described above, it would be.proposed that the City of Roenohe
obtain s wholesale meat processing license forthis area end lease
the space to the interested tenonts, These tenants in turn would
be allowed to have the necessary plans drawn end renovations accom-
plished to adopt this area to their use. It is envisioned that to
adopt end equip this area would cost these prospective tenants a
sizeable expenditure. They would have to comply with the U. S,
Department or Agriculture standards for such an operation. The
Federal government would.assign an inspection to this facility to
assure the sanitation an4 suitability of this operation.
It would be proposed that Ci~ Council adopt the rental schedule
and cerbege fees presented to City Council in the City Marhet report
of August 31. 1970. It is further recommended that the rental rate
of $1200 a lear be established for each of the former stalls of
the north end of the meat mather, with a long term lease, and that
City Council indicate a willingness to accomplish this capital
fund project at an approxinate cost of $25,812 in the next fiscal
year's budget. This would permit the tenants* architects to begin
design work on adapting, equipping and cooling the renovated area.
It would be anticipated that a portion of the renovations shown
in'the 1967 Sowers, Rhodes and Mbitescarver report will still be
needed. The need for approximately $100,000 of those renovations
has been eliminated with the removal of the refrigeration system;
however, the requirement for electrical renovation is still valid.
Funds for upgrading the electrical system have been included in tbs
building maintenance budget request for fiscal year 1972.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Carland moved that Council concur in the report'of the City Manager
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure, The motion was seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted,
SE~ERS AND S'fORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation the request of Milaon Trucking Corporation to
abandon an existing sanitary sewer easement in portions of Lone Oak Avenue and
Larchwood Street and accept a relocated easement, the City Manager submitted the
following report advising that the requested easements to be vacated and the new
easement tob~ dedicated are in keeping with arrangements worked out by all parties
concerned:
"March 1, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting on February 1. 1971, you received a request from
Milson Trucking Corporation to abandon an existing sanitary sewer
easement in portions of Lone Oak Avenue and Larchwood Street
(formally vacated) and accept a relocated easement.
This matter is related to recent additional development at the
'Milson Trucking Corporation terminal along Patrick Henry Avenue,
N. E.. The sanitary sewer in question needed to be relocated in
connection with certain building additions% Our Engineerin9 and
Public Marks Departments have worked with representatives of Milson
Trucking Corporation and their contractor in regard to this matter,
The requested easements to be vacated and new easement to be
dedicated aie in keeping with arrangements wor~ed out by all
parties concerned.
Your favorable consideration to this request is reconmended.'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
~3
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City #snsger
end that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure. The motienwas seconded by Mr. Trout and unaninouslF adopted.
TRAFFIC: Council having referred to the City Rauager for study, report
and recommendation the request of HFS. HarJorie R. Richards. General Homager,
Ideal Laundry ~ BryCleaners, Incorporated, for the removal of tmoohouF parking
signs on one side of Eighth Street, S. E., between Campbell Avenue and Taz'ewell
Avenue, S. E., the City #manger submitted the following report advising that these
signs will be removed during the latter part of February:
~February 24, 1971
Hrs. RarJorie R. Richards
General Manager
Ideal Laundry ~ Dry Cleaners, Inc.
P. O. Usx 1138
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear HFS.' Richards:
On January 1S. 1971, you mFote to the City Council asking that
tmo--houF parking signs be removed from one side of Eighth Street,
from Campbell Avenue toTazemell Avenue, S. E. You asked that this
be done in order that your employees may have parking space. Con-
sistent with your request, me have scheduled our personnel to
remove these signs and it is expected that this work mill be done
sometime around the latter part of this month.
I think that it should be noted to you that these signs mere
originally installed to discourage all-day parking by the large
number of people who work in that general area of the City. It
was particularly used by employees of the Norfolk and ~estern
East End Shop and there had, at the time, been some concern that
the all-day parking was prohibiting people from havin9 short term
parking use of the street. Rhen the parking restrictions are re-
moved, as you asked, I mould hope that you would understand that
this would not necessarily guarantee this space for employees of
Ideal Laundry or of any other particular group. Rather it would
be available for all-day parking by those who would first come.
It is hoped that this mill satisfactorily accommodate your
request and me appreciate your writing in regard to your
interest in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mro #heeler moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Hr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NELFARE-BURRELL RERORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION: The
City Manager submitted a written report recommending that Council authorize the
execution of a state-local hospitalization agreement with Burrell Memorial Hospital.
to be effective retroactive to November 1, 1970. and for the period from November
1970, to October 31, 1971. on the basis of in-patient rate of $48.33 and out-patient
rate of $6.50.
Mr. #heeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a19555) AN ORDINANCE fixiug the per diem rate to be paid by. the City
to Burrell Memorial Hospital Association, Incorporated, for treatment of the Clty*s
indigent charity patients, for the period commencing November 1, 1970, nnd e~tending
to October 31, 1971; end authorizing the City Manager to enter into requisite
agreement uith said Hospital in the premises; ~nd providing for an emergency. (For full text.or Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page 183.)
Hr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BRIDGES-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a
written report advising that the Engineering Department has proceeded to advertise
for bids on the NormJch Bridge Project on Monday, March 15, 1971..
Mr. Garland moved that the report he received and filed. The notion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTRENT OF PURLIG ~I~ELFAR£: The Gitv Manager submitted a written report
advising that within a short tine a detailed report and proposal mill co~e to
Council regarding the possibility of a new and expanded center for the storage and
distribution of. surplus commodities.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded bV Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mrs. Luctlle Marsh, Ghairman of the Northwest ~elfare
Rlght$ Organization and MFS. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman for the Nelfare Rights
Organization. appeared before the body complaining of unsanitary conditions at the
surplus food center in southeast, requesting that recipients be ~iven'better food,
that another surplus food center be established in northwest in addition to the
center already in southeast., that the centers be open five days n week, that the
melfare recipients not be abused by workers ut the surplus food center, that the
Melfare Department be directed to go out and find people mbo ace eligible for
surplus food and are not aware of this, and that a better way be found to get the
food to the people and the people to the food.
~ith reference to the matter, the Reverend Douglas Cnston appeared before
the body and advised that people begln to congregate at the surplus food center fn
southeast at 6:30 a.m.. and do not ~et hone until after 2:00 p.m., due to the long
waiting lines and urged that Gouncil personally visit the surplus food center in
southeast and~nvestigate the conditions that prevail.
Approximately 15 persons appeared before Council in connection with the
requests.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study
report and recommendation the request of Mr. Charles L. Ray, Jr., et ux., that
property located in the 3400 block of Nershberger Road, N. #., described us Lots
and 2, Shsrpe Rap, Official Tax Nos. 2560136 and 2560139, and a 1.5 acre tract of
land, described aa part of Lot 3, Dyer Estate Rap, Official Tax No. 2560153, be
resorted from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District. to RG-2. General Residential
District, the City Planning COMMIssion submitted a nritten report recommending that
the request be grunted.
Hr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be held
at 2 p.m.. Ronday, Hatch 29, 1971. The motion wes seconded by Hr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF CORRITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED RUSXNESS: NONE.
CONSXDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19S41, resorting the southern portion of Lot IS,
Block $, Lee Hy Gardens Rap, Official Tax No. 161032S, from RS-3, Sinole-Fanily
Residential District, to RG-l, General Residential District, having pre~iously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the
body, Dr. Taylor offering the follomin9 for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19S41) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥o Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 19S6, as amended, and Sheet No. 161, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relatio- to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 33, page 173.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Rt. #heeler and adopted by the followln9 vote:
AYES: gessrso Garland. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, #heeler and Mayor
~ebber
NAYS: None -----O. (Mr. Link absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19542, rezoning property located in the 2000 block
of Byrd Avenue, N. E., described as tots ? = 17, inclusive, Block 3, Official Tax
Nos. 3120304 - 3120308, inclusive, Laurel Terrace Land Map, from RD, Duplex Resi-
dential 0istrict, to RG-2, General Residential District. having previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and hid over, was again before the body,
Mr. Thomas offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19542) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 312, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook 35. page 176.)
Hr, Thomas moved the adoption of ~the Ordinance. Th'e motion was seconded
by Mr[ Trout' sad adopted by the follouin~ vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thonsso Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber 6.
NAYS: None .... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
INDUSTRIES-STATE NIGNMAYS-STREET NAMES: Ordinance No. 19544. designating
and fixing the name Progress Drive, S, Es, to a certain new street or access road
recently constructed and located In the Roanoke Industrial Center area of the City
of Roanoke, beginning at the end of Industry Avenue. S. £.. (extended) had extending
in a southerly dirbctlon approxinately 1380 feet, iermJnating approximately 75 feet
south of the railroad spur tract adjacent to the water plant settling station, havi~
previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mas again
b~fose the body. Mr. Wheeler offering the following for its second feeding and final
adoptioni
(~19544) AN ORDINANCE designating and fJxJn9 the name Progress Drive,
S. E., to a certain new street in the southeast quadrant of the City.
(For fulltext of Ordioance, Awe Ordinance Book No. 35, page 177.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of tho Ordinance. The'motion was seconded
by Dr~ Taylor and adopted bY the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Nebbez
NAYS: None--~ .... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
EASEMENTS-SPECIAL PERMITS~ Ordinance No. 19546, granting DeNaven Transfer
and Storage Company, Incorporated, a temporary encroachment into the sidewalk and
area of Ashlawo Aven~e. S. M., for a distance of approximately fSur feet
of four certain concrete steps erected on Official Tax No. 1420602. upon certain
and conditions, having previously been before Council for its first reading,
read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following
for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19546) AN ORDINANCE permitting a temporary encroachment into the side-
walk and street area of Ashlawn Avenue, S. Mo, for a distance of approximately four
(4) feet of four certain concrete steps erected on Official No. 1420602, as shown
· e Tax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke, upon certain terms'and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 178.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs.'Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None----O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
17
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Trout offered the following emergency
Ordinance transferring $20°000.00 from Personal Services to'Fees for Professional
nad Special Services and appropriating $28,000.00 to Special Promotion Fund under
Section n?7, 'Civic Center,' of the 1970-71 budget:
(#19556) AN ORDINANCK to amend and reordain Section n??, 'Civic Center,'
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No.'35, page IS4.)
Mr. Trout moved the ~option of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thowas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None ........ O. (Mr. Llsk absent)
ELECTIONS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure unending and reordaining Section 59, Voting place in Williamson
Road Precinct No. 4, Chapter 2, Precincts and Voting Places, Title IV, Elections.
of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 195b, as amended, he presented same; whereupon.
Dr. Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a19557) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 59. VotinQ nlace in
Willtamson Road Precinct NO% 4., Chapter 2~ Precincts and Votino Places, of Title
IV, Elections of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 104.)
Dr. Taylormoved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ..... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
NOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INDUSTRIES: Mr. Thomas A. Parrish. representing the United Transportation
Union. appeared before Council in connection with the Railpax matter, advising that
the route selection will be made within the next few meeks in #ashington. D. C.o
that the N E # tracks need this route more than the C ~ 0 tracks, that the one
question to be decided is who will get this route, that he would like for Council
to take an interest in this matter and make their wishes known to Washington. that
be is asking Council to be concerned because this is the last passenger train to
serve the Roanoke Yalley and me are about to lose it. thut~e facts show that N
should handle this train and that the N ~ W route for Railpax passenger service
would provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of cities in ¥iroinia.
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure stating that Council desires that the City of
Roanoke be designated us * service point on proposed routes betueen Norfolk,
Virginia, end Cincinnati, Ohio.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Thomas then offered · substitute motion that the matter be taken under
advisement until such time as Council has sufficient information on the matter. The
motion mas seconded by Mro Wheeler and adopted, Hr. Garland voting no.
AIRPORT: Mr. Trout presented the following communication in connection
uith investigating the possibility of developing a separate department and separate
accounting procedure for airport activities, thereby establishing once and forall
whether revenues at the airport can pay much needed improvements through revenue
bonds and if it can be proven that there are profits.from the airport to finance
revenue bonds, suggesting that we immediately extend oar general aviation activities
and have bids on a general aviation terminal and needed hangar space:
· February 25, 1971.
Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor,
and Members of Roanoke City Council.
Gentlemen:
Some time back ! recommended and City Council forwarded to the City
Manager a request that he investigate the possibility of developing
a separate d~partment for airport activities and have separate
accounting procedures for the d~partment, t~er~by establishing once
and for all whether revenues at the airport can poyfor much needed
improvements through revenue bonds. If it can be proven that there
are profits from the airport to finance revenue bonds, then I mould
suggest that we immediately extend our general aviation activities
and have bids on a general aviation terminal and much needed hangar
space.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ James O. Trout
James O. Troutr
Mr. T~ut moved that the communication be made part of the record and
referred to the City Manager for his information in connection with his study of
establishing a department for airport activities. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING,
Tuesday, March 2, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke me~ in special leering in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Tuesday, March 2, 1971, at twelve otclock,
pursuant to Resolution No. 19526 of the Cooncil providing for said meeting, for the
purpose of receiving, opening and considering bids made to the city for the purchase
of $4,400,000 Public l~provement Bonds, Series #A-3#, of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia; for the purchase Of $4,000,000 Mater System Bonds, Series 'MM-4** of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia; for the purchase of $1,?00,000 Sewage Treatment Bonds,
Series #ST-2#, of the Clty~ Roanoke, Virginia; and for the purpose of t~king such
action in the premises as the Council may then be advised, mit~ Mayor Rubber
!presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas,
Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber .......................................
ABSENT: Councilmen David K. Link and James O. Trout ...................2.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager: Mr. James N. Kincano~
City Attorney; Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor; and Miss Virginia L. Sham, City
Clerk.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Councilman Noel C.
Taylor.
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MATER D£PARTM£NT-SE~EMS AND STORM
DRAINS: Mayor Mebber called the meeting to order and stated that the special
meeting of the Council is being held for the purpose of receiving, opening and
considering bids made to the city for the purchase of $4,400,000 of Public Improve-
ment Bonds of the City of Roanoke, Series 'A-3', being a part of $16,900,000 of
bonds authorized at an election held on the 2nd day of May, 1967, to defray the
cost of needed permanent public improvements, to-wit: additions, betterments,
extensions and improvements of and to its municipal airport, its public buildings,
including its municipal building, fire stations, refuse disposal facilities and
service center, its public streets, highways and bridges, its system of storm
sewers and storm drains, its public schools and for projects authorized pursuant
to Article T, Chapter 1, Title 36, of the Code of Virginia. as amended, and for the
purpose of taking such action in the premises as the Council may then be advised.
It appearing that under the provisions of Resolution No. 19523, adopted
on the 8th day of February, 1971, the City Clerk was directed to advertise for the
sale of $4,400,000 Public Improvement Bonds, Series ~A-3", of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, being a part of $16,900,000 of bonds authorized at an election held on
the 2nd day of May, 1967, the said bids to be presented to the Council at twelve
**clock, noon, Tuesday, March 2, 1971, pursuant to advertisement and due notice of
sale, the said advertisement reserving the right to the city to reject any and all
bids, six (6) bids mere presented to the body by the City Clerk, as having then
been filed.
'In this connection, Mayor Webber asked if uny bidder present did not fully
understand the proposal, whether anyone present had not been given an opportunity
to submit bids and if there mere any questions on the part of those who had submitted
proposals relative to terms end conditions upon mhich the bids had been submitted,
to which questions there nas no response from bidders present.
Nome present raising any question as to the advertisement and notice of
sale, Mayor Webber directed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening and reading
of the bids.
Mr. Lemis P. Thomas, Senior Vice President of The Bank of Virginia, appear~
ed in the Council Chamber at 12:o3 p.m., after the special Council meeting had
commenced, explained that he was unavoidably detained in submitting bids on the
above bonds and requested that he be allomed to file three bids on behalf of The
Bank of Virginia ~ Associates at this time.
Mr. Garland moved that the three bids tendered by Mr. Lames P. Thomas for
The Bank of Virginia be opened and read before Council at the proper time. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
The City Clerk thereupon proceeded with opening and reading bids made
to the city for the purchase of ~4.400,000 Public Improvement Bonds, Series
Councilman Trout entered the meeting during the reading of the bid~'.
After the opening and reading of the bids, Councilman Thomas moved that a
committee be appointed bi Mayor Webber to tabulate said bids and to report to
Council as promptly as possible. The motion was seconded by Councilman Wheeler and
Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. J. Robert Thomas, Chairman, A. N. Gibson
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-WATER DEPARTMENT-SEWERS AND STORM
DRAINS: Mayor Webber stated that the special meeting of the Council is further
being held for the purpose of receiving, opening and considering bids made to the
city for the purchase of $4.000,000 of Water System Bonds of the City of Roanoke,
Series "mW-4*, authorized at an election held on the 2nd day of May. 1967, to pro-
vide funds to defray the cost to the city of needed public improvements, to-wit:
sorks plant or system, including the acquisition of land, easements, rights of way
and other rights in property related thereto, and for the purpose of taking such
action in the premises as the Council may then be advised.
It appearing that under the provisions of Resolution No. 19524, adopted
on the Bth day of February, 1971, the City Clerk mas directed to advertise for the
sale of $4,000,000 Water System Bonds, Series *MW-4#, of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, authorized at an election held on the 2nd day of May, 1967, the said bids
to be presented to the Council at twelve o'clock, noon. Tuesday, March 2. 1971,
pursuant to advertisement and due notice of sole, the said advertisement reserving
the right to thecity to reject any and ell bids, seven (?) bids including the bid
of The Bash Of Virginia ~ Associates, aforementioned, mere presented to the body
by the City Clerk.
In this connection, Mayor Nebber asked if any bidder present did not
fully understand the proposal, mhether anyone present had not been given an
opportunity to submit bids and if there were any questions on the part of those
who bad submitted proposals relative to terms and conditions upon which the bids
bad been submitted, to which questions there was no response from bidders present.
No one present raising any question as to the advertisement and notice
of sale, Mayor Mebber directed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening and
reading of the bids.
The City Clerk thereupon proceeded with opening and readin9 bids made to
the city for the purchase of $4,000~000 Mater System Bonds, Series
After the opening and reading of t~ bids, Councilman Thomas moved that
a committee be appointed by Mayor Mebber to tabulate said bids and to report to the
Council as promptly as possible. The motion was seconded by Councilman Trout and
unanimously adopted.
Mayor lebber appointed Messrs. J. Robert Thomas, Chairman, A~ N~ Gibson
and W~ Richard Lavinder as members of the committee.
BONDS-CAPITAL.IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MATER DEPARTMENT-SEMERS AND STORM
BRAINS: Mayor Nebber stated that the special meeting of Council is Turther being
held for the purpose of seceiving, opening and considering bids made to the city
for the purchase of $1,?00,000 of Sewage Treatment System Bonds of the City of
Roanoke, Series *ST-2*, authorized at an election held on the 2nd day of May, 1957,
to provide funds to defray the cost to the city of needed public improvements, to-
mit: additions, betterments and extensions of and to the city*a sewage treatment
plant and sanitary sewer system, including the acquisition of land, easements, righ!
.oT way andother rights in property related thereto, and for the purpose of taking
such action in the premises as the Council may then be advised.
It appearing that under the provisions of ResolutiooNo. 19525, adopted.
on the Otb.day of February, lgYl, the City Clerk was directed to advertise for the
sale of $1,700,000 Sewage Treatment Bonds, Series *ST-2*, of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, authorized at au election held on the2nd day oT May, lg&?, the said bids
to be presented to the Council at twelve o'clock, noon, Tuesday, March 2, 1971,
pursuant to advertisement and due notice of sale, the said advertisement reserving
the right to the city to reject any and all bids, seven (7) bids inc.luding the bid
of The Rank of Virginia ~ Associates, aforementioned, were presented to the body by
the City Clerk.
22'
In this connection, Mayor Webber asked if say bidder present did not fully
understand the proposal, whether anyone present had not been given nn opportunity to
submit bids and If there were any questions on the part of those who bed subml~ed
proposals relative to terms and conditions upon which the bids had been subsisted,
there being no response to the questions by any bidder present.
No one present raising any question as to the advertisement and notice
of sale, Maynr Webber directed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening nad readin
of the bids.
The City Clerk thereupon proceeded mlth opening and reading bids made to
the city for the purchase of 91,?00,000 Sewage Treatment Bonds, Series 'ST-R".
After the opening and reading of the bids, Councilman Thomas moved that
a committee be appointed by Rayor Webber to tabulate said bids and to report to
the Council as promptly as possible. The motion was seconded by Councilman Taylor
and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. J. I~ert Thomas. Chairman, A. N. Gibson
and W. Richard Lavinder as members of the committee.
All bids submitted having been opened and read, Councilman Thomas moved
that the meeting be recessed until 3:00 p.m., the same day and place. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Taylor and.unanimously adopted.
· ASa:00 p.m,. the same day the.Council reconvened in the Council Chamber
with the following members present Mayor Webber presiding:
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. Hampton W. Thom s. Vincent S.
Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber 4.
ABSENT: Councilmen David K. Link, Noel C. Taylor and James O.
Trout 4.
The committee previously appointed to tabulate bids opened and read this
day submitted a written report, transmitting a tabulation of all bids, showing the
proposal of The Chase Manhattan Dank ~ Associates of $4,400,000 for $4,400,000
Public Improvement Bonds, Series "A-3", to bear interest coupons at the rate of
5.6~ per annum of 91.760.000 of bonds maturing in the years lg?2 to 1979, inclusive
4.5~ per annum on 91,100,000 of bonds maturing in the years 1980 to 1964, inclusive,
4.7~ per annum ongl.lO0;O00 of bonds maturing in the years 1985 to 1989. inclusive,
and 3% per annum on 9440°000 of bonds maturing in the years 1990 to 1991, inclusive,
plus accrued interest to the City of Roanoke to the date of delivery with a net
effective interest rate of 4.5204~ per annum, to be the best bid made to the city
for the purchase'of said bonds, on the basis of ~e lowest interest cost to the city;
and recommended that said bid be accepted and that the sale of said bonds be made
to said bidder.
Co"ncllmnn Nheeler uov~d thor the ~ouncil concur in the recommendation or
ithe committee end offered the follouin~ Resolution p~ovidlng'for the sn~e of
$4o400.000 Public Improvement Bonds, Series 'A-3~. of tbe City of Roanoke, Virginia,
to The Chase Manhattan Bank ~ Associates:
(e19550) A RESOLUTION ~o sell to The Chase aanhattan Bank ~ Associates
$4,400,000 of Public Improvement Bonds, Series 'A-3', of the City of Roanoke.
Virginia. at the bid submitted; rejecting all other bids therefor; directing that
the chech accompanying the successful bid be deposited by the City Treasurer and cred!
therefor be all*ned on the purchase price of said bonds; and directing that the
certified or casbierOs check of all other bidders be forthwith returned.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 105.)
Councilman Mheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Garland and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Councilmen Garland, Thomas, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber ...........4.
HAYS: None ......................................................... O.
(Councilmen Llsk, Taylor and Trout absent)
At this point, Councilman Taylor entered the meetin9 and asked that the
records show that had he been present at the time of voting on the adoption of
Resolution No: 19S50 he would have voted aye.
The aforesaid committee next submitted a tabulation of bids ah*win9 the
proposal of The Chase Manhattan Banh ~ Associates of $4,000,000 for $4.000.0OO
Mater System Bonds, Series "WR-4", to bear interest coupons at the rate of 5°0% per
annum on $1,600.000 of bonds maturing in the years 1972 to 1979, inclusive, 4.S%
per annum on $1.000.000 of bonds maturing in the years 1980 to 1984,1nclusive, 4.7~
per annum on $1,000,000 of bonds maturin9 in the years 1905 to 1989, inclusive, and
3~ per annum on 9400,000 of bonds maturing Jn the years 1990 to 1991, inclusive.
slum accrued interest to the City of Roanoke to the date of delivery, with a net
~ffective interest rate of 4.$204~ per annum to b~ tho best bid made to the city
for tho purchase of said bonds, on the basis of the lowest interest cost to the city:
and recommended that said bid be accepted and that sale of the said bonds be made
to said bidder.
Councilman Mheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of
the committee and offered the foil*win9 Resolution providin9 for the sale of the
$4~000o000 Water System Bonds. Series ~M~, of t~ City ~f Roanoke, Virginia, to
The Chase Manhattan Bank ~ Associates:
(~19S$9) A RESOLUTION to sell to The Chase Manhattan Bank ~ Associates
$4,000.000 of Mater System Bonds, Series "M#-4", of the City of Roanoke, ¥irginia,
at the bid submitted; rejecting all other bids therefor; directing that the check
accompanying the successful bid be deposited by the City Treasurer and credit
therefor be allowed m the purchase price of said bonds; and directing that the
':24
certified or cosbler°$ check of nil other bidders be forthmlth returned.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Rook No. 35, page 188,)
Councilman Uheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. Tbs motion mas
seconded by Councilmen Thomas end adopted by the follomiug vote:
AYES: Councilmen Garland. Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 5.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Councilmen Lisk and Trout absent)
The committee next submitted a tabulation o£ bids showing the proposal Of
The Chase Manhattan Rank ~ Associates of $1.?00.000 for $1,?00,000 Semage Treatment
System Ronda, Series *ST-2**, to bear interest coupons at the rate of 5.85 per annum
$b60.000 of bonds maturing in the years 1972 to 1979. inclusive, 4.55 per annum
$425,000 of bonds maturing in the years lgBO to 1984, inclusive, 4.75 per annum
$425,000 of bonds maturing in the years lgR5 to 1989. inclusive, and 35 per
on $170,000 of bonds maturing in the years 1990 to 1991, inclusive, plus
accrued interest to the City of Roanoke to the date of delivery, with a net effective
interest rate of 4.52045 per annum to be the best bid made to the city for the
purchase of said bonds, on the basis of the lomest interest cost to the city; and
recommended that said bid be accepted and that sale of said bonds be made to said
bidder.
Councilman Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
committee and offered the following Resolution providing for the sale of the
$1.?00,000 Sewage Treatment System Ronda, Series *ST-2*. of the City of Roanoke,
iVirginia, to The Chase Manhattan Bank ~ Associates:
(n195bO) A RESOLUFION to sell to The Chase Manhattan Bank ~ Associates
$1,?00,O00 of Sewage Treatment System Ronda. Series *ST-2*. of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, at the bid submitted; rejecting all other bids therefor; directing ~at the
check accompanying the successful bid be deposited by the City Treasurer and credit
therefor be allowed on the purchase price of said bonds; and directing that the
certified or cashier's check of all other bidders be forthwith returned.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page
Councilman Thomas moved the adoption of the Eesolutlon, The motion was
seconded by Councilman Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber---5.
NAYS: None -0.
(Councilmen Lisk and Trout absent)
There being no further business, Eayor #ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTEST:
AP PR 0 VE 0
Mayor
COUNCIL, R£GHLAR ME£TING,
Monday, March 0, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in~e Municipal Building, Monday, March 8, 1971, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor #ebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David M. Llsk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber~7.
AOSENT: None O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirnt, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager. Mr. James N. Kincanono City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meetln9 was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Rolen C.
Bailey. Pastor, Care Spring Baptist Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the special meeting held on Tuesday,
March 2, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Garland, seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZEN~ [~0N PUBLIC MATTERS:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids on
furnishing and installing movie and slide projection equipment for the Roanoke
Civic Center, said proposals to be received by the City Clerk until 2 p,m,, Monday,
March 8, 1971, and to be opened at that hour before Council, Mayor #ebber~ked if
anyone had any questionsabout the advertisement and no representative present
raising any question, the Mayor instructed the Deputy City Clerk to proceed with
the opening of the bids; whereupon, the Deputy City Clerk opened and read the
following bids:
Add Add Add
N~e Total B~d A~t, A Alt. B Alt, C.
Perdue Motion Picture Equip-
ment, Incorporated - $12,6ql.00 $1,270.00 $388.00 $1,950.00
Jack Lo Bartman ~ Company,
Incorporated - 19,913.00 1,175.00 391.00 2,366.00
Dr. Taylor moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appointed
by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure, or measures, in accordance Math the recommendation
of the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously' adopted.
Mayor Mebber appointed Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman, John W.
Chuppelear, Jr., and Howard E. Rudford as members'of the committee.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
BUDGET-CLERK OF THE COUNTS: A commuaicat*ion from Mr. Malher R. Carter, Jr.
Clerk of the Courts, requesting that Council appropriate $900.00 to Printing and
Office Supplies under Section n25. 'Clerk of Courts.w of the 1970-71 budget, to
provide funds for the remainder or the fiscal year. was before Council.
Mr'. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Clerk of the
Courts and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19561) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordsin Section rigS. 'Clerk of Courts
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. end providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see'Ordinance Book No. 35. page igs. I
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Trout end adopted by the foil,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Nayor
Mebber ' ?.
NAYS:' None- --0.
BUDGET-CONNONREALTH*S ATTORNEY: A communication from Mr. Samuel A.
Garrison. III. Commonwealth's Attorney. requesting that $150.00 be transferred from
Personal Services to Printing and Office Supplies under Section n22. 'Coemonweolth*s
Attorney,~ of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal
year. was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Commonwealth*s
Attorney and offered the followihg emergency Ordinance:
(~19562) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u22, ~Commonwealth*s
Attorney,~ of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No.'3S. page 195.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Yhe motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebbes
NAYS: None
INBUSIRIES: Council ha?in9 taken the Railpax matter under consideration
pending additional tnformation,'a communication from Mr. Jack C. Smith, Executive
Vice President of tbs Roanoke Yalley Chamber of Commerce, transmitting a Resolution
and cover letter which was transmitted to Mr, Dave Kendall'of Ratlpax. regarding
Railpax as it might affect the Roanoke Valley area and respectfully urging Railpax
to utilize the Norfolk and Nestern route from Norfolk, Yirginia, to Cincinnati,
Ohio. was before Council.
Mr. Nheeler moved that the communication and Resolution from the Roanoke
Valley Chamber of Commerce be received and filed. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Thomas and unanimously adapted.
Mr. Garland then moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney
for preparation of the proper measure urging Nallpax to select the Norfolk and
Nestern route from Norfolk, Virginia, to Cincinnati, Ohio. The motion sas
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor and Thomas ............ 4.
NAYS: Mr, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber =2.
(Mr' Trout not voting)
In a discussion of the mattero Mr, Lisk expressed the opinion that it is
the responsibility of Council to be concerned about mbat directs traffic to
Roanoke or away from Roanoke and that it would be far better for the members of
Council to express their concern' over the matter.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that he could vote for passage of a
Resolution expressing the opinion of Council but he could not support the merits
of the program.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that it is not a question of uhether or
not Council is in favor of Railpax, that it is only a question of whether or not
Council is in favor of the H. ~ M. route over the C. ~ O. route.
SIDEMALK, CURB AND CU~TER-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Raleigh
Court Elementary School PTA and the Patrick Henry PYA Executive Board, requesting
that a sidemalk be constructed on the south side of Grandin Road between Brandon
Avenue and Guilford Avenue. S. M.. was before Council.
Mr. Ltsk moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for study.
report and recommendation to Council. ~he motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimouslyadopted.
STREET LIGHTS: A copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power
Company, transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of February, 1971, was before Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SPECIAL PERMITS: A communication from Mr. James C. Trail, et ux., reques
lng a permit to keep five veterans as tenants in their home at 3815 Old Stevens
Road, N. M., mas before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the C2y Attorney for
consideration and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: A communication from Mr. E. L. Montgomery, Secretary, Forest
Park Elementary School Parents-Teachers Association, unanimously expressing approval
of city=owned buses, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas· moved that the communication be referred to the Tronsportntion
Committee for their information in connection· utth their study of the matter. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: A communication from the Hoanoke Valley Teenage Democrats,
urging Council to appropriate the funds requested by the Roanbke City School
Board to purchase school buses for the City of Roanoke, was before Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the comnunicu~ion be referred to the Transportation
Committee for their information in connection with their study of the matter. The
motion was seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication iron.Hr. Gordon H. Shapiro. Attorney. represent-
ing #r. Luther J. Watson. requesting that property located in the lgO0 bi,ch of
London Avenue. N. W.. described us Lots 3 and 4. SI,ch 31. Hide Parg Land Hap.
Official Tam Nos. 232351i and 232~512, be rea,ned from gG-l. General Residential
District. to LH. Light Manufacturing District. was before Council.
gr. Thomas moved that the request for Fez,ming be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: An application from Mr. M. G. Creamy and Mr. George I. Vogel.
II. Attorneys. representing ges~rs. James Howard ~hJrley and genjanin F. Shirley.
requesting that property located on the westerly side of Edison Street. N. E.. and
a short distance north of Liberty goad. described as Lots SE. 5F and 5G. Map of
the property of D. P. Nagann, being a division of Lot 5. Section 1, Liberty Land
Company, be res,ned from RD. ~uplex Residential Distr~ct. to RG-2, General
Residential District, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for res,ming be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COURT: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting a request of Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge of the
Municipal Court, that he be permitted to purchase 26 used walnut armed chairs for
seating in the interim courtroom that has been established on the second floor of
the old Municipal Building, in on amount of $1g.$0 each.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of Judge Fitzpatrick
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19563) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~20, *Municipal
Court** of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 195.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limb, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .... T.
NAYS: None .0.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COURT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $72.50 be transferred from Fees for Professional and Special
Services to Office Furniture and Equipment - New under Section :20, *Municipal
.29
Court,' of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the purchase of a used
conference table for commission hearings and group meetings in the Municipal Court.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur In the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(m19564) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m20, 'Municipal
Court," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 197.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................
NAYS: None .............. O.
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report
requesting that $325.00 be transferred from Automobile Allomance under Section z47,
"Fire Department," to Maintenance of Building and Property under Section a64. "Main-
tenance of City Property," of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the
installation Of new linoleum in the kitchen of the No. 1 fire station:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March fl, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The tile floor installed in the kitchen of No. I fire sta~on
thus becoming a hazard to the men utilizing this facility. On
several occasions, as a result of this loose and buckled tile,
firemen have tripped on this tile as ~ell as it being both unsight-
ly and unsanitary. Because of the hazardous situation due to this
plywood floor.
We have requested the maintenance department to obtain the
price for installing linoleum in this kitchen. An estimate of
$325 has been obtained for accomplishing this work; however, no
funds have been allocated for this purpose. Because it is apparent
that fire station Ul will be continued ~ use for several years
until such time as a new station is built, it is felt that new
linoleum should be installed.
As a result it would be requested that City Council transfer
$325 from Fire Department Account 47, Object Code 290, Automobile
Allomance, to Maintenance of City Property, Department Account 64.
Object Code 255, Maintenance of Building Property. Subtitle 47,
Fire Department. for the accomplishment of this work.
Respectfully submitted
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HJrst
City ManaJer"
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the request Of the City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordlnange:
~30
(a19565) AN*ORDINANCE to amend nnd reordein certain sections of the 1970-7
Appropriation Ordinance, end providing rot nn emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 197.)
Mr. LJsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Or. Taylor end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber---~ .................. ?.
NAYS: None .......~--0.
BUDGET-STREET LIGHTS: The City Manager submitted the following report
requesting and recommendin9 that $§00.00 be appropriated to Maintenance of Machinery
and Equipment under Section ~61, *Street Lighting,* of the 1970-71 budget, to
provide funds for the maintenance of certain street lighting equipment owned and
maintained directly by the City of Roanoke:
*Roanoke, Virginia March B, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Mithin the current lg?O-71 budget, the sun of $500 was
appropriated under account hl-260, Street Lighting-Maintenance
of Machinery and Equipment. Essentially this account is for the
maintenance of certain street lighting equipment owned and main-
tained directly by the City including such as street light
standards on bridges. As of December 31, 1970, the remaining bal-
ance of this account was $32.50. The City has experienced a
considerable extent of damage to such facilities by motor vehicles
this year. Certain lights remain out of service due to insuf-
ficient funds to affect repairs,
It' is necessary to request and recommendation is made that an
appropriation of $500 be made additionally to this account in
order to provide funds for repairs now considered needed plus dam-
ages that will most likely occur during the remainder of the
fiscal year. Offsetting this is that invoices totaling nearly
$1,000 have been rendered to the owners of vehicles causing damages
to date. Certain of these costs were for labor and other costs
represent reductions in the Cityts invent*rial stock to affect the
repairs to the damaged facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request and recommendation
of the City Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19566) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #~1. "Street Lighting
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 198.)
Dr. Taylor moved the. adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Ur. Garland amd adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheoler and Mayor
Mebbel
NAYS: None
31
BUDGET-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT: The City Manages
nubmitted the following report recommending that $6.000.00 be appropriated tO Other
Equipment - ReplaceMent under Section aS?, "Traffic Engineering and ComMunications.#
of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the replacement of fire and alarm equip-
Rent which Was damaged from vehicular accidents:
~Roanohe, Virginia
March 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
For the past number of lears there has been included Within
the budget for traffic engineering and communications an appropri-
ation annually of $0,000 under account 57-55 for replacement of fire
and alarm equipment damage from vehicular accidents. As a part
of the action of the balancing of the budget for the current fiscal
year, this appropriation was deleted in its entirety. This is an
on-going account and is unavoidable in the incurrence of obligations
against such purposes.
Since'July 1, 1970. the signals section of the Traffic and
Communications Division has performed work totaling $5,453.71 due
to damages in fire alarm and traffic signal equipment as a result
of vehicular accidents. These costs have had to be absorbed in
other operating accounts within this budget. 1 attach a memorandum
within the division describing somewhat more detail the situation
and also itemizing the expenses that have occurred for the approxi-
mate five-months period from JulI 1, 1970, through December 4,
1970. This is the total of the ~5,453.71.
Initially it was planned to recommend to Council the appropri-
ation of $5,500 to restore funds to the budget to offset these
expenses. It is now concluded that it would be preferable, as
additional expenses have developed since the calculation period
to December 4 and as there further remains four months in the
current fiscal Fear, that the sum of $8,000 will be reached by
the conclusion of the year and will be required.
MaI I note that a considerable portion of this budget's
expense is offset by income. The attached report takes note of
the fact that last year, 1969-70, $7,516.93 was collected as reve-
nue against this expenditure.
Therefore, it is recommended that the CitI Council appropriate
the $8,000 to the current budget under account 57-55 for the above
purpose.
EespectfullI submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Lisa moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Citl
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~1956T) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~S?, 'Traffic
Engineering and Communications," of the lg?O-?l Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for an emergencI.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 198.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber .......... 7.
NAYS: None, .0.
' AUOITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Hanagcr submitted the follawi~g report
connection with leusieg property from the'City'of goanok~ Rcdevelo~dent and Housing
Authority in tke Kimball Redevelopment are~ to be used for temporary parking pur-
poses at the Roanoke CiVic Center~
'Roanoke, ¥irglnia'
#arch 6, 1971
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke. ¥1rginla
Gentlemen:
This is to sopplenent the report that nas on your Agenda
last week in regard to the tenporary leasing of area within the
Kimball Redevelopment project for auxiliary parking in connection
with the early period of operation of the Civic Center. Shortly
after putting together the arrangement as detailed in last week*s
~eporto we encountered two complicating problems. One involved
the timing of the development schedule of a portion of the Kimball
project and'the other concerned close estimates of excavation costs.
The two were interrelated in that if the time that we might have
occupancy of this area under a lease arrangement is going to be
limited on the basis of timing of the ultimate development of a
portion of the project area then the extent to which costs
should be incurred in excavation and grading should be correspond-
ingly limited.
I have asked the City Attorney to prepare a revised ordinance
that would authorize our entering into a lease with the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Autl~rity. This ordinance, as will be
a part of this Agenda, contains a description of the change in
areas that would be proposed to be used. As this is mritten we
do not have completed either the monthly lease cost or the cost
of grading. I hope to have this for you by the time of your
consideration at your meeting. It is hoped that this might be
satisfactory to enable you to authorize us to proceed because of
the time situation.
Me are going ahead with the lighting as noted in the March 1
report to you, with some relocation of lighting fixtures commen-
surate with the change in the areas for parking. A rough estimate
of off-street parking spaces that this would provide is 220.
There mill be some on-street purhing' in the immediate area that
will up the figure of a~ailability..
Generally the area proposed is the block between Rutherford
and Halker Avenues and Fifth and Sixth Streets with partial use
within the block because of a high embankment on the north side.
The second area fronts about 220 feet on Rutherford Avenue and
Harrison Avenue and is approximately in the center of the block
bound by Rutherford Avenue, Hilliamson Road, Harrison and Fifth
Streets, N.
Approval by City Council is recommended.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland voiced the opinion that he
does not think it is good business practice to invest mo~ey in this property when
we do not know how long the city will be able to qtilime the land.
Dr, Taylor expressed the opinion that the city should have some guarantee
before it leases the property as to how long it can be used for this purpose.
After n discussion or the mutter. Mr. Wheeler noted thut action on the
report or the City Mnnsger be deferred one ueeh nnd that the matter be referred
bach to the City Manager for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there are
nay propcrties on the west side of Interstate Route ~Gl mhich could be utilized
for pithing purposes at the Roanohe Civic Cente~. The mot i~ was seconded by DF.
Taylor end unonimously adopted.
At lhls point, Mayor Webber welcomed a government class of approximately
20 students from Lucy Addison High School.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting certain points with regard to the Roanoke Civic Center:
*Roanoke, Virginia
March 6, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This is perhaps the time to make certain points with regard
to the hem Civic Center. The City Council is aware of these bat,
mith opening a short time off, they should be noted for the infor-
mation, guidance and understanding of Roanoke citizens and the
public generally.
The Civic Center is a momentous achievement for a city the
size of Roanoke. Despite inevitable problems that mill occur,
there should be no apologies for its accomplishment. It is
well over three years in actual construction. From commencement
of active promotion of the successful bond issue in 1966, five
years will have elapsed at the time of opening. Its cost, includ-
ing land and furnishings, mill total approximately $14 million.
Of this $? million mas provided by a bond issue and the remainder,
City Councils have provided through the annual budgets of the City
There is no single facility of its size or type not only in
Virginia butln this part of the country. Its operational proces-
ses, particularly as to its mechanical end electrical eq~i@nent,
will be complex and highly sophisticated. It will require the
development of skills and work procedures not heretofore developed
in the community. Especially there will necessitate the gradual
adaptability of the people of the City and the valley to availabil-
ity of the Center and to becoming familiar with its use end proced-
ures of operations. The City government is having to become used
to such an operation as the Civic Center represents. It is e
significantly different type of governmental activity from the
straight line functions with which most of us are familiar.
Me know there are going to be problems associated with the
early days of use but time and experience will resolve most of them.
I am pleased with the staff that has been assembled and believe
that if anyone can move it, they can.
Several specific points should be noted.
We do not anticipate construction will be completed when the
Center is opened the 26th of this month. To aim for an opening
date for a facility of this nature, about three months lead time
is necessary for a number of reasons, not the least of which are
bookings of events. ! mon*t go into all of the factors considered,
when the March 25 date was selected last December. It was felt
best judgment at the time recognizing that the contractor had to
achieve highest maximum of productivity to neet it in comparison
with their past rate. The judgment then is still felt to have
been best.
If all goes well between now and the 25th the major areas
of the building should be usable. The incomplete aspects should
not seriously detract from the early weeks.
It is to be recalled that this is the fifth date that has
been projected for opening.
The patience nnd understanding of the'Council nnd the public
is lnvited~to uny deficiencies in completion ulth the hope that
finnlly getting in the building mill offset.
The absence of almost any time rot the staff to become fully
acclimated In the new buildings'as to actual prepnrntiou fur per-
formnnc~uill be difficult. The misdom of City Council in
permitting the bringing on of hey staff people one-tug-three years
ahead of this date to enable close association during constructim
now becomes apparent in merit.
Pnr~fng and traffic fiom will net be easy. It will take time
for people to get used to best routes to and from and in and out
or the Center. It will also take us tine to see how to best handle
traffic patterns,
As previously stated the Center property itself mill accom-
modate about 1700 vehicles. This is not sufficient. The positfm
taken in 1966 that this mas adequate Just wasn't accurate and has
been J:nomn so. Various reports have been made on this and several
major efforts made as to possible ways of benefiting the situation.
We are continuing to try with ideas ranging from bus routing to
land acquisition, At least one long range aid is beginning to evolve.
As is known, we have temporary and partial relief areas in current
recommendation.
It is knomn there will be difficulties in capacity parking.
The anticipation is not new. Again public understanding and
cooperation and our continued efforts and mosey will be needed.
The facility is not a profit making venture. It was not
conceived as such. Our effort will be to try to neet its
operational costs and that will take time.
Charges will apply to its use. $o far the reception of these
use fee schedules have been good. Me have an obligation to admin-
ister them equally and fairly to all who nay want to conduct pro-
grams, events and activities in the Center.
The extent of outside patrol and security has still not been
completely worked out. We quite possibly will have to return to
Council for assistance. ~e knom that the Police Department can
not provide manpower on duty and/or off duty for this continuous
Service.
These are consents at this point and are submitted for infor-
mation.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Hanager"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
Seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council having referred a request of the Roanoke City
School Roard that $59,00.00 be appropriated for the construction of a field house
for Jefferson Senior High School to the City Manager for study, report and recom-
mendation, the City Manager submitted the following report advisin9 that since the
field house was not included in the 1970-71 budget that the matter be considered
in the 1971-72 budget:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March H, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
The City Council referred to se for coosideratim as to our
association, the proposal of the Roanoke City public schools for
the construction of a field house to be used primarily for
Jefferson High School activitba in Highland Park My office and
the Department-of ~arks-a~d Recreation became involved in this'
when we were approached by representatives of the Superintendent
of Schools as to their Interest in constructing a field house and
their opinion that the moat practical and most available location
would be in Highland Park. After discussions and various considera-
tions, ue administratively concluded that we mould have no objections
to the location of this building.in Highland Park. At the
same time, our agreement was firmly conditioned to amd points.
The first point mas that to avoid the unnecessary duplication
of structures lo the park, that one room and associated area should
be included as a necessary facility room for the operation of the
park and playground and recreational activities. This would mean
that the present building, mbich has a great number of years behind
it and mhich is a problem in maintenance and use, would be torn
down. Re found that the elevations Of the ground were such that
such a recreation space could be fitted into the lower floor as a
separate unk within the building and would ideally suit the pur-
pose. Highland Park is experiencing increasing recreational
activities because of the major step up that has been made within
the last two years in athletic fields, tennis courts, et cetera.
The unit for the Department of Parks and Recreation mas not some-
thing hem but is a continuation of an existing facility area.
The second point is that the cost prepared by the City schools
were only for the building itself and did not include any related
needs. Re are of the opinion that certain improvements should be
included and are esseotial. These mould inclLde a sidewalk from
the roadmay up to the building and adequate lighting of this
walkway and improvement of the parking area. Also included ia
relighting of the roadway through the park and the immediate park
entrances. Mhereas this may not be directly related to this
building and its uae as a field house, we have proposed to be
included in the cost of improvements the lighting of the tennis
courts and the basketball court in Highland Park. From the
standpoint of · e City*s recreation program and the needs of
this area of the City. the availability of both of these facili-
ties for, night use is desirable.
In essence our administrative position ia that if the School
Board is proposing a Jefferson field house in Highland Park then it
is most important that these additional facilities and improvements
be matched up with it.
As to the need for the field house itself, the burden of
support would of course be developed by public schools. I would
only add the comment that the building now used by Jefferson at
Raher Field is a difficult problem to us. Me have calculated
various maintenance and improvement costs as to the interior of that
building but do not believe that the structure itself justifies
any major expenditure.
This field hour e is not included in the lgYO-?l budget of the
City and there thus are no funds provided. Therefore. me
cannot join in a recommendation that it be approved at this time
but only that it be considered with the City's total capital
program for 1971-72 consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report transmit-
ting a communication from Dr. Roy A. Alcorn, Superintendent of Schools, in connectiol
with the request for a field house in Highland Park, advising that the Roanoke City
School Board has set aside $15,000.00 from their present budget for the Jefferson
[.~ld House Project.
Rith reference to the matter a communication from Mr. Alan CalmeR,
President of the Highland Perk PTA, ~vising that the Highland Park PTA ~s in favor
of proposed improved lighting for Highland Park in addition to other improvements
being proposed for Highland Park such as the field house, etc., mas before the body.
Wrs. Freida G. ~ate. vepreselti,g the Jefferson Senior High $cbool
Booster Club. oppeared before the body ia support of the requost of the Boanoke
City School Board nod mrged that the money for the field house for Jeffersoo High
School be appropriated ia the 1970-71 budget of Council ia order for the building
to be completed by next fall and tbnt otber improvements to flighlaod Park be taken
Out of the 1971-72 budget of Council.
Mr. John R. Gray'bill. Principal. Jefferson Senior High School. appeared
before Council and advised that there in a great possibility that Jefferson High
School will mot have a football program next year since it is bis understanding the
Roonoke Hucknkius will be utilizing the facilities at Maher Field and pointed out
that Jefferson High School is ia dire need of this field house.
Mr. Thomas ~xpressed the opinion that it would be inconceivable for him
to think that Council would rent the facilities at Maber Field to anyone that would
Jeopardize the Roanoke City Schools from using them.
Hr. Thomas then moved that Council concur in the report of the City
Haoager and that the matter be referred to 1971-72 budget study. The motion Nas
seconded by Mr. Mheeler.
M~. Garland offered a substitute motion that the Roanoke City School
Board be directed to advertise for bids on the field house in Bighlaed Park and
that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparati~ of the proper
measure appropriating the necessary funds out of the 1970-71 budget and that other
improvements to Highland Park be deferred until the 1971-72 budget. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and lost by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk and Taylor 3.
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor Mebber
The original motion was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor Webber
NAYS: Messrs. Garland. Lisk and Taylor .3.
STREET NAMES: The City Man~ er submitted the following report in connec-
tion with the confusion of a street or road passing through the northeast portion
of the city and county which bears at different intervals the names of Plantation
Road. Hollins Road. Whiteside Street amd Patrick Henry Avenue. advising that the
Street or road runs into Roanoke County. that contacts with Roanoke County have
been unsuccessful as far as working out some mutual arrangement that will provide
continuity of name. that the county considers the situation a city problem and that
the only course of action thusfar is to come to Council with a recommendation of a
name which will stop at the city limits:
~Roanoke. Virginia
March 6. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council has had before it several times and from
several interested parties the matter of the confusion of the
street or road passing through the northeast portion of the City
and County which bears nt different Intervals the names or
Plantation Road, Hollins ioad, Nhiteside Street and Patrick Henry
Avenue. I wish to advise that the Planning Deportment and this
office ere continu!ng~to try to resolve this,
The street, of course, runs out Into Roiaoke County where the
Plantation Road name generally applies and mbere there is some
conflict of the overlay of flollins Road. Our contacts with Roanoke
County government have not been to. successful as far as working out
some mutual arrangement that would provide reasonable continuity
of name. The County does not want to consider changing any of
its stree~ or road names and thusfar tahing the position that this
is 'a City problem**
Our only course thusfar appears to proceed on the City only
basis possibly coming back to the Council with a recommendation
of a name which will stop at the City limits.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager"
Hr. Trout moved that the re,or( be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. LJsk and unanimously adopted.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-RUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitt~
written report in connection with the contract with John #. Daniel ~ Company.
,Incorporated, for the construction of the new Runicipal Building, recommending that
Council authorize the preparation of the necessary Ordinance to provide for a stipu-
lated revision by change order of time extension.
Mr. Link moved that (h~ncil concur in the recommendation of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution:
(~19§68) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of n Change Order to the
City's contract with John #. Daniel ~ Company, Inc., dated August 19o 1968. for the
construction of the Muni~al Duilding Annex so as to increase from 550 consecutive
calendar days to 6?2 calendar days the time agreed to be allowed under Article 2 of
said contract for construction of said building.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 199.)
Mr. Link moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebbe~ 7.
NAYS: None. O.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: The City Manager submitted the
following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of Derglund Chevrolet,
Incorporated. for twelve new automobiles, in the amount of $36.132.16. be accepted:
*March 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
After due and proper advertisement, bids were received in the
office of the Purchasing Agent and publicly opened and re~d before
the undersigned committee et lI:O0 u.m** March 3, 1971, for twelve
(]2) mew 1971 nodal police automobiles,
As may'be noted from the tabulation; Berglund Chevrolet, Incorporated
was lam bidder ut the total sun of $36;132.16, This bid it for the
supply of twelve new Chevrolet Hiscoyee automobiles, Model n15469,
end includes trade ellomance rot ten old police vehicles,
It is the recommendation,or the committee that the bid of Berglund
Chevrolet;~Incorporated be accepted mb]ch is mlthln the funds
recently appropriated by City Council. The vehicles will meet ell
requirements and specifications or the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. HJFst
Julian Fo Hirst
S/ Willia~ F, ~lark
William F. Clark
S/ D. H. Thompson
D. fl. Thompson"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the committee
and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~1956g) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City's purchase of twelve (12)
uaw automobiles for use of the City's Police Department. upon certain terms mud
conditions; rejecting other bids made to the City for the supply of said automobiles;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35. page 200.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption.of the Ordinanc~ The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ~-?.
NAYS: None .0.
POLICE DEpARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Elty Manager submitted the followil
report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire Department
as of January 31. 1971:
*Roanoke. Virginia
March 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Listed belom is the status of the Police and the Fire
Department as of January 31. 1971:
*Fire Department
Lieutenant Carl T. Vest - Retired
Gory M. Davidson - employed January 4, 1971.
David R. Rickman - employed Jonuary 11. 1971.
There are no vacancies in the Fire Department at this time.
Police Department
Mired Resioned
Officer J. F. Porterfleld February 1'6, 1963 Jsauury 26, 1971
Officer R. M, Thompson January 18, 1971
Ending January 31, 1971 (3) vacancies**
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor raised the question as to how many Negro firemen there are in
the Fire Oepartment and why more Negro firemen are not hired.
The City Manager replied that there are approximately six Negro firemen in
the Fire Department and that there are not a great deal of Negro applicants.
BUDGET-DEPARTMEMT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a monthly
statement of expenditures ~ r the Public Welfare Department for the month ended
February 26, 1971.
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be received and filed. The notion
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
an examination of the records of the Nasena Elementary School for the school year
ended June 30, 1970, advising that the records were in order and the Statement of
Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the period and the
financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ADOITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
an examination of the records of the Raleigh Court Elementary School for the
year ended June 30, 1970, advising that the records were in order and the Statement
of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the period and the
financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for stud
report and recommendation a request of Mr. Waddy C. Attin~ et mx.. that property
described as Lots I - 6. inclusive, Section 1, Map of Riverside Terrace, Official
Tax Nos. 4350501 - 4350506. inclusive, be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential Distri
to C-2. Deneral Commercial District. and that since the requested rezoning is less
than two acres of land that a 4.86 acre tract of land titled in the name of the
City of Roanoke Water Department. Official Tax No. 4350701 on the opposite side of
Mennington Street, S. E., be included in the area to satisfy the requirements of the
City Code, the City Planning Commission submittei the following report recommending
that the request for rezoning be denied:
'February 16, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor
end ~enbers of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of February 17. 1971.
Mr, F. Rodney Fitzpatrick, attorney for the petJtfoner, noted
that this property is located adjacent to the Jnmestown Public
Housing Project. and includes six lots totaling approximately .07
acres and u 4.09 acre parcel of City-owned park property.
Mr. Rodney Fitzpatrich stated that the petitioner purchased
the 0.7 acre. six-lot property in question in August 1969, when
the abutting property, the Jamestown Housing Project, uaw zoned
for banff manufacturing. ~e noted that If the zoning bad not been
changed to RG-I, but remained under the original LM zoning designa-
tion. the petitioner mould have been able to petitlon for a rezonin9
without having to ~et the 2-acre minimum requirements for a commercial
rezoning designation (extens~n of a light manufacturing zone which
permits C-2 uses). Consequently, the petitioner is including the
City-owned park of 4.98 acres to meet his 2-acre minimum requirement
as spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that the Bennington strip is suitable
for connercial development, and that this has to some extent
already tahen place.
Mr. Laurence, Commission Member, questioned Mr. Fitzpatrick
concerning the general charactero£ the area; and quest~aed the
adequacy of the other existing commercial establishment located in
clue proximity to this petitioned area.
Mr. Boynton. Commission Member, noted that the area has
available large parcels of land specifically designated (zoned)
for commercial uses.
Mr. Wentworth. CommiSsion Member, expressed the concern with
the flooding problem existing within this area.
The Reverend Calvin Fulton, Vice President of the Roanoke Civic
League. disapproved of the rezontng petition stating that the store
would be *hangout* for juvenile delinquents. He then submitted a
petition signed by 10 local residents who disapproved of this
rezonlng petition.
Mr. Charles Heckle. President of the Riverdale Civic League
questioned the legality o£ the rezoniog petition and noted the
importance of maintaining the park-like character of the City land
for recreational uses. He opposed any such zoning within the area,
and noted that the local residents had Spent much time clem Jag up
this river property.
The Planning 8i~or noted that the Riverdale area is essentially
n stable residential area, containing owner occupied, single family
homes. He noted that the area has experienced some residential
growth within the past lO years (26 new single family homes, 2
two-family dwellings, and the 150 unit Jamestown Public Housing
Project). In addition, the Planning Director stated that the
completion of the proposed Route 116 and 115 Extension would further
enhance the general character of the area ned that with the future
gromth of the Riverdale area would come a demand for more neighborhood
commercial developments (grocery Store barber shop. drug store,
restaurant and other similar uses).
The Planning Director noted that there were three large
undeveloped parcels, ranging from four to seven acres, suitable
for this specific use located in close proximity to the intersection
of the proposed Route 116 and 115 and Riverlnnd Hood.
The Planning Director stated that the BennJngton area should
remain aa essentially residential area, devoid of spot commercial
zones, and that commercial development should be funneled to these
three specifically noted large parcels (one zoned for C-2. the
other two for LM. which also permits C-2 uses).
The Planning Director noted thet cluster commercial developne~
Is more desirable thnn strip commercial development, since compact
Bud centered commercial development concentrates traffic un3 itu
concomitants in · specific locution while strip commercial in effect
disperses the traffic throughout the residential connunity creating
u serious traffic situation.
Finally, the Planning Director noted that the park-strip should
not be rezoned to u commercial designation, that parks ere tradition-
ally zoned for residential uses; and that the park site itself is
not suitable for commercial uses considering its narrowness, and
steep slopes.
Accordingly, notion mas made, duly seconded recommending to
City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely.
S/ John H. Parrott by L. R.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
In this connection, a communication from Mr, F. Rodney Fitzpatrick. Attor-
ney, representing the petitioners, requesting permission to withdraw the request
for rezoning, was also before Council.
Mr. Rheeler moved that Council concur in the request and that permission
be granted for the withdrawal of the request for rezoning. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 19550. permanently vacating, discon-
tinuing and closing all of that certain portion of Gilmer Avenue. N. E.. extending
from the east right of may of Interstate Route 581 to the westerly edge of a cul-de-
sac on Gilmer Avenue, N. E., the title to which said street shall revert to the abut-
ting owners, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
lald over, was again before the body. Dr. Taylor offering t~ following for its
second readin9 and final adoption:
(nlg550) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing all
of that certain portion of Gilmer Avenue, N. E., extending from the east right-of-wal
line of Interstate Route Number SOl to the westerly edge of a cul-de-sac on Gilmer
Avenue, N. E., the title to which said street shall revert to the abutting owners;
and authorizing payment of viewers in ~onnection with said street closing.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page lg3.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Rubber- --
NAYS: None -O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
UEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: Mrs, Carolyn Crowder, Chairman of the South-
east Welfare Rights Organization, and Mrs. Lucille Marsh, Acting Chairman of the
Northwest Welfare Rights Organization, appeared before Council and advised that it
is the position of the Roanoke Welfare Rights Organization that n survey should be
taken concerning the food progrnms of the City of Roanoke and transmitting five
guidelines to be followed in connection lath the matter.
After u discussion of the request, Mr, Trout moved that the latter be
referred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Llsh and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned,
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clezh Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday,' March '1~, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regu'lar meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday. March 15, 1971,' at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting bohr, mith Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A~ Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber
ABSENT: None, O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Blrst, City 'Manager, Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager, Mr. H. Ben Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney. and Mr.
J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend Ned M.
Crumpacker, Pastor, Ninth Street Church of the Brethren.'
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
BRIDGES-CAPITAL IMPROVERENTS PROGRAM: Pursuant to notice of advertisemenl
for bids on the construction of the bridge over Roanoke River and approaches -
Bridge Street (Hormich Bridge), said proposals to be received by the City Clerk
until 2 p.m** Monday, March IS, 1971, and to he opened at that hour before Council,
Mayor Hobber asked if anyone present had amy questions about the advertisement
and no representative present raising any question, the Mayor instructed the
Deputy City Clerk to proceed mith the opening of the bids; whereupon, the Deputy
City Clerk opened and read the folloming bids:
Name Total Bid
Riley H. Jackson Company
J. M. Turner and Company. Inc.
Pendleton Construction Corporation
Vecellio ~ Associates, Inc.
Allegheny Construction Co** Inc.
Total Bid
Plus Alt. A. Plus Alt. B.
$238,625.20 $249.025.20
239.372.60 243.372.60
247,454.25 252,454.25
264,220.90 269,220.90
309,279.10 314,279.10
321,562.00 326.562.00
Mr. Lisk moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appointed
by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council. the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure, or measures in accordance with the recommendation
of the committee. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber appointed'Messrs. Byron E. Haner, Chairman. William F. Clark,
Samuel H. McGhee, III. and Cecil U. Moore. Jr** as members of the committee.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: Mrs. Norma Harrison, representing Women
United, appeared before Council and read a prepared statement supporting the Welfare
Rights Organization and requesting that the Welfare Rights Organization be allowed
to survey welfare recipients in an attempt to ascertain whether or not they prefer
to receive commodity foods or food steeps, that this be done when the Welfare Rights
Organization thinks it should be done by methods devised by the members, that two
food distribution centers be maintained, one in southeast and one in northwest, that
they be sufficiently stocked with quality foods, that the staff have the demeanor
of the personnel in our local grocery stores, that people he served quickly and not
be kept waiting and that more humane means of distributing foods especially for
those physically diiabled be sought.
In this connection, Bro Ronald R. Hurt. representing the Kuaeka Center for
Black Education. appeared before Council and read a prepared statement advising
that the Eaamka Center is concerned about t~ mental capacities of the urban poor
and that the Kuamka Center fully endorses the Relfare Rights stand for totally
humane treatment for the people standing on the surplus food lines and pointing
out that more and better quality meats mould improve the nutritional value of
surplus foods.
Mith further reference to the matter. Mrs. Lucille Rarsh, Chairman of
the Northwest Welfare Rights Organization. and Mrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman
for the Welfare Rights Organiz~ion, appeared before Council reiterating their request
for another food distribution center to be located in northwest Roanoke in addition
to the center already established in southeast end that a survey be taken to deter-
mine whether or not welfare recipients prefer food stamps over surplus foods.
After a discussion of t~ matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the statements
be referred to the City Manager for his infatuation in connection with his study
of the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: Council having referred to the City Manager end the
Commissioner of Health for study, report a~d recommendation a request of Mr. Robert
G. Jones (Bob J.) that $100.00 be appropriated by Council to be used toward the goal
of a Detoxification and Methadone Clinic. Mr. Jones appeared before the body and
presented a communication reiterating his previous request.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be r~ceived and filed. The m~ti~n
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
MATER DEPARTMENT: A communication from Colonel Paul S. DenJsnn. Department
of the Army. Wilmington District. Corps of Engineers. announcing a public meeting
on flood control and other purposes - Roanoke River, Upper Basin. V~rgJnio, to be
held at 7:30 p.m.. on March 29. 1971, at the National Guard Armory, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
LEGISLATION-TAXES: A communication from Delegate Ray L. Garland, advising
that the ~irgtnia General Assembly was able to secure passage at the recent session
of the General Assembly of N. B. 177 which will allow Council greater flexibility
in establishing the dates for payment of taxes and will permit the city to get away
from the existing difficulty with the collection of the tax on tangible personal
property. ~as before Council.
Mr. Llsk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
S~BEETS AND ALLEYS: An application from Nr. Allen N. Staples. Attorney,
representing Watts ~ Breakell. Incorporated, requesting that 24th Street, S.
extending from Patterson Avenue to the right of way line of the Norfolk and Western
Railway Company and Bridge Street. S. N., be vacated, discontinued and closed,
before Council.
Mr. Tro~ moved that the application be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then offered the following Resolution providing for the appoint-
neat of viewers in connection with the application for vacating, discontinuing and
closing the street:
(a19570) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five persons, any
three of whom may act, as viewers in connection with the application of Watts
Breakell, Inc., to permanently vacate, discontinue and close 24th Street, S.
extending from Patterson Avenue to the right of way line of the Norfolk ~ ~estern
Railway Company and Bridge Street. S. N., in the City of Roanoke, between Section
50 and Section 57 of the ~est End and Riverview Map, as shown on Sheet No. 131 of
the Zax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35, page 201.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Nebher 7.
NAYS: None O.
ZONING: A communication from gr. C. Richard Cranwell, Attorney,
representing Mr. S. Wallace Cundiff, et ox** and Mr. W. F. Silver, et ox., reqoestin!
that a 1.465 acre tract of land located at 2101 Dale Avenue. S. E.. described as
Lots 5. b. ? and 8, Block 3, Map of Parkview, Official Tax Nos. 4310905, 4310906,
4310907 and 4310909, be reaoned from RB-I. General Residential District. to
General Commercial District, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimous~ adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Hr. R, B, Naif, requesting that property
located on Brambleton Avenue, S. #,, nest of Nontgome~y Avenue, des.cribed ns Lots
17, 18 and 19. nloch20, Nap of Perk Square, official Tax Nos. 1561137, 1561136 and
1561139. be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex
Residential District, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezonlng be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
DUDGET-PARKS AND pLAyGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: The City Manager
submitted a written report recommending that $395.00 be appropriated to Operating
Supplies and Materials under Section #?5, *Recreation, Parks and Recreational Areas**
of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the purchase of championship trophies
to be awarded to city basketball league teams participating in a program under the
direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(cig571) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~75, *Recreation.
Parks and Recreational Areas.* of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinauce~ and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dock No. 35, page 202,)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ..................
NAYS: None ............... O.
STATE HIGHRAYS: The City Manager submitted the following report trans-
iagreement for the construction by the Virginia Department of Highways of Orange
Avenue. between Interstate Route 581 and 12th Street and recommending the adoption
"Roanoke, ¥irginia .
March 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Forwarded with your Agenda is au instrument which would author-
ize the execution of a City--State agreement for the construction
by the Virginia Department of Highways of Orange Avenue, betmeen
Interstate Route 561 and 12th Street. The cost breakdown within
the agreement is into three ~ategories: (1) highway construction,
(2) sanitary taxer construction and (3) water main construction.
¸47
Of the total $1,293,496, which is shown as the Clty*s share of
the total construction project, including the highway sanitary
semer and water main, $1,O52,370 is the actual estimated CiW*s
share of highway construction,
The City will bear the fuji cost of the sanitary sewer inter-
cepter worh which Js estimated at $24i,i18. The City will also
bear the full cost of the water main construction mich is estimated
at $40,036, which funds are set up in the Water Departnent*s
account for replacement and reserve.
The bids on this project including each categoryo highmay con-
stvuctJon, sanitary seMeF construction and mater main construction,
are considered very favorable and are within funds available and
appropriated by City Council from the 1967 bond referenduu and
supplemental allocations. All of the estimated costs, in the
State's listings, have been increased by ten percent over and
above the actual bids received and this should allow for minor
variances in actual quantities.
It is recommended that authorization be expended for the execu-
tion of these agreements.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. List moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=19572) AN ORDINANCE concurring in the nmard of a contract by the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Highways for the improvement of a portion
of Route 460 (Orange Avenue), in the City; providing for the execution of an
agreement with the Virginia Department of Nighways relative to the maintenance of
Highway Project 0460-128-102, PE-I02, RM-202, C-502, 8-601, B-605, Federal Project
U-UG-12B-I(II). and signifying the City's intent to participate in the payment of a
certain portion of the costs of said project; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 203.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor. Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Webber ................ 7.
NAYS: None ..... O.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: fha City Manager submitted a written report transmit-
ting copy of a communication written to him from Mrs. Miles E. Hench. President of
the Old Dominion Symphony Coancil, concerning police commendation.
Mr. List moved the report and communication be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and ananimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of the annual report of the Superintendent of the Social Service
Bureau of the Department o~ Public Welfare for the year 1970.
Mr. Trout moved that the reports be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. List and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-PLA~NIRG: Tim City Manager submitted u written report transmitting
copy of the Forecast Budget for the fiscal year 1971-72 as forwarded by the Fifth
Planning Olstrlct Commission. noting that this budget is based on an Increase in the
per capita r~te for the member local governments from $.15 to $.2o which would
increase the share of the City of Roanoke~f~om $13,817.25 to $18.423.00.
B~,Mheeler moved that the report be referred to 1971o72 budget study.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER-COBNCIL~PDRCffASING AGENT: Council having adopted a Resoluti(
appointing a committee for the purpose of publicly receiving and opening certain bidsj
made to the City for public purchases and concessions, the City Manager submitted
the follomJng report requesting that the committee previously established be revised
due to subsequent changes in personnel occupying department head positions within
the city government:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City CocnciI
Roanoke, Virginia
By Resolution No. 16510 of January 6, 1969, the City Council
established a committee for the purpose o£ publicly receiviog and
opening certain bids made to the City for public purchases and
concessions and concurred in the Mayov*s appointment of the follom-
lng persons to that committee: Julian F. Nirst, City Banager;
Byroe Es Hamer, Assistant City Manager; Bueford B. Thompson,
Purchasing Agent; N. Cletus Rroyles, Director of Public Marks;
Mllliam F. Clark, City Engineer and Rex T. Mitchell, Jr**
Director Of Parks and Recreation.
Due to subsequent changes in personnel~cupying department head
positions within the City 9overnmen~, it is recommended that the
Mayor consider and that tho City Council concur that appointments
to this committee be revised in accordance with the following:
Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Byron E. Hanero Assistant City Man-
ager; Buefovd B. Thompson, Purchasing Agent; ~illiam F. Clark.
Director of Public ~ovks; Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.. Director of Parks
and Recreation; SamH. McGhee. III, City Engineer and Kit B. Riser,
Respectfully submitted,
$! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and that the ~atter be. ref~rred*to the City Attorney for preparation of th~ proper
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the follow-
ing report on the status ofpersonnel Jn the Police Department and the Fire Depart-
ment as of February 28, 1971:
*Roanoke, Virginia
March 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Listed belom is the status of the Police and the Fire Department
as of February 28. 1971:
There mere no changes in the status of Personnel in the Fire Depart-
ment for the month of February 1971.
There ere no vacancies at this time.
Police Department
Officer Cramford E. Gray
officer Terry M. Cundiff
Officer Nell Milliam Tolrud
Hired Reslaned
February 1, 1971 -
May 1, 19~0 February 23. 1971
February 23, If71
Ending February 2fl, 1971 (3) vacancies plus the (33) additional offi-
cers approved February 8, 1971.°
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDOET-CITY ATTORNEY: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a mritten
report of the City Attorney requesting that $500.00 be appropriated to Trnvei Expend
and that $500.00 be appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies under Section u4.
"Attorney," of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal
year.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the requests of the City Attorney
and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~19573) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n4. "Attorney," of
the lg70-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 205.)
Mr. Trout m~o'ved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ?.
NAYS: None ..............O.
SPECIAL PERMITS: Council having referred to the City Attorney for
consideration and recommendation a request of Mr. and Mrs. James C. Trail that they
be permitted to keep five veterans as tenants in their home at 3815 Old Stevens
Road. N. M.. the Assistant CitI Attorney submitted the following report transmitting
three methods of handling ia connection mith the matter:
"March 15. 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, ¥irgiuia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of March 8, 1971, a communication uss received
from Hr. and Hrs. James C. Trail requesting thee they be permitted
to have 5 veterans us tenants in their howe at 3815 Old Stevens
Rand, H. W., in the City of Roan*he. The mutter mas referred to
this office for consideration and recommendation.
The property is located in an R$-2 zone. This is a single-family
residential district. However, under Section 79.1, subparagraph
(13) of Chapter 4.1 of Title XV. the word 'family' is defined *to
mean one or mere persons occupying a single dwelling unit and
living and coohing together as a single housekeeping unit, but the
word shall not be construed to include more thou four perm*as
unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption'. According to Department
of Building personnel this definiation has been construed to mean
that in n DS-2 district a single dwelling unit Is allowed to have
3 boarders.
At the present tine end for approximately the last year the Trails
hare had 3 boarders. As seen above this is permissible under the
City Code.
Under the City Code as now written neither the Zoning Administration,
the Zoning Hoard of Appeals, nOF the Council has the authority to
grant this request.
In order for the Trails to have S boarders, one of the following
methods must be utilized:
(1) Amending subparagraph (13) of Sec. 79.1 of Chapter 4.1 of
Title XV by changing the *four persons unrelated' to 'six'.
(2) Amending the sane subparagraph by creating a 'boarders'
provision similar to the one already in the subparagraph relating
to RS-I districts. The addition mould define 'family' and add that
'except that in RS-2 Single-family Residential Oistricts not more den
fire (5) persons unrelated to the others may be permitted, as a
special exception to be granted by the Hoard of Zoning Appeals. to
occupy the dwelling unit as boarders or roomers mith such others,
after application made to said Hoard for such special exception
and public hearing held before said Hoard.'
(3) Rezooing of the property to a district in mhich a boarding
house would be a permitted use. However, such a rezoning would of
necessity have to include other properties So as not to constitute
*spot zoning* which is unlawful.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Robert P. Geary
Robert P. Geary
Assistant City Attorney"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. Yhe motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS-STREETS AND ALt~EyS-SALE OF PROPERTy: Council
having referred to the City Attorney for study, report mud recommendation a communi-
cation from Mr. T. L. Plunhett, Jr** Attorney, representing Mr. George A. Blanken-
Ship, et ux., requesting that the City of Roanoke proceed to develop its tract of
land located on the westerly side of Brookside Lane, S. E., for street purposes
in order that the tract of land owned by his clients and designated as Official Tax
No. 4450105 can be served by a sanitary sewer line in 8rookside Lane; otherwise,
to release the sewer assessment against the property Of his client, the Assistant
City Attorney submitted the following report proposing that an exchange of proper-
ties between the City of Roanoke and the abutting landowners would be most beneficia
to all concerned and would eliminate any objections to the sewer assessment:
'March 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
HI instrument dated March 20, 1968, the Commoameulth of Virginia
granted to the City of Roanoke an irregular shaped parcel of land
located on the west line of BrooksJde Lane, S. E., which parcel
of land bad theretofore escheated to the Commonwealth of Virginia,
the consideration for the granting of said parcel of land. which is
a part of Lot 1. Rosewood Park Addition, being $100.00. On August
12, 1968, the Council adopted its Resolution No. 18274, which
resolution fixed and approved certain amounts to be finally assessed
against the abutting property owners to be served by a sewer on
Brookslde Lane, $. E. and Woodland Road, S. E.
In April of 1969, Mr. T. L. Plunkett. Jr., representing the owners
of a certain 10.75 acre tract of land, bearing Official No. 445010b,
which landowners bad been assessed their proportionate share for
the construction of the sewer line on BrooksJde Lane, requested
that the Council either dedicate the abovedescrlbed lrregularsbaped
parcel of laud.which was situated between the west line of Brookside
Lane and the east line of Mr. Plunkett*s clients* property, for
public street purposes or take the necessary action to have released
the liens for the sewer assessments against his said clients and
their property.
The matter was referred to the City Attorney. who. after having
the benefit of necessary engineering studies, proposed to Mr.
Plunkett that an exchange of properties between the City and the
abutting landowners would be most beneficial to all concerned
and would eliminate Mr. Plunkett's clients' objections to the
By letter dated June 5, 1969, the City Planning Commission concurred
in this proposal and recommended the exchange of the property in
order to effect a sufficient and adequate right-of-way for Brookside
In the interim a final plat of survey has been prepared by the City
Engineer and, although ownership of the 10.75 acre tract has
changed, the undersigned is advised by Mr. Plunkett that he repre-
sents the present owners of the property and wishes to effect the
shown on a copy of Plan No. 5172, prepared in the Office of the
City Engineer under date of February 24, 1971, a copy of which
plan is forwarded with this letter for Council's information.
the nominal consideration of $1.00.
Respectfully submitted,
S! H. Ben Jones. Jr.
H. Ben Jones. Jr.
Assistant City Attorney"
City Attorney and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(u19574) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the acquisition of certai~
land needed by the City for the future widening and improvement of Brookside Lane.
WHEREAS, the strip or parcel of land hereinafter described is wanted and
needed by the City in fee simple and in easement for use in the future midening and
improvement of Hrookside Lane, $. E.; and the owner of said land has offered to make
the s~me available to the City upon the terms and conditions hereinafter
set out.
THEREFORE. DE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Rea noke that
the proper city Officials be and are hereby authorized to acquire, for and on
behalf of the City, from J. Fo at.Clair and Sons, Inc., present emmet thereof, the
fee simple unencumbered title to that certain parcel ofland containing 488 square
feet and being situate adjacent to the masterly line of Brookaide Lane, S.
designated as Parcel 001 on Plan No. 5172, prepared in the office of the City
Engineer, entitled *Plat shoming land to be exchanged between the City of Roanoke,
Virginia and J. F, St,Clair and Sons, Inc..** dated February 24, 1971, mhich plan is
incorporated herein by reference thereto, together with a temporary construction
easement in an adjoining IHO0 square feet as shomn on the aforesaid plan; all of
said property being an easterly portion of Official No. 4450105 on the City*s Tax
Appraisal Map; the consideration for the conveyance to the City of sach land and
easement in land being the sum of one dollar ($1o00), plus the City*s conveyance
to J. Fo St.Clair Red Sons, lnc** of that certain adjacent parcel of hud containing
1.4HO square feet, such adjacent parcel of land being designated as Parcel 002
on the aforesaid Plan No. 5172, such parcel no longer being needed for any public
purpose; and upon delivery to the City of a good and sufficient deed of conveyance
to all of the aforesaid, approved as to form by the City Attorney, the Mayor and
City Clerk shall be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute, and to seal
and attest, respectively, on behalf of the City of Roanoke, a deed of conveyance
of the fee nimple title to tbatparcel of land owned by the City of Roanoke
designated aS Parcel 002 on afnresaid Plan No. 5172, Such deed to be upon form pre-
pared and approved by the City Attorney, said deed to contain the City*s Special
Warranty of title.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limb, Taylor, Thomas,?rout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebbe~ 7.
NAYS: None Oo
LICENSES-TAXES~AUDITORIUMoCOLISEUM: The Assistant City Attorney submit-
ted the following report of the Gity Attorney transmitting an*Ordinance which would
exempt from license taxes certain amusement and business activities to be conducted
from time to time at the Roanoke Civic Center:
"March IS, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Understanding that the Council,in considering the most recent
amendments to the City*s License Tax Code, was of opinion that
certain amusement and business activities to be conducted from
'53
time to time at the new Roanoke CIvic Center should not be subject
to the license tax otherwise provided by the License Tax Code since
in nil such instances the same would be conducted under permit
from the City requiring of the peraittee stipulated rental fees
and/or specified percentages of gross receipts derived from such
activities, t~s office has prepared and transmits to the Council
u form of ordinance by which, through amendment of Sec. 4 of the
License Tax Code, exemption would be made in such cases. The
proposed new provision has the recommendation of the City Rauager
through the Civic Center Director.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ N. Ben Jones, Jr.
for J. N. Kincanon#
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z19575) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 4. Liability for
license of Chapter 8, License Tax Cod~, of Title Fl. Taxation, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, in certain particulars, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 206.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
CITY PROPERTY-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The Assistant City Attorney submitted
the following r~port of the City Attorney transmitting an Ordinance which would
establish certain minimal regulations for the use of Municipal Parking Lots and
for the paved area which is employed for the exclusive use of Police Department
vehicles:
*March 15. 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Since the City's acquisition of vacant property on the west
side of Srd Street* $. W.. opposite the new Municipal Building
and since development of the area east oft he new building and
west of'2nd Street, S. W.. each of which areas is now used for
vehicular parking, there has been evidenced the need for official
regulation of the use of both areas.
After consultation with other appropriate departments of the City,
this office has prepared and there is transmitted herewith to the
Council for its consideration an ordinance which, by amendment to
the City Code and. specifically, Title VIII therein, relating to
Public Buildings and Property. would establish certain minimal
regulations for the use of each said area and, also, the older
paved area long employed for the exclusive use of Police Department
vehicles.
The Council's affirmative action on the enclosed ordinance is
recommended.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Nincanon'
Nr. Link moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney and offered the follouing emergency Ordinance:
(u19576), AN.ORDINANCE amending Title VIII. Public Buildleos and Ptooertv
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, ns amended, by addition of a new chapter
thereto. Go be numbered Chapter 10. Runiclual Parhino Lots, establishing municipal
parking lots and controlling and regulating the use thereof; providing penalties
for violations of the provisions of this ordinance nad of regulations established
hereunder: and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 207.)
Mr. Link moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor. Thomas, Tm ut. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................... 7.
NAYS: None .... O.
BUDGET-PENSIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT~ Council having referred
to the City Auditor for study, report and recommendation a communication from Vice
Mayor James O. Trout. recommending that Council grant former city employees now
covered by the Police and Fire Pension System and the Employee~ Retirement System
a twenty per cent across-the-board pay increase, effective January 1. 1971, and that
Council consider, at its budget session, the establishment of a cost of living
escalation clause for retired employees, the City Auditor Submitted the following
report advising that at n meeting held on February 19. 1971, George B. Buck,
Consulting Actuaries. presented a proposal that supplemental pensions be paid to all
persons retired under the Employees* Retirement System prior to February 1, 1970, in
the amount equal to 2% of the basic retirement benefit being paid to such persons.
multiplied by the number of years elapsed since the benefit become payable, up to a
maximum of ten such years and to all persons on the Police and Fire Pension list by
20%, such supplemental pensions to be effective uith the March. 1971. payments
and pointing out that it is the opinion of all coecerned that the proposal ns sub-
mltted by the Actuary should be adopted:
"March 11. 1971
The Honorable Council of the
City of Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of December 14, 1970, you referred to the under-
signed a proposal by Vice Mayor James Oo Trout, that the pensions
of former City employees be increased to offset th.e erosion of
their retirement benefit ns a result 'of inflationary pressures.
with the direction that I confer with George B. Buck, Consulting
Actuaries, The Board of Trustees of The Employees* Retirement
System and The Police ~ Fire Pension Committee amd make recom-
mendations thereon to the Council. After considerable st udy of the
question and consideration of available data on the subject, a
joint meeting of both retirement system boards amd the Actuary
mas held on February 19, 1971. At this time the Actuary presented
¸-55
n proposal (a copy of which ia attached hereto) that supplementul
pensions be paid to all persons retired under The Employees*
Retirement System prior to February 1, 1970 in the auount equal
to 2~ of the basic retirement benefit being paid to such persons.
multiplied by nuBber of years elapsed since the benefit became
payable, up to a maximum of ten such yeurs and to ell persons on
The Police und Fire Pension list by 20~. Such supplemental
pensions to be effective with the March. 1971 payments.
The additional cost to The Police and Fire Pension System uill
be approximately $41.000.00 per annam end mould require an
appropriation for the remainder of the year in the amount of
$13.662.64. The additional cost ~ The Employees* Retirement
System is estimated to cost approximately $31,000.00 a year.
However, no immediate appropriation would be required since this
would be included in the rate of the system after its next
actuarial evaluation.
It Is the considered opinion of all concerned in this study
that the proposals submitted by our Actuary should be adopted and
there are attached hereto ordinances amending The Police and Fire
Fension System and The Employees' Retirement System and appropri-
ating funds for The Police and Fire Pension System requirements
for the remainder of the fiscal year.
It is further recommended that members of The Police and Fire
Pension who have transferred to The Employees* Retirement System
as new members after 25 years of service and eligible for retirement
under The Police and Fire Pension System. be permitted to buy any
portion of their service time between 25 years of service and the
time they become members in The Employees* Retirement System. An
ordinance providing for this change is being prepared and will be
submitted to you mhen completed by the City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas,
City Auditor"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Auditor and offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Section ?, Benefits.
Chapter 1, General Provisions, Title III, Pensions and Retirements, of The Code
Of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended:
(#19577) AN ORDINANCE amending Sec. 7. Benefits, of Chapter 1. General
Provisions, Title III. Pensions and Retirement, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1q56, as amended, by the addition of a new subsection, to be numbered (21)
and to consist of sub-subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), providing for certain
supplemental benefits to certain persons receiving benefits under said chapter;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limb, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber '7.
NAYS: None ,0.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordain-
in9 Section 5, Amount of pensions, Section 6, Widoms, Chapter 2, Police and Fire
Pensions Prior to January 1, 1946, Title III. Pensions and Retirements. of The Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended:
(zig570) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordeining Sec. 5. Amount of pensions
end Sec~ 6. Mldows, of Chapter 2. Police and Fire Pensions Prior to January 1. 1946.
Title III. Pensions and Retirement, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 19S6, us
amended; increasing certain benefits payable in accordance with said chapter; end
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 210.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Ur. Link and adopted b7 the following vote:
AYES: Xessrs. Garland. Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Rayor
Webber- ..................... 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
Rr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$13,b82.84 to Police and Fire Pensions under Section mia, ~Retirements," of the
1970-71 budget:
(u19579) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section mia, "Retirements."
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 211.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Wt. Thomas and adopted bT the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None, O.
BUDGET: The City Auditor submitted the following report transmitting an
estimate of revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, which is based upon
presently known factors and which will require revision later in the present year
after more data is available:
"March 10, 1971
The Honorable Council of the
City of Roanoke, ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution No. 17650, adopted by
the Council of the City 9f Roanoke on the 24th day of July. 1967, I
am forwarding herewith an estimate of revenue for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, which is based upon presently known factors
and which will require revision later in the present year after more
data are available.
*General Property Taxes $10,391,000.00 $10.085.00~00
Other Local Taxes 6,104,000.00
License. Permit ~ Privilege Fees 4.058,100o00 3,568.000.00
Fines and Forfeitures 27g,000.00 lO0,O00.O0
Revenue from Use of Money ~ Property 1,166,500.00 1,289,800.00
Grants-in-Aid From the Commonwealth ~. II,gO0,172.00 14,41g,400.00
Service Charges for Current Services 626,137.56 624.500.00
Grants-in-Aid From the Federal Government 816,000.00 6T4.600.00
Sale of Services, Commodities ~ Properties gafl,O00.O0 1,108,800.00
Miscellaneous Revenues ~34,095.00 211.700.00
Total $36o513,004.55 $36,g63,800.00
This estimate does not include funds for special pro~ects wholly
supported by Federal and State funds on a non-recurring basis**
For comparison purposes, all items of revenue which are offset by
appropriations have been eliminated from the entire statement.
57
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas,
City Auditor'
Mr, Thomas moved that the report be refetred to 1971-72 budget study~ The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted~
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report Uf the City of
Roanoke forthe month of February. 1971.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Nr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a mritten reporttransmitting
examination of the records of the Virginia Heights Elementary School for the
school year ended June 30. 1970. advising that the records were in order and the
Statement of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the
period and the financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr. Trout moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
on examination Of the records of the Grandam Court Elementary School for the
school year ended June 30, 1970. advising that the records were in order and the
Statement of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the
period and the financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr~ Trout moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SCHOOLS: Council having referred to the Transportation Committee for
study, report and recommendation a request of the Roanoke City School Board that
$375,000.00 be appropriated for the purchase of fifty school buses, Mr. Robert A.
Garland, Chairman Of the Transportation Committee, submitted an interim report
requesting that the matter be deferred until March 22, 1971, in the'hopes that un
agreement can be reached by that date.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Transportation
Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Council having referred
to a committee for tabulation, report and recommendation the bids received on instal
ling a municipal electronic communications control center and related base station
radio and monitoring equipment, the committee submitted the following report
recommending that the proposal of Motorola Communications and Electronics. Incor-
*orated, Jn the amount of $144,200.00. be accepted:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, February 22, 1971, bids were received and opened
before City Council for the provision and installation of the
Communications Control Center Consoles and other relnted radio
equipment. Two bids were received with the total leu bid being
'submitted by Technical Products Engineering Compnuy (TPE) of Sam
Volley, Cnlifornin. in'the amount of $139,900, The second bide
submitted by Hotorola-Cowmunlcntions and Electronlcso loc;, wns
$144,200, Both bids are within the City's estimate and the funds
· nra nvailoble. City Council appointed the undersigned committee
to review the bids and report back to Council.
Your cowmittee has wet ua several occasions 'and has received
briefings iron encb or the bidders. In addition, three members of
the committee visited four Carolina cities to observe the equip-
went produced by each bidder in operation. The results of this
visit ore very competently covered lo the attached bid evaluation
report prepared by Mr. J. D. Sink.
As noted in Mr. Sink's report, TP£'s proposal did not fully
comply with the City's specifications. For instance, the City
specified the inclusion of a 60-inch half size turret on top of
the police consoles. This turret, programmed for future use for
municipal building alarm purposes, was not included in the TP£
proposal. Additionally, for transmitting voice messages, our
specifications called for a common microphone preamplifier and
coupression amplifier coupled to individual channel transmit
modules featuring a power amplifier, switching circuits, channel
select and switching logic. The TPE proposal features a common
microphone preamplifier, compression amplifier and power auplifier
coupled to individual transmit moduleS with the feature for
swttchin9, channel select and switching logic. This is a passive
unit which adds nothing to the transmitted audio from the common
equipment. Thin TPE configuration is identical to older systems
employed by Motorola but subsequently improved to provide the
transmit porter amplifier common to the radio control panel while
there is a separate power amplifier for each transmit channel.
~otorola*s present system is a major improvement which provides
greater redundancy and as a relult is much more reliable.
'For a number of years, the City of Roanoke has successfully
operated using Motorola equipment. Past experience has shown,
both the parent corporation and the local representatives to
be both helpful and responsive to the Clty*s communication needs.
Motorola's ability to assemble and ship the desired equipment
on short notice as opposed to long delivery delays experienced by
both Charlotte. North Carolina. and Spartanburg, South Carolina,
in the purchase of TPE equipment should be considered as well
as the economies of standardization of parts and equipment.
Technical Products Engineering Compaoy*s letter transmitting
their bid to the City Clerk stated that their bid does not include
any sales taxes as it is their understanding the City is exempt
from this tax. TP£ has been notified that sales tax will be re-
quired;. Me have nothing in writing from TPE recognizing this
requirement. Motorola Communications and Electronics. Inc., took
no exception to paying this tax.
Your committee, after reviewing the Cityes specifications, the
contractors* proposals, listening to presentation by the two
bidders, and seeing the various equipment in operation at several
locations, unanimously recommends that City Council reject the low
bid of Technical Products Engineering Company and accept the
higher bid Of Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., in
the amount of $144,200.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Bauer
Byron E. Hamer
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland
S/ J. D. Sink
J. D. Sink
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
$/ Alfred Bechley
Alfred Beckley
S/ #arren E. Trent
Marten E, Trent'
In this connection, #Fo Barry N. Llchtensteino Attorney, representing
Technical Products Engineering Company, appeared before Cou~ci~ and advised that
his client was the apparent low bidder on the equipment and requested that he be
given an opportunity to present pertinent data in connection with the matter.
Hr. Trout moved that action on the matter be deferred one week in order
to permit Hr. Llchtenstein and representatives from Technical Products Engineering
Company to meet with the committee to further investigate their bid. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Nheeler.
Mr. LJsk offered a s~bstitue motion that #F. Lichtenstein be allowed to
present pertinent data in connection with the matter at this time and that after
the facts have been presented to Council the matter be referred back to the committe
for further study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lichtenstein advised that Technical
i Products Engineering Company is the lowest responsible bidder, that the bid
submitted by his client for Item No. 1 is $11,767.00 cheaper than the bid quoted
by Motorola Communications and Electronics, Incorporated. for ~he very same equip-
ment with the only distinction being that the maintenance to the equipment of TPE
would be from the bach So the operator would not have to be disturbed and maintenanc*
to the equipment Of Motorola Communications and Electronics. Incorporated, would
be from the front where the operator would very definitely have to be disturbed
and contending that their equipment is equal to or better than that of Motorola
Communications and Electronics, Incorporated.
After a further discussion of the'matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the report
be referred back to the committee for the purpose Of conferring with Mr. Earry N.
Lichtenstein. Attorney. representing Technical Products Engineering Company, and
representatives from Technical Products Engineering Company, to further investigate
their bid and the type of equipment offered by said company and report bach to
Council as soon as possible. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to a
committee for tabulation, report and recommendation the bids received on performing
miscellaneous, small area improved hard surface street and sidewalk restoration
occasioned by the normal daily operations of the Mater Department for a period of
twelve months commencing April 3. 1971, the committee submitted the following report
recommending that the low bid of Adams Construction Company. in the amount of
$44,973.95. be accepted:
'Roanoke, Virginia
March 15, 19TI
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Bids were received and opened before City Council on March 1o
19?la for miscellaneous, mall repairs to streets and sidewalks
occasioned by normal daily operation of the Hater Department.
Three bids were received with the bid of Adams Construction
Company in the total amount of $44.973.95 beJug low. Unit
prices are somewhat above those for last year; however, the total
Iow bid is within the funds appropriated for this activity.
It is the committee*s reconnendatlon that the low bid of
Adams Construction Company be accepted.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Hauer
Byron B. Hamer, Chairman
S/ Kit B. Kiser
Kit H. Kiser
SM William F. Clark
William F. Clark*
~r. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the committee
and offered the £ollouing emergency Ordioaoce:
(u19580) AN ORDINANCE accepting tho proposal of Adams ConstrUction
Company for performing certain miscellaneous, small area hard surface street and
sidewalk restoration; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite
contract; rejecting all other bids; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 212.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carlaud, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Hheeler ad Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council havin9 referred to a committee for tabulatio{
report and recommendation the bids received for the provision and installation of
movie and slide projection equipment within the Roanoke Civic Center. the committee
submitted the following report recommending that the proposal of Perdue Motion
Picture Equipment. Incorporated. in the amount of $16,299.00, be accepted and that
an additional $3,799.00 be appropriated by Council to provide funds for said
equipment:
~"Hoanohe, Virginia March 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Hlds were received and opened before the City Council on
Monday, March 8, I971. rot the provision and installation of'
movie and slide projection equipment mithin the Civic Center
Auditorium. Tmo bids were received with the bid of Perdoe Motion
Picture Equipment Company of Roauohe, Virginia, in the amount
of $12,691, being low. The City*s estimate of th~ initial cost
of this equipment mas $12,500.
Three alternate bids were requested and received at the same
time for furnishing Alternate A, one 16 millimeter slide pro-
Jector, one projector stand and one projector screen for the
Exhibit Hall, Unit B; Alternate B, one slide projector, ou~
projector stand and one projector screen for Exhibit Hall, Unit
H; and Alternate C, cna demon&table closed circuit TV projection
screen and frame for the Coliseum, Unit C. These items were
not envisioned or included at the time the listing of equipment
for this facility was prepared. The 16 millimeter movie projector
and slide projector and the associated equipment are needed for
use in the Exhibit Hall for various meetings and convention
activities.
It is envisioned that a rental fee could be established for
this equipment and the City's cost reimbursed through this
method.
Alternate C for the demoantable closed ~ircuit TV projection
screen is needed for such attractions such as the recent Fraizer--
'Clay boxing ~atch or the Daytona speed classic m~ich would be
viewed by local spectators over closed circuit television. This
is a recent innovation which has been instituted in various
recreational facilities of this nature.
The bid of Perdue Motion Picture Equipment Company for these
three alter~ates in the total amount of $3°609 wa~ also low.
Realizing the periodic need for the equipment contained in these
three bid alternates, it would be the r'ecommendation of your
committee that City Council give serious consideration to appro-
priating the funds for the purchase of ~his equipment.
Should City Council desire to accept the recommendation of this
committee, it would be suggested that they appropriate an
additional $3,799 to the Civic Center Capital Improvement project
account to provide for the $191 overrun on the movie and slide
projection equipment and to fund the three alternate bids. It
would further be recommended that City Council accept the low
base bid and alternate bids as submitted by Perdue Motion Picture
Equipment Company.
Should City Council only desire to procure the movie and slide
projection equipment for the Auditorium at this time, to enable
acceptance of the low bid of Perdue Motion Picture Equipment
Company it will be necessary to appropriate $191 additional to
the Civic Center Capital Fund Account.
Hespectfully. submitted,
S/ Hyron E. Hamer
Byron E. Hamer, Chairman
S/ John M. Chappelear
John M. Chappelear
S/ Howard E. Radford
Howard E. Radford~
Mr. Troat moved that Couacil concur h the recommendation of the committee
and offered the followin9 emergency Ordinance appropriating $30799.00 to provide
additional funds for said equipment:
62¸
(e19581) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section egg, 'Trnnsfers
to Capital Improvement Fund,' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, end providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Seek No. 35, page 213,)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Mr, Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limb. Taylor, Thomas,, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebbet ....... 7.
NAYS: None ~.
Mr. Lisk then offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of Perdue Motion Picture Equipment, Incorporated. for furnishing and
installing the movie and slide projection equipment in the Roanoke civic Center:
(=19582) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase and installation of
certain projection equipment in the Roanoke Civic Center by accepting the proposal
of Ferdue Motion Picture Equipment Company of Roanoke. Virginia. upon certain
terms and conditions; rejecting another bid made to the City for such equipment;
and providing for on emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 214.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Yheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
INDUS~fRIES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure expressing the desire of the City of Roanoke for the designation
of the Norfolk ~ #estern Railway Company's route from Norfolk, Virginia. to
Cincinnati, Ohio. as the route for the intercity passenger service to be operated
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the Assistant City Attorney
presented same; uhereupon, Mr. Lisk offered the follouing Resolution:
(=19583) A RESOLUTION expressing the City*s desire for the designation
of the Norfolk ~ Nestern Railway Ccmpany*s route from Norfolk to Cincinnati as the
route for the intercity passenger service to he operated by National Railroad
Passenger Corporation.
(For fnll text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 215.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
¸63'
AYES: Messrs. Gnrland, Llsko Taylor. Thomas and Trout ......
NAYS: Mr. Wheeler and Mayor Nebber ,2~
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
STREET LIGHTS: Mr. Ronald R. Butt, representing the Kuauka Center for
Bluch Education, appeared before Council and requested that traffic lights be install~
at the corner of llth Street and Moorman Road, N. M.. and at the corner of llth
Street and Loudon Avenue, N. ¥.
Er. Llsk moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL flUILDINU-~APITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Council having received and filed a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors in connection with meeting with the Mayor of the City
of Roanoke. the Mayor of the City of Salem and the Mayor of the Town of Vinton
and such other parties who may be interested in order to ascertain whether the
governments of the Roanoke Valley would be interested in the construction of a
regional courthouse, a communication from Mayor Roy L. Webber forwarding the
following recommendations for the consideration and approval o£ Council and advis-
ing that if Council is in accord with the suggestions the matter should be referred
to the City Attorney for preparatinn of the proper measure:
"March 9, 1971
Proposed Instructions For Committees To Be Appointed
To Study The Feasibility Of A Regional Courthouse For
The Local Governments Of The Roanoke Valley,
1. The Couucils of the City of Roanoke. the City of Salem, the
Town of Vinton and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County shall
each appoint or authorize the appointment of a committee consisting
of'four persons, at least one of whom shall be.an elected member
of the governing body. The respective governing bodies shall each
designate a chairman for its committee.
2. The four committees shall first meet jointly at a time and place
as agreed to by the Mayors of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton and the
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and shall, at
their first meeting, select one over-all chairman for the joint
committees and adopt any desired rules of procedure,
3. The joint committees shallstudy and recommend to the four
governing bodies the following:
(a) Whether there exists sincere and substantial interest in the
concept of a regional courthouse facility for the Roanoke Valley
governments.
(b) Whether an independent study should be conducted to examine
the significant factors relating to a regional courthouse facil-
ity; such factors to include court organization, facility loca-
tion, relationship to the functions of constitutional and other
local governmental offices, the effect of state law and court
regulations, means of financing design and construction, und
such other.factors.as the committees consider to be essential
to a complete and meaningful study.
(c) Procedure for selecting u private firm or governmental.organ-
ization to conduct on independent study.
:64
(d) Procedure for determining the exact scope and detail of such
{e) Means of financing such a study.
(f) Mhat changes in State laws might be required to allow con-
struction and operation of a regional courthouse facility.
4'. The comuJttee,recouuendatlons sh~ll be sub~ltted to the respective
governing bodies as soon as practicable, but no later than June 1. 1971.'
Mr. Thomas moved that ~ou~cl'l concur in the recommendations, that the
matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure and
that Mayor Mebber be requested to appoint the committee to represent the City of
Roanoke on said study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC: Dr. Taylor submitted the following communication in connection
uith a peak drive time traffic study and recommended that the matter be referred
to the City Manager and the Superintendent of the Traffic Engineering and
Communications Department to study ~affic patterns in congested areas of the City
of Roanoke and that following their investigation they be requested to recoumend
changes which will speed up the flow of traffic during peak driving periods:
"March 12, 1971
The Honorable Roy L,'~ebber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
6entlemen:
Me face a traffic problem daily in the City of Roanoke during
the peak drive time period in the morning and afternoon, Inability
to overcome congestion and to remove obstacles to mobility threaten
tn mahe our City an economic, liability rather than an asset. In
Roanoke we are already seriously feeling the effects of increased
car ownership because we have developed serious problems iu traffic
control, especially during drive time. Increasing leisure time, the
spread of the suburbs and the new patterns of urban living made
passible by the automobile will Continue to increase, the number of
cars in operation, As a result, our greatest local transportation
difficulties are experienced while commuting between home and work.
Many of our main intersections and throughfares are clogged sith
traffic for approximately tun (2) hours each morning and each after-
noon.
Almost daily we find traffic congestion at Elm Avenue and 581,
24th Street and Shenandoah Avenue in the 5haeffers Crossing Area, in
the area of the Norfolk and Mestera General Office Building nad
Cainsboro Road, Hershberger ~oado Tenth Street Bridge Area,
Mllliamson Road and Orange Avenue and many others, The intensi-
fication of the traffic problem that results from the daily influx
of commuters has increased to the extent that I feel the City of
Roanoke should deal with this important problem at this time. There-
fore, I recommend that we ask the City Manager and the Traffic
Engineering Department to study our traffic patterns in the congested
areas and following their investigation to recommend changes which
sill speed up the flow of traffic during the driving period.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor, Councilman
City of Roanoke"
Dr. Taylor moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and the
Superintendent of the Traffic E~gineering and Communications Department for study,
report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
STADIUM: Hayor Webber advised that the two year terms ot Ressrs. ~
Bolling Izard, Ahney $, Boxley and Richard C. Stephenson as members of the Stadium
Advisory Committee expired on December 31, 1970, that Ressrs. Izard and Stephenson
have declined to serve another term and called for nominations to fill the
vacancies.
#r. Thomas placed In nomination the name of Dr. John H. Cundirt.
Hr. Trout placed in nomination the name of James E. Robertson.
Mr. Lisk placed in nomination the name of Abney S. noxley.
There being no further nominations. Ressrs. John H. Cundif! and James E.
Robertson were elected and Mr. Abney $. Boxley mas reelected as members of the
Stadium Advisory Committee for terms of two years each ending December 31. 1972.
by the following vote:
FOR RESSRS. CUND1FF, ROI~RTSON AND BOXLEY: Messrs. Garland, Lisk.
Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Rayor Webbe~ ?.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
;66
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, March 22, 1971.
The Council o~ the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting la the Council
Chamber in ~he Municipal Building, Monday, March 22, 1971, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: 'Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lish, Noel C~ Taylor,
Hampton M. T~omas, Ja~e~ 'o.*Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. ~ebber~?.
ABSENT: None' *0.
OFFICER5 PRES£NT: Mr~ Julian 'F. Hirst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Kincanon/ City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend C. E.
Reynolds, Pastor, Story *Creek Baptist Church.
BEARING ~F CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public bearing for 2 p.m., Monday
March 22, 1971, on the request of the Times-Morld Corporation that a certain alley
lying within and extending through Block 6, Official Survey Southmest Section I, in
block bounded on the north by Salem Avenue, S. M.. on the east by Second 5tree*,
the south by Campbell Avenue, 5. M.. and on the west by Third Street,
be vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"February lB, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of February 17, 1971.
Mr. Frank K. Saunders, Attorney, representing Times-~orld
Corporation, appeared before the Planning Commission and noted
that this alley in question is congested and heavily utilized.
Mr. Horace Hood, Assistant Vice President of Times-Morld Cor-
poration, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that
the land could be better utilized if the alley was closed.
Mr. Jack Cooper of Appalachian Power Co. noted that his
Company has tNB underground transformer vaults. He stated that
the Appalachian Pomer Company bas no objection to the alley closure,
provJdtng that their franchise rights are preserved.
The Planning Director noted that the alley contained In
addition to the underground vaults, a sanitary sewer and a storm
drain. He noted, he.ever, that in situations of this nature all
easement rights are retained by the City and in this case, involving
the underground vaults also the Appalachian Power Co.
¸67
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council that this request be granted,
predicated on the City retuiniag all utility easement rights
located mithin this right of may.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a mritten report
advising that they have viewed the alley in question and the neighboring property
and are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience would result either to any
individual or to the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing the alley.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the alley, Mr. Lisk moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(~19§94) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that certain alley lying within and extending through Block 6, Official Survey
Southwest Section 1, in an east-west direction from Second Street. S. M.o to Third
Street, S. W., said Block bounded on the north by Salem Avenue, S. M., on the east
by Second Street. S. M.. on the south by Campbell Avenue. S. M., and on the west
by Third Street. S. M.
WHEREAS. Times-Yorld Corporation heretofore made application to the City
of Roanoke, Virginia, that the alley hereinafter described be permanently vacated,
discontinued and closed, after having first posted a notice of the intended appli-
cation as provided by law; and
MREREAS, the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. on the 25th day of
January, 1971. adopted Resolution No. 19497 appointing Messrs. Roy L. Mastin. Jr..
Fred DeFelice, L. EIwood Norris, George Y. Overby and Edward H. Brewer, Jr., any
three or more of mhom may act. as VieWers to view the aforesaid alley and report in
mriting, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended to date. whether in their opinion any, and if any. what inconvenienc
would result from discontinuing the same; and
NHEREAS, three of said viewers did visit and viem the aforesaid alley and
~he adjacent neighborhoods and did report in writing that in their opinion no
inconvenience would result either to any individual or to the public from vacating,
discontinuing and closing said alley; and
MHEHEAS. this matter has been referred to the Planning Commission of the
City of Roanoke. Virginia, which said Commission has approved the permanent Vacating.
discontinuing and closing of said alley, provided that the City of Roanoke and
Appalachian Power Company retain all utility easement rights located within said
alley; and
;68
MREREAS. a public hearing on the aforesaid application to permanently
racine, discontinue und close said alley Wus held. after u notice thereof was duly
advertised in The Roanoke ~orld-Nems on MArch 5. 1971. advising the public of the
said public hearing before this Council on Monday. March 22. 1971. at 2:00 p.m,, on
said day. at which meeting the~e was expressed no objection or opposition to vacutlng
discontinuing and closing said alley; and
MRRREAS. in the opinion of this Council. no Inconvenience to the public
or any owner sill result if said alley be vacated, discontinued and closed for the
purposes set forth in the aforesaid application.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke. Virginia.
that that certain alley located in the City of Roanoke. Virginia. mb,mn on Sheet
No. 101 of the Tax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke. Virginia. and more parti-
cularly described aa foil,ms, to wit:
That certain alley lying uithin and extending through
Hlock 6. Official Survey Southwest Section 1. in an east-
mest direction from Second Street, S. M.. to Third Street,
S.M., said Block bounded on the north by Sales Avenue, S. l**
on the east by Second Street, S. l.. on the south by Campbell
Avenue, S. M., and on the west by Third Street. S. M.
be and the same is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed and that all
right, title and interest of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and the public in and
to the same be and they are hereby released insofar as the Council is empomered so
to do, the City of Roanoke reserving unto itself, however, a perpetual easement for
sewer lines, drains, water lines and other public utilities which may now be located
Jm the aforesaid alley, and reserving unto Appalachian Power Company a perpetual
easement for underground vaults and access thereto and all other utility easement
Fights located in said alley.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City £ngineer be and he is hereby directed
to mark *Permanently Vacated, Discontinued 'and Closed" said alley o~ all maps and
*lats on file in the Office of the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke. Virginia,
on which said alley is shown, referring thereon to the book and page of Ordinances
and Resolutions of the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, wherein this Ordi-
nance shall be spread; and the City Clerk is directed to transmit an attested copy
hereof to the Clerk of the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke for recordation
in said Clerk*s Office.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None. O.
ZONING: Council having set e public hearing for 2 p.m** Monday, March
22, 1971, on the request of Mr. Clinton L. Paltz that property located at 603 Strand
Road, N. E** described as Lots I and 2, HI*ok 11, Laurel Terrace Land Map, Official
Tax No. 3121101, be Fez*ned from LN, Light Manufacturing District. to RD, Duplex
Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloming
report recommending that the request he denied:
~Febroary 16, lgTl
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlenen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetin~$of January 20 and February 17,
1971.
Mr. Murray Stoller, representing the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that the petitioner has owned
this property for the past tmenty years. He noted that a portion of
the parcel is presently zoned RD and stated that there is no opposi-
tion to his request.
Mr. J..D. Laurence, member of the Planning Commission noted that
consideration should be given to rezoning this entire block to a
duplex zoning classification.
The Planning Director noted that many factors indicated that
this general area should be rezoned at some future date for an
industrial zonin9 classification considering the heavy preponderance
of trucking and related-establishments located within the area, the
proximity and accessibility of Patrick Henry Avenue, a major thru
traffic truck route (planned to be widened to a 90-foot right-of-way)
located within the area, easy access to railroad routes, aod the
future industrial developments proposed in the Kimball urban reneual
project that will further generate the need for additional truck
traffic.
The Plannin9 Director noted that the majority of all the truckin9
terminals in the City of Roanoke are located within this circum-
scribed area - 8 trucking terminals. In addition 6 warehouses are
located within this general area.
The Planning Director pointed out that the topography of this
general area does in fact lend itself to industrial and industrial-
~ related uses noting that many blocks in this area have slopes of less
than seven percent. The Planning Director pointed out that the land
requirements for industrial-commercial developments in Roanoke will
increase in the future because of the general growth of the transpor-
tation industry in the. City. These future growth industries could
include wholesaling and warehouse operations, small size trucking
terminals, automotive and related uses, and mill necessitate that
land suitable for their development be made available for this
purpose.
The Planning Director noted that although definite trends pointed
to the changing character of this general area to one of an industrial
nature, he recommended that no rezoaiog action be taken uetil at
some future date, when these trends become more discernible and
evident.
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council that this request be denied.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Br. #urrsy A. Stoller. Attorney. representing the petitioner, eppeared
before Council in support of the request of his client and advised that the property
should be resorted to enable his client to utilize this property to the fullest.
After n discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved that Council grant the
request for rezoning and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first read-
ing:
(#19565) AN ORDINARCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 312. Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning,
WHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have 603 Strand Road. N. E., Lots I and 2, Block 11. Laurel Terrace Corporation
Rap, Official No. 3121101 rezoned from LM. Light Manufacturln9 District, to RD,
Duplex Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land not be rezoned from LW, Light Manufacturing District, to RD, Duplex
Residential District; and
RREREAS, the written eot]ce and the posted sigo required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956, as a~eflded, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS. the hearin9 as provided for in said notice was held an the 22nd
day of March, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezonlng; and
RHEREAS. this Council. after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2. of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 312 of the Sectional lg66 Zone Map. City of
Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at 603 Strand Road..N. E** described as Lots I and 2,
Block 11. Laurel Terrace Corp. Rap, designated on Sheet 31~ of the Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 3121101, be, and is hereby, changed
from LM, Light Manufacturing District to RD. Duplex Residential District, and that
Sheet No. 312 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was se~aded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the. following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber---- 7
NAYS: None -0.
SCHOOLS: Mrs, R. O. HcTler. President of the Stoneuall Jackson Junior
High School Purent-Tencher Association, appeared befor~ Council aid requested that n
telephone be installed~in the Industrial Arts Shops at Stonewall Jackson Junior
High School to be used in calling for aid in casns of emergency.
Mr, Trout moved that the matter be referred ~o the Roanoke City School
Hoard for consideration. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Hheeler and unanimously
adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: A communication from Mr. Julia~ F. Mise, tender-
ing his resignation as a member of the Community Relations Committee was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas movedthat the resignation be accepted with regret. The motion
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CORMONMEALTH'S ATTORNEY-COMMISSIONER OF THE
REVENUE-CITY SERGEANT-CITY TREASURER: A communication ~om the State Compensation
Hoard. advising of a meeting on April 5, 1971. at 9:30 a.m., in the Salem-Roanoke
Valley Civic Center. for the purpose of fixing the salaries and expenses of the
Commonwealth's Attorney, the Commissioner of t~e Revenue, the City Sergeant and the
City Treasurer for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972,
was before Council.
Mr~ Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed J The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Roanoke River Basin Association, commending the 9overning bodies in the
Roanoke urban area for their activities in improvin9 the waters of Smith Mountain
Luke and urging them to continue to control pollution originating in the area, was
before Council.
Mr. Nheeler moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CELEBRATIONS: A communication from Mr. Charles E. Nest, Parade Chairman,
Dogwood Festival of Virginia, Incorporated, advising of the plans for the Sixteenth
Annual ¥1nton Dogwood Festival Parade to be held Saturday, April 24, 1971, at 2:30
p.m., and requesting the consideration of Council toward entering a float in the
Dogwood Parade this yea~, was before the body.
Mr. Garland moved ~hat the matter be tahen under consideration. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-AIRPORT: A communication from Mr. James L. Cross, Jr.,
President. Cross Electric Company, Incorporated, requesting a meeting mith the Real
Estate Committee for the purpose of leasing a plot of land at Roanoke Municipal
(Moodrum) Airport, for the construction of a shop and warehouse, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request be referred ~ a committee composed
of Messrs. David K. hish, Chairman, Julian F. HJrst, James N. aincnnon and J.
Robert Thomas for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconc
ed by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Mr. Richard H. Hahn appeared before Council and transmit-
ted a report on an expenditure of funds which Council and other area governing
bodies provided for Virginia Mestern Community College for the current fiscal year,
advising that the lg?l-?2 budget of Virginia Mestern Community College is $73,S00.D0,
the share of the City of Roanoke being $32.950.00 and requesting that the
$32,958.00 be Included In the 1971-72 budget of the City of Roanohe.
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred to 1971-72 budget study. The
motion mas seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adapted,
SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: A communication from Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes.
Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. advisin9 that Resolution No. 19547.
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on February 22. 1971, offering to
amend the semage treatment contract betmeen tho City of Roanoke and the Connty
of Roanoke, by adding thereto a certain ll.ll acre area of land situate north of
Route 460. east and most of Granby Street, in Roanoke County, omned by Thomas G.
Cox, et al., mas received and filed and a copy formorded to the Roanoke County
Public Service Authority. was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report recom-
mending that $1.1'O0.O0 be transferred from Automobile Allomance to Maintenonc~ of
Machinery and Equipment under Section u47. "Fire Department," of the 1970-71 budget,
to provide funds in connection with the cost of repairs to fire truck No. 6 which
:mas damaged in an accident, the insurance money having been paid into the General
Fund.
Mr. Trout moved the Council concur in the recommendation of the City Manager
and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(u19506) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =47, "Fire Department,
of the 1970=71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 217.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Yebbet ....... 7.
NAYS: None O.
73
BDDGE~-PGECHASING AGENT: The City Manager submitted a writte~ report
recommending that $290.00 be transferred from Printing and Office Supplies to
Maintenance of Machinery end Equipment under Section all. 'Purchasing Agent." of the
19?O-TI budget, to provide funds for needed repairs to the duplicating machine and
maintenance for the postage machine in the Purchasing Department for the remainder
of the fiscal year.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folleming emergency Ordinance:
(#19597) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~11. "Purchasing
Agent,# of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Dooh No. 3S, page 218.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folleming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .................... 7.
NAYS: None ........
BUDGEToDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: Yhe City Manager submitted the
following report requesting that $30,000.00 be transferred from Aid to Dependent
Children - WIN to Aid to Permanently and Totally Disabled and that $10,000.00 be
transferred from Aid to Dependent Children - M1N to General Relief under Section
n37, "Public Assistance," of the 1970-71 budget, to provide necessary funds:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 22. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, March 9. 1971. the City Auditor provided City
Council with a monthly statement of expenditures for Public Welfare
in February 1971. This statement indicated the expenditures for
General Helief to have exceeded the monthly allotment of $19,694.01
by $967.02 and the expenditures for Aid to Permanently and Totally
Disabled exceeded the $41.911.19 monthly allotment by
An analysis of various Public Assistance accounts indicates
that expenditures within the WIN account have not reached those
anticipated mith the result that some funds appear to be surplus
to anticipated expenditures. As the State Department of.Public
Welfare has increased their allotments to these two accounts, it
would be recommended that City Council transfer $30,000 from Public
Assistance Department 37, Object Code 274, to Object Code 275. Aid
to Permanently and Totally Disabled and $10,000 from the same
account to Object. Code 271, General Helief.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Dirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n19560) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section e37, *Public
Assistance,' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(Fur full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page 218.)
Mr, Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayer
Webber 7.
NAYS: None, O.
BUDGET-INDUSTRIES-STAVE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that an additional $17,714.67 be transferred from C1P 16, Route
460 - 561 to 12th Street to CIP 25, Ninth Street Bridge under Section #69,
"Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds
needed to reimburse the Virginia Department of Highways for the share of the City
of Roanoke of the cost of construction of the Ninth Street Industrial Access Bridge
in the total amount of $191,728.03:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 22° 1971
· Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Recently the City of Roanoke has been notified by the Virginia
Department of Highways of the final cost incurred in the construc-
tion of the Ninth Street industrial access bridge. The City's share
of this cost is $191,728.83. of which $69,111.03 is to be paid by
the Industrial Development ~ Investment Company (IDICO). IDICO has
been billed for their share of this construction. There remains
in the City Account $174,014.15. An additional $17,714.57 is
needed to reimburse the State for this work.
It mould be recommended that the City Council transfer this
$17,?14.67 from Capital Improvemeflt Program No. l0 (Orange Avenue)
to Capital Improvement Program No. 25 (Ninth Street Industrial
Access Oridge).
Me are informed by the City Auditor that sufficient funds
remain in the Orange Avenue account for this purpose. This billing
from the State does not include the cost of the work done by the
Norfolk and Western Railway Company to adjust their facilities.
This bill is to be forwarded to the State at some later date and they
in turn will bill us for 100 percent of the cost of this work. At
that time ue mill need additional funds appropriated to this account.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. iirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Wanager*
Mr. Link movedthat Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the follomJng emergency Ordinance:
75
!
('19589) AN OROIRANCE to amend and reordain Section '89, 'Transfers to
Capital improvement Fnnd,*or ~e 1970-71AppropriationOrdlnance, and providing
for an emergency.
(FOr full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 219.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. ~heeler and Mayor
Mebber .....................
NAYS: None ......... O.
ROANOKE VALLEY-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the following
report advising of a Roanoke Valley Clean-Up Campaign to be sponsored by MSLS
Radio Station, that the four valley 9overnments would procure plastic bags for
distribution to the various groups that participate therein, that each valley
government would be responsible one Saturday during April for providing equipment
to carry the refuse collected to the Dixie Caverns landfill area and requesting the
concurrence of Council in the participation by the City of Roanoke therein:
"Roanoke. Virginia
March 22. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
A meeting was held at 10 mom** March 16. 1971. in the City
of Salem municipal building to discuss a Roanoke Valley clean-up
campaign. This campaign sponsored by radio station MSLS and
enlisting the aids of boy scouts, girl scouts, cub scouts and
other civic organizations would result in the collection of road-
side trash (bottles. cans. paper, etc.) collected from all over
Roanoke Valley and taken to a central location adjacent to MSLS
radio station in Salem. Prizes totaling $1.000 to be donated by
radio station MSLS will he utilized as enducement to these vari-
ous organizations to par~icipa te in this valley clean-up campaign.
At the meeting on March 16, representatives of Salem. Roanoke
County and Roanoke City met with Harm Reavis of #SLS. It would
be proposed that the four valley 9overnments would procure plastic
bags for distribution to the various civic groups who register
for this clean-up campaign. Each municipality would be responsi-
ble on one Saturday during the month of April to provide equipment
for carrying the refuse collected from the MSLS radio station to
the Dixi~ Caverns 'landfill area. Roanoke County has volunteered
to operate the landfill on those dates for that purpose. The
date of April 17, 19T1, has b~en selected for the City of Roanoke
to provide one or two refuse vehicles to transport the refuse
to the landfill area.
Participation in 'this clean-up campaign can be accomplished
within funds presently available to the sanitation division.
Funds within that department*s account would be utilized to pay
one-fourth of the cost of the plastic bags to be utilized. It
is anticipated this cost would be approximately $300.
It mould be requested that City Council concur in the City's
participation in this clean-up campaign, thereby authorizing the
expenditure of sanitation division funds for the procurement of
the plastic bags needed for this activity.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mi~ Lisk eared that Council concur in the report of the City Manager~
rbe motion was seconded by OF. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting copy of the proposed blacktop program for the current lineal year
Hr. Lish moved that 'the report and proposed blacktop program be tuhen
under advisement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting a report prepared by Alvord. Burdick and Homson. Consulting Engineers.
in connection with phosphorus removal at the Sewage Treatment Plant. advising that
the city is in the stage Of experimenting with the recommendations of the consultants
and will keep Council informed on the program:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 22, 1971
Hooorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
For the information of the Council at this point, there is
attached a report on phosphorus removal ut the sewage treatment
plant as prepared by Alvord, Burdick and Howson, Consulting
Engineers. It is to he recalled that this report is the first unit
of the overall study of the plant operation and development by the
consulting firm as previously authorized by the Council.
At this point we are in the stage of experimenting with the
recommendations of the consultants. Laboratory tests of the use
of waste pickle liquor has sonar been highly successful. Ne are
now considering a more extended test of approximately 30 days.
Should this be successful then further development of the proposal
will be studied in connection with the report and with the
consultants, If the project appears to be so inclined, we would
consider making application to the State Mater Control Board for
federal and state funds for such portions of the project as might
be funduble under a grant,
Ne will keep the City Council informed on this program,
Respectfully submitted,.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian ~. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Thomas moved that th~ reports be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report in con-
nectJon with a measure requested to be adopted by Council authorizing the exeeutlon
of an agreement of "substantial completion" between Nello L. Teer Company, Associated
Architects and Engineers of Roanoke Valley and the City of Roanoke in order that
the proper procedure may be followed under the terms of the contract to enable the
City of Roanoke to commence use of t~e Roanoke CivicCen~er.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following Resolution:
77
(x19590) A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of t certificate of substuntl:
completion of the Roanoke Civic Center by Nello L. Teer Coupuny.
(For roll text or Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35, page 220.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Thomas and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES:, Ressrso Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomus, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
#ebber ......................
NAYS: None ........ O.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: Council having referred to the City Manager and the
Commissioner of Health for study, report and recommendation a request Of Mr. Robert
G. Jones (Bob J.) that $100.00 be appropriated by Council to be used toward the
goal of a OetoxifJcatlon and Methadone Clinic, the City Manager submitted the fBI
lng report suggesting that Mr. Jones confer uith the Drug Abuse Coordinating
Committee uhich is concentrating in this general field and upon whom there will
be much dependency for guidance as to community programs:
*Roanoke. Virginia
March 22, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the matter in which Mr. Bob Jones appeared
before the City Council on March 1, in his stated interest in behalf
of a detoxification center.
This was referred to me for report and I advise as follous. In
the matter of a Methadone Clinic. a number and various community
organizations have banded together to spearhead o drive to undertake
the funding of a comprehensive drog abuse program. The general
feeling is that a program such as Mr. Jones proposes should be
related into the community effort. Mr. Jones has. at my suggestion,
met with Dr. Fagan. Health Director. and they have discussed the
situation and the suggestion is made that Mr. Jones confer with the
Drug Abuse Coordinating Committee. uhich is concentrating in this
general field and upon whom there will be much dependency for
guidance us to the community programs.
It is of interest to note that figures available based on
Methadone Clinics, which have been formulated in programs in the
New York--New Bnglaod area, reflect costs to maintain one patient
on an out-patient basis of about $1,000 per year without hospitali-
zation or about $2400 peryear uhen in-patient services are added.
The community coordinating group here advises that they tend to
agree with such figures and that they would envisuulize an annual
budget of about $300,O00~rthis type of clinic into which the detoxi-
ficution center would be interrelated.
I am sending this copy of this to Mr. Jones for his information
and to confirm the suggestion that his approach at this stage might
best be with the committee.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Htrst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mt. Trout and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: Council having referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendati6n various qnestims concerning commodity food
distribution, the City Nanager submitted a written report advising that on
lednesday. Narch 10. 19?l,'he met with Mrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman ter the
Weflure Rights Organization, Mrs. Lucille Harsh, Chairman o! the Northwest Welfare
Rights Organization, Rrso Oarbara Hansel, a client of the Roanoke County Department
of Public Welfare and others and pointing out that a report will be forthcoming to
Council On the matter.
In this connection, Hrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman for the Welfare Rights
Organization, and NFS. Lucille Harsh, Chairman of the Northwest Welfare Rights
Organization, appeared before'Council and urged that the'welfare recipients be
authorized to conduct a survey to determine whether or not they prefer surplus foods
orer food stamps and presented communications to the City Manager from a nnnber of
citizens in connection mith the matter.
With reference to the matter, communications from NFS. Nary Grahame.
Hrs. Bold E. Markham, NFS. Lelia C. Norgnn, NFS. Etta P. Walker, Hiss opal H.
Atkinson. Mrs. Helen Coleman. Hr. and NFS. Noodie C. Jones, Mrs. Doris Walker. RFS.
Mary T. Carter, Mrs. Yera T. Bake. Hrs. Ruth C. Gooduin. Mr. O. A. Lucns, Mr. R. B.
Grahame, Jr., and Mrs. Marcia £. Marshall advising that they favor surplus foods
over food stamps, were before Council.
After a discussion Of the matter, Nr. Lisk moved that the report of the
City Manager be receiyed and filed and the communications from various citizens in
connection with the matter be referred to the City Manager for his information in
connection with his study of the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having concurred in a report of the City
Manager requesting authorization to ~mploy Mr. Ninston S. Sharpley, Architect. to
provide necessary architectural services for the two oem fire stations to be located
in the northwest area and the southwest area o'f the City of Roanoke at a tee Of
6 1/2% of the cost of construction plus other standard inclusions for architectural
services, the City Manager submitted a written report recommending the adoption
of a measure which uOuld authorize the employment of Mr. Sharpley for said work.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emeroency Ordinance:·
(VlgSgl) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the employment of architectural
services to propose and provide plans and specifications for construction of two
(2) fire stations for the City. One in or adjacent to the northwest section of the
City and one in or adjacent to the Southwest section Of the City; nod proriding for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 221.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limbo Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebbe~ ....... 7.
NAYS: None O.
STATE HIGHMAYS: The City Manager submitted a written report recommending
that Council approve the Southmest Expressway Project from Elm Avenue to Franklin
Road as presented at the public hearing on February 18o lg71.
After a very lengthy discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the
report of the City Manager be taken under advisement and that the city Manager
be directed to inquire as to the opinions and Suggestions of the Department of
Highways for a cloverleaf arrangement at the intersection of Interstate Route 591
and Elm Avenue and report back to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
an examination of the records Of the Harrison Elementary School for the school
year ended June 30, 1970. advising that the records were in order and the State-
ment of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the period
and the financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr. Trout moved that the report and audit be received and filed. Yhe
motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
an examination Of the records of the Jamison Elementary School for the school
year ended June 30, ~70, advising that the records were in order and the Statement
Of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the period and
the financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr. Trout moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request Of Mr. B. W. Porterfield, Jr.. and
Mr. T. Co Porterfield, that property located on the westerly side of Otb Street.
S. M.. described as Lot 8, Section 26. Map of the Masena Corporation. Official Tax
No. 1130511. be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to LM. Light Manu-
facturing District. the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recom-
mending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a' public hearing on the bequest for rezoning be
held at 2 p.m.° Monday, April lg. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. R. D. Peters and Peters Realty,
Incorporated, that property located on the north and south sides of Onhlaun Avenue,
N. W.. described as Lot 1, Greenlamn Msp. Official Tax No. 2170120. and Lot A.
being a portion of Official Tax No, 2170320, be reaoned from RS-3, Single-Family
Residential DiStrict, to RD, Duplex Residential District, the City Planning Commis-
sion submitted a written report reconnending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a pubti~ hearing on the request for resorting be
held at 2 p.m** Monday, April lg, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF CORRITTEES:
BR IDGES-CApITAL IMPROVERENTS PROGRAM: Council having referred ~o a
committee for tabulation, report and recommendation the bids received on the
construction of the new Norwich Bridge over Roanoke River and approaches on Bridge
Street. the committee submitted the following report recommending that the lom bid
of Riley N. Jackson Company. in the amount of $243.372.60. utilizing the
Alternate B structural steel. AS~M ASDB. be accepted, and that $4S,000.00 be trans-
ferred from CIP I0. Route 460-5B1 to 12th Street. to CIP R6, Norwich Hridge. under
Section ~09. "Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund." of the I970-71 budget:
"March lB. 1971
To The City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
After proper advertisement bids were received and opened at the
regular meeting of City Council on Monday. March 15. 1971. for the
construction of a hem bridge over Roanoke River and its approaches
on Bridge Street, Roanoke, Virginia, generally referred to as the
New Norwich Bridge.
Six bids were received. An itemized tabulation is attached for
your use.
Bids were requested for two (2) different types of structural
steel. Alternate A was for structural steel designated as ASTM
A56 Steel which would require painting and which is the normal
structural steel used on bridges. Alternate B was for structural
steel designated as AS~M A588 which is generally known as weathering
steel a~d which wquld not require any painting throughout its life.
7he low bidder for the Alternate A structural steel was Robertson
ConstructionCompany, Incorporated with u bid in the amount of
$238,625.20. The low bidder for the Alternate B structural steel
mas the Riley N. Jackson Company with a bid in the amount of
$243,372.60.
Your committee has met to review the bids and finds that although
they are somewhat higher than the latest estimates, the closeness
of the bids of the four lowest bidders indicates that the bidding
was competitive and that good bids were received. Unit prices are
generally in line with current unit prices on other projects. Your
committee discussed ~t some length the $4,747.40 difference between
the bids for the two {2) types of structural steel. It is the
committee's opinion that the~athering steel {Alternate B) would
be the more satisfactory over the life of the new bridge, since it
would never have to be painted. The $4,047.40 which could be saved
by using the regular steel (Alternate A) would not cover the cost
of the first repainting which would be required of the regular steel.
Funds for this.project mere established under Capital luprovemeat
ProJect Ho. 26 in'the amount of $245.970.00. To date, $1,6B1~00
has ~een expended on right-of-uny and $24,394.1T has been expended
on engineering and subsurface investigations. There remains to be
expended some $4.175.00 rot engineering fees and inspeotioa, approx-
imately $500.00 for materials testing, approximately $?,700.00 rot
adjustment of the Norfolk and Western Railway Coupsnyts facilities,
and $3.410.00 for bridge lighting. This brings the total project
cost to $284,732.00. Deducting the initial appropriation of
$245.970.00 from the total estimated project cost. it is apparent
that a uinlmuu of $38,762*00 would have to be transferred into this
project. Since construction quantities could vary soueuhat from
those shoun on the plans, it is the couuittee's opinion that an
additional $7,000.00 should be ~rnnsferred to this account to
cover contingencies.
It is this committee*s recommendation that:
1. A contract be awarded to the Wiley N. Jackson Company in the
amount of $243,372.60 rot the construction of the Neu Norwich
Dridge utilizing the Alternate D Structural Steel. AST# A$68.
and that all other bids received be rejected.
2. That an additional $45.000.00 be transferred to this project
account from the Orange Avenue Highway ProJect account.
Respectfully submitted.
APPROVED: S/ Byron E. Hamer
Byron E. Hamer. Chairman
Assistant City Manager
APPROVED: S/ William F. Clark
William F. Clark
Public Works Director
APPROVED: SI Sa~ R. McGhee. III
Sam H. McOhee, IIX
City Engineer
APPROVED: S/ Cecil U. Moore. Jr.
Cecil U. Moore. Jr.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the committe
and offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $45,000.00 from CIP
Route 460 - 591 to 12th Street, to CIP 26, Norwich Bridge under Section z69,"Trans-
fers to Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1970-71 budget:
(a19592) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section :69, "Transfers to
Capital Improvement Fund," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance BookNo. 35, page 222.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber--~ , ~ ...............
NAYS': None~ ,0.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of Wiley N. Jackson Company for the construction of the new Noruich Bridge:
(z19593) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Niley N. Jackson Company for
the construction of the Norwich Bridge over Roanoke River and approaches on Bridge
Street; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract;
rejecting certain other bids made to the City; and providicg for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 222.)
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Trout and adopted b7 the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlnnd. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber T.
NAYS: None ..... O.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MUNICIPAL-flHILBING: Council having referred
a report of e committee composed of Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman, Robert A.
Garland, J. D. Sink, J..Robert Thomas. Alfred T. Beckley and Marten E. Trent recom-
mending that the proposal of Motorola Communications and Electronica, Incorporated.
for provision and installation of the Communications Control Center Consoles and
other related radio equipment, in the amount of $144,200.00, be accepted, back to
the committee for the purpose of conferring mith Mr. Barry H. Llchtenstein. Attorney,
representing Technical Products Engineering Company. and representatives from
Technical Products Engineering Company, to further investigate their bid and the
type of equipment offered by said company, the committee submitted a written report
advising that they are in the process of making a study of Technical Products
Engineerin9 Company and their products and will Submit a report at the next regular
meeting of Council on Monday, March 2g. 1971.
Dr. Taylor moved that'Council concur in the report of the committee. The
motion was SeCOnded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs~
Robert A, Garland, Chairman, Vincent S. Mheeler, J. Robert Thomas and Julian F,
Hirst for study, report and recommendation a request of the Roanoke City School
Board that Council appropriate $375,000.00 for the purpose of pnrchosio9 fifty nam
school bases at on estimated cost of $?,$00o00 each. Mr. Mheeler submitted the
following majority report, recommending that the proposal not be acted upon at this
time for four reasons:
*Roanoke. Virginia
March 22, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
'Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council referred to this committee for report and
recommendation the request and proposal of the City School SHard that
the City of Roanoke immediately order for purchase 50 school buses,
provide for the appropriation of certain additional and related
operatimal funds and schedule operation to start in September of
this year of full system for City-owned public school buses.
Your committee has given this a great deal of serious consid-
eration.' Me recogniae the continuing interest of the School Board,
the School Staff and the Parents-Teachers Association in all matters
of the welfare of the school students in the City. Me, commend each
of them for this interest. Me feel that evidences of the past, pre-
sent and future, to come, of the City Council confirms that the
Council has an equal interest. Throughout all of its deliberations
and decisions on this matter the committee has regarded the welfare
of the students to be of first order.
The co~mltte~ has held an announced public hearing on the
matter, has obtained additional information rrna School officials
beyond the first proposal information, has obtained information
from otker sources on school.transportution,,hss met with repre-
sentatives of Safety Motor Transit Company, has observed some of the
present system operation and has met with start representatives of
the Fifth Planning District in relation to the Oistrict*s recent
study of public bus transportation. Me appreciate and thank all
who have assisted and advised.
The committee does not in any uny want to be interpreted by
this report as being critica! of public school bus tranportation In
Virginia. Where there has been an absence or pupil transportation
and a need this system has been instituted and has performed admir-
able service.
Me feel the City Council is adequately familiar with the
present system of school transportation in Roanoke without
having to go into the details Of describing it. The system is
provided by Safety Rotor Transit Company with the costs borne
by theClty or by the students individually dependent upon ele-
ments of distance, student economic need and grade level.
The committee does not regard that the governmental the
City should unnecessarily or arbitrarily protect a private company or
a private operation. The private company should measure up to
reasonable standards of service whether for school students or
non-student passengers. Unless there are strong or firm reasons
in support Of such an action, it does not appear to the committee
that the City should close out a privately owned and operated
system simply on a principle that the 9overnment should finance
and operate the same service.
It is recognized that problems occur in the present system.
However. these do not seem insurmountable or beyond normal in bus
transportation. They appear to be problems that can and should
be individually studied to see if they can be remedied rather than
using them as a basis to completely do away with one system and
try another. To infcr that a City-owned system will be assured
trouble free and will be without fault or criticism at anytime is
of doubted logic. The experience of county public systems demon-
Strates that there can be problems and criticism despite the best
efforts of those in charge.
County owned school bus systems in Virginia enjoy n high safety
record in consideration of the hundreds of thousands of miles traveled
each year and the numbers of students transported. At the sane time
it is felt by the committee that Roanoke has had the benefit of a
very high safety record by Safety Motor Transit. Neither method
can guarantee absolute protection from accidents if that is to be
the sole or major basis of decision.
Yhe committee has questioned aspects of the cost comparisons
in the prepared proposal especially as theydo not incorporate the
initial outlay of an estimated minimum of $375,000. The committee
has noted that with several of the speakers at the public hearing.
their concern seemed to stem largely from situation of the distances
over which some students are now being transported. The committee
has questioned the data submitted in the proposal which show an
increase in number of students to be transported from 2900 to 10,000.
The committee has wondered if the same standards of school bus
pickup and discharge are to apply or are expected to apply in dense
urban areas as now prevail in rural areas of Virginia.
In summary your committee recommends that this proposal not
be acted upon at this time for~e following reasons, listed in order
of priority as to effect upon this recommendation.
1. The School Board proposal suddenly and completely rejects
any capability Of the existing bus system, including its
equipment and drivers, to provide school transportation in
mhole or in part. This total rejection has not been justified.
2. The proposal by the School Board for the capital expenditure
has been submitted outside of the normal necessary and
orderly financial procedures of the City and more properly
should be a part of an annual city budget review.
Before a'flnel decision cou competently be mode by the City
and the School Board fuller Information.should be prepared
on costs and procedures of operation. This mould include
maintenance and repair expenses, vehicle storage locations and
costs, nnd criteria and rules under which students, a~ess
and schools mould bq provided transportation. ~
Nhile abnexation is not within itself a reason to operate
or not to operate a City ouned school bus system, it is a
tnctor that should be tahen into account. The City has agreed
and intends, upon annexation ~nder the several pending suits.
to assume the school bus system operating in Roanoke County
and to provide forth.se students transportation at least
comparable to that they are now receiving. Mhen annexation
occurs, a review will then be automatically necessary of
school bus transportation in the area of present City. It is
expected, by the committee, that this will mean a gradual
transition mithin the present City area to the end result
that there mill be equal transportation standards applying
throughout the entire new City area. Nh.that this system be
best done by'total government owned buses throughout the new
City or a combination of public owned buses plus some use of
private owned buses where advantages mill have to be determined
at that tine. It Mould seem to the committee that to set up a
completely new system at this time or even to purchase a large
number of buses and make definite plans for a completely new
system and. in the event of annexation, to have to make
a broad new set of changes, adds extra and unnecessary
complications and confusion.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Garland, Chairman
Vincent S. Mheeler
Julian F. Hirst
J. Robert Thomas"
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the majority report.
was seconded by Mr. Thomas.
The motion
Mr. Garland then presented the following minority report transmitting
numerous reasons why he feels the City of Roanoke should operate its own school
bus transportation systei:
"22 March 1971
Mayor Roy L. Webber and
members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to a motion made and duly seconded, on March first, yon
referred to your Transportation Committee. a proposal by the
Roanoke City School Board that the City of Roanoke purchase fifty
school buses at a cost of approximately, $375,000. for study, report
and recommendation.
To date, the committee has had a total of five meet'Jags. In
addition to' the public meeting held in these chambers, the commit-
tee has met with representatives from the Fifth Planning District,
officials from the Safety Motor Transit Company and other interest-
ed and concerned citizens. · Me have had several private meetings.
not to mention the numerous written communications that have been
received and considered, as well as the telephone conversations
pertinent and relative to this matter. The School Board in its'
request to City Council suggested March 15th, as the date to endeavor
to meet. The reasons for this being that approximately six months
would be needed to advertise for the bids a~d the selection of the
proper bid so that the buses might be received for the commencement
of the 1971-72 session, should the council*s answer be an affirma-
tive one.
'85
The committee has deroted many hours to this proposition. However,
a question of such magnitude and broad ramification could hardly be
coapletely and thoroughly studied in o two or three weeh period with-
out the avoidance of undue haste. That be as it may, it is the
opinion or the chairman of this committee, after conferring us · group.
that an impasse hms been reached and that it will be impossible rot
the four meebers to be in full agreement and ·ccord on this question.
Inasmuch that the council as a whole must muhe the ultimate decision
and in respect to our school boards request, th·t we give au unsmer
by March lSth., as chairman of your Transportation Comulttee, the
following minority report is hereby respectively submitted for your
careful consideration and perusal and hopefully for a final vote on
this question.
In arriving at my conclusion th·t it would be in the best Interests
of the City to parch·se these buses, one must carefully weigh the
advantages ·gainst the disadvantages, n sort of checks and hal·aces
arrangement. You will notice that this is very lengthy report but
in so doing, I felt th·t the Council would be getting the benefit of
the study made and would make it e·sier to formulate an opinion.
Although I am not so ri·lye as to think th·t furnishing school bus
transport·sion for a subst·ntial percentage of our school population
shall ever overcome the basic ·nd priuary objections and fears of
being bused out of ones own neighborhood or school district and into
· noSher but it will. in my opinion make the alta·sion more pal·table
for the students as well as the p·rents. Of COurSe we know that this
situation mas not the City*s making and I would doubt very seriously
if this problem would have ever come about had it not been for this
enforced busing. In any event, it would have to be considered us a
contributing factor to our present unsatisfactory condition. I be-
lieve that it would be safe to say that the sensitivity of this
question has precipitated the current crisis.
Although costs must necessarily be considered, it should not. in my
opinion become the overriding factor in Council's ultimate decision.
Safety and convenience should be the primary and chief considerations.
One must consider, Mr. Mayor, that in order to completely understand
this problem, that one must be directly involved as · student being
bused or · parent responsible for the child*s transportation.
one is void of this obligation, it would be understandable how one
could become indifferent toward it. Since no member of the Council
to ny knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, is confronted with
this problem and since it does not directly effect us or that me
have to personally cope with, there mould be a tendency toward
apathy or lack Of concern.
In my presentation, I shall outline to the Council the pros and the
cons as found in the study along with my recommendations. I do so
in hopes that I will not be accused of being prejudiced or biased
in arriving at my own conclusion.
The following are reasons that I feel that the City should operate
its own school bus transportation system:
1. It is my opinion, in an analysis of the responses, verbal ·nd
written that the overwhelming majority of our taxpayers have indi-
cated their preference to city owned and operated school buses
opposed to the present system Of the Safety Motor Transit Company.
2. The city in it's answer to the County's interrogatory on annexa-
tion as to how the city would provide school transportation Mr the
proposed annexed area of~e county, the city was very explicit in
its reply in st·tin9 that it would provide equivalent school bus
transportation~to that now being rendered or offered and at no expense
to the rider. Surely and certainly, if the city is willing to do
this for potential residents of thecity, it should do no less for
its present residents who have paid thousands of dollars in taxes
to our treasury. The Council could hardly justify any other posi-
tion that would not give its present residents at least similar
services.
3. In order to qualify for state aid, the city must own and operate
its own School buses. According to the school board, this refund or
credit would presently amount to $B6,650 annually.
4. The fact that the drivers will be employed directly by the school
administratlono would result in better control and discipline over
the students as well as the drivers themselves.
5~ Overcrowding of buses would be virtually eliwinuted ns the profit
motive would no longer be a prise consideration.
6. IJth the eliminution of overcrowding and the buses being equipped
with flssbiug lights and being puinted the trnditional orange color.
the safety factor would be substantially iwproved~
?o Cgsts: us pointed out previously, the cost factor must be consid-
ered but ue should not allow it to become the wast persuasive one.
Although ! aw sure that there wJl! be some to toke exception to the
School eoard*s compilation and costs, they nevertheless are basing
their facts on past experience throughout the entire state of
Virginia (urban and rural) and after consultation with the Director
of School Transportation for Virginia. Nith the support or this
comparision, there is every evidence to believe that the city can do
it as reasonable and cheap and most probably wfil result in a small
saving to the taxpayer through city owned and operated buses as
compared to the present system. Then too, our own school superin-
tendent, DF. Roy Alcorn, came to us from Chesterfield County, which
operates approximately three hundred school buses. Be would be no
novice to this problem and ue would have the benefit of his past
experience. Ne must also consider that the School Board in their
determination of costs would be bound to accuracy to the best of their
ability for if they underestimate these costs, this miscalculation
would come back to haunt them later when the money runs out and they
would bare to return to the Council fo~ a supplemental appropriation.
Such u predicament would place them Jn an unfavorable light with the
Council particularly if the amount were a sizeable one. Regardless
of all of this, lets examine the costs of their proposal and compare
it with our known costs under Safety Motor Transit Company. These
are being attached for your guidance. An analysis of this which
admittedly is based solely on the School Board's calculations would
result in a saving of the difference of $151,294 (Estimate casts
under Safety Motor Transit Company for 1971-1972)'and $116,02B
(Estimate costs under City owned and operated buses after state
credit and depreciation allowances). As you can see, this would
result.in an annual savings of approximately $35,000. Also, one
must keep in mind that this is based on the city buses carrying
approximately 10,000 students per day as compared to an estimate of
2650 to be carried by Safety Motor Transit Company for the 1971-1972
session. The city would make a total of 310 trips daily as compared
to 57 trips by Safety Motor Transit Company.
As you are probably aware, the city school'system has for many years
paid the cost of transporting elementary school children if they
lived more than a mile from School or if walking a distance of less
than a mile is considered hazardous. If this plan is approved by
the Conncil, more extensive transportation will be offered, carrying
those elementary school children who live more than one half of a
mile from school and would carry secondary students who live more
than a mile from school. The city bus system would also transport
children living at lesser distances if walking is'considered haz-
ardous as is the case at Nilliam Fleming High School or Ruffner
Junior High School. Then too, if this plan is adopted~ it would
carry many students now taken to school by their parents or who
ride the bus and pay their own fare.
8. Vandalism: Although this could nevdr be completely eliminated by
the city owned bus system, we would nevertheless have a much better
control than we presently have. Me would have the advantage of being
able to exercise disciplinary action, suspension or outright expulsion
from the school or bus of the offender., I believe that the students
themselves would hare a far greater pride if the buses were city
owoed rather than corporate owned and would endeavor to keep them lu
good condition: Then too, you must consider that many of these
students are being bused against their will and nra having to pay
for it at that and which quite naturally results in a rebellious
and revengeful attitude by this group of students. This is their way
of getting even by causing destruction and chaos. However, I would
strongly suggest to the School Board that if this presents a serious
problem, that they have student monitors on each busto maintain
order and discipline and for the prevention of acts of vandalism
tn the bus and for the purpose of reporting any offender to the -
proper school authority.
'87
9. Schedules: Inasmuch es the proposed schedules by the School Board
uould~lnclude 310 daily trips (155 In the morning and 155 In the after-
noon) us compared to u total of 57 trips by the Safety Motor Trsnslt
Company~ it mould appear that the problem of meeting schedules os is
nam the case mould be eliminated. There mould be much more flexibil-
ity if City operated its own buses.
10. Inclement weather: With the school administration having the
authority over the operation of the schools (uhether or not to close
them during bad ueather) and also having the responsibility of the
transporting of the children mould lend Itself to · better under-
standing of the problem than mhen this responsibility is divided.
Unfavbrable effects of a city owned and operated bus system:
1. A capital outlay of this magnitnde of approximately $400,000 in the
ninth monlh o[ the budget rather thnn being considered lo respect Ia
a total budget end other needs and requirements of the city, is not
normally a good business practice.
2. A capital outlay of this amount will most probably result in a
tax increase, the source of mhich would be determined by the Council.
In order for all of our citizens to share in this expense, it would
be my recommendation that the utility tax be increased slightly nad
for a short time to accommodate this expenditure.
3. The withdraual of the SChool business from the Safety Motor Transit
Company will result in a considerable loss in revenue to the company
nad this loss could be fatal. At the present time the Safety Hotor
Transit Company has a contract with the School Board on the basis of
$486.50 per day for the transportation of elementary school children
to and from school. If yon multiply this figure by lO0 school days
per year this mill come to $B7.570. The company collects approximately
5,000 tokens per day and based on 180 school days, this would amount
to $157,500 per year. Adding these tmo figures together mould then
total $245,070 which represents the total amount of revenue received
by the Safety Motor Transit Company that is derived from transportl~
school children whether the city pays for it or the students then-
selves. The compuny*s total receipts in 1970 nnounted to $1.174,000.
One can then determine that the school business would amount to
approximately 21% of the total receipts. With this Sudden drop in
revenue and really nowhere to gain additional passengers, it would be
extremely doubtful if the company could survive or that it would renew
its franchise mith the city. This would be a distinct possibility.
Homever, even if the school business remained with the company the
basic problems are still prevalent. It may be of some consolation
to know that practically every city in the nation is suffering from
the bus miseries.
4. Assuming the company would continue to operate on a private basis
and without public subsidy, certain rootes might be eliminated and/or
frequency of service seriously curtailed.
5. Fares: Mith a loss of approximately 21% of revenue, the remaining
passengers should expect an increase fn fares to make up for this loss
as the company is presently operating on a marginal basis. According
to the company's figures, they sustained a loss of approximately
$71,000 in the year 1970. It should be pointed ant, however, that
this was before the council authorized fare increases.
6. Traffic Congestion: Particularly the morning rush hours when most
of our citizens will be going to work, the thrust of 155 school bus
trips~upon au already bad situation of traffic congestion, could only
further and morsen the present condition. This would be compounded
because traffic would then have to stop in both directions, once
a school bus comes to a halt. This of course, would maheit safer
for the students which undeniably should be the first consideration
but at the same time this would precipitate and contribute to certain
traffic problems now existing. Homever, to somewhat offset this
situation would be the cars that are now being used by ~ e parents
that are making a special trip for the explicit purpose of trans-
porting the child to the School. These cars would then not be
congesting the streets and us a result the traffic congestion partic-
ularly in the immediate areas of the school would certainly be improved
and alleviated by the number of cars now being used for this purpose.
7. Should the Supreme Court overrule the enforced busing edict and
return the country to the neighborhood school concept, the need for
buses would be considerably reduced.
¸'88
#r. Mayor ood genileneu ot the Cooac~l, Zoot ehel~mnu ia aoi so
presumptuous os to think that he can offer this council a panlcen
for all problems of school transportation or to provide the troubled
transit company on answer to its financial predicament. I nuke no
false pretense to this council in thot respect. I om only motivated
and persuaded by shat I feel is in the best interest of the city.
#berber the Council will choose to adapt this minority report, I do
not knoM but these recommendations ore based on the facts made
available to me subJect to ny interpretation and my sincere feelings
that these recommendations reflect the opinion and wishes of the
majority of our citizens. I would hope that Jt would not be
necessary to have a messy accident involving an overcrowded school
bus or a similar tragedy or fatality in order for the council to
activate.
As the other members of this committee knoss that I have a very high
personal regard for them and their Judgement, but in this instance.
Iuas compelled to disagree with them but at the same tine respecting
their opinion.
Accordingly, I make the following reeommendations to the Council.
1. Instruct the Roanoke City School 8oard to immediately advertise
for bids for the purchase of fifO! school buses.
2. Instruct the City Attorney to prepare the proper measures to
implement this purchase.
3. To instruct the City Attorney if it possible to commit the city to
this purchase immediately but to have the appropriation included in
the 1971-1972 budget inasmuch as payment will not have to be made
until after July 1st.
4. That the City of Roanoke ulll provide free bus transportation for
certain students, the guidelines to be set by the school administra-
tion for those qualifying.
5. That this service be provided commencing with the 1971w1972 session.
6. That the school administration immediately recruit a sufficient
number of drivers to command this fleet of fi fty school buses and that
driver training courses be immediately undertaken and offered with
special emphasis being placed upon safety, traffic laws particularly
those governing school buses, driver courtesy and child psychology.
7. That the school administration immediatelyundertake the leasing
of garage and storage space necessary for a fleet of fifty buses.
8. That the school administration take applications for a supervisor,
mechanics, and helpers for the purpose of maintenance of these buses.
9. That a transportation authority for the city be established for Se
purpose of providing bus service for all of our citizens. This could
be done by the outright purchase of the present assetz of the Safety
Motor Transit Company or the city could buy new buses, garage and
storage facilities. In either alternative, consideration should be
given to consolidating these facilities with our proposed new service
center. Under either plan, the city should qualify for considerable
federal aid in the purchase of equipment. Math this in mind, plus
the savings realized in the various taxes which the city mould be
exempt from (gasoline, chassis, sales, corporation, etc.) would
result in a considerable saving that the present private corporation
does not enjoy. The city should therefore be able to operate the
autborlty with equal efficiency and without this heavy taxation
burden. Mhether the council decides in this direction at the present
time, it is the opinion of many experts in the field of public
transportation, that this is the inevitable solution to this problem
of mass transportation.
10. Should the Council feel that the preceding recommendation is too
bold at this time, consideration should be given for the establish-
ment of a Transportation agency for the entire Roanoke Valley. The
primary purpose of the Agency should be to regulate and supervise all
aspects of passenger transportation within the region. It should be
locally administrated through cooperative efforts of the transit
operators, local governments and the Fifth Planning District,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland, Chairman,
Transportation Committee"
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that Cnancl
has not had sufficient information on the matter and that if the Roanoke City School
Board knem this request was coming before Council they should have complied the
necessary data beforehand and that it would be misleading for Council to let the
citizens of tbe City of Roanoke think that if this matter Ia referred to 1971-72
budget study, Council will find the necessary funds to purchase the school buses.
In a further discussion of the matter. Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion
that Council has been furnished mith a good many facts, that the facts are there and
it is a question ns to whether or not Council is ready to receive these facts and
act upon them. that the melfare of our children is at stake, that Council has a
responsibility and obligation to see that the children of the city are transported
properly and urged that Council put aside their consideration that money is the only
factor involved.
Mr. Garland then offered a substitue motion that the City Attorney be
directed to prepare the proper measure authoriaing the Roanohe City School Board
to purchase the fifty new school buses, The motion was seconded bI Mr. Lisk and
lost by the following Vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk and Taylor ...............................3.
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor Webber ............... 4.
The orlglnal motion for the adoption of the majority report was then
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Webber ............... 4.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Lish and Taylor .............................
Mr. Thomas then moved that the majority report be referred back to the
committee for continued discussions mith the Safety Motor Transit Company and the
Eoauohe City School Board with reference to overall transportation in the City of
Roanoke. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM 0RAINS: Council havin9 referred to a committee composed
of Messrs. Hampton W. Thomas, Chairman, Vincent S. Wheeler o~d Julian F. Rirst a
communication from Mr. Lee B. Eddy, Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Super-
visors, requestin9 ~hat Council authorize its Sewer Committee to meet with the
Semer Committee Of Roanoke County to discuss possible Joint financing for
ments to the Murray Run semer line, the committee submitted the following report
recommending that Councilauthortze the administrative staff of the Cjt~ of Roanoke
to prepare and submit to the State Water Control Board · preliminary application for
a grant of funds for the replacement of the Murray Run Line within the city:
89
March 22. 1971
Honorable Mayor nnd City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Representatives or the Roanoke County Hoard of Supervisors have
approached your semer committee nodhave met with the committee on
two occasions in regard to a situation which Roanoke County faces
that can be summarized generally as follows.
Murray Run is a drainage basin that heads in the area of the
CoUnty southwest of the City in the vicinity of Route 419, Starhey
Road, et cetera. It flows northeastward into the City through the
Jefferson Hills Golf Course under Colonial Avenue, through Fralin
Park, Fjshburn Park, Lakewood Parh. thence under Hraudon Arenas
and into the Roanoke River. A portion of this area in the County
is under semoge treatment contract resolution. However, rather than
the sanitary semage drainage being along Murray Run, A is pumped
by the County westward into the County*s Mud Lich line, thence is
carried by that line mestmard and northward into the City of Roanohe*s
Roanoke River outfall. Roanoke County is under instructions from the
Virginia State Rater Control Roard, as it is understood, to control
volume flow through a portion of the Mud Lick line because of line
capacity. The County has before it development proposals in this
basin area ~ the head waters of Murray Run. They have some funds
allocated at the present time to enlarge the pumping capacity of the
system that pumps over into the Mud Lick basin and would apparently
have to expend these funds and inprnve this pumping System before
any additional development can take place in the immediate area
under consideration.
The logical long-range system for the handling of sewage from
the particular area would be to transport it by a relatively short
line to the City limits and connect into the existing City*s Murray
Run line. This would be In lieu of the pumping arrangement present
and proposed over into tbs Mud Lick line. The City of Roanoke,
however, has of necessity taken a position for Some several years,
that the size of the City's Murray Run line in relation to the volume
flows within the City is such that the Murray Run line cannot be
considered as available to accept sewage discharge from the County
area. Any additional inflow into the City's Murray Run line. partic-
ularly from present and proposed development within the County.
would be possible only by a replacement or a new Murray Run line
through the City.
The approach by the County to the City has been to inquire if the
City would consider any plan whereby the Murray Run line might be
replaced or reconstructed adequate to avoid their expenditure for
rebuilding a pumping systen and adequate for additional development
out in the County that would most likely be forthcoming with additlonal
resolution areas within the, Murray Run drainage basin.
R~placementof the Murray Run line was one of the projects includ-
ed in the study made by Hayes, Seay. Mattern and Mattern Of December
1966. However, the necessity of the project was considered as such
that it was placed in a second phaseof a grouping of projects in
the priority order. As explanation of the phasing arrangement, it
would be reminded that the first phase, in priority, was those
projects that were included by the City Council for funding under
the 1957 bond issue program. It is these projects that the City is
continuing in the process of construction. Thus your committee has
advised the County Board of Supervisors* representatives that the
Murray Run line is not an immediately authorized project on the part
of the City and while its replacement is important to the City. it
is not currently a first priority.
Roanoke County has submitted already, they advise, an applica-
tion to the State Mater Control Board for State and Federal funds to
assist in the replacement of the pumping system currently used for
transportation of sewage from this basin area over into the Mud
Lick line. The County wishes, if possible, to rather apply these
funds to a gravity system and be able to feed into the Murray Run
line. To that purpose the County expresses a desire to file with the
State Mater Control Board an amended application for State and Federal
funds which would set up their construction of a gravity line rather
than the pumping arrangement.
91
The estimated cost of the construction of n sew add parallel
line to the MurreyRun line uithin the City which would replece the
existing Nurrey Run line, is $314,025, Your committee does not
feel that the City should tahe any action toward the construction of
this line at this time without the guarantee of 80 percent Federal
and State funds. This would mean that the project would he funded
by the State and Federal governments at an estimated $251,219 with
the CJty*s cost at $62,805.
The tine required in the Hater Control Roard*s consideration
of applications for funds is not currently certain.
Your committee recommends to the City Council that the Council
authorize the administrative staff of the City to prepare and submit
to the State Water Control Moord a preliminary application for a
grant of funds for the replacement of the Hurray Run line within the
City. A preliminary application is not a commitment upon the City
to construct a line nor a commitment to obligate funds but is more
in the sense of an inquiry to the State Mater Control aoard as to ·
the availability of funds should the project be determined to be
proceeded mith.
In conjunction with this, the County will he filing an amended
application for funds for that section within Roanoke County.
It should be noted in respect to this total matter that the
area of the County which is involved in this situation is urbanized
and upon the availability of sewer will become moFe highly urbanized.
Roanoke County is somewhat Stalemated at this point in the development
of this area in viem of the direct relationship to semer service and
is dependent upon the City for further urban development.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Hampton W. Thomas
Hampton W. Thomas
S/V~cent S. Wheeler
Vincent S. #homier
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst"
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in ~e recommendation of the committee
Yhe motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INYRQMCCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SALE OF PROPERTy-SEWERS AND SYORM DRAINS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance
No. 19574, authorizing and directing the acquisition from J. F, St. Clair and Sous,
Incorporated, of a certain parcel of land containin9 488 square feet and being
situate adjacent to the westerly line of Brookside Lane, S. E.~ together with a
temporary construction easement in an adjoining 1800 square feet, all said property
been9 an easterly portion of Official Tax No. 445OIO5, needed for.the future
widening and improving of Brookside Lane, S. E., upon certain terms and conditions,
baying previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over,
was again before the body, Mr. Link offering the following for its second reading
and final adoption:
(Ulg574) AN ORDINANCE authorizng and directing the acquisition of certain
land needed by the City for the future widening and improvement of Brookside Lane,
S. E., upon certain terms and.conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 216.)
92
Mr. Llsk Bored the adoption of the OrdJnonce, The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor end adopted bT the follomlng vote:
AYES: #essrso Garland, LIsk, Toylor, Thomas, TrOut, Mheeler and Hayer
Mebber ?
~AYS: ~one .0.
CITY ENGINEER-COUNCIL-PURCHASING AGENT: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure appointing Messrs. Julian F. Birst, Byron E.
Hamer, Boeford B. Thompson, Milliam F. Clark, Samuel H. McGhee, III, Rex T. Mitchell
Jr.. and Kit 8. Kiser as members of a committee established for the ~urpose of
*ublicly receiving and opening certain bids made to the City of Roanoke for public
)urchases and concessions, he presented same; whereupon Dr. Taylor offered the
following Resolution:
(#19594) A RESOLUTION approving the appointment by the Mayor of the
members of a committee for the purpose of publicly receiving and opening certain
bids made to the City for public purchases and concessions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35° page 223.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
~ebber ........................ ~ ...... 7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure
establishing a committee to represent the City of Roanoke to meet joint'ly with
representatives from the County of Roanoke, the City Of Salem and the Zown of Vinton
for consideration and study of matters involved or which would be involved in the
concept of a regional courthouse facility for the Roanoke Valley governments and to
make recommendations to their respective governing bodies as Soon as practicable,
but no later than June 1, 1971, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered
the followihg Resolution:
(~19595) A RESOLUTION relating to a proposal for provision of regional
courthouse facilities.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35. page 224.)
Mr. ~homas moved the adoption of the Resolution. Yhe motion was seconded
bE Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebbe! 7.
NAYS: None O.
he has appointed #essrs. FrunR W. Rogers, Sr., David K. husk, John N. Loche and
Lothur Mermelstein us nembers of the committee representing the City of aoanohe
on said study. .
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the appolntneuts mu~e by Mayor
Rubber.. The motJo~ was se.conded by Or. Taylor sad ununimouslT ad~pted.
.CITY MARKET-PA~KS AND PLAYCR0UNDS: Council hating.directed the
Attorney ~o prepare the proper measure unending and reorduiniug SeCtion 3,
Rental ~harges f~r use of the market hull~ing, Chapter 2, Title IX, Public Markets,
of The Code.of the City of Rouuohe, 1956, as au?dad, au~ providing for the
date of said Ordinance, he presented same; whereupon, #F. Kheeler offered the
lng emergency Ordinance:
(#1959~) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaJning Sec. 3. Rental charqes
for use of naFket butldiuq of Chapter 2, Title IX, Public Markets of the Code
of the. City of Roanoke, 1956, us amended; providing for an emergency ; and
providing faf the effective date of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. aS, page
Mr. ~heeler mo~ed the adoption of t~ Ordinance. The motion was ~econded
by Mr, Llsh and ad~pted by the folloning vote:
AYES: RessFs. GoFlando Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, WheeleF and Rayor
MebbeF ...................................
NAYS: None ....................O.
ROTIO~S ANB MISCELLANEOUS DDSINESS:
CITY CO~ERNREN~: Rr. Lisk moved that Mayor ~ebber be reqaested to
a Proclasation proyl~iming Rarch 27. 1971. as Monju Day in the City of Roanoke.
The motion ~os seconded by Dr. Taylo~ and unanimously adopted.
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
,9:4
COUNCIL, HEGULAR MEETING,
Nondny, Nnrch 29, 1971,
The Council of th~ Clt! or Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Monday, March 290 1971, et 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, mlth Ma~or Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Hoel C. Taylor, Hampton W.,
Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent $. Mheeler and Mayor Ro! L. Mebber ...... 6.
*AHSENT~ Councilman David £. Llsk ............................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENTs Mr. Julian F. Hlrsto Clt~ Manager, Mr. Hjrcn E. Haner,
Assistant City Ranager~ Mr. Jamea M, Rincanon,'Clt~ Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
IMVOCATION: The meetln9 mas opened mith a prayer b~ Dr. Noel C. Tailor,
Member of Roanoke Clt~ Council.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
March 1, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council~ on motion of Mr.
Official Tax Nos. 2560138 end 2560139, and a I.S acre tract of land, described as
part of Lot 3, D~er Estate Map, Official Tax No. 2560153. be rezoned from RS-3,
'February 24. 1971
95
De stated that these units are to be essentially toeahous~s,
mlth rentals ranging from $125 to $135 per month, and uith
adequate parking prorided. In addltloat Mr, Plant*ti noted
that this was to be a privately finance project, and reit that
the area mas suitable for this specific uset end mould consti-
tute an asset to the community.
Hr. Laurence, a member of the Planning Commi&siono noted thai
this represented a oood use for this property.
Hr. Roynton, a member of the Planning Commission, noted that
he felt that the corridor along this portion or Herahberger
Road mould, at acne point ia tine revert to contercial uses,
and that this particular use represented a good transitional
The Planning Director noted that the traffic situation in this
dons situation. He noted that the Topics ProJect did.not
include this specific area for improvement, and consequently
no basic improvements were scheduled for at least the immediate
future. He noted that traffic volumes mere ercessive in this
general area: 24-hour traffic volumes between Core Road and
Shamrock St. in 1970 mere 8,550, with a capacity of Only 6,000
vehicles per day.
Hr. and #rs. Clinton Lee. appeared before the Planning Commission
and were opposed to the reznning petition, since the area uss
basically a single-family residential area, and, ia addition,
property values would be downgraded.
Sergeant Johnson, appeared before the Planning Commission and
opposed the petition on similar grounds as did Mr. and Mrs. Lee;
the area is essentially a single-family residential area and
should remain this character.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and approved with a
rote of fire ayes and I nay, recommending to City Council to
9rant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott
by LM
John H. Parrott
Chairman*
Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr.. Attorney/ repr;senting the petitioner, appeared
before Council Jn support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request'for rezoning, Mr. Thomas
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19597) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IF, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, Of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 19S6, as amended, and Shee~ No. 256, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Conncil of the City of Roanoke
to have property located in the 3400 block 'of Hershberger Road, N. W., described as
Lots I and 2, Sharpe Map, Official Tax HOS. 2560130 and 2560139, and a '1.5 acre
tract of land, described as ~art of Lot 3, Dyer Estate Map, Official Tax Ho.
2560153, rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Restde'ntial District, to aG-2, General
Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RS-3 Single-Famll~ Residential Oistrict. to aG-2,
General Residential' District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice ~nd the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, b~ Section TI. Chapter 4.1. Title X¥, of The Code of the
Clt! or Roanoke, 1956, ns amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
pouted as required and f~r thn tine provided by.send section; end
NHEMEASo the he~ring ns provided for in said notice mss held on the 29th
day of March, 1971, ct 2 p.m.. before the ~osncil or the City of Roanoke, at nhlch
bearing nil parties fn ~.terect nad citizens Mere Riven no o~portueJty*to be heard.
both for nnd ngcinst the.propoted rezoning; and
WHEREAS° this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. R£ IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Cit~ of Roanoke that
Title XV. Chapter 4.1. Section R, of The Code o~ the City of Roanoke. 1956. as
amended, relatlng to Zoning. and Sheet No. 256 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City
of Roanoke. be amended in the folloming particular and no other, viz.:
Property located in the 3400 block of Ilershberger REnd, N. M,, described
ns Lots I and 2. Sharpe Map. designated on Sheet 256 of the Sectional 1966 Zone
Map, City of Roanoke, an Official Tax Nos. 2560138 and 2560139, and a 1.5 acre
tract of laud described as part of Lo~ 3, Diet Estate Map, designated on Sheet 256
of the Sectional 196b Zone Map. Cit~ of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 25§0153, be,
and is hereby, changed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District. to RG-2,
General Residential District, and that Sheet. No. 256 of the aforesaid map be
changed in this respect,
The notion uss seconded by Dr. Tailor and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
NA¥SI None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: Mrs. Ca,o~yn Crouder, S~nk~sm~n for the
9¸7
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: A communication from the Roseohe Vellel Mental
Heolth - Rental Retardation Services Board, requestin~ that Council allocate
$35,969,00 representing the share or the Citl or Ronnohe for the 1971-72 fiscal
leer budget of the Ronnohe Valley Hentnl Health -#entsl Retardation Services
Board, nas before Council.
Mr. Trout moeed that the matter be referred to 1971072 budget study. The
motion mas seconded bl Dr. Taylor smd unenlmousll adopted.
BBBGEToCONTR1BGTIO~S: A communication from the Roocuhe Guidance Center.
transmitting their proposed budget for the fiscal lear 1971-72, advising that their
request from the City of Roanohe is based on 47.9 per cent of residents uithin this
jurisdiction in relation to the total population served bI the Guidance Center, mas
before Council,
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred to 1971~72 budget study. The
motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.'
BUDGET-COMMONREALfH*S ATTORNEY: Copy of a communication from the State
Compensation Board, advising that the Compensat'ion Board has approved a request of
the Commonwealth's Attor~eI for a transfer of $150.00 from his Personal Services
account to his Printing and Office Supplies account, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Communications from Mrs. Henry E.. Chandler' and gr. and
Mrs. Ulysses Randolph, requesting that Council authorize the construction of a field
house in Highland Park to be utilized by Jefferson Senior High School. ams before
the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communications be received and filed. The motio
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS-STREET LIGHTS: A communication from the Rugby Area
Civic League. expressing concern about the street lighting in thei£ area and advis-
ing that their streets have not been smept for quite some time. was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City MaNager
for study and report to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranwell. Attorney, repre-
senting Messrs. James £.'Ailstoch and William B. Patterson, requesting that property
located at the corner of Wi~souri Avenue and Tenth Htreet, N. E,. described as Lot 3
Block 10, according to the Map of Fairmount, Official Tax ~o..30~0~01, ~e rezoned
from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, was
before Council.
Dr, Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-SENERS AND STORM BRAINS: The City Manager submitted the folloming
report requesting that $12,000.00 be appropriated to 0perntlng Supplies ned
Materials under Section agO, #Seunge Treatment Fund,' of the 1970-?1 Seuuge Treat*
meat Fund budget, to provide funds for the transportation of n waste product knoun
ns pickling liquor to be uted on mn experlmeatnl basis to remove or redoce phos-
phates· from the semsge effluent at the Seaage Treatment Plant:
'Roanoke, Virginia
March 29,
Honorable Msyor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Heutlemen:
As reported to City Council on Monday, March 22, 1971, the City*s
Consulting ~ngineers, Alvord, Hurdick and Rowson, have recom-
mended immediate implementation of a teat program mherehy Me
mill utilize a musts product, known as pickling liquor to remove
or reduce the phosphates from menage effluent at the Semage -
Pickling liquor is a by*product of steel mill production and at
the present time this pickling liquor ia a surplus product which
is difficult to dispose of. As a result, for at least the pre*
sent, it is anticipated that this product cnn be obtained for no
greater expenditure than the transportation costs. Implementa-
tion Of this program at-our sewage plant mould necessitate the
transportation of this by-product from a steel mill in Yorkville,
Ohio, to Roanoke. investigation has indicated that only a few
transportation firms have the proper equipment to handle this
product and locally the O'Boyle Tank Lines is equipped and willing
to transport this product. They have proposed to transport a
40,000 pound truck load of this liquid to Roanoke for $360 per
load, In addition they would propose a $25 per day placement fee
for unloading.. As it is estimated that one truckload per day is
required, it is estimated that for n 30*day test period it mould
cost the City approximately $12,000. This amount of morley is not
currently available mithin the Semsge Treatment fund accounts so
implementation of this test would necessitate an appropriation.
The importance of this test is in the objective of seeking a
method of the control of phosphate. This has been a matter of
directive by the State Mater Control Hoard and tbs City is
tionally interested in determining a effective procedure in
relation to the total plant operation. Roanoke is perhaps the
first in this part of the Country to try this approach; therefore,
we are experimenting in this matter. Therefore. it Mould be
requested that City Council appropriate $12.O00 to Sewage Treat-
ment Account 90, Object Code 320, Operating Supplies and Materials.
for the purpose of this test.
If the test is as successful as anticipated, we Mould then consider
returning to City Council on a possible proposal for installation
of a permanent procedure for obtaining and utilizing this product
to remove phosphates from sewage. This installation was described
in the AIvord, Hurdick and RoMson Report.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinmce. The m,aloe mos seconded
by Mr. Wheeler god sdopted by lbe f,Il,ming vote:
AYES: Mesars. Gorlend. Toll,r. Th,mum. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...............................
~AYS: ~one ................O. (Er. Liek absent)
In a discosslou of the matter. Mr. Garland moved that the City Attorney
be directed to reviem model Ordinonees concerning the prohibition of phosphates and
report beck to Council. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor ,od unanimously
adopted.
After · further discussion of the mutter, Mr. Trout moved that the overall
question of the removal of phosphates at the Se,age Treatment Plant be.referred to
committee composed of Messrs. Hampton W. Thomas. Chairman. Vincent S. Wheeler and
Julian F. flirst for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion ubs
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Council having concurred in a
report of the City Manager proposing that he be authorized to negotiate eau contracts
math the various 9overnmeotal agencies mbo utilize the R,an,re Juvenile Detention
Home, the City lanager submitted the followieg report advising that the denial of
admittance of cases committed in the City of Roanoke to the Juvenile Detention Home
is of concern at this time with a definite need for it to be resolved and that be is
giving study to mhether the city should limit the Juvenile Detention Home to con-
· Roanoke. Virginia
March 29. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
6entlemen:
By the Agenda of January 25, 1971, I submitted to COuncil a report
with respect to the per diem rates at the Juvenile Detention-Home.
I solicited and the Council consented iu our contacting the
various other political subdivisioes .ho over a period of lears
have had a contract ulth the City and who to var~ing degrees have
sent juveniles for detention in this facility. This is as report
for your preliminary consideration on a matter that has continued
to develop to t~e extent that it is felt that it merits considera-
tion at this time.
When the Home .es originally constructed, the City and the State
.entered into an agreement which established the facility for a
period of ten years from 1961 as a regional home. It .as on this
basis that the State put up its portion of construction funds that
it mould be a regional facility and available to other political
subdivisions. The outgrowth of that were the various contracts
with the counties, cities and towns in this area. This period of
time has now expired.
As the City Council i$ aware from many sources, the rate of detention
of juveniles is on a conspicuous rise, not only in Roanoke, but
throughout the country. We have experienced for several years
intermittent problems of adequacy of space at the Home. Within the
past year this problem has grown to encompasslonger periods of
time of maximum capacity and the tread appears to be undiminishtng.
More and more occurrences are being encountered wherein the Home
does not have capacity to accommodate commitments.made by the court
or courts here in the City of Roanoke. The result of this is that
there ia an increase in the number of juveniles .ho are having to
be confined in other quarters or .ho are having to be released to
Outside custody because of the absence of space in the home. This
100 '
is causing atteatiqn end I feel that it may become necessary ~o
tike some action in this direction. Hl report to the Council ia
ant mfth fey firm Intact qt this polet but tn alert yon to this
matter and the thinking that is 9oJng on,
Me feel that we ire raising quee~iont frsm time t~ time under 'the
circumstances of the City°s having ~o deny acceptance of its oan
situations into the Rome because of the inadequacy of space.
The logic mould be that there.be i physical enlargement to the
Rome; hcuever, this is not something that cnn be immediately
accomplished but the problem o( confinement is one that is almost
Immediate.
The Home is designed for a maximum of 21 juvenilen mith u break-
down of 13 boys and .R girls. From time to time, minor numbers
of additions can be made to this but nothing on a continuous
basis Or nothing to any large numbers.
In calendar 1970, t~ere las a total of 6,961 bed days. Of this,
the City of Roanoke had 5,091o Roanoke County 1,311, and Salem
452. Others totaled 7 bed days. Included in these figures are
State cases where the City is holding anoiting pick up by the
State and these may vary from thq City to other Jurisdictions.
To handle ~ar immediate problem uhich is one of having to reject .
City commitments, me are giving some ntudy to whether the City
should limit the Rome to Ci.ty confinements only in the opinion
that this would provide for a period of time, some relief in
the denial situation. This, of courae, raises the question as
to mbere thc othcr political subdivisions might find confine-
ment accommodation and this should be given thought. Our
feeling is that the denial Of admittance Of cases committed
by the City Of Roanoke is of concern right at this time math
a definite need for it to be resolved,
Me have contacted the other political subdivisions with whom the
City had agreements within the past 10 years and have received
replies. Those that are major assignors have indicated they
back to them with anything definite so that there is no firm
commitment math these localities at this point nhould Jt appear
to be necessary to go into the direction that I indicated maybe
that abich mould have to be done.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
CAPZTAL IMPROVEM£NT$ PROGRAM-MUNICiPAL BUILDZNG: Council having taken
proposed to be entered into between the City of Roanoke and Sowers, Rodes and White~
scarver, Consulting Engineers, for providing mechanical a~d electrical design
services for the former Reid and Cutshall Building, in the amount of $2,000.00, the
City Manager submitted the'follouing report reiterating his previous request:
"Roanoke, Virginia .
March 29, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
On January'la, 1971, I submitted on your Agenda a proposal which
would be necessary in order to proceed uith the development of
· planning as to occupancy and use of the City's annex building on
·hird Street, S. W., known as the former Reid and Cutshall
Building. This consisted of a proposal by the firm of $omers,
andes and Whttescarver, ConSulting Engineers of Roanoke, for
101'
electrical systems and architectural services. Their proposalo
as nas submitted, nas a fee or $12,ooo rot this mork with initially
preparation of prellmiear! design, material and sketches at u cost
of $2.000 to enable better determination or direction and the nature
of the uork to folIom.
The agreement that I asked of Council aaa for Cit~ ManaGer to
accept their proposal mhich mould be binding only to the extent
of the $2,000 rot the'preliminur~ analysis.
It Is urgently felt that the Clty should proceed to make uae of
this building, This lnvolvea not onl~ the use of that building
but the fact that me have deferred for some period of time any
significant-relocations or arrangements in the courthouse bail'ding,
dependent upon decisions math respect to the Third Slreet Annex.
If the Council mould permit us to accept the proposal of Sowers',
Rodes and Rhitescerver, we would hope to proceed as rapidly as
possible to better determine whet would be involved in the
occupancy of the Reid and Cntshall Building.
Respectful1! submitted,
S/ Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. Hiram
City Manager"
In a discussion of the matter, Dr. Tayl'or and Mr. Garland expressed the
Opinion that action on the report of the City Manager should be delajed until Coun-
cil has reached an agreement as to .hiGh offices will be going into the former Reid
nad Cutshall Building and that Council should once and for all decide upon how the
space is to be used.
Mr. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to Council acting as a
Committee of the Whole to discuss plans for the former Reid and Cutshall Building
and any other phase of the Municipal Building Complex. The motion was seconded by
Hr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
At this point. Mr. Lisk entered the meeting.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Couocil having referred
report of a committee composed of Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman; Robert A. Garland
J. D. Sink, J~ Robert Thomas, Alfred T. Beckley and Warren B. Trent in connection wit:
the provision and installation of the Communications Control Center Consoles and other
related radio equipment back to the committee for the purpose of conferring with Mr.
Harry N. Lichtenstein, Attorney. representing Technical Products Engineering ~6~pany,
and representatives from Technical Products Engineering Company. to further investi-
gate their bid and the typ~ of equipment offered by said C~npany, the committee sub-
mitted the following report reiterating their previous recommendation that the propo-
sol Of Motorola Communications and Electronics, Incorporated, in the amount of
$144,200.00, be accepted:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 29. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On March 15, 1971, this committee reported to City Council its
findings with regards to the two bids received by City Council
on February 22, 1971, for providing and installing five
communicntiom control center consoles end other related radio
equipment. As the 'committee uts recommending that City Council
accept the higher bid, that of Motorola CommuniCations M d
Electronics, Mr. James Mshnn, Vice President of Technical
Products Engineering, Inc., attended the Council meeting uith
his attorney nnd asked that Council not accept or concur in
your comwlttee*a report. CIW Council then naked that the
committee again meet mlth Mr, Mahou end his nttornels smd
listen to the points he desired to discuss before submttting
its final report for e~naiderntion,
On Medneadsy, March 17, 1971, five members or the ~ommittee
met for over tug hours with Mr. Jaoes Mahnn end his attornelso
Mr. Enrrl Llchtenstein tad Mr. William Anderson. Mr. Mahan,
uith the capable assistance of his nttornelc, discussed Mr.
$, D. Slnk*t bid evaluation report point bl point. Addi-
tionnlll, he spent considernble time discussing his ccopetitorts
product and several times had to be asked 'to restrict his
comments to his own ~roduct.
Mr. Mahnn has gone to considerable time and effort to convince
the committee of the merits of his product. There is no doubt
but that he is convinced that TPE*a equipment is equal to or
better tbna that ~f his competitor's.
In an efforl for your' committee to evalnale bola companies'
products, three members of your committee visited two active
TPE equipped sites, one active Motorola equipped site nad one
shop which had a' nemly assembled and active Motorola console.
This latter visit mas to observe the solid state Motorola
console in operation where we could determine its maintaina-
bility while the equipment was in use. The committee members
were quite favorabll impressed.
Your committee has analyzed TPE*s proposal math respect to the
Cities specifications. This anallsis reveals the follo~in9
facts:
a, TPEts for~al letter which accompanied their proposal
took call one exception to the specilications, an
item which had previously been resolved by the Cfty*s
addendum No. 1. dated February 8, 1971. Subsequently,
Mr. Mahan has questioned our specifications. It
should be noted that he or his representative had
ample opportunity at the bidderc* c~nference on
February 3, 1971, to express these feeling~ and
neglected to do'so. Therefore, it is the considerate
opinion of your committee that the specifications are
not an issue.
b. TPE proposed to provide a solid-state, no relay system.
Par. 1.12o page 1.3 of our general specifications and
instructions Stated that the imard would be based upon...
reliability of similar equipment supplied by the
biddero..; performance on simillr contracts and evaluat-'
committee takes exception to all three of these. TPE
has not delivered or installed any solid state equipment
of this type which we could examine under actual working
in their factory in Sun Valley, California. Your com-
mittee feels ti is not in the best interest of the City
to purchase prototlpe equipment which has not been
*de-bugged** ~e will relate to the bidders' local
service organization later in this report.
c. At the February 25, 1971, meeting. Hr, Mahou stated that
this mas infounded. Later the committee requested Mr.
Mahan to provide a Dunn and Bradstreet financial report
to substantiate financial status and Mr. Mahafi said be
writing this r~port to Council, this information had
not been provided. He did provide the Auditor with a
Scientific) which mas of no use to the Auditor in deter-
mining the financial status of TPE, Several organiza-
tions contacted havereported that partial payments
103
d. In par. ?.041 page 1.1 of the general specifications the
Cia! stated that the bidder mould Saul'nde ~ complete
manual from aa installation of similar size, scope
and type for the purpose of evaluations; The men,si
submitted uss of limited uae as the electronics con-
tained therein man sot all solid state. Additinsalll
It hsd s different electronic configuration from the
uae h~ proposad to supply os. ..
e. TP~*a marrentl does not compll mith the Cities speci-
ficatSons. It has a plaI on uords ehl~h in effect
changes our requirements, shortening the warrantI
period. · '
f. Par. 9.01 on page 1.12 of general specifications atst~
that the bidder unst state in the formal bid letter
the name and capability of the service or~salzation
which mill provide any and all murrnntl service. TP£
bid proposal states that Springhill Electronics of
Boo,es Mill. Virginia. mill fulfill ual ws£rantl
obligation on TPE*s behalf. As the principal of this
firm Is a Roanoke County deputy sheriff and inaccessible
during his nursing hours he cannot satisfactorily
respond to our needs during aa emergencl. Me asked
for the n~me and capabilities of the firm. TP~ pro-
vided no Information to show that qualified alternate
personnel mould be available in case the Springhill
Electronics ~rincfpal van unavailable. Apparently
recognizing the weakness of his proposal' the TPE repre-
sentative is now trying to change the service organi-
'zati6n. This would be 'after-the-fact* modification
of his original unacceptable bid proposal.
g. Par. 8.O1 on page 1.12 specS'lies that bidders facilities
for supplying all electronic parts must be capable of
delivering said components, on emergency orders. Mithin
24 hours. TPE specifies they will ship within 24 h'ours.
Par. 8.02 requires detailed information as to exactl'y
bo# replacement parts Mill be supplied. TP£ provides
only general or Vague information. To the best o*f our
knouledge, TPE does not provide a published parts list
and it requires individual negotiation on each part
each time replacement parts are requ~d.
h. Par. ll.Ol A on page 1.13 under Qualification of Bidders,
the City*s' specifications state that each bidder shall
have been actively engaged in the manufacture and in-
stallation of commercial radio communications control
center equipment and/or commercial FM tag way radio for
a period Of at ~east ten (10) years. Se have made
inquiry through numerous channels and have been unable
to find evidence uT this fact.
i. Par. 12.02 on ~age 1.14 Of general specifications states:
· Detailed electrical functional diagrams shall be fur-
nished which show*the use to which each operating control
is put. These diagrams shall show sufficient detail to
allow the signal and ~oatrol paths to be traveled through
the ctrcuitry.* These schematic drawtnQs mere not sub-
mitted by TP£ as require~. Nithout these drauings no
tecbniciao can properly evaluate the TP£ system.
J. Paragraph 2.O1 and 2.03 on pafles 4.7 and 4.10 of the
general specificationl state that the main radio control
panel include a common microphone pre-amplifier and com-
pression circuit. Our specifications, paragraph
Transmit Module spec/lien that the signal from the
pression amplifier be fed into an amplifier in the transmit
module thus providing a separate power amplifier for each
active transmit channel. TP£ did not meet this specifi-
cation as they failed to provide a power amplifying
circuit in each transmit module. This is important as
it provides more redundancy in those circuits ~ost likely
to fail. (See attachment So. 1)
h. Section l~ of the Detailed Specif~catloos llsts'tbecom-
position of the consolves, as described in Section I of
the General Specifications. The equipment desired is
listed and described Jn detail. Mr. Mahan has repeatedly
assured your committee t~bt TPE can fabricate *anye
equipment, nevertheless the TPEfs equipment list as con-
tained in Section 12 of their proposal and as shown on
their visual presentation does not comply ~itb that
104
specified. Mr. Mahou on several'*occosiobs ~ar ieplle~
that they know our needs better than our ann experts
do, They have eliwioated several items specified with
the comment tOirferesces alii exist ia physical arrange-
ment and mechanical construction frae one manufacturer
to another. Our proposal is completely definitive and
meets the functional and operatlonalrequlrewents of
the specifications.' Tour committee disagrees. TPEss
proposal is not as adaptable for future expansion or
rearraagewent. Should Council so desire lout con-
uittee will verbally discuss the differences shush
on ottccheent No. 2.
1. TPE. in its bid proposal, took exception to the penalty
provisions with respect to the specified mooot'ube an-'
tenon mast. They feel that they cannot meet the time
schedule proposed and request that conslderetion be
9lve~ to uaivin9 the penalty clause uith respect to
this item. Motorola did not take this exception.
It is felt that your committee 'should m~ke note of the fact that
the City has for approximately teenty years utilized Motorola
communications equipment and as · result bas been dependent upon
the local Motorola dealer for parts and service. This has been
a successful arrangement as in the past when an emergency
situation occurred the response of both the local dealer and
Motorola Gommunications and Electronics° Inc.o has been more
than satisfactory. '
Many statements and counter statements hare been made. Mr.
Mahou has stated that members Of your committee entered into
these negotiations with pre-conceived ideas which preclude fair
consideration of his proposal. Your committee categorically denies
this charge and assures Council that t~e committee ha~ made' every
effort to evaluate each proposal on the basis of the material sub-
mitted, equipment seen and information obtained from current
users. Your committee has evaluated and re-evaluated the bid-
ders' proposals, weighing each against the specific~ti'oo$, As
a result, it is yo~r commJttee*s considerate opinion that Techni-
cal Products EnRineering Companyts proposal does not comply aith
the City's specifications and therefore should not be considered
as a responsible bid. Once again it is the unanimous recommen-
dation of your committee that City Council reject the bid of
Technical Products Engineerio9 Company and auard the contract
to Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc. ,'
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Byron E. Bauer
Byron E. Hamer
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland
S! J. Robert Thomas'
J. Robert T~bmas
S/ J. D. Sink
J. D.'Siflk
S/ Warren E. Trent
S/ Alfred Beckley
Alfred Beckley~
Mr. Barry N. Lichtenstein, Attorney, appeared before Council and intro-
duced his client, Mr. James Mahano, Vice President of Technical Products EngtneerJn
Company.
In a discussion of the.matter, Mr. Mahann conteoded that Technical Pro-
ducts Engineering Comport) is the lamest responsible bidderand requested that an
outside consultant be engaged at the expense of Technical Products EnRlneering
Company to study the two bids submitted because Technical Products Engineering Com~
pony feels that the report of the committee is biased.
i05
Generally there mas a discussion on requirements for the furnisbioo of
honda uarrnnty nnd penalty clause,
Er, Mahnnn presented his version on the three requirements ebovementJoned,
Mr, Byron E, Hamer, Assistant City Nnnnger and Chairman of the committee
presented the version of the committee on the three requirements abovementioned,
After.a very lengthy discussion or the matter, Hr, Thomas moved that
Council concur in the recommendation of the committee that the proposal of Hotorola
Communications and Electronics, Incorporated, in the amount of $144.200,00, be
accepted, and offered the folloning emergency Ordinance:
(#19599) AN ORDINANCE accepting a proposal of Rotorola Communications
and Electronics, Incorporated, for providing and installJno n complete municipal
communications control center and related base station radio and monitoring equip-
neat; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract;
rejecting a certain other bid made to the City; and providino for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 229.)
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Ba~or
Rabbet ..............................
NAYS: None ...............Oo
CITIZENS* ADVISORY GONNIYTEE-~ATER OEPARTNE&T: NF. Calvin Bo Fulton.
Hember of the Citizens* Advisory Committee, appeared before Council and presented a
report of the Citizensw Advisory Committee, transmitting certain recommendations or
the City Planning Commission in connection with their request that Council adopt an
Ordinance nhich mould require all property garters along the banks of the Roanoke
River in the City of Roanoke to keep the river and its hanks for a distance of 25
feet from the edge of the river clear of debris, weeds and underbrush, recommending
that the recommendations of the Cit7 Planning Commission in connection with the
matter be folloued.and incorporated into an Ordinance to be adopted by Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper
measure requiring that property lying within the Intermediate Regional Flood Line,
an determined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers end delineated in the publica-
tion ~Flood Plain Information, Roanoke River, Roanoke and Salem, Virginia" be kept
clean end free of flood deposited or other refuse and that individual property
onners be required to meet the provisions of the proposed Ordinance. that the ques-
tion of appropriating $19,3UO.O0 for two full time employees and t~o part tike
employees to maintain publicly omned property along the banks of the Roanoke River
and the question of appropriating an additional $5,000.00 for maintenanceequipment
be referred to 1971-72 budget study. The motion mas seconded by Hr. ~heeler and
unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTMODDCTION AND CONSIDERATION OFORDINANCES AND RESOLD'lIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No, 19584, vacating, discontinuing and
.closing a certain alley lying ultbia and extending through Block 60 Official Survey
Southuest Section l, in an east-nest direction frou Second Street, to Third Street,
said block bounded on the north by Salem Avenue,'on the east by Second Street, on
the month by Campbell Arcane, nod on the nest by Third Street, S. M., baying pre-
viously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mas again
before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the follonJag for its second reading and final
adoption:
(z19584) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that certain alley lying mitbJn and extending through. Block 6,OfffdalSurvey Sonthuest
Sectlcml, In aneast-west direction from Second Street, S. l., to Third Street,
S. M., said Block bounded on the north by Salem Avenue. S. M., on the east by
Second Street, $. l., on the south by Campbell Avenue, S. M., and on the mest by
Third Street, S. M.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35,
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber T.
NATS: None~ O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. i9505, rezoning property located at 603 Strand
Road. N. E., described as Lots I ~nd 2. Block 11, Laurel Terrace Land Map. Official
Tax No. 3121lO1, from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RD, Duplex Residential
District, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid
over, mas again before the body, Mr. Link offering the following for its second
reading and final adoption:
(#19565) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code. of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 312, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 228.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The. motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebbe~
NAYS: None.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared.the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVEp
ATTEST: .
City Clerk Mayor
107
COUNCIL, REGULAR R~KTING,
Monday, April 5, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building. Monday. April S. 1971, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, ~lth Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESEhr~: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, ¥laceat S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber--a7.
ABSENT: None *0~
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Ban.re
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. £incanon, City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend John O.
Atkins, Pastor, Belmont Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
March ~. 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion Of Dr. Taylor
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with
and the minutes approved as recorded.
ACTS OF ACKNORLEDGEMENT-AUOITORIUM-COLISEUR: Mayor Mebber presented a
flag of the United States of America which had previously been given to him by Mr.
and Mrs. Leonard B. Smith, said flag to be flown at the Roanoke Civic Center.
Mayor Webber expressed appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Smith on behalf of
the citizens of the C~ty of Roanoke for their most generous gift.
SCHOOLS: Mayor Mebber welcomed aSpecial Education Class from Monroe
Junior High School.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY EMPLOYEES-pAy PLAN: Mr. R. E. Myers. Consultant, Public Service
Employees Local Union Ho. 1261, appeared be~ore Council and explained.certain
efforts of Local Union No. 1261 since city workers voted in the election of
February I - 3, 1971, to having the Union represent them iu their labor matters,
advising that meetings hare been held in an attempt to reach o~reement on guidelines
for the bargaining relationship between the city and the Union and that in the
interim he has asked the City Manager for an opportunity to be heard in his budget
determinations on issues affecting city employees that the Union represents.
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:*
BUDGET-REGISTRAR-ELECTIONS: A communication from Mr. Andrew N. Thompson,
Chairman of the Electoral Board. requesting that ~3,000.00 be appropriated to
Personal Services under Section #85, "Electoral Board** of the 1970-71 budget, to
provide fonds for the employment of extra help required to get the records of the
Registrar on computer, was be~ore Council.
Hr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of Hr. Thompson and
offered the rollouing emergency Ordinance:
(n1960o) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section nBS, 'Electoral
Board,' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text or Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 35, page R32.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: messrs. Garland, LJsk, Taylor, Thomas,. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber '?.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE: Copy of
the proposed 1971-72 budget of the Commissioner of the Revenue mas before Councll~
Mr. Thomas moved that the proposed budget be received and filed. The
motion mas secouded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of the proposed
1971-72 budget of the City Treasurer mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas mored that the proposed budget be received aod filed. The
motion mas secooded by Mr. Trout and uoanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMRONREALTH*S ATTORNEY: Copy of the
proposed 1971-72 budget of the Commonmealth*s Attorney mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the proposed budget be received and filed.- The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from Mr. Samuel P. McNeil, Chairman of
the Roanoke City School Board, and Dr. Roy Ao Alcorn, Superintendent of Schools,
respectfully requesting an extension of time in order for the School Board to give
deliberate and thorough scrutiny to the school budget needs for 1971-72, mas before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and that the School Board be requested to submit their proposed
budget on or before April 19, lgTI. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted,
PARKS AND pLAYGROUNDS: A communication from the Southeast Civic League,
petitioning Council to authorize the construction of an athletic field in Jackson
Park which mill be of suitable size and mill have a proper gradient on which to
establish a baseball diamond and a football field and further petitiouing and
urging Council to authorize this constrnctiou immediately and to stipulate that it
mill bo completed in time for the sandlot football teams to use in the fall of
1971, mas*before Council,
In this connection, Mr. Raymond Hall, President of the Southeast Civic
League. appeared before Council in support of the request.
109.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request and that the matter
be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure. The motion
seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
cOmPL~IHTS-SKIfEm~ ANH STORm HRAIHS: A communication from Hr. and HFs~
Oavid 5. Grebbs, complaining of a sewer line on Montvale Road, S. f., backing up fn
their basement end requesting some relief from the City of moanoke in connection
uith the matter, was before Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Hanager for Invest]
cation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
adopted,
SEHERS AND STORm DRAINS: A Resolution adopted by the Roenok~ Valley Home
Builders Association pertaining to proposed recommended p~licies which mould ban
issuance of permits for nam construction in Jurisdictions mhose average influent in
any consecutive three-month period reaches 95% of semage treatment plant capacity
urging Council to d;aw up and implement plans necessary for compliance with the
proposed policy, was before the body.
Hr. Trout moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted,
In this connection, copy of a communication from Hr. Lee B. ~ddy. Chairman
of the R~anoke County moard of Supervisor~, addressed to the State Nater Control
Board, adrisin9 that it has come to the attention of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors that the State Rater Control Board will consider the adoption of new
regulations which mould enable the Board to pre~ent additional connections being
made to a sewage collection and inter,ephor sewer served by a treatment plant which
opera,es at 9rearer than 95% of its rated capacity and expressing their general
concurrence in the principle of the proposed regulation, but recommending that the
State Water Control Board 9ire careful consideration to those special circumstances
which exist in the moanoke area. was also before Council.
Br. ~homas moved that the communication be received and filed, The motion
i was seconded by .Br. Hheeler and unanimously adopted.
EASEmEHTS-PARKS AND PLAYGROUnDS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: A Resolution
adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. requesting that Council grant
them a 2a-foot wide perpetual easement through proposed public park and recreation
area lands owned by the City of Roanoke and located north of Shenandoah Avenue and
west of Peters Creek in Roanoke County. for the construction, operation and mainte-
nance ora 2~ inch sanitary semer line and manholes, ell in accordance mith certain
plans and profiles designate~ as "Roanoke County Public Service Authority. - Project
?0-2-S" as furnished to the Office of the Director of Public #orkso was before
Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the Resolution be referred to the Cit~ Ranager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Br. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
218
The Planning Director noted that the proposed use would
provide for a burrer none between the commercial uses on
Willfamson goad and the duplex units located in this general
Ires,
Mr. H. B. Boyaton, Planning Commission member, inquired
if.the, petitioner would be willing to accept u RG-I zoning
designntion. Ur. Crezsy noted that he would be willing to
accept~ u gG-I if that was the only alternative.
WF. Arringtono n local resident, noted tbnt he lives
ultbin close proximity of this property in question, and he
was opposed to its rezoning because of the nasoclMed parhing
problems and excessive traffic that would be generated along
Edisou Street.
Mrs. #axey, a local resident, inquired about the parking
situation, and was concerned with the absence of a~equate
parking facilities. .She was also concerned with the excessive
traffic that would be generated by this use, and the associated
hazardous traffic situation.
Mr. Cressy noted that the petitioner would provide 36-
parking spaces for the 24-units.
Mr. John'Parrot~, Comui~sion Chairnan, noted that the City
Codes requires that adequate parking be provided for all residential
and apartment uses.
Accordingly, notion mas made, duly seconded nod unanimously
approved FeC0nmending to City Council to grant a RG-I rezoninfl,
in lieu of the oriqinal EG-2 rezonino cetitian.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L.M.
Jo~a H. Parvott
Chairman'
Br. George M. Moss, 2723 Edison Street, N. E., appeared before Conncil and
complained of water pressure in the area.
Mr. #. G. Creasy, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared before
the body and requested that the RS-2 rezoning as originally requested be approved
by Council.
After a discussion of the request, Mr. LJsk moved that the matter be
referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure authoring an
RG-I rezaning classification.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Wheeler then moved that the request for an RG-2 rezonJug classificatio~
be approved and that the'following Ordinance be placed upon its fi rat reading:
(=19656) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter'4.1, Section 2, of The
Code Of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, and Sheet No. 310, Sectional 1966
Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to zoning.
I/IIEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City o f Roanoke
to have property located on the westerly side of Edison Street, N. E., Ro~oke, Virgi
a short di~ance north of Liberty Road, known as Lots SE, §F, and aG, Map Of D. Po
Magnum, being a division of Lot 5, Section 1, Liberty Laud Company Map and being
official tax nos. 3100912. 3100913 and 3100914, rezoned from RD, Du~tex Residential
District, to aG-2, General Residential District; and
110
SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY GOVER~#EHT: Council having adopted n Resolution
expressing the continuing Interest of the City of Eouaoke fn acquiring the property
now Darted end occupied by the goveynment as the Hain Post Office and Court House
Building in the City of Rosnohe, n communication from Hr. Joseph J. Harrison,
Special Assistant to the Assistant Postmaster General, advising tbst the present
post office will be transferred to the Postal Servi~ces in accordance mith the Postal
Reorganization Act, that at this time neither the policy nor procedures regarding
the disposition of excess space bare been developed and that the interest of the
City of Roanohe in acquiring the building has been made a part of his files, was
before the body.
Hr. Garland moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Hr. LIsh and unanimously adopted.
INDUSTRIES: A communication from Senator Milliam H. Spong, Jr** trans-
mitting copies of maps. the final Railpax system as it affects Virginia and copy of
a statement he made on the nam system in mhich he expressed his disappointment that
the system mas not more extensive and assuring Council that he will continue to
work to enlarge Ibis basic system so that all parts of Virginia are effectively
served, mas before the body.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication, maps and statement be received
and filed. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Trout then moved that a letter of appreciation he sent to Senator
Spon9 by the City Clerk for his interest in the matter. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication fram Mr. C. John Henick. Attorney. representtog
Mr. George F. Cadd, requesting that property located at 445 Riverland Road. S. E.,
described as Lot 24. Block 23. Map of Roanoke Gas and Mater Company, Official Tax
No. 4031111. be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District, to RG-2. General
Residential District, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lish and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A communication from Mr. George I. Vogel, II,
Attorney. representing Ernest H. Bond, Gertrude B. Goad and Lillian B. Hogan, re-
questing that a certain unopened and unused alley approximately 12 feet in width
and running in an easterly direction 120 feet, more or less. from the east side of
Fifth Street, S. E.. and lying between the north boundary of Lot 5, Map of New
York Building and Improvement Company, Official Tax No. 4021212 and the south
boundary of Lot 5. Section 7, Map of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company. Official
Tax No. 4021211. be vacated, discontinued and closed, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution appointing viewers.in connec-
tion with the request for vacating, discontinuing and closing the alley:
L
(UlgbOl) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointwent of five persons, any
three of whom way oct, as viewers in connection with the application of Ernest H~
Goad. Gertrude B. Goad and Lillioa B. Hogan to permanently vacate, discontinue end
close a certain unopened end unused alley approxiwately 12 feet in width and running
In an easterly direction 120 feet. wore or less. frow the east side o! Fifth Street,
Si E~, and lying between the north boundary of Lot 5. Rap of Raw York ~uilding and
Improvement Company. Official city Tax No. 4021212, and the south boundary of Lot 5,
Section 7. Rep of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company. official City Tax No.
4021211, all aa shown on the Official Tax Appraisal Nap of tbe City of Roanoke,
Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 235.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the ReSolution. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler aa~ Mayor
Mebber--~ ............. T ............7.
NAYS: None ...............O.
Mr. Garland then moved that the request for vacating, discontinuing and
cloning the alley be referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report
and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the
following report recommending that an Equipment Operator 1 ia the Sanitation Oivislo
be uprated from Equipment Operator I, Range 12. Step !, $410.00 per month, to
Equipment Operator II, Range 13, Step I, $476.00 per month:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April 5. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the tine of the preparation of the 1970-71 budget there
were three positions in the Public Horks Department. Sanita-
tion Division. as Equipment Operator l's. These personnel
operated the heavy equipment on the City's several landfill
locations. It was requested in the budget that these three
positions be revised from Equipment Operator I to Equipment
Operator II. It was further requested that there be an addi-
tional or fourth position added. In the ensuing work that
three Operator I positions were raised to Operator II and the
fourth Equipment Operator was added.
Bom~ver. the fourth and new position nas added as aa Operator
I rather than an Operator II. The work of this position is
comparable in all respects to the other three positions.
Nhen we came upon this, sometime after the adoption of the
budget, it was felt that this matter might be deferred until
interchangeabllity of these positions is such that it is not
felt that the City can in fairness continue the Operator I
position on a functioning basis equal to the Operator Iio
It is therefore recommended that the City Council by budget
ordinance amendment provide for the revision of an Equipment
Operator I, ~aoge 12, Step l, at $410 per month to Equipment
Operator II, Range 13, Step I ut $476 per month. This mould
necessitate additional appropriation 'for the remainder of
this fiscal year.
There ore some unexpended funds under the Sanitation Oivision
Personnel Account which would adequately and easily offset
this revision.
Respectfully submitted,
$! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager#
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n19602) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaJn Section n69, *Refuse Collec-
tion ~ Disposal,* of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 233.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None O.
BUDCET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted the following
report requesting that $d50,00 be appropriated to Rentals under Section ~64, *Muiute
ounce of City Property,* of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the rental of
a ditch digger for three meeks in order to proceed mtth the installation of lighting
for various parks in the City of Roanoke:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April $, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As in past years a Sum of $900 was appropriated by City Council
under Maintenance of City Property, Object Code 245. Rentals.
This amount was to cover the expense of rental of special pur-
pose tools and equipment which are not generally owned by the
City. Several special projects such as the rental of an air
compressor for the First Street Bridge and the rental of a
ditch digger for the installation of water service to the toilets
in South Roanoke and Mashington Parks have exhausted this account.
At the time this amount was requested and appropriated by City
Council no mention had been' made of the installation of electri-
cal lighting to various parks within the City. At the last
moment City Council appropriated $20,000 to install lighting at
various recreational parks throughout the City. As a result
there is a requirement for additional funds to hire a ditch digger
to allow us to proceed mith the installation of electrical con-
duits underground to the five remaining projects covered within
these funds.
It is estimated that an additional $450 would be required to per-
mit the rental of a ditch digger for three weeks. It would be
requested that the City Council by budget ordinance appropriate
113
$450 to Maintenance of City Property, Account 64, Object Code
243, Rentals. that we might proceed uith the installation of
the lighting for these parks,
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. flirst
City Manager'
After a discussion of the request, Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be
referred back to the City Manager £or reconsideration and recommendation to Council.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-ROANOKE LIFE SAVING CREM-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City
Manager uubmitted the following report recommending that $2§.344,00 be appropriated
to Debt Retirement, that $5,000o00 be appropriated to Utilities and that
be appropriated to Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment under Section gOO.
'Sewage Treatment Fund.* and further recommending that $250.00 be appropriated to
Food. Medical and Housekeeping Supplies and that $375.00 be appropriated to Motor
Fuel ~ Lubricants under Section ~51, "Life Savin9 Crews," of the 1970-71 budget:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April 5, 1971.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Me have been notified by the City Auditor that five accounts,
three within the Sewage Treatment Fund Account and tmo within
the Life Saving Crew Account are short of funds. Mithin the
Sewage Treatment Fund Account 713, Debt· Retirement. requires
an appropriation of $2H,344 to provide the necessary funds
needed to retire the capital improvements bonds sold only re-
cently. In addition $5,000 is needed in the Utilities Account,
Object Code 201, and $6,771 is needed in Object Code 260.
Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment. Both of these accounts
are running short as a result of increased operational time
necessitated by the high rate of flow through this facility.
Mith the installation of the new blower last year, no addi-
tional funds are provided for the maintenance and operation or
the utilities costs generated by the operation of this blower.
Mithin the Life Saving Crew budget, additional funds are
required under Object Code 311, Food, Medical, and Housekeeping
Supplies and under Object Code 326, Motor Fuel and Lubricants..
Continued increase in operational activities within this life
saving activity has generated a requirement that an additional
$250 be appropriated to Object Code 3il, Food, Medical,. and
Housekeeping Supplies and an additional $375 to Object Code 325.
Motor Fuel and Lubricants.
It would be recommended that City Council by budget ordinance
appropriate the above listed amounts to the object codes listed
to provide for continued operation of these functions.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the requests of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $26,344.00 to Debt
Retirement. $5.O00.OO to Utilities and $6,771.OO to Maintenance of Machinery and
Equipment under Section hq0. 'Sewage Treatment Fund,' of the 1970-71 Sewage Treat-
ment Fund budget:
(r19603) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section agO, 'Seance Trent-
meat Fond,' of the 1970-71Semnge Treatment Fred° and providing for au energency~
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 35. page 234,)
Hr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion ~as seconded
by Hr, Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler end Mayor
Mebber 7. '
NAYS: None O.
Dr. Taylor then offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance appropriating
$250.00 to Food, Medical and Housekeeping Supplies and $375.00 to Motor Fuel and
Lubricants under Section nSl, *Life Saving Cre~s** of the 1970-71 budget:
(~19604) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reorda*in Section c51, *Life Saving
Crews** of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text' of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 235.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ~.
NAYS: None ............ O.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $500.00 be appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies.
$10,000.00 to Advertising and $673.00 to Public Ceremonies under Section ~77, "Civic
Center," of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal
year:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
"Roanoke, ¥irginia
April 5, 1971
1. Printing and Office Supplies {300): The approved budget
for this account was $2,500. The budget has now been
expended to the extent that its balance is approximately
$250. This account includes postage and the cost of
mailing of promotional material and direct mailing adver-
tising. Alan in this year it has been necessary to use
these funds to print the seatin9 plan layouts for the
Civic Center and to buy all of the initial office supplies
and materials. It is recommended that there be appropriated
to this account $500 for the remainder of this fiscal year.
2. Advertising (235): The approved budget for this account
mas $15,000. This includes the general advertising for the
Civic Center as mall as advertising for events. When this
budget amount was initially submitted some 14 months ago,
it mas based on considerable fewer bookings into the Civic
Center than have developed since then. It is also necessary
that advertising costs be carried for events that go beyond
the June 30 concluding date for the current fiscal year..
It further is anticipated that there may be more bookings
fo~ summer and fall that mould be made between now and June
30 for which preliminary advertising expenditures would be
necessary.
115
A good portion of the advertising budget Js charged at
recoverable through the engagement contracts. For example,
one half of the budgeted cost of the advertising of Ice
Capades nas refunded by Ice Cnpade*; however, it must be
Initially ~xpended by the Civic Center.
It is recommended that this account be supplemented by
appropriation of $10,000. 'As we proceed further with the
activities at the Centavo we will be better able to evaluate more
closely a full year cost on this aspect of the operation.
3. It Js recommended that there be appropriated $673 which mill cater
the expenses or buses and transportation in connection with the
dedication program of the Civic Center.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian r. NirSt
Julian F. Nirst
City Manager"
Rt. Wheeler moved that Council concur In the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19605) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section g77, "Civic Center."
of the 1970-?1 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 235.)
Mr. Wheeler noted the adoption of the Ordinance.' The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Yhomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... ?.
NAYS: None ................. O.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $46.65 be appropriated to Communications under Section
"Municipal Building." of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for ringdomn telephones
for emergency connection from the elevators in the new Municipal Building.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
{~19b06) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~63, "Municipal
Building," of the lg?O=71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 236.)
Rr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Uessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber -7.
NAYS: None -0.
SIDEWALK, CURB ANB GUTTE~-SCBOOLS: Council having referred to the City
Manager for study, report and recommendation a communication from the Raleigh Court
Elementary School PTA, and the Patrick Henry PTA Executive Board, that a sideualk be
constructed on the south side of Bvandin Road betmeen Brandon Avenue and Builford
_1-1G
Avenue, S. M., the City Manager submitted n mrltten report recommending that the
matter be studied und considered in the review of the 1971-72 budget.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to 1971-72 budget study. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report making
curtain recommendations in connection with fire protection rates and county hydrant
installation and rental:
'Roanoke, Virginia
April 5, 1971
Houorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Me are in the process of reviewing a number of the established
utility schedules and rates as well as other service fees in order
to attempt to bring them more in line with realistic cost of
these services. An initial and conspicuous situation pertains to
the fire protection rates and the charges for fire hydrant instal-
lations and service within areas outside of the City.
Ordinance No. 12345, dated March 21, 1955, and Title 12,
Chapter 1, Section 5, Rule 38, Paragraph 3 of the City Code
provides 'That valved hydrant laterals shall be installed at
intervals not greater than five hundred feet along the mains
to he installed. The Mater Department may install a fire
hydrant on such lateral upon the written application of the
8oard of Supervisors of the County in which said lateral is lo-
cated and such board*s agreement therein to pay a yearly fire
hydrant rental charge of one hondred dollars, in advance."
The latest cost of purchasing a hydrant is $210.00. The cost
o~ installing a hydrant on an existing hydrant lateral, includ-
ing the aborn cost, mill be $250.00 plus, with a realistic
average being $500.00. Zhe cost of installing a hydrant where
no hydrant lateral exists is $450.00 plus, with a realistic
average being $600.00.
The City*s current policy is to install a hydrant on an existing
hydrant lateral in the County at no installation charge to the
County. All hydrant rent is billed as ef January 1, of each
year. Should a County request a hydrant at a point where there
is no hydrant lateral, the policy mom is to request au installa-
tion charge of $930.00 which is our installation fee for the instal-
lation of a 6-inch service. It does not appear that in the past this
$830.00 installation fee has been required in those locations in
the County Where the City has purchased a private surer system.
The charge for fire protection and charges for fire hydrants
should be such that the Mater Department uill be able to re-
place the entire service or lateral mud meter or hydrant iu
ten years and recover the cost in rerenue each time.
By allowing two years revenue for maintenance, reading and test-
ing of meters, this means the rates should be such that the
entire installation can be replaced in eight years.
It is recommended that Title 12, Chapter 1, Section b, Parts C
and D be revised as follows:
Part C: Minimum Monthly Charge for Service Certified for
Exclusive Use of Fire Protection:
4-1nch meter $11.50
6-inch meter 1~.00
O-inch meter 17.50
lO-inch meter 28.00
Maximum allomance under minimum charge, 200 cubic feet per month.
Quantities in excess of 200 cubic feet per month, same rates as
excess rates under Parts A and fl, above, as applicable to ail
metered service.
117
Part D: Monthly Charges for Standard Fire Hydrants, $12,00
It is also recommended that an ordinance be adapted setting forth
the following rules for the installation and rental charge outside
of the City:
Instnllatian of n hydrant on an existing hydrant
lolerul $300°00
Installation of a hydrant and hydrant lateral HSo.o0
Yearly rental 150.00
All installation fees are to be ~ld in advance after the City
Manager approves the written application from the County for
the hydrant lateral and/or hydrant.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City Mana-
ger and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for prepara~on of the proper
measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
MAHER FIELD: The City Manaoer submitted a mritten report advising that the
City of Roanoke has been notified by the Department of tho Navy of the wish of the
tgovernment to renew for the period from July 1, 1971 to June 30. 197~, the lease
dated June 9, 196h, of approximately 1.35 acres of land upon which is situated the
~Naval Reserve Training Center.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney to deter-
mine whether or not the lease automatically renews itself upon notice. The motion
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NELFARE: Mrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman for the
Welfare Rights Organization. having appeared before Council and presented a
advising that the new Food Stamp Law states that a community can have both food stamp
and commodity foods at the same time by special request of the'state agency and that
period when a city is switching from commodity foods to food stamps to make it easier
to go from one system to the other, the City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of a page from a reprint of Public Law 91-671, January Ii, 1971,
advising that it ia his understanding and impression that the two programs must be
separated and that to confirm these opi~ons he has written to the state for direct
information on this particul~ point.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report.be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTy: The C~ty Manager Submitted a written report transmittin9
copy of a communication from Mr. R. S. Trent, offering to purchase two lots owned
by the City of Roanoke on Garden.City Boulevard and Danforth Avenue, S. E., for the
of $2,200.00
MeSSrS. David K. Link, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst, James N. Kincanon and J. Robert
Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHMAYS: The City Manager Submitted a written report advising of a
seetiag to be held at 3:00 p.m.. Hednesday. April 14, 1971. in the Council Chamber
with the Sta of Highways the Southwe2
118
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion wes
seconded by Hr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING-STATE HIGHUAYS: The City Attorney submitted the following report
In connection with Section 32 of the 1966 Zoning Ordinnnce or the City of Roanoke
relating to building setback lines adjacent to proposed Major Arterial Highways,
advising that the matter is being studied by his office end that a recommendation
will be forthcoming:
'April 5, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
As you are amare..Sec, 32. Chapter 4.1, Title XV, Zoning, of the
City Code. established building setbach lines 25 feet from and
along major arterial.highways in the City as the same are shown
on the City's Rajor AFt,rial Highway Plan, and prohibits the erec-
tion, constructiono reconstruction, moral, addition to or structural
alteration of buildings or structures within such setback areas.
A recent suit brought for mandamus raised the question of the con-
stitutionality or validity of the setback requirement as applied
to a certain lot situate on the east side of Suni,rd Avenue, S.
a major portion of which is shown by the #ajor Arterial Highway Plan,
abovementioned, to be within the right-of-way of the proposed South-
west Expressway, the 25-feet wide setback requirement affecting the
remaining, smaller portion of said lot. Unaffected by the proposed
and mapped location of the Expressmay and by the setback requirement
contained in Sec. 32, ab,yam,nil,ned, would remain the back end of
what is presently a 140-feet deep lot, 50 feet in width, that portion
being still 50 feet wide but 35 feet deep on one side and 40 feet
deep on the other.
The case, having been th,roughly heard by the court and briefed
and argued by counsel for the property ,meet and by members of
this office, was decided on March 24, 19TI, by the trial judge.
who has handed down his opinion in the case, in writing. In
effect, the trial court has held the setback requirements contained
in Sec. 32 of the ZoniRg Ordinance and made applicable by that
section to properties adjacent to the CitI's existing and proposed
major arterial highways to be.unconstitutional and invalid as
applied to the property in question, the court finding that the
effect of those regulations when applied to the particular property
is to deprive the property owner of all reasonable use and
enjoyment of his lot. without compensation having been paid therefor
by the City. In the court's opinion, the building setback require-
ment applied by Sec. 32, supra, bears no reasonable relationship to
promotion of the health, safety, morals, comfort, prosperity or
general welfare of the general public and, thus. is an unjustified
exercise of the City's zoning power nnder Sec. 62 of The Charter.
The court will later, by mandamus, order that the permit in question
be issued by the departuent of the CitI whose former refusal, under
the ordinance, was the subject matter of the litigation.
The matter is being further studied by this office in order that
the Council be adrised on the appropriateness of appeal procedures,
and a further recommendation to the Council from the undersigned
will be forthcoming.
It should be pointed out that the court has not held the provision
of Sec. 32, supra, to be invalid on its face, and that the effect
of the decision extends, at this time, only to the~operty owned
by the complainant in the case. The principle ruled upon, however,
doubtless has far-reaching applications, and study is being given
hy this office, and will be requested of the City's Planning Depart-
ment, of means of immediately meeting those elements of Sec. 32 which
the court has found to be objectionable.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
· 119
#r. Thomas moved that the report'be*received end filed, The motion wes
seconded b~ Mr. Trows and unsniwously adopted.
APPALACHIAN PO#ER COMPANY: The City Attorney subwitted a written report
connection with the application of Appalachian Power Company for a rate increase,
recommending thai Council consider the designation of an ~propriate office or deport-
ment of the ~ity to study the application for Increase in rates with a View toward
advising Council of the effect of the proposed rate increase upon the city in its*
corporate capacity and upon consumers of electricity residen~ within the city.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that the matter be referred to the 'City Attorney and the City Auditor to confer
the matter and report back to Council. The motion was seconded by Mi. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUDLIC MELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a monthly
statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended March 31, 1971.
Mr. LJsk moved that the monthly statement be received and filed. The notion
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED DUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19597, rezoning property located in the 3400 block
of Hershberger Road. N. N.. described as Lots I and 2. Sbarpe Map. Official Tax Nos.
2560138 and 2560139, and a 1.5 acre tract of land, described as p~rt 'of Lot 3, Dyer
Estate Map, Official Tax ~o. 2560153. from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District,
RG-2. 6eneral Residential District, having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over. was again before the body. Dr. Taylor offering
the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(=19597) AN ORDINANCE to ~me~d Title IV, Chapter~l, Section 2. of The
Code of th~ City of Roanoke. 1955. as amended, and Sheet No. 256, Sectional 1966 Zone
Map. City of Roanoke, in rela'tion to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page Zal.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Tge motion sas seconded by
Mr. Liok and adopted by the following ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lis~. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
lebber
NAYS: None -0.
MUN/C~AL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC
RELATIONS COURT: Mr. Trout Offered the following emergncy Ordinance providing for
the relocation of the quarters, offices and facilities of the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court Of the City of Roanoke from their present location at 622 Rorer Avenu
S. I., to adequate quarters in the recently acquired building at the southwest
120
of Campbell Avenue and Third Street, S. M. (the former Reid and Cutshall Building):
(#19607) 'AM ORDINANCE providing for the relocation of the quarters, office
and facilities or the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the City of Roanoke;
and providing for an emergency.
(For run text of Ordinance. see Ordlnauce Honk NO. 35. page 236.)
Hr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebher* '7.
NAYS: None .....................O.
Hr. Trout then moved that the City Manager be directed to proceed promptly
with advice *and assistance of the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke, upon develo
ment of proposed plans for the allocation of adequate space and quarters in the Court
House Building for the various courts of record and courts not of record, for first
floo~ temporary detention facilities, for the public offices and officers related
thereto, and for such other of the city's public offices, officers and departments
as nay conveniently use that building with a report to be made back to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then offered the follouin9 emergency Ordinance authorizing the
City Manager to enter into written agreement with Sowers Rodes £ Mhitescarver. Con-
suiting Engineers, for the preparation of sketches and plans in connection with the
mchanicul and electrical systems in the city°s building at the southwest corner of
Third Street, S. M., and Campbell Avenue, sufficient for preparing cost estimates
the remodeling and construction of said building to accommodate certain of the city*:
courts, departments and offices to be located in said building:
(~19608) AN ORDINANCE authorizing a contract for certain engineering
servicesin connection with development of plans for remodeling and use of its public
building on the west side of Third Street. S. M.. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text'd Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 237.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and ado/ted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs.' Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Rayor
Mebber
NAYS: None* O.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the City Manager be instructed to report to
the Honorable Ernest M. Ballou. Judge 'of the Bustings Court of the City of Roanoke,
that the Council of the City of Roanoke has directed the relocation of the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court of the City of Roanohe, its courtroom and other facili-
ties, from its former location at 622 Rorer Avenue, S. M.. to u~equate quarters in
121
the Third Street, S. W., #unlcipal Building Annex; that the Council of the City of
Roan*he hos authorized employment of the services of consulting engineers to prepare
and furnish to the-city sketches andre*st estimates on the requirements and cost of
adopting the heating, electrical, plumbing and air conditioning systems Jn the
abovementioned Municipal Uuilding Annex to accommodate the quarters of the above-
mentioned Juvenile and Bouestlc Relations Court and other offices amd departments
o~ the city; and that the Council of the City of Roanoke has directed tie City
Manager to proceed promptly with advice and assistance'of said Court, upon develop-
meat of proposed plans for the allocation of adequate space and quarters in the
Court House Building for the various courts of record and courts not of record, for
first floor temporary detention facilities, for the public offices and officers
related thereto, and for such other of the city*s public offices, officers and
departments ns may conveniently use that building with a report to be made back to
Council. The motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ZONING: Mr. Sidney Falklnstein, Attorney. appeared before Council and
presented a communication from Mr. Morton Honeynan, Attorney, representing Mr.
George B. Cartledge, Sr., requesting that property located at 903 South Jefferson
Street, described as Lots 4 and S, Block 4, Official Survey S. W. 3, Official Tax
~o. I021B04, be fez*ned from C-2. General Commercial District, to C-l. Office and
Institutional District.
Mr. Tm ut moved that the request for rezonlng'be referred to the City
Plannin9 Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUOITORIUM~OLISECR: Dr. Taylor presented the following communication
commending Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager, Mr. Homard C. Radford, Civic Center
Director, Mr. John A. Kelly. Chairman of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commissio
members of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission and others for the efficient
in which they handled openJn9 dedication services at the Roanoke Civic
Center:
"April 2. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Geutlemen:
There are times when special appreciation should be made for
a job well done, I am of the firn belief that our City Manager,
Mr. Julian Hlrst; the Civic Center Manager. Mr. Howard RadfoFd,
along with Hr. John Kelly and members of the Civic Center Advisory
Committee labored far beyond the call of duty in making the dedica-
tion of the Roanoke Civic Center a tremendous success. We sincerely
appreciate the outstanding contributions made by these leaders and
their staffs. The culmination of the work on the Civic Center and
the Dedication Activities symbolize a giant step forward in a
community that is experiencing great progress and development.
122
Therefore. I recommend that ue extend to the afore-mentioned
individuals and their staffs our sincere appreciation rot their
faithful devotion nnd their earnest end effective effort in pro-
viding for the City of Roanoke a Civic Center Dedication experience
that mas inspiring and enjoyed by all.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor'
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the communication of commendation,
The motion mas seconded by Hr. Lisk end unanlnously adopted.
COUNCIL: Mr. Thomas presented the following prepared statement Jn
connection with the procedures for requesting Executive Sessions of Council.
advising that he is of the opinion that it is incumbent upon Council to adopt
definite rules of procedure to cover these points end to assure the public that
all Councilmen who attend such sessions do so with full prior notice of the topic
or topics for discussion and with the expression of their own personal consent for
the holding of such meeting and transmitting three procedures to be adopted by
Council for the calling of future Executive Sessions:
'April 5, 1971
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: Councilman Hampton ~. Thomas ~
SUBJECT: Procedure for requesting Executive Sessions of the Council
Some members of Council have expressed individual concern as
to the calling of Executive Sessions ~ the Council without prior
announcement of the 9neral topics to be discussed within those
permitted by the statutes setting forth the criteria for such
Executive Sessions. A copy of the subject statute is attached
hereto for the information of Council. Collectively these statutes
are entitled 'Virginia Freedom of Information Act** I am not aware
as to the specific concerns of these Council members; however, I
feel that the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant the
full attention of Council at this time to remove all doubt us to
thc propriety and necessity of such meetings.
In order to avoid further confusion for the Council and in an
effort to assure both the. media and our citizens that only permissi-
ble matters afc handled in Executive Sessions of Council, I am of
the opinion that it is incumbent upon this body to adopt definite
rules of procedure to cover these points and to assure the public
that all Councilmen who attend such sessions do so with full prior
notice of the topic or topics for discussion and with the expression
of their own personal consent for the holding of such meetin9.
Accordingly, I propose that the following procedure bo adopted
by the Council for the calling of future Executive Sessions:
(1) That the Mayor be advised in writing as to all matters pro-
posed to be discussed in Executive Session prior to the call
of said meeting; and
(2) That upon announcement in open Council of the matters to be
discussed in the proposed meeting, the Council respond by roll
call vote; and
(3) Anyone wishing to discuss a matter not on the announced agenda,
and otherwise permissible by statute, may do so only upon the
unanimous vote of all Councilmen present. The general topic
discussed at said meeting will be announced by the Mayor at
the next regularly called Council meeting.
Should any member of Council have supplemental or alternate sug-
gestions as to how to improve, accomplish or strengthen the stated
9gals herein, your comments and suggestions would be most welcome.
123
I trust that oil members of Council desire to conduct the business
of the City in n forthright and efficient manner mithout regard to
personal or political considerations and in such fashion as mill let
the'public hnou every facet er the business conducted by the Council
on behalf of our citizens at all times.
Very truly yours,
S/ Hampton H. Thomas
Hampton ~. Thouas'
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the procedures contained in his
statement. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business. Ra~or lebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
:I_24
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING.
Monday, April 12. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roan*he met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Monday, April 12. 1971, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen David K. LJsk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas,
James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Maybr Roy L. Mebber ...............6.
ABSENT: Councilman Robert A. Garland 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Eincanon, City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Aoditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend A.
Garnett Day, Interim Minister, Fort Lewis Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
Rarcb 15, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council on motion of Mr. Lisk,
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed
with and the minutes approved as recorded.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Mayor H. L. Anderson and Councilman Robert G. Davis. Jr.
from Clifton Forge, Virginia, appeared before Council and expressed appreciation on
behalf of the City of Clifton Forge, Virginia, for certain fire fighting equipment
which was loaned to them by the City of Roanoke and advising that the equipment
was returned to the City of Roanoke on April 12. 1971.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: Mrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman for the
Welfare Rights Organization, appeared before the body and requested a definite
answer from Council as to whether or not a survey will be taken among welfare
recipients to determine if they prefer food stamps over commodity foods.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report advising
that he will transmit a report to Council after he has received certain information
from the proper agencies on the subject of permittin9 both programs to operate in
the same place.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AMBULANCES: Mr. Robert L. Taylor, Attorney, representing United Ambulance
Service, Incorporated, appeared before Council and presented a communication request-
ing the passage of au Ordinance which would require any ambulance operator mR*
wishes to operate in the City of Roanoke to secure a certificate of public couvenien,
and necessity and that the city grant such a certificate to United Ambulance Service
125
Incorporated, on an exclusive basis so long as said company provides competent
ambulance service.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the goanoke Valley
Regional Health Services Planning Council. Incorporated, for study, report and
recommendation to Council. The motion uaw seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously
adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian ~omer Company
transmitting a list of street llght~ installed and/or removed during the month of
March, 1971. mas ~efore Council.'
Mr. Wheeler moved that the communication and list ~e received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STOR# DRAINS: A communication from Mrs. Thomas E. Lennon,
Jr., President of the League of Women Voters, advising that the League of Women
Voters is pleased with the action taken by ~ouncil to conduct an experiment with
pickling liquor to counteract phosphates and other undesirable elements'in the
effluent at the Sewage Treatment Plant and expressing the opinion that if an
Ordinance banning the sale of deter~ents with phosphates could be'adopted now
with an effective date to coincide with c~npletion of the pickling liquor trial
period it would give the stores sufficient time to stock an*adequate'supply of the
phosphatelecs detergents, was before'Council.
Mr. Llsk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEt/ERS AND STORM DRAINS: A communication from Mrs. Eva Miller Millard in
connection with a storm drain which was installed in the 2800 block of Longview
Avenue, S, W., advisin9 that during'heavy rainfall the water accumulation becomes
so heavy the drain ia unable to take care of it properly causing water to overflow
into her yard and requesting that Council alleviate her of this nuisance without any
expense to her. was before the body.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report to Council, The motion was seconded by Mr. T~ut and
unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke
County Public Service Authority. regarding the recommendation of the State Water
Control Board Staff that a regulation be adopted whereby whenever a sewage treatment
facility reaches gS~ of its rated capacity u ban would be placed on further sewer
connections from any political subdivisions served by the treatment facility, was
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
1~26
BUDGET-STATE CO#PBNSATION BOARD-CONRON~EALTH*S ATTORNEV: Copy of a
comlualcation from the State Compensation Board. addressed to Mr. Ssmnel A, Garrison
III. Commonuealth*s Attorney. advising that the State's part of a claim for 1970
editions of Virginia Police. Crimes Leu Books in the total amount of $69.00 has
been disallowed because the state does not share in the cost of such expense
and that tbs remainder of his voucher has been approved for payment, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the comwunication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Frank N. Perkinson, Jr** Attorney,
representing Mr. John N. Thompson, et ax.. requesting that property described as
Lots 20, 21.22 and the westerly and southeasterly portion of L t 23. Block 3. Nap
of Liberty Land Company, Official Tax Nos. 3101304, 31~1305, 3101306, 3101307 and
3101310, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to RG-I,General
Residential District, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Barry N. Lichtenstein, Attorney.
representing Mr. James O. Kasey, requesting that property described as Lots lA - SA,
inclusive, James O. Kasey Rap. Official Tax Nos. 4041106, 4041107. 4041109. 4041110
end 4041112, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RD.
Duplex Residential District, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
!was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with tbs Semage Treatment Plant, transmitting a recommendation
of Alvord. Burdick and Howson, Consulting Engineers, that the city as expeditiously
as possible implement a program to use Polymers in the waste active sludge stage
of this plant and recommending that $14.000.00 be appropriated to Operating Supplies
and Materials under Section ago. *Semage Treatment Fund,* of the 1070-71 Sewage
Treatment Fund budget, to provide funds for the purchase of said chemical:
~Roanoke. Virginia
April 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
6entlemen:
Since the construction of the Sewage Treatment Plant one of the
more difficult operational requirements has been the coagulation of
127
the solids in the plant process. In other termse this means the
collecting or making uore douse of the solids through the plant
process so .that these will settle out ut the appropriate points in
the procedure and can be removed, The alternatlveo if this aspect
does not function properly or continuously, is that there is u
continuous circulation through the uhole plant process of excess
solids. This results in n building up and marked reduction In
plant efficiency. This also results Jn s necessity from time to
time to extract gathering solids from various points In the plant
process und removing them by other than proper operational procedures.
This type of situation is normally characteristic of the type of
plant which Roanoke has and which is called an activated sludge plant.
As stated this bas been a continuous matter of attention and
at times a problem. Fromtiwe to time this situation has been
commented upon to Council.
A contribution of various factors nam bring a desirable further
approach to the control and handling of solids under the above
situation. These factors are: the groulng volume coming into the
plant, the necessity to simplify the procedures that the plant
personnel are having to follow, the proposed application of phosphate
removal material and the experimentation by the consultants as to
plant processes in connection with their overall study. As a result
of all of these, somewhat together, Alvord. BurdJck and Homson,
Consulting Engineers, have recommended .the City take a step and
that this should be immediately entered into.
Some time ago at the recommendation of our consultants the
City requested Halco Chemical Corporation of Lynchburg to make various
tests of coagulants to be put Into the sewage in an attempt to more
effectively use the present sludge thickening basin and to eliminate
the recycling of these suspended solids into the plant effluent.
AS a result of these tests, it is Alvord, flurdick and Homson's
recommendation that tho City as expeditiously as possible implemeot
a program to uso Polymers in the waste active sludge stage of this
plant. These Polymers will coagulate the solids thereby~using them
to thicken and to settle, thus they may be removed to the dense
sludge thictenin9 tank to the digestors.'and thence to the dryin9 beds.
This coagulation process removes these small suspended solid
particles uhich in the past have been recycling through the entire
plant with the result that thc suspended solids in the final
effluent from the plant has increased.
It should be pointed out to City Council that the use of
Polymers to remove these suspended solids is a different process
from that discussed by City Council two meeks ago for the removal
of phosphates from the sewage effluent. These are two separate
problems and must be treated separately; however, the removal of
phosphates is dependent upon the removal of solids.
It is estimated that the cost of inserting these chemicals
into the system will be $160 per day.
It is the feeling of our consnltants that it mill not be possible
to expect any appreciable phosphorns removal without the joint
introduction of Polymers as phosphorus is tied up in the solids and
these suspended solids being, carried over in the final effluent can
produce a high phosphorus level in that effluent.
To initiate the i~lymers system sill require for the balance of
the year an appropriation of $14,000 from Sewage Reserve Account of
the Sewage Treatment Plant Account, Object Code 320, Operating
· Supplies and Materials, for the purchase of the chemical.
It is recommended that this be done,
Some interesting and informative figures occur in regard to -
this program and the phosphate removal program which Council approved
two meeks ago, the pidliug liquor.
The pichling liquor was estimated at $385 per day. For a full
year the picking liquor (P.L.) would be $140,525. In lg?O. the
plant processed a total volume of 7.686,280,000 gallons. At $385 per
day, the P. L. cost as a new operation works out to $16.28 per million
gallons.
128
The basic ~ate that Roanoke 'County Is paying for sewage trans-
portation and treatment is $36.15 per million.gallons. In other
words, the P.L. cost Itself would be one-half of that rate.
For new areas th~ County pays $63.60 but thi's is only · small
portion of their total volume. The County rate of $3b.15 .can only
be changed every $ years. The next anniversary .is October lb, 1973,
2 1/2 years rewalnie9.
Assueingo conservatively, 95 percent of County sewage, mhlch
totals 934,900°000 gallons per year, at the basic rate this wonld
be BaTo?§$,000 gallons under the lower or basic rate,
887~755 million gallons times $18.28 equals $16,22B per year.
This is what the pichling liquor, or p~csphates removal, process
should be costing the County per year based on their flew. Bomevero
uith the established rate, the County will hare to In some other
way absorb this. With 2 1/2 years remaining in the 5 lear period,
this totals for phosphate removal for County sewage $40,570.17.
Based on the total County semage into the City of 934.9
million gallons per year the phosphate removal cost $17,089.97.
Sale~ volume in 1970 was 1,762,915,000 gallons. They are at
the County rate of $35.15. The cost of phosphate removal for
Salem sewage would be $32,226.08 per year;
If we go a step further and add the projected daily cost of
P.L. (phosphate removal) and the Polymers hereinreferred to ($385 plus
$1bO) the increased daily operational cost will be $545. On the
same basis as above, this works out to a cost per million gallons
processed through the plant of $25.8B.
For the County sewage estimated at the $36.15 contract rate
(95 percent of the total) the cost to the City for these two
treatments will be $22,974.97 per year.
For the 2 1/2 years we are tied into the 5 year contract
condition, the cost will be $57,437.43.
For the total County seuage of 934.900,000 gallons per year
the combined programs will cost. for County sewage, $24,195.21 per
year or $60,48B.05 for the .2 1/2 years until a price adjustment cnn
be made.
The cost of treating Salem sewage and just these two programs
i$545 per day) would be $45,624.24 per year.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19609) AN oRDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #qO, "Semage Treatmen
Fund." of the 1970-71 Sewage Treatment Fund. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 238.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Link, Taylor, Zhomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebbe~ 6.
NAYS: None-- - -~0. (Mr. Garland absent)
129
BUDGET-DEPABTM£NT OF PUBLIC MELFABK: The City Manager submitted the
following report recommending that $10,000.00 be transferred from Foster Care, that
$6,500~00 be appropriated to Aid to Permanently and Totally Disabled and that
$3,$00.00 be appropriated to Fees for Professional and Special Services under
Section 837, "Public Assistance," of the 1970-71 budget:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April 12. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As reported by the City Auditor to City Council on Monday, April 5,
1971, funds within the Public Assistance Budget, Department 37,
Object Code 275, Aid to Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTO) was
overexpended daring the month of March 1971 by the amount of $f14fl.02.
Additionally, during the final stages of the budgeting process
last year the Director of Melfare ashed that additional funds be
appropriated to Object Code 210, Fees for Professional and Special
Services. This last minute request was generated by a last minute
increase in medical fees to be paid for physical examinations for
clients. Experience over the first nine months of this fiscal year
indicates these funds will be exhausted in April 1971.
An analysis of remaining Public Assistance funds and past
expenditure experience would indicate that Object Code 270, Foster
Care, has an adequate balance to allow for a transfer of $10,000
from that account to cover both APTD and Fees for Professional and
Special Services. Therefore it would recommended that City Council,
'by budget ordinance, transfer $10,000 from Object Code 270, Foster
Care and apply $6,500 to Object Code 275, APTD. and $3.500 to
Object Code 210. Fees for Professional and Special Services.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(n19610) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~37, "Public
Assistance," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 239.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: MeSSFS. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: Noee--~O. (Mr. Garland absent)
BUDGET-TRAFFIG-STATE HIGHMA¥S: The City Manager submitted a written
report recommending that $25,00 be transferred from Travel Expense to Printing and
Office Supplies under Section ~54. "Highway Safety Commission** of the 1970-71 budge
to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
I30
Mr, Link moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(n19611) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n54, *Highway ~afety
Commission.' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an ene~genoy~
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Eook No. 35. page 239.)
Mr. Link moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
'ebber 6.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Garland absent)
BUDGET-AIR POLLUTION CONTROL: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $100.00 be transferred from Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment
to Printing and Office Supplies under Section n49, *Air Pollution Control,* of the
1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(s19512) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n49, *Air Pollution
Control,* of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book'N°. 35. page 240.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motioh nas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk. T~ylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None .... O. (Mr. Garland abaeot)
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COURY: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting a request of Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge of the Municipa
Court. that $1.000.00 be appropriated to Personal Services under Section #20.
~Municipal Court,* of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds which will he applied
tonard the Extra Help Account of the Municipal Court in order to hire a replacement
Clerk Typist II while the incumbent in that position is on maternity leave:
"Roanoke, Virginia'
April 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Manager*s office has received a'communication from
Municipal Court Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick requesting an appro-
priation in the amount of $1.000 to the Municipal Court Account
20. Object Code 101, Personal Services. These funds will be applied
against the Extra Help Account to provide funds for hiring a replace-
ment Clerk Typist II while the incumbent in that position is on
maternity leave. As the salary funds in personnel account for
this position will not be used while the permanent employee is
away. this should result in no additional expense to the City.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request end offered the
follouleg emergency Ordinance:
(Ulgbl3) AB O~OIBASCE to amend and reordsin Section n20, 'Municipal
Court,w of the 1970~?1 AppropriatiOn Ordinance, and providing for an euergency.
(For full text er Ordinance, see Ordinance Oooh No, 35, page 240.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Jbeeler and adopted by the followiug vote:
AYES: Messrs. Leak, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber 6.
NAYS: None .......O. (Mr. Garland absent)
BUDGET-PENSIONS: The City Manager submitted the foliomJng repoFt suggest-
ing that $310,000.00 be transferred from Interest on Temporary Loans under Section
ubs, 'Interest on Indebtedness," that $135.000.00 be appropriated to Retirement
Contributions and that $175,000.00 be appropriated to Social Security under Section
Xl3, 'Retirements," of ~he 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of
the fiscal year:
'Roanoke. Virginia
April 12. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
An analysis of funds appropriated for retirement contri-
butions and Social Security mithin the Retirements Account indicates
that inadequate monies were appropriated to fund these accounts for
this fiscal year. The City Auditor indicates that an additional
$135,000 is needed for Retirement contributions and $175,O00 for
Social Security.
The Auditor further indicates that there exists sufficient
funds within Account 95, Interest on Indebtedness, Object Code 686,
Interest on Temporary Loans, to permit a transfer of $310,O00 to
cover the above accounts.
It would be suggested that City Council, by budget ordinance,
transfer 9310,000 from Account 95, Interest on Indebtedness, Object
Code 686, Interest on Temporary Loans. to Account 13, Retirements,
of which $135o000 would be applied to Object Code 102, Retirement
Contributions and $17S,000 to Object Code 103, Social Security.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City ManaGer"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(niGh]4) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reoFdain Section nBS, "Interest
on Indebtedness,' and S~ction Ul3,~Retirements,# of the 1970-?1 Appropriation
Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 241.)
~132
Mr. Llsk moved the ad~ptlon of the Ordinance. The moron mas seconded by
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the f611owlng vote:
AYES: Messrs.'Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trot, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ~ ~ - - ....... 6.
NAYS: Nsne - : --~O, (Mr. Garland absent)
BUDGET-PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred back to the City
Manager for reconsideration a report requesting that $4§O.00'be appropriated to
Rentals under Section u64, "Maintenance of City Property** of the 1970o71 budget,
provide funds for the rental of a ditch digger for'three meeks in order to
proceed with the installation of lighting for various parks in the City of Roanoke.
the City Manager submitted the following report advising that the advertising and
purchasing of this piece of equipment'mould be time consuming, that under the best
possible conditions mould delay construction of the lighting projects by tmo meeks
and requesting that Council give serious consideration tomard the rental of the
ditch digger at this time:
*Roanoke. Virginia
April 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday. April 5o 1971, the City Manager requested $450 be
appropriated to rentals under the Maintenance of City Property
account to provide funds for the rental of a ditch digger. This
machine is needed to proceed math the installation of night lighting
for various parks within the City.
City Council questioned the advisability of paying $150 a
week to rent a ditch digger as opposed to outright purchase of a
similar piece of equipment. Investigation reveals that a ditch
digger similar to the DUe that the City now rents has a listprice
of $1.gg5. The City under its normal purchasing procedures as
outlined in Title V of the City Code mould after public advertisement
and competition take bids on proposals for purchase of this ditch
digger.
Advertisement and purchasing under this procedure is time
~onsuming and under the best possible conditions would delay con-
struction of these lighting projects by two weeks. With the
weather delays already encountered, continued delay of this work
could hamper the City Pork and Recreation baseball program for this
season.
To recommend'the purchase of equipment not previously included
in the fiscal year budget is contrary to practices previously dis-
cussed before Council. Because of the delays that can be anticipated
and as it is not considered good practice to recommend the purchase
of new equipment, that is not of an emergency nature during the
middle of a fiscal budget year. It mould be recommended that City
Council give serious consideration to appropriating the $450
previously requested to the Maintenance of City Property. Account
64, Object Code 245, Rentals, to provide for the orderly progression of
the installation of this night lighting.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved thst Council concur in the request of the City Msnsgnr
and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(nlgGIS) AN ORDINANCE to amend end reordnin Section n64, *#aintenance
of City Property,' of the 19?O-TI Appropriation Ordinance, and providing rot an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinunnn Boob No. 3S, page 241.)
Mr. Trout moved the-adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by #Fo Thomas and adopted by the folloulng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisho Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................... b.
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mr. Garland absent)
GARBAGE REMOVAL:* The City Manager submitted the following report request-
ing the authorization of Council to allow a landfill operation in the south clear
zone at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport immediately south of llershberger Road.
advising that he has checked with Federal Aviation Administration officials who
state that such is feasible and has been done around other airports and would most
likely require a formal request from the city that this use of the land be allowed,
that he would be willing to enter ~to the operation on an initial 30-day period
and if opinions or objections become so strong he mould discontinue use of the
land:
'Roanoke, Virginia
April 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
As much as I regret bringing up this matter again, the cycle
has again turned and we are once again in need of a new location
for a landfill or disposal of refuse. The present sanitary land-
fill-operations at the Molls Furniture Company property, south of
Dale Avenue. mill be completed within another tmo months. This
obviously presents the need for a hem location with some lead time
for preparation.
I think it is fair to soy that the management of Veils Furni-
ture has been nothing but complimentary of the City's activities on
that property. They have expressed to the Public Morks Department
several times'a wish that this had been done'some years ago and
the value of reclaimed land is apparent.
As has been discussed in detail many times before, there are
practically no sizeable tracts of land available within the City of
Roanoke which are very susceptible to sanitary landfill operations.
Me have additionally the situation which the County has informally
imposed upon the City which thus far has limited our possibilities.
The County has suggested joint use o£ Dixie Caverns property but
of their area. me still feel reluctant and we do not feel that this
is making use of an opportunity that landfill can provide to the
benefit of land development. It is realiaed that citizen opposition
automatically develops anytime a landfill is mentioned. This
occurs despite the very favorable results at East Gate, Tinker Creek
and mom Yells Furniture. There are locations that mould not be
detrimental in the surrounding county areas where sanitary landfills
I34
which has been discussed arab time to time Ja the south clear zone
at the Airport immediately south of Hersbberger Road. This ciear
zone area is approximately 900 feet in uidth along Rerskberger Road
and 1852 feet in depth.
We*bare informally checked with FAA officials who'state that
such is feasible, has been done around other airports and mould most
likely only require a formal request from the City that this use of
the land be allomed. Me mould propose to conduct u trench type .
landfill due to the relatively flat terrain of the area. This is
.the least conspicuous and cleanest type landfill operation wherein
you first excavate a long, narrow trench, deposit the refuse and use
the excavated material as cover for the fill. Me mould not affect
the instrument landing system lights, but rather fill on both sides
of these towers. Me would not envision creating hills but leveling .
out the rolling terrain of the clear zone.
A storm drain should first be installed through the site which
would eliminate present bad sink hole situation just nest of the
Grandvlem Village Apartments. City forces could accomplish this
work for an estimated cast of apprgximat~ly $40,000. It might be
desirable to install a fence around at least part of the property,
particularly the easterly and southerly borders. This could be done
for less than $10,000. Our existing operating accosnts mould cover
costs for access roads, etc., with the $50,000 drainage and fencing
expenses covered by the solid mastes disposal facilities funds
available in the bond referendum.
Me would perfer to go into the North Clear Zone north of Peters
Creek Road (117). A major improvement could be made to land owned
by the City in this area through the landfill method. However, use
of this property again brings up the County government qnestion.
I would recommend that the Council give its approval to our
entering this area and we would be willing to go at ~ on the basis
of an initial 50-day period and if opinions or objections become
so strong, we mould discontinue. Me would do this at anytime after
that that Council might desire. Je feel that once underway many
more of the public mill hare a fuller understanding of what is meant
by a sanitary landfill and what can be accomplished mithin such a
program.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
In this connection, a petition signed by 25 residents in the area opposing
the proposed landfill for seven specified reasons, mas before Council.
After a'discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the report he
taken under advisement and that the City Manager be directed to make the necessary
icontacts with people in the area who will be affected by the proposed landfill.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted~
Mr. Lisk then moved that'Mayor Webber be requested to appoint a new
Chairman to the Landfill Committee, said Committee to mark with the City Manager in
selecting proposed sites which can be used for landfill purposes. The motion sas
seconde~ by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
CXT¥ MANAGER: The City Manager submitted a written report requesting
permissien to be absent from the Council meettggs of Monday, April 19, 1971, and
Monday, April 25, 1~71, due' to the scheduling on those dates of the trial of the
annexation case in the Roanoke County Courthouse.
135
· Mr. Link moved that Council concur In the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted,
ZONING: The City Attorney submitted the following ~eport in connection
ulth amending end reordainlng Section 32, Building setback lines and sign provisions
for Major Arterial Highways, of Chapter 4.1, Zoning, of Title XV, Construction,
Alteration and Use of Land, Buildings and Other Structures, of The Code of the City
of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by providing for the modification or waiver of certain
of the limitations and restrictions contained in said section by the Board of Zoning
Appeals In special cases:
"April 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
At yOUF meeting of April S, 1971, the undersigned reported that
certain recent litigation in a local court of record had an effect
on Sec. 32of the City*s 1966 Zoning Ordinance which would necessi-
tate amendment of that section.
The matter has been studied by this office and u proposed amendment
has been drafted, and is incorporated into a form of ordinance which
is transmitted herewith, the effect of which proposed amendment is
concurred in by the City Planning Director.,
In essence such amendment would retain the present limitations
and restrictions of building setback lines for proposed Major
Arterial HiRhways but would,permit of the modification or waiver of
such restrictions and limitations by the Hoard of Zoning Appeals
after application by a landowner and following public notice and
hearing with written notice thereof having been Riven to the City
Manager by said Hoard. if the Board be satisfied that such libations
and restrictions, if applied to a particular property, would be
unreasonable and would have the effect of completely deprivinR the
laudomner of the beneficial use of his property by precluding all
practical uses thereof.
Tie undersigned is of opinion that adoption of this amendment would
satisfy the infirmities of the present Sec. 32 as set forth in
the trial court*s opinion. The provisions contained in the present
Sec. 32 with reference to sign structures have not been significantly
modified.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. N, Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emerRency Ordinance:
(~1961b) AN ORDINANCE amending andreordaining Sec. 32. Bplldina setback
lines and sion nrovisions for major arterial highways, of Chapter 4.1Zoniqq, of
~:136
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinnnce. The motion wan secoeded
by Mr~ Trout nnd adopted by. the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, iheeler and Mayor
Webber.
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mr. Garland absent)
MAHER FIELD: Council having referred a report of the City Manager advis*
lng that the City of Roan,he has been notified by the Department of the Navy of the
wish of the government to renem for the period from July 1, Ir?l, to June 30, 1972,
the lease dated June 9, 1965, of approximately 1.35 acres of land upon which is
situated the Naval Reserve Training Center to the City Attorney to determine whether
or not the lease automatically rem,ms itself, the City Attorney submitted a mritten
report advising that the notice as reported by the City Manager is a formality and
th~ the provisions of the current lease provide for a term of ,meaty years beginning
July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1986.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Yheeler and unanimously adopted.
AUD/TS: The City Auditor submitted a financialreport of the City of
Roanoke for the month of March,.1971.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation a request of the Roanoke City School
Board that Council dedicate and incorporate into its public street facilities a right
of may extending from merrell Street sonthmesterly.and intersecting Fifth Street,
N. M., at a point in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the Lucy Addison
High School, to assure continued freedom of access to the school site, the City
Planning Commission submitted a mrltten report recommending that the request be
granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a.public hearing on the request of the Roanoke City
School Board be held at 2 p.m., Monday, May 10, 1971. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lish and unanimously adopted.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation a request of the Rova Corporation
that apertion of Junette Avenue, S. M., between Fourth Street and Franhlin Road,
S. M., be vacated, discontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission submitted
a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for vacating, dis-
continuing and closing the street be held at 2 p.m., Monday, May 10, 1971. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
137
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request'of'#essrs. James Howard Shirley and
Benjamin F. Shirley that property located on the masterly sldeof Edison Street.
N. E~, and a short distance north of Liberty Road, described as Lots SE. SF and
9G. Map of the property of Do P. #agann, being a division of Lot $, Section 1,
Liberty Land Company Map. be renoned from RD. Duplex Residential District. to RG-R,
General Residential District, the City Planning Commission sub,It.ed a written
report recommending that an RG-I renaming be approved in lieu of the original
request for an RG-2 rezoning.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for renaming be held
at 2 p.m.. Monday, May 10, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimousl~
adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
i study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. S. Wallace Cundiff, et ux., and
Hr. M. F. Silver. et mx., that a .9~ acre tract of land located at 2101 Dale Avenue,
S. E., described as Lots 9. 6, ? and H. Section 3, Map of Park*Jew, Official Tax
Nos, 4310905. 4310906, 4310907 and 4310909, be renamed from RG-1, Ceperal ResJdentia]
District. to C-2, General Commercial District, the City Planning Commission submitted
mrltten report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request fo~ rezoning be held
2 p.m** Monday May 10,. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lish and unanimously
adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendatio~ the request of Mr. R. D. Naif that property located
Brambleton Avenue, S. M., west ~f Montoomery Avenue, described as Lots 17, lB and
19, Block 20, Map of Park Square, Official Tax Nos. 155113? and 1561139, be rezoned
from RS-3, Single-Family Residential *District, to RD, Duplex Residential District,
the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the
request b~ granted.
Mr. Trout moved ~hat a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held at 2 p.m., Monday, May 10, 1971.' The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: 'Council having referred to the City Planning Commis-
sion for study, report and recommendation the request of Watts ~ Breakell, Incor-
porated, that 24th Street. S. W.. extending from Patterso~ Avenue to the right of
way line of the Sorfolk and Western Railway Company and Bridge Street, S. M., be
vacated, discontinued and close~, the City Planning Commission submitted a mritten
report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for vacating, dis-
continuing and closing the street be held at 2 p.m., Monday, May 10, 1971. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. M. Carl Andrews. Chairman of the Hill Mountain
Development Committee. appeared before Council and requested that sufficient funds
be appropriated by Council to proceed with detailed landscape plans for the proposed
uildflower garden area of Mill Houatain Park:
*Roanohe. Virginia
April 8. 1971
Mayor Roy L, Mebber
City of Roauohe
Dear Mayor Hebber:
On behalf of the City*s Mill Mountain Development Committee
I request opportunity to appear before City Council ou Monday,
April 12, to ask for appropriation of sufficient funds to proceed
mith detailed laudscapeplans for the proposed wildflower garden
area of Mill Mountain Park.
It is two years this month since Council approved the develop-
ment plan. The new approach road should be completed and opened
within a few weeks and it is imperative that other steps in the
planned development go forward.
I ask permission to introduce Mrs. Million N. Bulliogton,Jr.,
president of the Mill Mountain Garden Club, which has accumulated
a considerable sum for planting and beautification of the wild
flomer area and mhJch is anxious to proceed as suon as plans are
ready.
I om informed by Mr. Granrille Liles, Superintendent of the
Blue Ridge Parkway, that it may be possible for a Parkway landscape
architect to develop the plan in spare tine at reasonable cost to
the City. I may bare definite information by Monday.
The Committee had hoped that the scale drawings might have
been done by now in the City Planning Department. Lack of an
appropriation in the current budget prevented its accomplishment.
Cordially,
S/ M. Carl Andrews
M. Carl Andrews
Chairman, Mill Mountain
Development Committee"
After o discussion of the matter, Mr. Mheeler moved that the report be
referred to the City Monomer to confer with the Mill Mountain Development Committee
as to what is involved in the proposed project and report back to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND pLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Richard M. Kienle, Chairman of the Roanoke
Transportation Museum Committee, appeared before Council and presented the following
report recommending that an annual budget of ~20,030.00 be established for the
Roanoke Transportation Museum, that the Museum season be extended from May I through
September 30 and that a $°25 fee for admission, train and boat rides be established
at the Roanoke Transportation Museum:
"RECOMMENDATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM COMMITTEE TO ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
Gentlemeu~
The Committee has given serious and lengthy consideration
to the steps which need to be taken if the Roanoke Transportation
139
Museum is to realize its potential of being in outstanding
attraction for both residents nad tourists in the Ronaohe
area. It has arrived'at three ~roposals abase adoption
by Council it believes essential to attaining this end.
These proposals, incident&lly, reflect'many of those
previously made t6 Council by respresentatives or the
Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce. They are:
1. An annual Museue~budget of $20,038.
2. A Museum season extending from ~ay I through
September 30.
3~ A'25t fee for admission to and train end boat
rides at the Museum.
The Museum*s potential is clear. As you know, i~ is
now the largest manfcfpnlly-omned facility of Its kind
the United States. It houses the most extensive call,calan
of railroad historical materials south of Baltimore and east
of St. Louis. its potential market includes not only the
one-quarter million residents of the metropolitan Roanoke
area but also the more than te~ million people who annually
travel the Blue Ridge Parkmay through Roanoke. Its
potential is. further, apparent from the public acceptance
it has received, reflected by annual average attendance of
over 46,000 people in the past two years. It is also
evident from the substantial interest shown in it by
private citizens, both individual and co~porate, mbo have
made substantial contributions at ttme, effort and Mnseom
exhibits to it.
Despite the best efforts'of all concerned, homever,
the Museum has yet to become what it can become. It has
been operating, we believe, with too small a staff and with
inadequate funds to meet its promotiohal, maintenance and
capital expenditure needs. Our proposals, while too modest
to represent a panacea, constitute a substantial st~p
toward filling these needs.
THE BUDGET
~he budget, attached as Appendix A. includes, first,
the amount of $$,?93.20 for wages of the two turnstile
operators and two train operators whom the Museum has
almays employed and who represent the minimum employee
force necessary to operate the facility. The total amount
is ~ightly higher than that required in prior years, refleit-
lng a season two months longer and the current mage rate of
SI.tiS per hour. These employees would, as in the past,
begin and end work on the Museumts opening and closing'dates
and would each work the same six-hour shifts worked in the
past.
The budget, further, contains the amount of $5.416.§0. re--
presenting ~l,U~ per boar wage for two ~mployees. each work-
ing an eight-hour shift. One employeewould be in charge of
security and the othero in charge of maintenance. These two
employees would begin work fifteen days before the opening of
the Museum and continue for fifteen days after its closing.
The committee believes that employment of individuals for
Security and maintenance is essential if'the Museum is to be
kept in a first-class condition. Lack of full-time persRnnel
for these tasks has Yesultdd fn the Mureumts haven9 taken
on a somewhat seedy appearance, mith exhibits unpainted and
unwashed, signs dilapidated or non-existent and grounds
often littered. It has also resulted in some vandalism.
The buaget also includes an amount of $2,328.00 as the
Museum*s one-third share of the salary of a Museum manag&r
to be shar&d with the Children*s Zoo. The total salary of
this manager would be at City Fay Range lB, from $6,648 to
$0,496. not including fringe benefits, retirements,
etc. The committee feels that the proper operation of the
Museum requires someone directly responsible for and capable of
handling the overseeing of other employees' functions and the
myriad details which mill arise in connection with the promo-
tional and expansion activities which we ~an to undertake if
this budget is approved.
The budget ln~ludes the amount:or $1o000 for maintenance
supplies, such us paint andslgns, In the past, the Department
or Furks und Recreutionhus done eu excellent Job of
routine Museum maintenance, such as gruas cutting smd broken-
uindom repuir, lute'lis clW-mide wore schedule, 'A first-class
Museum. however, requires the availability of a specific fund to
puy for more extensive muintenence programs. Specifically,
these include periodic uushing und puintlng o~exhibits, the
lnstallution of attractive signs for exhibits end the purchase
uf adequate protective materials for these exhibits during the
off-season, among others.
Finally, the budget Includes the amount of
for capital expenditures. Among those which me contemplute
and believe to be essential are the follosbV:' The
and Mesternts former Starkey station, donated to the Museum
over two years~ago, remains in Starhey for lack of funds to
relocate It, We plan to add this building for the purpose of
IncludJug numerous railroad artifacts Which have been promised
to the Museum at no cost. A preliminary estimate of the cost
of relocation, excluding necessary foundation and plumbing
work at the Museum site. is $2.000. Hext, we would like to
locate the extensive model railroad layout of the Roanoke
Associution of Model Railroaders at the Museum and this will
require the construction of a rather sizeable building. A cost
estimate is unavailable at this time. but tee Association. the
Museum architect and the'City Engineer are presently at murk
planning the lowest-cost, feasible StrUcture. The Committee
believes that this layout would constitute a prime attraction
and. thus, significantly boost Ruseum attendance. Third. but
not least, of the plans which are underway is that'of developing
a promotional program ir the Museum. This would include pamphlets
descriptive of the many exhibits for the use of MuSeum visitors and
brochures outlining the key attractions of the Museum for area-
and state-wide distributioo. Promotional literatures of thetype
me envision must, to be effective, be to some extent professionally
done. zee budgetary allocation which we request is essential if it
is to be done.
THE EXTENDED MUSEUM I~ASOH
The committee has proposed u lengthening of the season
from its present Memorial Day - Labor Day duration. This has
been done in response to many Informal indications that the
public, specifically groups of school children, is interested in
access to-the facility before and after the traditional vacation
season. Merle the addition of two months to the season will, of
course, result in greater personnel and maintenance expense, our
best judgment is that such will be more than offset by public
attendance;
THE FEE INCREASE
The present 10~ fee has been in effect since the
Museum's founding in 1963. Our proposal to increase it to
is, of course, a-reflection of the impact of inflation upon
wage rates and material prices in recent years, hut. more
I~portantly, it reflects our belief that the facility we
presently have, to say nothing of that which we will have if
our planned improvements can be effected, is and will be
worth this modest amount. It is also our belief that a fee
increase, coupled mite the increased attendance which we
anticipate will result from the improvements made possible b7
the increased budget, will enable the Museum to continue in
the future as a self-supporting institution. Indicative
of this is the fact that an increase in daily attimdance'to
525, from'the 514 which the Museum enjoyed in the 1969 season,
would, at the 25~ level, return more than $20,000 to the City
Treasury.
In this latter connection,' the Museum has ~ans to
embark upon a.program of financial self-help in conjunction
with the Roanoke Chapter of the national Railway Historical
Society. It is proposed to jointly operate a concession stand
offering for public sate various transportation memorabilia
and items suce as post-cards and photos illustrating the v~tues
of Roanoke and the Shenandoah Valley. Revenues will be
divided with the Roanoke Chapter and the Museum*s share will
be placed in the City Treasury. To further advance the
Museumts proposects, we would like to have Councilts approval
of an automatic escalation of the budget here proposed in ~ e
amount of revenues which may he generated from this source.
141
In conclusion, your Committee strongly urges that steps
ore necessary and should be Immediately undertaken to improve
the future prospects of our Museum, We believe these proposals
represent such steps, Council wes or the opinion in 1963 that
the rounding of this Museuw was In the best Interests of all
area citizens. Ne believe that public and private response
to it since then has confirmed the correctness of this belief,
In our opinion, adoption of our proposals will constitute a
first step toward realization of the MUSmB*S rail potential.
S/ Richard b. K~enle
Richard W. Kienle
Chairman#
After a discussion of the ~eport. Mr. Trout woved that the Cit~
Attorney be directed to prepare the proper weasure establishing a fee of $.25 for
admission, train and boat rides at the Roanoke Transportation Ruseum. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted,
Hr. Trout then moved that the remainder'of the report be referred to the
City Manager to confer with the Roanoke Transportation Ruseuu Committee and
~eport back to Council. The motion Was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIRS: NONE,
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council ~aving directed the City Attorne
to prepare the proper measure appropriating $13,000.00 to Jackson Park Athletic
Field under Section n89, "Transfers to Capital ImprOvement Fucd," of the
1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the construction of an athletic field in
Jackson Park, Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(m19617) AN ORDINANCE to mend and reordain Section n89. "Transfers'
to Capital Improvement Fund." of the '1970-71 Appropriation ~rdinance. and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance B~ok No. 35, Page 243.)
Mr. Lfsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler a nd Mayor
Mebber 5.
NAYS: None--~: :: O. (Mr. Garland absent)
WATER DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the C~ty Attorney to prepare
the proper measure amending and reordaining paragraph 3 of subsection (E) of Rule
38, Section 5, Rules and regulations, Chapter 1, Water Dep~rtment, Title XII, of
The Code of the City or Roanoke, 1955, as amended, in certain particulars, he
presented same; mhereupen, Mr. Wheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z19618) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain paragraph 3. of subsection
(E) of Rule 3R.. Sec. 5. Rules and regulations, of Chapter 1. Water Department,
Title XlI, or the Code or the City or Roanoke, 195b~ as amended, in certain
particulars, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, Page 244.)
1-42
Mr, Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mss
seconded by Mr~ Thomas a~d adopted by the folloming vote~
AYES: Messrs, Lisk0 Taylor, Thomas, Trout~ Wheeler and Wayor
Webber ~6'.
~AYS: None~ O. (Mr, Garland absent)
In this connection, Mr. Llsk then offered the follouing emergency
Ordinance unending and reordalning. Pnrt C, and Part D, of Section 6, Chapter 1,
Title III, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to minimum
monthly charges for mater service certified for exclusive fire protection and
monthly charges for standard fire hydrants to be paid by consumers of the City's
public mater system; and, amending Section 6 of said Chapter and Title by the
addition thereto of a nam Part £.~ establishing certain rates for the installation
and use of hydrants and hydrant laterals outside the corporate limits of the city:
(u19619) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Part C. and Part O. of Sec.
6, Cha~ter 1, Title XII of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended,
relating to minimum monthly charges for water service certified for exclusive fire
protection and monthly charges for standard fire hydrants to be paid by consumers
oY the Cityts Public mater system; amending Sec. 6 of said Chapter and Title by tbs
addition thereto of a new Part E., establishing certain rates for the installation
and Use of hydrants and hydrant laterals outside the corporate limits of the City;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35, Page 245.)
Rt. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Or. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mqbber 6.
NAYS: None 0. (Mr. Garland absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PARKS AND PLAYGRouNDs-DONATIONS: Mr. Lisk presented a check to the City
!Manager in the amount of $98.10 from the ABC Southeastern Theater, Incorporated,
representing ten per cent of the proceeds derived by the Terrace R~cking Chair
Theater from their presentatim of the Dr.Z~vago film to be used toward improvements
to the Mill Mountain Zoo.
BUDGET-CITY MANAGER: Mr. Lisk presented the following communication
recommendie9 that $1,635.00 be appropriated to Office Furniture and Equipment -
Replacement and that $105.00 be appropriated to Office Furniture and Equipment -
Nem under Section #3, 'Manager,~ to provide funds to properly furnish the City
Manager's Office:
'Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Host members of City Council are aware that duriag the
past two years budgeting process it was necessary to remove
from budget requests most ir not all furniture Items asked
rot. Doth years it has been necessary to extract furniture
items requested to upgrade the appearance and comfort of the
City Manager*s office.
Math the movement of City administration activities to
the nan municipal building iu August of last year, the need
to replace this old furniture became even more apparent.
I feel that the office of the chief administrator for a city
the size and importance of Roanoke should reflect as a credit
on our city. With the existing furniture it does not.
I would like to recommend to City Council that they
appropriate the necessary funds to properly furnish the
City #snager's office. It would be recommended that by budget
ordinance City Council appropriate $1,635.00 to the City
Manager*s. Object Code 355, Office Furniture and Equipment
·Replacement and $105.00 to Object Code 380, Office Furniture
and Equipment, New.
S/ David K. Lisk
David g. Llsk'
Mr. LJsk moved that the communication be referred to 1971-T2 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business. Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE~F:
r City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL. REGDLAR MEETING,
Monday. April 19. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber fn the Municipal'Building, Monday, April 19; 1971, ut 2 p.m.. the regular
meeting hour, with Vice Mayor James O. Trout presiding,
pRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. LisR, Noel C. Taylor,
flanpton M, Thomas. Vincent S. Mheeler and Vice Mayor James O. Trout ..........
ABSENT: Mayor Roy L. Mebber ............... i.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Banero Assistant City Manager, Mr. fl. Ben
Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney. and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
March 22. 1971, having been furnished each member of Council. on motion of Mr.
Thomas. seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA~TERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday, April 19,
1971, on the request of Mr. R. D. Peters, and Peters Realty. Incorporated, that
property located on the north and south sides of Oaklamn Avenue, N. M.. described
as Lot 1. Greenlawn Map. Official Tax No. 2170120, and Lot A. being a portion of
Official Tax No. 2170320 be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District,
to-RD, Duplex Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request for rezoniug be granted:
"March ID, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of March 17, 1971.
Mr. Stuart A. Barbnur, Jr.. attorney for the petitioner, noted
the following:
(1) that the proposed duplexes would not detract from the over-
all character of the area.
(2) that Mr. R. D. Peters, the petitioner, owns the small
residential structure that adjoins the lot on the south
side of the street and, in addition, he owns the twa-
story residence on the east side of the street.
(3) that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of
this same petition back in 1969 (subsequently denied by
City Council).
(4) that tbs petitioned land is actually s tmo-bloch distance
from Nllliemton Bold,
Hr, Royntono member Of the Planning CoMMlssiono inquired about
the petitioner being able to Meet the psrhing requirements. Hr,
Peters stated that he uould provide off-street parking,
Hr, Richard S. Ferris, appeared before the Planning Commission,
voiced his opposition to thfa rezoning pelf*fen, nad then presented
a petiti?n signed by forty-six residents opposing this rezonJng re-
The Planning Director noted that the are~ mas esaent*ially a
single family residential area, and should remain as Such.
Hr. Coleman, Member of the Planning Commission, noted the
need for mare houses, ~nd saw this rezoning petition as a means
to that end.
Accordingly, motion was bade, duly seconded and approved
to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrot* by L. M.
John D. Parrott
Chairman'
Mr. Stuart A. Barbour, Jr., Attorney. representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support Of the request of his client and advised that his client
ia proposing to erect duplexes on the property if it is rezoned and that the propose~
duplexes #onld eot detract from the overall character of the area.
With reference to the matter, Mr. Rilliam G. Anderson, Attorney. repre-
senting residents in the immediate area mbo are opposed to the requested rezoning.
appeared before the body and presented a petition signed by 4b residents in the
area advising that they are opposed to the rezoning because the quality of the
neighborhood and of these living there would be adversely affected, that occupants
of the duplexes would not be interested in maintaing their property in keeping
with the rest of the neighborhood, that pressure mould be pat On an already OVer--
loaded sewage system and that they are concerned for the safety of themselves and
their families because of the additional traffic which would be generated on their
narrow street.
Mith reference ~ the matter, Messrs. Fred C. Box, 31410aklauu Avenue,
N. W** S. M. Thomas, 32210aklawn Avenue. N. #., and D. O. Cabiness, 1912 Oaklawn
Avenue, N. W., appeared before Council in opposition to the request for rezoning.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Carland moved that the request for
rezoning be dealed. ~be motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p,m., Monday, April 19,
1971, on the request of Messrs. B. W. Porterfield, Jr., and T. C. Porterfield. that
property located on the westerly side of 6th Street. $. W., described as Lot 6,
Section 26, Map of the Masena Corporation, Official Tax No. 1130511, be rezoned from
RD, Duplex Residential District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. the matter
was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the followin9
report recommending that the request for rezoning be granted:
-March 18, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, #nyor
and Members of City Council
ROanoke. ~lrginin
Gentlemen:
The above cited request nas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of #arch 17, 1971.
Hr. Talfourd H. Kemper, attorney for the petitioner, noted the
following:
(a) that the general area is essentially industrial and not
suitable for residential purposes.
(b) that the petitiener has no specific plans for this property
(perhaps, a warehouse use).
(c) that 'this rezonln9 request would have no adverse effects
on the adjoining properties.
The Planning Director noted that the adjoining lot, immediately
to the north and owned by the petitioner, was rezoned from a RD to a
LM zoning designation on October, 1969. Considering this fact, the
Director noted that the proposed rezoning request would be in keeping
with the general character of the area.
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and approved to
recommend tn City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
Mr. Talfourd H. Kemper, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Wheeler
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19620) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4o1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 113, Sectional 1966
Zone Hap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property located on the westerly side of Hth Street, S. W,, inthe City of
Roanoke, designated ns Lot H,'Section'26, Map of the Msseua Corporation, Official
No. 1130511, rezoned from Rdo'Duplex Residential District, to LM. Light Mauufacturin,
District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RD; Duplex Residential District, to LMo Light Manu-
facturing District;'and
WHEREAS. the'written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956. as'amended, relating to Zoning, have been pnblished and poste~
as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the bearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 19th
day of April. 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
'147
bearing all parties in interest and citizens uere given un upportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
#HEREAS, thin Council after considering the evidence us herein provided,
Is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Rcanohe that Title
X¥, Chapter 4,1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanahe, 1956, as amended.
relating ~o Zoning, and' Sheet No. 113 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Hap, City of Dounoh,
be amended in the following'particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the uesterly side of flth Street, S. W** in the City of
Hoanohe, described as Lot fl, Section 26. Hap of the Wasena Corporation. designated
Sheet 113 of thc Sectional 1966 Zone Hap, City of'Roanoke, us Official Tax Ho.
1130511, be, and is hereby, changed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to L#,
Light Ranufacturin9 District, and that Sheet No. 113 of the aforesaid map be changed
in this respect,
The motion nas seconded by Hr. Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Outland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Wheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout .................................... 6.
NAYS: None -0. (M~yor Hobber absent)
INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION-RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-TOTAL
ACTION AGAINST POYERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEy: The Rererend Charles T. Green, President.
NAACP, appeared before Council and read a prepared statement in connection with the
swimming pools owned by the City of Roanoke located in Hurt Park, Eureka Park and
Washingto~ Park, advisi~9 that even though these pools are far from being adequate
to serve the community they are better than having no pools at all, pointing outthat
Council was gmara Of the fact that Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley'
Mould operate these pools for a short time and that inasmuch' as Council consented
for these pools to be built at their present location against the desire of many
citizens, it is his feeling that it is the responsibility of Council to operate the
pools until such time us Council is in a position to build bigger and better pools.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the statement be taken under advisement and
referred to the City Manager for his information in connection with his study of the
matter. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School' Board,
requesting that $2,699.7B be appropriated to Additional Instructional E~uJpment unde]
Section ~12000, "School~ - Improvements and Betterments," and that $1,720.9H be
appropriated to School Improvement Projects under Section glaO00, "Schools - Miscel-
laneous," of the 1970-71 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, to provide funds
for the purchase of instructional equipment at no additional cost to the city since
the amounts requested will be reimbursed by the federal government under the National
Defense Education Act. was before Council.
148'
Mr. Thomas moved that CoancJl concur in the request of the Roanohe City
School Board and offered the relieving emergency Ordinance:
(alg621) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section al2000, "Schools -
lmprovemeuts'~ Betterments," and Section =13000. "Schools - Miscellaneous," of the
1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance DookNo, 35, page'246.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by dr. Lisk and adopted by ~he following vote:
AYES: 'Me~srs. Garland, Lisk0 Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout
NAYS: None ......... -0. (Mayor Mebber absent)
BUDGET-COMMONMEALTH*S ATTORNEY: A communication from Mr. Samuel A. Garri-
son, II1, Commonmealtb*s Attorney, r~questing that $436.00 be appropriated to Commuai
cations under Section #22, *Commonmealth*s Attorney,* of the 1970-71 budget, due
principally to the prosecution of the Paul Patterson case in Alexandria, Virginia,
and an increase in the number of extradition matters mhich have been handled by
his office, mas before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Commonwealth's
Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a19622)' AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u22. "Conmonmealth*s
Attorney." of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 247.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout.
NAYS: None O. (Mayor Nebber absent)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council havin9 granted an extension of time until April
1~. 1971. to the Roanoke City School Board in order for them to give deliberate and
thorough scrutiny to the school budget needs for 1971-72. a communlcati;n from the
School Board requesting that they be granted another extension of time until May 5.
1971. to furthe~ study the needs of our schoois, was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEMEBS AND STORM DRAINS: A communication from Mrs.' C. M. Atkinson.
President ~f the Mildwood Civic League. advising that the City of Roanoke installed
a storm drain from Mecca Street to Glade Creek, that when the storm drain was
completed it mas found that the catch basin inlets were left hioher than the street
in some cases cousin9 water to run down the middle of the street instead of running
into the storm drain and requesting that some temporary work be accomplished to
improve the condition, mas before Council.
Hr. ,heeler moved that the matter be referred to the City Rsnagor for
lnvestlgstion and report to Council. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
BEALTH DEPARTMENT: A communication from Mr. Fred F. Roessel0 Director.
Roanoke Valley Rental Health - Rental Retardation Services Board. advising that
before the Roanoke Valley Hental Health-Rental Retardation Services Board can get
State DepartMent approval for their proposed budget, ahoy must have all three
local governing bodies acknomledge and approve their budgetary request and request-
ing that the Council of the City of Roanoke. by Resolution. approve their proposed
addendum budget, mas before the body.
Rro Thomas moved that the communication be referred to the City Ranager
for study and report to Council. The holloa mas seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimous-
ly adopted.
LICENSES: A communication from HFS. Lamson Bailey. requesting a refund
of $20.00 for tug 1971 City of Roanoke decals which mere inadvertently purchased.
mas before Council.
Mr. ,heeler moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure providing for the refund. The notion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and ~nanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTy: A communication from Mr. Samuel L. Johnson. President,
Ridge Rifle Association, offering to purchase u tract of land in the Nanging Rock
area on State Route 1404 which is owned by the City of Roanoke Mater Department
for the purpose of constructing a rifle and pistol range and access road, mas
before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the request be referred to a committee composed of
Messrs. David K. Lisk, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst, James N. Kincanon and J. Robert
Thomas for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Frank N. Perkinson. Jr.. Attorney,
representing Mr. Roy Brundon. et ux.. requesting that the easterly half Of Lot 3,
Block 1, Map of Vpson Addition, the westerly half of Lot 4. Block 1, Rap of Upson
Addition and the westerly half of Lot 3. Block 1, Map of Upsou Addition, Official
Tax Nos. 3160207, 3160226 and 3160208, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-2. General Residential District. was before Council.
Mb.Thomas moved that the request for rezoning he referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Frank N. Perkinson, Jr** Attorney,
representing Mr. James N. Brandon. requesting that property located on Riverland
150
Road, S, E., described as Lot 2-A on a plat showing 43-subdivision of property of
James O, Kaseyo being all of Lots 11 - 22, inclnsive, and Lots 22-A and i-l, Section
~No. I and all of*Lots I - e, inclusive, Section ~o. 2, Map of Malnut Hill, Official
Tax Nos. 4041106, 4041107, 4041109, 4041110, 4041112, 4041113 ao~ 404111S, be
Trom RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District,
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezonin9 be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATION~ COURT: The Assistant City Manager
submitted a written report in connection with appropriating $400.00 to Utilities and
$1,100.00 to Printin~ and Office Supplies under Section mia, "Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court," of the 1970-?1 budget, to provide funds for the remaind~r of the
fiscal year.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in tho report of the'Assistant' City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19523) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #19, "J~venile and
Domestic Relations Court,'" of the 19TO-?I Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
(For full t~xt of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book NO. 35, page 247.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Carland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Mheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout 6.
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mayor Mebber absent)
BUDGET-RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The Assistant 'City
Manager submitted a written ~eport of the CitV Manager recommending that $500.00 he
transferred from Fees for Professional and Spe'cial Services to Food, Medical ~nd
Housekeeping Supplies under Sec{ion eTS, "Recreation. Parks and Recreational Areas,~
of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Maaager aad offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19624) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section z75, "Recreation.
Parks and Recreational Areas," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, paoe 24B.)
Mr. Thomas moved the ~doption of the Ordinance. The m~tiom was seconded
by Dr. ~aylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout .6,
NAYS: None ...... --0. (Mayor. Mebber absent)
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT:
The Assistant City Manager submitted a mritten report of the City Manager recemmendJ~
that $125,00 he transferred from Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment to Printing
end Office Supplies under Section m57, *Traffic Engineering and Communications,*
and that $50.00 be transferred from Operating Supplies and Materials to Printing and
Office Supplies under Section tSg, 'Street Signs and Markings,* of the 1970-71
budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Yh~m~ moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~1g~25) AN ORDINANCE to amend and rcordain Section ~S?, "Traffic
Engineering and Communications** and Section #59. *Street Signs and Markings,#
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 249,)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by th~ folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout.
NAYS: None ........O. (Mayor Mebber absent)
BUDGET-CITY MANAGER: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written
report of the City Manager recommending that $350.00 be transferred from Printing
and Office Supplies to Personal Services under Section ~3, "Manager,* of the 1970-71
budget, to provide funds in connection with the overtime account of the City Manager'
Office.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(nlg626) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section aa. "Manager." of
the If?O-TI Appropriation ~rdinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 249.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout.
NAYS: N'one J~-O. (Mayor Mebber absent)
BUDGET-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the
following report of the City Manager transmitting a memorandum from Mr. Samuel H.
McOhee, III, City Engineer, noting an increase in the final contract cost to Branch
~152
and Associates. Incorporated. for the construction of the Llch Run - Tinker Creek
Interceptor Seme~ line by $12.023.60. making a total amount of $543.662.95 for the
contract and recommending that the $12.023.60 be appropriated by Council to enable
final payment:
"Roanoke. Virginia
April 19. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
There is attached a memorandum from Hr. McGhee. City
Engineer. dated March 17. 1971. noting the increase in the final
contract cost to Branch and Associates. Incorporated. for the
construction of subject interceptor sewer line by $i2,o23.bo
to a total amount of $543.662.95. Mr. McDhee indicates the
reasons for this adjustment and it is recommended that City Council
make this appropriation from funds available in the Lick Run -
Tinker Creek - Ora,ge Avenue Capital Sewer Account to enable
final payment.
*HATE: Rarch 17. 1971
TO: Mr. HJrst
FROM: Hr. HcBhee
SUBJECT: Lick Run - Tinker Creek Interceptor Sewer
Je have received the final estimate for payment for the above
project from Branch and Associates. Inc, The final contract
cost is $543,662.95, some $12,023.60 (2.27~) above the approved
contract amount of $528,639.35.
After ~refully reviewing the estimate with the contractor,
and comparing the as built plans with the original construction
plans, several reasons for the additional cost were noted as
itemized below:
1) A section of the new line passes through the landfill
area adjacent to Tinker Creek, south of #isa Avenue. S, E.
Mhen the plans were prepared, and bids received, there was
no landfill in this vicinity. Nhen the pipeline mas actually
constructed, however, the landfill had been extended into
this area and the trench depth was changed as indicated
below:
TRENCH DEPTH PLAN QUANTITY AS BUILT QUANTITY
(FEET) (FEET} (FEET)
0-6 12 -0-
6-8 111
8-10 150 -0-
10-12 50 -0-
12-14 188 96.6
14-16 40 50
16-18 -0- 405.66
Th'is change in the ground conditions resulted in an additional
cost of approximately $5.448.00 in this particular location.
2) In general, actual trench depths throughout the remainder
of the project were deeper than that shown on the plans,
although ground conditions did not change as in Item 1 above.
This resulted in higher excavation costs, deeper manholes.
additional trench stabilization material, and some additional
higher strength pipe.
It is my recommendation that the additional $12,023.60 be
appropriated to this project from funds available in the Lick
Run - Tinker Creek - Orange Avenue sewer account, in order
to make final payment on this contract based On the as built
quantities.'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
153
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19627} AN ORDI~AMCE to emend and reordain Section e550. "Semage
Treatment Capital Improvements Program," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance,
and providing for an emergency.
{For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Mo. 35, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uss seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, ~homas, Mheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout -6.
MAYS: Mone~ ........... O. (Mayor Mebber absent)
AUDITORIUM~COLISEUM: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following
report of the City Manager recommending that a small plaque be mounted on the
inside wall of the Coliseum lobby at the Roanoke Civic Center for the purpose of
listing the architectural firm, the contractor and the date the Roanoke Civic Center
was completed:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April 19. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The contract document for the Civic Center established an
allowance of $2,800 for signs and plaque for the project. The
actual total low subbid for this work is $2.699.95. This will
leave the City a credit of $100.05. The principal single item
in this is the plaque which mill be mounted on a pedestal in the
plaza. Rather than the traditional listing of city
officials, architects and contractors, the City Council has
indicated its preference that the legend be an inscription of
narrative mording and this is bela9 follomed.
It is my feeling that in any structure, particularly ~ public
facility, there should be at some point a reference to the archi-
tect, the contractor and the date of the facility. At my request.
the architects have checked into this and advised that within
the limits of the $100.05 remaining that a snail plaque can be made
mhich will list the architectural firm, the contractor and the date.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the prepara-
tion and execution of a change order to include such a plaque with-
in the contract. This plaque would be mounted on the inside wall
of the coliseum lobby.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manage~"
In this connection. Mr. John A. Kelley, Chairman of the Roanoke
Civic CenterAdvisory Commission, appeared before Council and advised that the
Roa'noke CiVic Center Advisory Commission is presently studying plans ~r a similar
plaque and requesting that action on the matter be deferred until the Commission
can present said plans to Council.
:154
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the request and that action on the
report of the City Manager be deferred pending a report from the Roanoke Civic
Center Advisory Commission in connection with the matter~ The motion mas seconded
bT Hr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report of the City
Manager transmitting copy of a communication from Mr. Donald H. Rhodes, Mayor of
the City of Virginia Beach. Virginia, in connection mJth property tax exemption for
the elderly, advising that copies of the communication hare been mailed to each of
cities affiliated mlth Urban 12.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communication be received and filed.
The motion mss seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
S~ATE HIGHWAYS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following report
of the City Manager in connection with the provision of traffic signs for Elm
Avenue at the intersection of Interstate Route 591, advising that the conclusion
mbich has been reached is that the area mould be benefited by the installation of
traffic signals to control and better direct the movement of traffic, the estimated
Of the project being $40,000.00 Of which the share of the City of Roanoke
~ould be fifteen per cent or Sb,O00.O0:
"Roanoke, Virginia April 19, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
For some many months, the Traffic and Communications Division
has been working with the State Highway Department in the interest
of seeing mhat might be developed for~e provision of traffic
signals for Elm Avenue at the intersection of Interstate 591.
It is believed that'the members of City Council are generally
familiar mith this intersection to the extent that it is not
necessary to describe the traffic movement and difficulties. The
situation is largely created by the fact that the Interstate
terminates at Elm Avenue at this time. That there would be heavy
traffic movement demands was anticipated at the time the project
was authorized and constructed.
The conclusion that has been reached is that the area would
be benefited by the installation of traffic signals to control and
better direct the movement. Me are advised now by the State Highway
Department that it is possible to program signal.installation under
a TOPICS project. Signals as installed would be so arranged that
they could be reasonably revised and readjusted as might be necessary
when the'Interstate is continued on into the Southwest Expressway
in the project now being developed.
Under the arrangement that th'e State has submitted and to
which we are in agreement, the State would prepare the plans at
no cost to the City. The City would then acquire the material
and make the installation with City forces and bear 15 percent of
the cost of material and installation. The remaining 65 percent
would be borne by TOPICS and State funds. This will make the
construction in one package and mill be reasonably manageable.
The estimated cost of this project at this time is $40,000.
It ls emphasized that this figure is an estimate. Me can not know
the definite figure until we start definitely. The City*s share
would be 15 percent or $6.000. Ne do not have any funds appro-
priated within the current budget year either in operating funds
155
or in capital project for this purpose and accordingly I am limited
in making a specific recommendation to the City Council. 'I,
therefore, submit this to you as information rot such guidance as
Council mould wish to give** It is felt, insofar as a procedure
for obtaining signals, that this is a desirable arrangement.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, HJrst
City Manager'
Mr, Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and
u~animously adopted.
TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY-SCHOOLS: The Assistant
City Manaoer submitted the following report of the City Manager in connection uith
a lease entered into between the City of Roanoke, Total Action Against Poverty in
Roanoke Valley and Opportunities Industrialization Center for approximately 20°000
square feet of ground floor space in the east portion of Victory Stadium, said
present lease to expire on January 1, 1972, that OIC is preparing to enter into a
program involving long-range planning for Manpower training, that in order for
to submit such un application to the Department of Labor, it is necessary that th~
have information they can transmit as to the confirmation of space for them to con-
duct the Manpower training program and recommendin9 that Council adopt a measure
which would extend the lease now in effect from January 1, 1972. to December 31, 197
"Roanoke° Virginia
April 190 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virgia~
Dentlemen:
The City Council by Ordinance Ho. 17313, January 3,
entered into a lease with Total Action Against Poverty in the
Roanoke Valley and Opportunities Industrialization Center, for
approximately 20,000 square feet of ground floor space in the
east portion of Victory Stadium. This area was intended to be used
and has been used primarily by OIC as the headquarters and functional
area of its operations. The lease expires January 1, 1972.
As reported to the City Council on August 24, 1970, OIC through
Mr. John A. Sabean, Executive Director, expressed a wish to have
confirmation of the possibility of renewing this lease. OIC
is preparing to enter into a program involving long-range planning
for Manpower training and in order to submit such an'application to
the Department of Labor, it is necessary that they have information
that they can transmit as to a confirmation of space for them to
conduct the Manpower training programs. The dates for the proposal
that they now have in preparation are from May 1, 1971, through
April 30. 1972.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the prepar-
ation of the appropriate ordinance by the City Attorney as would
extend the lease now in effect from January 1, 1972, to December
Lt would be recommended that the ordinance as prepared provide
for signature by the proper authorities of TAP and/or OIC that their
signature .to the ordinance would constitute acceptance by them of
all terms and conditions in the extension ordinance as well as the
initial or original ordinance,
Respectfully submitted,
for $/ Byron E. Hamer
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur lo the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr.-Wheeler end unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE~ The Assistant City Manager submitted a
written report of the City Manager transmitting copy of a communication from the
Department of Welfare and Institutions announcing a series of meetings in the State
of Virginia regarding administrative and operating units for the State Adminlstrotio
of Welfare and indicating the scheduling of a meeting at Lakeviem Motor.Lodge on
Tuesday, April 27,.1971, at 10:00
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communication be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHWAYS: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City Hanager recommending the adoption of a form utility agreement to be
ttered into betmeen the City ~ Roanoke and toe Virginia Department of Highways
providing for the adjustment of water lines in connection with the construction of
the Southwest Expressway. the estimated cost of the relocation of the facilities
to be $16,993.50, said amount to be assumed by the state.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(alO62D) AN OR~NANC£ authorizing the City*s execution of a written
aDreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways. providing for
the adjustment of certain of the CityOs water lines in connection with the construc-
tion of Route 220, Project 6220-12D-104, C-501, (Southwest Expressway); and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Or~nance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 251.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messr$. Garland, Lisk, TaFlor. Thomas, Wheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout
NAYS: None O. (Mayor Webber absent)
AIRPORT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report of the
Manager advising that he has received the final master plan reports and recommenda-
tions from Talbert, Cox and Associates for Rom**ko Municipal (Wu.drum) Airport, that
he has written the Federal Aviation ~dminlstration and the State Division of
Aeronautics asking for their formal coocurrence in the reports, that as soon as a
reply is received he will bring the reports to Council formally with a recommendation
that they be adopted as the master plan for further development at. Roanoke Municipal
(Wu*drum) Alrport~
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-PARRS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The Assistant City Manager submitted a
written report of the City Manager transmitting copy of a communicatiSn written
to him from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas C. Lee expressing their interest and support for the
appropriation of funds in the 1971-72 badger to provide lights for the tennis courts
at Crystal Spring.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the matter be referred back to the City Manager for
his information in connection with the preparation of the proposed 1971-72 bodget~
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having taken under advisement a report of the
City Manager requesting the authorization of Council to allow a landfill operation in
the south clear zone at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport immediately south of
Rershberger Road. the Assistant City Manager submitted the following report of the
City Manager advising that he has a tentative possibility of one or tmo alternate
sites that might be useable for the sanitary landfill situatio~, that In view of
this he would lihe to temporarily hold off getting in contact with the people in
the Hershberger Road area to discuss a proposal in the south clear zone and request-
ing that he be authorized to direct a communication to Roanoke County seeking per-
mission to improve property through the sanitary landfill method in the north clear
zone north of Peters Creek Road in Roanoke County:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April 19, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As this is written on Thursday, we have a tenative possibility
of one or two alternate sites that might be usuable for our sanitary
landfill situation. These have not been completely checked out
because they have only just come to our attention and further we do not
yet have the firm indication from the property owners or the conditions
under which they might be available. They are within the City corporate
limits.
In view of this, I would like to temporarily hold off getting
together with the people in the Hershberger Road area to discuss our
proposal in the south clear zone. However. I would like to do this a~
sometime later anyway, because of my strong concern for the continu-
ing and popular misconceptions that prevail around the matter of a
sanitary landfill o~eration.
An analysis of our location at Wells Furniturepoints np that we
feel that we have even less time remaining there than I ~eported to
the Council last meeting. I advised you that the timingwas about
two months remaining; however, because of conditions that we have
run into in'the areas in which we are closing out, it appears that
we are talking aoout a maximum of perhaps three weeks. The sites
that we are looking at, that I mentioned in the first paragraph,
represent in either of them only a matter of a few months of
occupancy.
I would invite the City Council*s consideration of one other aspect
of this overall matter. Me badly need to improve the north clear
zone, north of Peters Creek Road. This is property that the City
bought a few years ago and outside of the removal of timber, it has
been left in a very unpresentable condition. It consists of ravines
and rugged hills that unless some major grading is undertahen, will
become even less attractive in appearance. A sanitary lanftll for a
few months in this clear zone area would offer anexcelleat oppor-
tunity to grade out and properly drain the area, dress it up and seed
it so that it would be attractive for road travelers, from the air and
I58.'
for people who. live in the immediate area, It is realized that this
area Is ¥ttbln Roanoke County and that the City has experienced
considerable difficulties in the past in seeking use of land out In
the County for landfills. I would like consideration by the City
Council of peraisainn to direct n letter to Rouuoke County seeking
permission to improve this property throdgh the ss61tarY lo~dflll
method. As this process obviously mill take tine to the extent that
the County might give It consideration, and a request initiated within
the near future would allow time to endeavor to try to s~ccessfully
develop this anthoriza~on with the County.
Respectfully submitted.'
S! Julian F. Hirsh
JulJan'F. Hirsh
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement. The motion
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
CITY E~GINEER-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Manager submitted
the following report of the City Manager transmitting u list of Streets to be
included in the current street surfacing program:
'Roanoke, Virginia
April 19. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
On March 22. I submitted to you the recommended street resor=
facing program list as drawn up by the Public Works Oepartment. This
Submission was for your study as well as mine. We have advertised with
bids cumin9 in. If City Council has any suggestions on the list. they
can be made when the bids come before you and we would be glad to do so.
The bidding has been done as it has in the last couple of years
by provlding the condition that the contractor shall not exceed
$100.000 by June 30 and we prepared a portion of the list accordingly
within that limit. Then the condition is established in the contract
that the City would reserve the right to extend the contract up to
$150,000 after July 1. This procedure is necessary due to the system
by which these funds are accounted. Last June 30, due to this
arrangement, some $?7,000 reverted to the General Fund of this
account but the work was being done so that it ended up being
charged against this year*s budget which means that in effect out of
the $250.000 over the 12-mouth period. $173.000 will be expended
for this street work.
Mr. Clark. Public Works Director. has advised me that the
Public Works Department *plans some experimentation during this
yezr*s program. Traditionally the City has contracted for street
resurfacing consisting of approximately 1' - lQ" of plant mix
asphalt material. However. there are many streets with adequate base
and paving which do not Justify the addition of this thickness of new
wearing surface. Two years ago the City placed a slurry seal on a
number of streets as preventive maintenance to extend the service life
of these pavements. Me plan to again place slurry se'al on certain
streets (identified on attached list) and also place a thin plant mix
overlay of approximately ~" thickness on adjacent segments so as to
compare both initial cost of serviceability between these two '
processes.' We anticipate being able to prolong the pavement life and
enable more streets to be resurfaced for the same amount of money
Jn future years OS a result of this experimentation.*
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
159
Hr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, a committee composed of Hessrs, Hyron E. Hanero
Cbairnan, William F. Clarh and Hneford H. Thompson submitted the following report
recommending that the Joint proposal of Adams Construction Company and Virginia
Asphalt Paving Company. Incorporated, for resurfacing of streets throughout the City
or Roanohe, In.the amount of Sgg,?O0.O0. be accepted:
'April 19, 1971
To the City Council
goanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Thursday. April 15, bids were opened before the undersigned
committee for the resurfacin9 of streets (blacktop) throughout
the City of Roanoke. As shomn on the attached tabulation of
bids, the low bid was submitted by Adams Construction
and Virginia Asphalt Paving Company. Inc.o as a Joint venture.
The Council now has before it for consideration the proposed list
Of streets to be resurfaced during the upcoming season. The bids
were submitted on the basis of tonnage in place mith the City
reserving the right to add to or subtract from the tentative list
of streets included in the specifications. Therefore, we are easily
in a position to modify the locations for paving if Council so
desires.
The proposal further alloms for the City to extend this contract
after July 1, 1971. if additional fonds for such work are included
in the 1971-72 budget. Assuming a relatively similar appropriation
in next year's budget, the proposed list of streets to be femur-
faced anticipates approximately $250.000 worth of moth durln9 this
construction season. However. this particular contract is for
approximately $100,000 in keeping with funds currently available
in Street Repair Account 58-255.
It is recommended that a contract be amarded to Adams Construction
Company and Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc.. in the amount
of $99,?00.
APPROVED S/ Byron E. Barter APPROVED: S/ William F. Clark
Byron E. Hamer William F. Clark
APPROVED: S/ B. B. Thomnson
Bueford Thompson'
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the commit-
tee and offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the proposals of Adams
Construction Company and Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Incorporated:
(#19629) AH ORDIHANCE acceptin9 the proposal of Virginia Asphalt Paving
Company, Inc., and Adams Construction Company for the paving of streets at various
locations in the City of Roanoke; authorizing the proper City officials to execute
the requisite contract; rejecting certain other bids made to the City; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No.
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Hheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout ...........................
NAVS: Hone ............ O. (Mayor Webber absent)
160
In a discussion of the matter. Mr. Lisk requested that the City Manager
check into the possibility of uhether or not Maple Avenue, S. M.. could be consldere*
as one of the priority areas for street paving.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-DONATIONS: The Assistant City Manager Submitted a
mritten report of the City Manager acknowledging receipt of a check in the umoont
of $98.10 from the ABC Southeastern Theaters, Incorporated, advising that the cheek
has been deposited in the General Fund and informing Council that ut such time as a
Capital Fund Project account is established for improvements at the Mill Mountain
Zoo, Council will be requested to appropriate these funds to that account for said
project,
Mr. Llsk moved that the report be received and filed and that the City Cie
be directed to transmit a letter PI appreciation to the ABC Southeastern Theaters,
Incorporated, for their most generous donation toward improvements to the Mill
Mountain Zoo. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
BUDGET-CITY ATTORNEY: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the following
report of the City Attorney requesting that $18.10 be appropriated to Communications
and that $200.00 be appropriated to Dues, Memberships and Subscriptions under
Section ~4, *Attorney,' of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for an additional
telephone to be installed in the office of one of the Assistant City Attorneys and
to provide funds for membership in t~e National Institute of Municipal Lam Officers:
"April 19. 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke Ci~ Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
It is respectfully requested that additional appropriations be made
to this departmeg for the folloMing:
Object Code 220, Communications ......... $1B.lO
Object Code 220. Dues and Subscriptions.. $200.00.
The appropriation to Object Code 220 is needed in order that one
additional telephone service be installed to the office of one of
the Assistant City Attorneys who had not been employed at the time
of the approval of the current Budget, but who is no~ so employed
and in need of an instrument on one of the lines to this office.
The appropriation to Object Code 250'is needed in order that the
City's long standing membership in the National Institute of
Municipal LaM Officers he continued for the current year. statement
of annual dues having recently been received by the City. From
this account, the periodic cost of Virginia Code replacements, one
municipal lam periodical. City Directory. Acts of the General Assembly,
etc., etc.. and other miscellaneous subscriptions and membership
charges are paid, all of which are considered essential.
Accordingly, it is requested that u proposed ordinance, amending the
1970-71 Budget Ordinance to the extent noted above and which is
transmitted to this meeting of the Council, be approved by the
Council.
The undersigned is deferring until the next Budget request items
which would provide for office-type desks and chairs for two of the
assistants in this office and for needed file cabinets for proper
record keeping.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Eincanon
J. N. Kincanon'
161
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur In the requests of the City Attorney
ned offered the followi~ emergency Ordinance:
(cig630) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section c4. "Attorney.'
of the lqTO-Tl Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full te~t of Ordinance. see Ordinance B,oh No. 35. page 253.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. L~sk. Taylor. Thomas. Wheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout ......................... 6.
NAYS: None .........O. (Mayor Mebber absent)
BUDGET-HUSTINGS COURT-CIRCUIT COURT-LAM AND CHANCERY COURT: The City
Auditor submitted the following report recommending that $500.00 be appropriated
to Personal Services under Section ~16. 'Hustings Court.' that $611.$2 be appro-
priated to Personal Services under Section ~17. *Circuit Court.' and that $500.00
be appropriated to Personal Services under Section ~lH. *Law and Chancery Court.'
of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for increases in the salaries of the judges
of said courts:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The General Assembly of Virginia at its recent sessions, increased
the salaries of the judges of the Hustings Court, Law and Chancery
Court, and Circuit Court from $22.000.00 to $23,000,00 each,
effective July 1, 1970. Consequently~the State has now billed the
City for its pro rata share of these salaries. Our share amounts
to $500.00 each for the Hustings Court and Law and Chancery Court.
and $511.52 for the Circuit Court (two judges).
This action establishes the salary of eech of the judges along
with local supplements at $32.223.20.
There is forwarded herewith an appropriation ordinance to provide
for the necessary funds for payment of the City*s share of the State
salaries, with recommendation that the necessary appropriations be
made.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor'
Mr. Mheeler moved tha{ Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Auditor and offered th~ followinG emergency Ordinance:
(~19631) 'AN 0RDINANC'E to amend and reordai*n certain sections of the
1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordioaoce Book No. 35, page 254.)
Mr, Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Wheeler and Vice Mayor
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mayor Webber absent)
162
PENSIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having previously
been advised that an Ordinance would be forthcoming providing that members or the
Police nod Fire Pension System who have transferred to The Employees* Retirement
System as new'member~ after 2S years or service and eligible rot retirement under
The Police and Fire Pension System would be permitted to but any portion or their
service time between 25 years of service and the time they became members or The
Employees* Retirement System, the City Auditor submitted a written report trans-
mitting said Ordinance,
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report or the City Auditor
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z19632) AN ORDINANCE amending Sec. 3. Membership, or Chapter 1. General
Provisions, Title I11. Pensions and Retirement, of the Code or the City Or Roanoke,
1956. as amended, by the addition or a new subsection, to be numbered (6). provid-
ing for certain additional membership in the Employees* Retirement System of the
City; and providing for no'emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 254.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following"vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Mheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout .......................... 6o
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mayor Webber absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Attorney to pre-
pare the proper measure fixing the charge for admission to the Transportation
Museum at 25 cents per person and the charges for the train and boat rides at 25
cents, each, per person, all effective on and after May 30, 1971, the Assistant
City Attorney presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution
(Zlqb33) A RESOLUTION changing the charge for admission and the charoes
i£or train and boat rides at the Transportation Museum.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Dook No. 35. page 255.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. Themotion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limb. Taylor, Thomas. Wheeler and Vice Mayor
Trout, 6.
NAYS: None .... O. (Mayor Webber absent)
163
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-ZONING: Council having previously denied u
request of the City of Ronnoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for the waiving
of the requirements of Section 7 of Article IV and Section 24 of Article V,
Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, that one parking
space for each unit of multiple-family dmelliog units in non-profit housing projects
for the elderly be provi'ded, insofar as the project at the southeast corner Of
31st Street and Melrose Avenue, N. M., is concerned, to permit the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority to construct a minimum of 74 paved parking
spaces initially and if in the future the demand for parking exceeds the ?d
spaces the land on the site under the ownership of the Authority will be available
for increasing the number Of spaces.up to 212 as originally designed, the matter
was again before the body.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority be granted and that the matter be referred to the City
Attorney for preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Trout declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
164
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, April 26. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday. April 26, 1971, ut 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour. with Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David M. Lisk, Noel C, Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ............6.
ABSENT: Councilman Vincent S. Wheeler .................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Hamer, Assistant City Manager, Mr. James
N. Kincanon, City Attorney, Mr. H. Ben Jones, Jr.. Assistant City Attorney. and
Mr. A..N, Gibson, Assistant City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Charles
G. Fuller, Pastor, First Baptist Church.
MINDTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
March 29, 1971, and the regular meeting held on Monday, April 5, 19TI, having been
furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes
approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr. C. W. Sarver appeared before Council and presented
a petition signed by bOl residents Of the Dorchester Court area Opposing the
establishment of a landfill at the south end of the approach to Roanoke Municipal
(Moodrum) Airport, advising that a landfill so near a residential section will tend
to lower property values and ultimately loler the taxes collected by the City of
Roanoke; that the prevailing winds in the northwest section of the city are from
north to south and will carry objectionable odors and insects from the landfill
into residential sections; that the City of Roanoke has two fine elementary schools
near the south clear zone - Ruff Lane and Round Dill and a nearby landfill would he
objectionable to the students and teachers and could possibly lead to a deteriorati¢
in health standards; that the proposed landfill would be seen by all air travelers
entering and leaving the Roanoke Valley via the south clear zone at the airport
and would negatively affect their opinion of the valley and the city in particular;
that Dershherger Road is already overloaded with traffic and garbage trucks, earth-
moving machinery, trucks and cars entering and leaving the landfill w~Id add to the
traffic load, increase the congestion and increase the traffic problem; that the
landfill operations may interfere with the instrument landing system at the airport
which might result in an aircraft accident or reduced operations; and that the clear
zone is too smaI1 for extended use as a landfill and the expense involved in site
preparation would he better spent in obtaining more permanent facilities or utiliza-
tion of the landfill at Dixie Caverns.
165
Mr. Trout moved that the petition be referred to the City Manager ned the
Lnndfill Committee for their infortation in'connection mith their study of the
matter of aelectimg pr~osed sites for landfill purposes. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Thomas and untnlmonsly adopted.
CITY HAR~ET: Mrs. Rouald B. Harris, representing the Hometown Roanoke
Beautification Committee, appeared before Council and read a prepared statement
requesting that Council appropriate $200.00 to be used for the purchase of a canopy
and that $450.00 be appropriated to pay the salary Of a retired employee three days
a week, four months a year, to man a produce pickup station in the City Market
area, advising that if the program is successful the Farmers* Market Association
will continue the service at their expense.
After a discussion of the request, Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be
referred to the City Manager for study and report to Council as to whether or not
there is presently an employee who could assume these responsibilities or whether
a new employee will have to be hired. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUN{CATXONS:
JAIL: A resolution adopted by the Roanoke Valley Council on Human
Relations saluting the work of the staff of the Roanoke City Jail and the City
Chaplain, looking with hope to the Offender Aid and Restoration Program and
deploring the inaction of Council on the pressing need for new jail facilities, mas
before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: A communication from Sergeant Glenn O. Mills, Sergeant T. K.
Wilson and Patrolman H. N. Spencer expressing appreciation to the Mayor and Members
Of City Council for their considerations and action in raising former retirees
~ensions. was before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be received and filed. The mot~on
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A' communication from Mr. James C. Turk. Chairman
of the Virginia Housing Study Commission, advising that a public hearing has been
scheduled for 10:00 a.m., May 3, 1071. at the National Guard Armory, in a continued
effort to seek solutions to housing problems in Virginia, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMONWEALTH*S ATTORNEY: Council having
adopted an Ordinance appropriating $436.00 to Communications under Section n33.
*Commonwealth's Attorney** of the 1970-71 budget, subject to the approval of the
S~ te Compensation Board, copy of a communication from the Compensation Hoard address
ed to Mr. Samuel A. Garrison, III, Commonwealth*s Attorney, advising that the Board
has transferred $436.00 from his salary ollomance account to his telephone and
telegraph allowance account, was before the body.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was secoeded by #r. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of Mr. Sidney Falkenstein. Attorney, repre-
senting #rD George n. Cartledge. Sr.. that property located at gO3 South Jefferson
Street, described as Lots d and 5. Block 4. Official Surrey S. M. 3, Official Tax
No. 1021U04, be rezoned from C-2,General Commercial District, to C-l. Office and
Institutional District, a communication from Mr. Falhenstein requesting permission
to withdraw the request for rezoniag, was before the body.
NFo Trout moved that Council concur in the request ~r permission to with-
draw the request for rezoning. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimousl
adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Hr. Michael K. Smeltzer, Attorney, representing
Mr. Russell Lewis Short. requestin9 that property located on the westerly side of
Mestside Boulevard, N. M., described as Official Tax Nos. 27S1201 and 2TSOg09. be
rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District,
was before Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. George M. Harris. Jr., Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. Melvin Fralin. Jr., et ax., requesting that property described as Lot 6,
Section 37. Map of Hyde Park Land Company. Official Tax No. 2210606. be rezoned from
RD-l, General Residential District, to C-2. Geceral Commercial District. was before
Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezonin9 be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Leon R. Kytchen. Attorney. representing Mr.
George R. Mebb. et ux.. requesting that property located at 3619 and 3621Buckner
S. W.. described as Lot 10. Corbieshaw Nood Map, Official Tax No. 1650934. be
rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential Bistrict, to RG-I, General Residential
District, Was before Conncil.
Mr. T~ut moved that the request for rezonlng be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted the
following report recommending that $1D,o00.O0 be appropriated to Excess of State
I67
Hatching Allotment under Section n35, 'Hospitalization,' of the 1970-71 budget, to
provide funds rot State and Local Hospitalization in-patient services:
'Roanoke, Virginia
April 26, 1971
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
City Council for thin budget year appropriated the sum of
$118.748 to State and Local Hospitalization for in-patient services.
Since July 1, 1970, the Roanoke City Health Department has expended
this account to a point where insufficient funds remain within the
appropriated. During the same period of time, the Health Department
has recovered $29,739 from the local hospitals.
Dr. Fagan indicates that in general under the State SLH program,
recoveries of this nature are reportable to the Virginia State
Department of Welfare and Institutions and also returnable to the
budget of the locality*$ hospitalization funds.
gecJrculation of these funds ia not a local practice in
Roanoke; and as n result to continue the in-patient services program,
it would be requested that City Council reappropriate $18,000
of these funds to the SLH account.
The City Auditor has been asked to prepare a budget ordinance
to this effect.
gespectfully submitted,.
S/ Byron E, Hamer
Byron E. Haner
Assistant City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
Assistant City Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19634) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~35. "Hospitalization
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 257.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ............................
NAYS: None ................. O. (Mr. Mheeler absent)
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The Assistant City Manager submitted
a written report recommendin9 that $1.000~00 be transferred from Travel Expense,
that $1,000.00 be transferred from Education and that $2.000.00 be appropriated
to Printing and Office Supplies under Section #37, 'Public Assistance," of the
1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Dr; Taylor mov-c-d that Council concur in the recommendation of the
Assistant City Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n19635) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordatn Section n37, 'Public Assis-
tance,' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 257.)
I68
Dr'"Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinsnce. The motion mas seconded
by Hr. Thomas and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout end Nayor
Webber .....................
NAYS: None ....... O. (Hr. Nheeler absent)
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Assistant City Manager submitted a
mritten report recommending that $100,00 be appropriated to Petty Cash under
Section #77, *Civic Center,' of the lg?O-71 budget, to provide funds for use in
meeting day-to-day expenses such as incoming mail postage dues. COD deliveries and
night purchases mhich cannot behandled through normal channels.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Assistant
City Manager and offered the follouing Resolution establishing a petty cash
fund in the sum of $100.00 for the Civic Center Department:
(~19636) A RESOLUTION establishing a petty cash fund for the Civic
Center Department.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution BookNo. 35, page 258.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by ~r'. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nebber ....................
NAYS: None ......... O. iMf. Wheeler absent)
Mr. Thomns then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$100.00 to Petty Cash under Section ~77, "Civic Center," of the 1970-71 budget:
(g19637) AN ORDINANC£ to amend and reordain Section ~??. "Civic Center,"
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Oook No. 35, page 258.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by ir. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ........... O. (Mr. Wheeler absent)
AUDITORIUM-COLISECM: Tbe Assistant City Rana§er submitted the following
report recommending that $200.000.00 be appropriated to Special Promotio~ Fund
under Section ~??. "Civic Center," of the 1970-?1 budget, to provide aecessary
lands from which to pay entertainment costs:
"Roanoke, Virginia
April 26. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Usage of the Roanoke Civic Center complex continues to increase
and to bring a varied fare of talent and entertainment to our
i.'69
citizens. During the first three meeks o! operation this activity
had a grcss gate receipt of approximately $87,000. These funds
have been deposited to the City*s banh account. Bomever, of these
gross receipts approximately $65,000 has been paid out to the shoes
or the sponsor or the shows. This latter action has resulted in a
problem which necessitates City Council*s assistance as there exists
no account from which these funds can properly be paid. I have
asked for and received a rough estimate from the Civic'Center Oirector
as to what his forecast would be rot the remaining 13 prugrsms mhich
are scheduled during the rewalnder of this fiscal year. I say
rough estimates as no one can exactly predict the attendance at
these attractions. BF. Radfurd has anticipated a gross income of
of approximately $500,000. This estimate is based upon these
attractions drawing well.
Should this occur the City°s expenditure mould of necessity
be approximately $400,000 to pay rot this talent. Me have been
working with the City Auditor with regard to this matter and
based upon anticipated revenues he would recommend that ee establish
a new account under the Civic Center department to provide the
necessary funds from mhich to pay the entertainment costs.
Although Mr. Radford*s estimate of these expenditures could
run as high as $400,000. it would be recommended that we stort this
account out with $200,000 and predicated On the receipt of the
anticipated revenues, ee could increase this account later in the
fiscal year if the need occurs. The City Auditor has prepared an
ordinance to this effect.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Byron E. Hamer
Byron E. Haner
Assistant City Manager"
MF~ Thomas moved that the request be referred to a ~ommJttee composed of
Messrs. Julian F. Birst, Chairman, J. Robert Thomas. John A. Kelley. Howard E. Radfor
and J. 6, Johnson for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trou~ aod unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMEN'F OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The Assistant City Manager submitted
a written report requesting that $~50.00 be appropriated to Personal Services under
Section s40. "Distribution of Surplus Commodities," of the 1970-71 budget, to
rovide funds for extra help for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of~e Assistant City
[anager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(gig638) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~40, "Distribution
of Surplus Commodities," Of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 35. page 258.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ........................6.
HAYS: Hone ..........O. (Mr. Mheeler absent)
BDDGET-HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to the City Manager for
Study and report a communication from Mr. Fred P. Roessel, Director, Roanoke Valley
Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services Board. advising that before the Roanoke
Yalley Hental Health - Mental Retardation Services Board cnn get Stntn Bepnvtuent
approval rot their proposed budget, they must have all three local governing bodies
ochnowledge and approve their budgetary request and requesting that the Council of
the City of Ronnoke, by Resolution. approve their proposed addendum budget, the
Assistant City Manager submitted the following report advising that the program
changes Included In the addendum budget do not involve any additional tax funds
in this or future years and recoumending the approval of such a Resolution:
'Roanoke, Virginia'
April 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday. April 19, lgYl. City Council received a communi-
cation from Dr. Fred P. Roessel, Director, Roanoke Valley Mental
Health - Mental Retardation Services Hoard. requesting that City
Council, by resolution, approve their proposed addendum budget.
City Council referred this matter to the City Manager*s office
and requested that I report back on Mooday, April 25, lg?l.
The request submitted by Doctor Roessel has been reviewed
by this office and the Commissioner of Health, Dr. James Fagan.
The request incorporates a change to the method of delivery of
services for Foster Care and additional programs for Family
Service-Travelers Aid and Big HrotherS. previously approved by
City Council. These program changes are being included in an
addendum budget request for this year to the CommiSsioner of the
Department of Reetal Hygiene and Hospitals and do not involve any
additional tax funds in this or future years.
This office would recommend approval of such a resolution.
Respectfully submitted.
$! Hyron E. Hamer
Hyron £. Haoer
Assistant City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the As$intaul
City Manager and offered the following Resolution:
(u1963g) A R£SOLU~ION approving an addendum to the budget for the final
quarter of the lqYl fiscal year of the Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental
Retardation Services Hoard.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Hook No. 35, page 259.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor. Tho~ns. ~rou% nad Mayor Webber-~6.
NAYS: None
(Mr. Mheeler absent)
SEMERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Hanager submitted the follow-
lng report in connection with sewer service into the Grandview Apartment Development
requesting the concurrence of Council for payment of $1.yHa.BH to Mr. T. H. Steele
representing the differential cost between installing an eight inch sewer line and
a ten inch sewer line to said apartment complex:
171'
'Roanoke. Virginia
April 26. 1971
Bonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentleten:
Sase two years ago, the City Manuger*s office corresponded mith
Mr~ T. D, Steele, regarding the need for sewer service into the '
Grandvieu Apartment Development complex. The need for these sewers nas
a long Standing probles iud discuisions with regard to sewage dated
back to the tire of the construction o£ these apartments. The situa-
tion mas such at the tire 0f construction that the contractor mas
unable toobtain an easement or right of way access across the Buff
Estate. In the construction of Interstate 581, the City had Installed
several deadend sewer lines under the Interstate, mlth one of these
intended to accommodate the anticipated semer line from this apartment
complex. ~ith the City's purchase ofthe adjoining portion of Ruff
Estate lands some three years ago, the City also obtained a right of
way through the remainder of the Buff Estate to the deadended sewer
line constructed under Interstate SBI to serve this area.
Prior to this, City Council instructed the City Manager to
resolve this problem, By letter on April 10, 1969, the City
Manager informed Mr, T. O. Steele of the availability of this right
of way and indicated that it was now possible for this sewer line to
be installed. Information copies of this letter were provided to
the Council and the City Attorney.
Mr. Birst informed Mr. Steele that although an B-inch sewer line
would handle the sewage flow of the apartment complex, to provide for
peak flow conditions and for unforeseeable changes in laod character-
istics, it mould be desirable to construct a Ia-inch main. Mr.
Steele was advised that the City mould assume the differential cost
between the 8-inch and the 10-1rich pipe and that upon completion
and satisfactory acceptance, the City mould assume maintenance of this
line.
On April 9, 1971, some two years later, Hr. Steele wrote to
Mr. Hirst enclosing a copy of a quotation received from Aaron J.
Conner, General Contractors, mbo installed this line for Mr. Steele,
which stated that the difference in cost between the Ia-Inch line
and the B-inch line would be $1.767.50. Mr. Steele requested that
the City reimburse him for this differential.
There presently exists within the sewer and drain construction
account adequate funds under Object Code 330. Supplies and Materials.
Construction, to reimburse Mr. T. D. Steele for this differential in
cost; however, even though City Council had previously instructed the
City Manager*s office to actively pursue the construction of this
sewer line to the Grandviem Development property, ! would request
City Council*s concurrence prior to paying this $1,767.50.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Byron E. Boner
Byron E. Bauer
Assistant City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved that CJuncil concur in the request of the Assistant City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a uritteo report
in connection with Lieutenant George R. #ehb~ who was injured in line of duty on
January 29. 1971, and was unable to return to work until April 6, 1971, or a total
of 66 days, recommending that Council approve a continuation of Lieutenant Webb's
salary for the additional six days above the normal 60 days for which he has
already been paid.
172'
Xr~ Garland moved that Council concur in the recowmendstion of the Assis-
tant City Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for prepsra-
tiun of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
STABIUM-MABER FIELD: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following
report of a committee composed of Messrs. Byron E. Hamer. Chairmsn, Rex T. Mitchell,
Jr., and Bueford D. Thompson recommending that the proposal of StoneOs Enterprises
for operating the concessions at the Roanoke Municipal Stadium and Athletic Grounds
at Haher Field for the period beginning May 1. 1971, and ending December 31, 1971.
with on option to renew for two additional years under the conditions stipulated
in the bid form. be accepted:
'April 2b, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After due and proper advertisement, bids were received in the
office of the Purchasing Agent and publicly opened and read before
the undersigned committee at 11:00 a.m., April 20, 1971, for operating
the concessions at Boanohe Municipal Stadium and Athletic Grounds in
Maher Field for the period beginning May 1, 1971, and ending December
31, 1971, mith un option to renew for two additional years,
As shown on the attached tabulation, five bids were received.
The highest bid was submitted by Stone*s Enterprises, ?004 Peters
Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia, proposing to pay to the City for said
rights and privileges annually, the sum of 36~% of all gross sales
on the premises.
Therefore. it is the recommendation of the Committee that the
bid of $tone's Enterprises be accepted for operating the concessions
for the period beginning May 1, 1971, and ending December 31, 1971,
with an option to renew for two additional years under the conditions
stipulated in the bid form.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Byron E. Hamer
Byron E. Hamer
5/ Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.
Rex T. Mitchell. Jr.
S! B. B. Thompson
Bueford B. Thompson"
After a discussion of the report. Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be refer-
red to the Stadium Advisory Committee for the purpose of advising Council if it
would be more feasible for the City of Roanoke to operate the concessions at the
Stadium. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
AIRPORT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report of the
City Manager advising of a meeting of the Virginia Division of Aeronautics in
cooperation with the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs in the Council
Chamber on Thursday, May 6. 1971, at 10:00 a.m** for the purpose of reviewing
and validating current airport development projects and their estimated financial
173
requirement ulth the objective of the state agencies developing · legislative
program in regard to the immediate aviation needs in Virginia, was bef6re Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded ~y Mr. Lish and unnnimously adopted.
OEPAHTMEHT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The Assistant City Rsnnger submitted a
written report of the City Manager advising tht the Virginia Advisory Legislative
Council will hold · public hearing on May 6o 1971, at 10:00 o.m** in House Room 4
of the State Capitol Huilding in Richmond, Virginia, in connection with social
welfare services, manpower and education.
Mr~ Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS'ADVISORY COMMITTEE-WATER OEPARTRENT: Council having referred
to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure a report of the Citizens*
Advisory Committee transmitting certain recommendations of the City Planning Commis-
sion in connection mith their request that Council adopt an Ordinance mhich would
require all property owners along the banks of the Roanoke River in the City of
Roanoke to keep the river and its banks for a distance of 25 feet from the edge of
the river clear Of debris, weeds and underbrush, the City Attorney submitted the
following report advising that after examining certain Ordinances in force in other
localities and after consideration of the state of prsperties, not only abutting the
Roanoke River but throughout the city. he has concluded that any regulations requir-
ing landowners to maintain properties free of refuse, garbage, trash and debris
or other offensive or unMholesome~substouces should not be made to apply to one clos~
of properties, but, rather, should be uniform and apply to all classes ~tmilarly
situated and transmitting two Ordinances which would enforce these provisions:
~April 26, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On March 29, 1971, Council referred to the undersigned the matter
of preparing an ordinance which would require all property owners
along the banks of the Roanoke River to keep such properties clean
and free of debris, weeds and underbrush.
After examining certain ordinances in force in other localities
and after consideration of the state of properties, not only abutting
the Rounohe River but throughout the City, the undersigned has con-
cluded that any regulations requiring landowners to maintain pro-
perties free of refuse, garbage, trash and debris or ~her offensive
or unwholesome substances should not be made to apply to one class
of properties, but, rather, should be uniform and apply to all classes
similarly situated.
Accordingly, there has been prepared and is transmitted herewith for
Council*s recommended adoption of a form of ordinance mhich would
amend Title XIII, Health, of the City Code by the addition of a new
chapter thereto, to be numbered 15, to be entitled Maintenance of
Property Free of Refuse Material. The new chapter would consist
of four sections. Sec. 1. sets out certain definitions; Sec. 2.
~reates a duty on the owner or occupant of each lot, parcel or pre-
mise in the City to maintain the same in clean and sanitary condition,
174
onpeaalty of fine of not less than five dollars nor more than fifty
dollari.for~each offense~or failure to nownJlteln suckproperty,'
Soo,~ae of the. Proposed. Ordinance would provide that the Cowwis-
sioner of Health, upon determination or the existence of a lot,
premise or parcel of land in the City in ut unclean er unsanitary
condition. ELy. give reasonable notice or such condition to the Darter
or occupant of such property by certain enumerated wethods and direct
the remedial action to be taken in connection thereulth. See, 4,
would create a separate offense of failing or refusing to comply with
written notice or order of the Commissioner of Health° such offense
being punishable by u rime of not less than five dollars nor more
than fifty dollars.
In researching the general subject or enforcing standards of cleanli-
ness on all properties within the City, it has been found that the
Council is authorized byChapter 264 of the 1970 Acts of Assembly of
Virginia to adopt an ordinance, not in conflict with the provisions
of that chapter, for the purpose of making unlawful the littering of
certain public and private property. In that connection, there has
been prepared and is also transmitted with this report a form of
ordinance uhich would amend Chapter l, Offenses Against Property, of
Title XXllI, #isdemeanors and Offenses. of the City Code, by the
addition to said chapter of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 13.
uhich would prohibit the casting, dumping, leaving oF otherwise
disposing of trash, garbage, refuse material, litter or other
unsightly matter on public or private property, ulthout the consent
of the owner except in refuse collection receptacles. Such section
mould make conviction of an offense hereunder punishable as n misde-
meanor with a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than one
hundred dollars, This section would furtheF provide that when a
person arrested for violation thereunder has been alleged to have
ejected the litter from n motor vehicle, the arresting officer may
issue a summons in lieu of arrest ns provided in Title 46.1 of the
1950 Code of Virginia. as amended.
'The proposed section would, finally, create a rebuttable pre-
sumption that when litter has been ejected fFomn mOtOF vehicle
the owner or operator of such motor vehicle Mas the person so
ejecting such litter.
Respectfolly submitted,
S/ J. N. Kincnnon
Mr. Oarlnnd moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that the following Ordinance amending Title XIII. Health. of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new chapter, designated as
sanitary condition be placed upon its first reading:
(=19640) AN ORDINANCE amending Title XIII, Health, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new chapter, designated as
Chapter 15, requiring certain owners and occupants of land to keep such land in cleat
and sanitary condition; containing certain definitions; providing procedures for the
enforcement of this ordinance; prescribing penalties for the violation of this
providing for certain publication of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, in order that all lands, lots and other premises mithin the City,
includin9 the areas and banks abutting the river and streams flowing in OF through
the City, be kept clean and sanitary, and in order that offensive or unwholesome
175
and to provide penalties for failure to discharge such duties, or to comply ~lth
orders made by the Commissioner of Health pursuant to provisions contained in this
ordinance~
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XlIl, Health of the Code of the City or Roe noheo lUSh., as amended, be and said
Title is hereby amended by the addition of n hem chapter thereto, such hem chapter
to be numbered Chapter 15, end to read and provide as follows:
Chapter 15. Maintenance of Property
Free of Refuse Material
Sec, 1. ~efinitions.
For the purpose of this chapter the following words and com-
binations of nards shall have the meanings ascribed in this section:
(al Commissioner shall mean the legally designated health
authority of the City of Roanoke. or his authorized repre-
sentative.
(b) Occuoant shall mean any person occupying or residing on any
lot, premise or parcel of land in the City of Roanoke and
havlng, at the time. apparent possession or control thereof.
(c) Owner shall mean any person mbo, alone OF Jointly or
severally with others:
1) Shall have legal title to any lot, premise or parcel
of land in the City, not, at the time, in the actual
or apparent possession or control of another;
2) Shall have charge, care, or control of any lot. premise
or parcel of land in the City, as agent or representative
of the o~ner, or as personal-representative, trustee or
guardian of the estate of the owner,
(d) person shall mean and include any individual firm or corporation,
association, partnership or unincorporated body or group of
individuals.
(el Refuse material shall mean anI and all refuse, rubbish, garbage,
trash, debris or other offensive or unwholesome substance or
material, of any nature mhatsoever.
Sec, 2. OutI of ouner or occupant of property with reference to deposit
or accumulation of refose material thereon; offensest
(al It shall be the duty of every person, as owner or occupant
of any lot, premise or parcel of land in the City, to maintain
the same in clean and sanitary condition. It shall be unlawful
for any such person to cause, allow or permit refuse material
to be deposited upon, remain or allowed to accumulate upon any
such lot, premise or parcel of land in the City, except such
refose material as ia properly collected, prepared and
contained for regular collection by the refuse collection
system of the City or for prompt removal and proper disposition
by such person.
(b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall.
upon conviction, be fined not less than five dollars nor more than
fifty dollars for each Such offense; and each days continuance
of such violation subsequent to any conviction hereunder shall
constitute a new and separate offense, punishable as above
provided.
Sec. 3. Notice and order by Commissioner of Health.
Nhenever the commissioner determines that any lot, premise or
parcel of land in the City is unclean or unsanitary by reason
of the deposit, existence or accumulation of refuse materials
thereon he may give reasonable notice thereof and of his
I76
determination to the emmet or occupant of such property, Such
notice shall (a) be in uriting; (b) shall state the unclean or
uessnitary condition ordered to be corrected; nad shall rix
the tine by mhich such Condition Jn ordered by the CoumJssioner
to he abated or corrected, Such notice shall be deemed to be.
properly served upon such omuer, occupant or agent if n copy
thereof is served upon or delivered to him in person; or if a
copy thereof is sent by registered mail and delivered to his last
keemo address, In ease of non-resident owners mho have no agent
in said city, such notice may be given by publication; in mhich
event tun insertions of such notice on separate days in any
nemspaper published in said city, at least ten days before the
first day any action is to be tabes shall be Sufficient notice,
Such notice may contain an outline of remedial action which, if
taken, mill effect compliance with the provisions of this
chapter.
Sec~ 4. FaiJure to comply wit~ ~ommissioneres notice and order.
Any person being under the duty imposed by sub~ectJon (a)
of section 2 of this chapter failing or refusing to comply
with a written notice and order of the commissioner given pur-
suant to section 3 of this chapter, shall be deemed to have
committed a misdemeanor and. upon conviction, shall be
punished by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than
fifty dollars; and each day's failure to comply with such order
after the date fixed therein for compliance shall constitute a
separate violation of such order.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerk cause an attested copy of this
ordinance to be published twice, on separate days and within ten days of its final
~assage. in a newspaper having general circulation in this City.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Tayloro Thomas, Trout. and #ayor
bber
NAYS: None ~. (Mr. Wheeler absent)
Mr~ Lisk then moved that the following Ordinance amending Chapter 1.
Offenses Against Property, Title XXII1, Misdemeanors and Offenses, of The Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new section, designated
Section 13, making unlawful the dumping of trash or litter on public or private
property be placed upon its first reading:
(=19641) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 1, Offenses Against Proper~y,
of Title IIIII, Misdemeanors and Offenses. of the Code of the CiaI of Roanoke. 1956,
amended, by the addition of a new section, designated Sec. 13, making unlawful
the dumping of trash or litter on public or private property; prescribing penalties
for the violation of such section; and providing for certain publication of this
ordinanco.
WHEREAS, the Council is authorized by Chapter 264 of the 1970 Acts of
Assembly of Virginia to adopt an ordinance not in conflict with the provisions of
said chapter for the purpose of makieg unlawful the littering of certain public and
private properties.
THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanokethat
Chapter 1, Offenses Against Property, Title IXIII, Misdemeanors and Offenses, of
the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, be and said chapter and title
hereby amended by the addition to said chapter of a new section thereto, to be
numbered Sec. 13, and to read and provide as follows:
'177
Sec~ 13. Dumping trash, etc, on certain public and private property;
penalty.
Any person who shall cast, dump, leave or otherwise dispose of,
in other than a refuse collection receptacle designed therefor
or in.a manner expressly authorized by law or ordinance, any
trash, garbage, refuse material, litter or'other unsightly
matter on u public highway, street, right-0f-Uay, park or
other public property, or on private property without the
written consent of the owner thereof or his agent, shall be
guilty of a misdemean6r, and, upon conviction thereof, shall
be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred
dollars.
Nhen any person is arrested for violation of this section and
the trash, garbage,.refuse material, litter or other unsightly
matter alleged to have been cast, deposited, left or other-
wise disposed of on a public highway, street, rightTof-may,
park, or other public pro~ rty, or on private property, has
been ejected from a motor vehicle, the arresting officer may
comply with provisions of B 46,1-176 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, in making such arrest.
When a violation of the prov~sioos of this section has been
observed by any person, and the trash, garbage, refuse
material, litter or ot~er otherwise unsightly matter cast.
dropped, left or otherwise disposed of on a public highway,
street, right-of=may, park or other publicproperty or on
private property, has been ejected from a motor vehicle,
the owner OF operator of such motor vehcile shall be presumed
to be the person ejecting such trash, garbage, refuse material,
litter or other unsightly matter; provided, however, that such
presumption shall be rebuttable by competent evidence.
BE IT FURTHER ORBAINED that the City C~rk cause an attested copy of this
ordinance tO be published ~wice, on separate days and within ten days o~ its final
passage, in a newspaper having general circulation in this City.
The motion Was seconded by Mr. Thomas andadopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, ~homas, Trout and Mayor
Webber 5.
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Wheeler absent)
ZONING-STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having adopted an Ordinance amending and
reordainin9 Section 32, Building setback lines and sign provisions for major arterial
highways, Chapter 4.1, Zoning. Title XV, Construction, Alteration and Use of Land,
Buildings and Other Structures, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended
by providing for the modification or waiver of certain of the limitations and
restrictions contained in said section by the Board of'Zoning Appeals in special
cases, the City Attorney submitted the following report advising that it has come
to his attention that the matter should have been preceded by a public hearing on
the proposed amendment held fifteen days after due public notice and suggesting the
adoption of a Resolution providing for said public hearing and for publication of
notice thereof:
"April 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It has belatedly come to my attention that Council*s action in
amending Sec. 32, relating to Building Setback Lines and Sign
:!.78
Provisions for'Major Arterial Highways which was accomplished by
Ordinance No. 19b16, adopted April 12, 1971, should have been
preceded by public hearing on the proposed awendwent held fifteen
days after due public ~notico~
· Accordingly, to validate beyond q~estion Council's action of April
12, lg?l~ in the nmendwent of Sec. 32, nforesnid~ it is suggested that
the Council, by adoption or'the attached resolution, provide for such
public hearing and for the publication of notice thereof, as in other
amendments of zoning regulations.
Respectfully,
S! J. N. Kineanon
J. ~. ~incanon#
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution providing for a public hearing on the matter:
(~19642l A RESOLUTION providing for a public hearing on the question of
amending ~ certain particulars, Sec. 32. Building setback lines and sign provisions
for major arterial highways, of Chapter 4.1 Zoning, of Title XV, Construction, Alter
ation and Use of Land. Buildings and Other Structures. of the Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, as amended; and providing for publication of notice of such public_
hearing;
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .6.
NAYS: None ..0. (Mr. Wheeler absent)
STREET NAMES: The City Planning Commission submitted the following report
transmittin9 recommendations to provide for a uniform street classification system
in the City of Roanoke for the Patrick Henry - Rhiteside -- Bollins Road Corridor,
recommending that the recommendations contained in the report concerning the street
renamings be approved by Council:
"April 22, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The following recommendations to provide for a uniform street
classification system in the City for the Patrick Henry - Nhiteside
-Hollins Road corridor were considered by the City Planning Commis-
sion at its regular meeting of April 21, 1971.
a. That the street portions (Route 115) noted below
be renamed Hollins Road:
(1) 9th Street Northeast from N~W Main Line to Orange
Avenue.
(2) Nhiteside from approximately Liberty Road toPreston
b. That the street portions noted below be renamed Kimball
Avenue:
(1) Wells Avenue from Second Street N. E. to Fourth St., N. E.
(2) Seventh Street from Rnlher Aveuoe*to Orange Avenue;
frow Louisiana Aveooe to Indiana ArcaDe.
· (3) Patrick Henry Avenue from ~ndiana Avenue to appro~i~itely
Liberty Road.
e. That a section of the proposed route (Route 115) linhing
#hiteside and Bollinn Rd. from approximately Kllgore Street.
N..K., across the N ~ N Shenandoah Division to approximately
Liberty Road, ~. £., be na~ed'Bolllns Road.
d, That a proposed section ex{ending from 4th St. H, E** to a
connection with the existing Kimball Avenue wid-way betmeen
4th St. and Sth St** N. £** be named Kiwball Avenue.
e. That the proposed street connection across Orange Avenue
Kimball Avenue.
After a brief summary of the proposed name changes by the
Assistant Planning Director. Hr. Hoynton raised the question of
What would be done about the northerly portion of Old Hollins Road
between Milgore and its termination, for mhich no new name had been
proposed. Mr. Wentworth suggested that this portion cf Old Dollins
Road be renamed Read Road in honor of aa early resident of the area.
Follnming this discussion, a motion mas made, d~ly second ed
and unanimously approved that the recommendations of both the
Plaening Department and Rr. Mentworth concerning the street renamings
be approved.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed .K..Lemoo by NRG
Creed M. Lemon, J~.
Vice-Chairman'
Mr'~ Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Planning Commission gnd that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Dr~ Taylor and
unanimously a~opted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. John #. Thompson. et ux., that
property described as Lots 20, 21 and 22 and the mesterly and sout'heasterly
portion of Lot 23. Block 3, Map o,f ~iberty Land Company, Official Tax Nos. 3101304,
3101305, 3101307 and 3101310, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-1, General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written
report recommending that the request be granted.
Br. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday, May 24, 1971. The motion was seconded by Rt. Trout aDd
unanimously ado~ted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of Messrs. James M. Ailstock. an~ #illiam
H. Patterson, that property located at the corner of Missouri Avenue and Tenth
Street, N. E.. described as Lot 3, Block 10, according to the gap of Fairmont,
Official Tax Ro. 30~0501~ be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2.
General Residential Oistrict, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommending that the request be granted.
Wri Thomas moved that n publiolhearin~ on'the request for rezoelag be
held at 2 p'~n~, Monday, May 24, IR?l, The motion mssseconded bT Mr, Trout and
unanimously adopted,
' REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROLV~DS: Mr. M. Carl Andrews, Chnlrnfn*~ the Mill
Mountain Development Committee, appeared before Council and read the following
prepared statement requesting that the hem road up Mill Mountain from Walnut Avenue,
S, E., to the mountaintop he formall! named the 'J. O. Fishburn Parkway." that a
marker of native stone be erected at or near the beginning of the *J. fl. Fishburn
Parkway,' on Malnut Avenue and that a suitable bronze plaque citing appropriate
facts be erected thereon:
#Roanohe, Virginia
April 26, 1971 ' ·
Mayor Roy L. Mebber
Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Your Will Wountain Development Committee wishes to make ibis
formol request that the new road up Mill Mountain, leading from
Walnut Avenne S.E. to the mountain top park be named formally
as the 'J'. D. Fishburn Parkway*.
By this act Council will be honoring the civic-minded gentle-
man mhD acquired the mortgage and presented the mountain top to
the city 30 years ago this month to be developed as a park and
recreational area for the people of the Roanoke area. Through
him you also will be paying tribute to his late wife and his son,
Junius P. Fishburn, mbo individually or together in their lifetimes
contributed so much to the melfare of our people through the
gift of parklands including South Roanoke, Masena, Lakenood and
Sorwich parks as well as *Mountain View*, the Fishburn Home now
used as headquarters of the Parks and Recreation Department.
It should be noted in passing that this splendid citizen
also contributed Fairystone State Park to the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Your committee requests that a marker of native stone be
erected at or near the beginning of *J. B. Fishburn Parkway' on
Malnut Avenue, S. E. and that a suitable bronze plaque, citing
the above facts and other appropriate matter, be erected thereon.
Your committee requests that the formal opening and dedication
of said 'J. B. Fishburn Parkway* be delayed until the marker and
plaque are ready.
Action of the Mill Mountain Development Committee is made'by
unanimous vote with Robert N. Fishbarn, grandson of the donor,
understandably not participating. ' '
Mr. Fishburn has had nothing in the City named for' him~
Fishburn Park mas the gift of his cousin, Blair J. Fishburn.
Your committee wishes to note at this time thatopening Of
the J. B. Fishburn-Parknay is expected to give tremendous impetus
to public use of the park and that this in turn will doubtless
create an automobile parking problem of crisis proportions. The
Committee will, therefore, make new recommendations shortly for
expansion of parking facilities-in conformance with the overall
development plan approved by Council two years ago.
Respectfully,
Will Mountain Development Committee
S/ g. Carl Andrews
M. Carl Andrews
Chairman*
181
After o discussion of the request, Mr, Link moved that the matter be
referred to a committee to be appointed by the Mayor for the purpose of working out
the details of the proposal nnd report buck to Council at its next regular meeting
on Monday. May 3, 1971. The motion nas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
Mayor Mebber appointed Messrs. Julian F. Hirst, James N. Klncanon and
#. Carl Andrews as members of the comwittee,
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGRMAYS: The Roanoke Highway Safety Commission submitted
the following report transmitting its annual highway safety work program for 1971-72
"April 7. 1971
TO: The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor and City Council,
City of Roanoke, Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
To the Roanoke Highway Safety Commission you have entrusted the
responsibility for preparing the Annual HJghmay Safety Program in
compliance with City Ordinances and the Code of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
This year's program was made complicated by last minute instructions
received from the Virginia Highway Safety Division. which made it
impossible to complete this program and have it submitted by the
statuatory time limit of December 31, 1970.
Detailed elements of information relative to the decision making
process have been so time consuming in collecting and evaluating
that it will be evident to you that the preparation of this report
and the work 9oing into it, is rapidly reaching the point where a
full time Highway Safety Commission Staff is going to become o
necessity,
To further complicate the process, ! will quote from the Annual
Highway Safety Work Program Manual, details furnished by the Virginia
Highway Safety Division as to hum the program is to be processed.
*The Local Commission will prepare six copies of the annual
report, sending four to the Area Coordinator, and one copy
of individual elements to the appropriate Highway Safety
Clement Directors. The Area Coordinators, after checking
and approving the report, send three copies to the Coordi-
nator Supervisor, who also checks and approves the plan.
He then sends two copies of the report to the Program Ad-
ministrator, who has it checked, and gives it final approval
or disapproval**
In simple terms, when you have given the report your approval, the
Roanoke Highway Safety Commission will assist the City Clerk in
making proper distribution of the report to the various state
officials involved.
This year, the report is prepared in five parts in order to meet
the requirements of the Virginia Highway Safety Oivision and the
Federal Highway Administration.
These parts are 'as folloms:
1, Letter of transmission to City Council
2. Narrative Report ·
3. Highway Safety Program - Annual Subelement Plans and Supple-
ments . .
4. Highway Safety Program - Annual Work Program Summary Form
5. Recommended Program, Pedestrian Safety - Children
This year, the Virginia Highway Safety Division imposed the require-
ment of report in fifteen different areas of eight of the safety.
standards, which have been published to date. These requirements
you will find adequately covered in the narrative report and sub-
elemont plans.
182
Your aighu·y S·reiy Commis~on'feei~'Roan~he is'lahing ~·tisf·ctory
progress ia iuproviug highu·y surety·nd slowly Boring tow·rda the
objectives that have been set by the Cowmo·wealth of Virginia
the Federal Government,
We are well satisfied that a new City Traffic Code and. Emergency
Hedical Services Plan, which have been brought to your attention
during the past year ·nd now tn the works, will go · long uny toward
correcting deficiencies in these two functional ·ream.
The areas In which your Highway Safety Comwiasion recowwends au
action prograw for 1971-72 relate to the following standards:
1. Stand·rd No. 304. Driver Education-Oriver Iuprovewent Schools
2. Standard No. 307 Traffic Courts
3. St·ndard No. 314 Pedestrl·n Safety - Children
4. Standard No. 315 Police Traffic Services
FOr your convenience, the Commission has extracted and digested the
contents of this report in relation to the above mentioned action
elements, and in short form, the recommendations of the Rom~oke
Highway Safety Commission are as follows:
1. DRIVER IMPROVEMENT SCHOOLS: Standard No. 304, Driver
Education and Standard No. 307, Traffic Courts.
The long term goal ia to reduce the number Of accidents
including fatalitJeso personal injuries, and property damage
by offering a Driver Improvement School to all traffic law
vJolaters in cooperation with the courts.
The Roanoke Highway Safety Commission finds that very limited
use is being made of the Driver Improvement School initially
initiated by the Brambleton Junior Woman's Club to work with
our Juvenile and Adult Traffic Courts.
The Roanoke Highway Safety Commission recommends that City
Council by resolution go on record us being in favor of the
use of compulsory attendance at a Driver Improvement School,
where it is obvious to the courts that attendance .at such
a school will be of significant advantage to certain traffic
law violators found guilty in the traffic courts, and where
compulsory attendance at said schools can be made a part of
the penalty.
Further, that City Council inform the judges of the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and Municipal Court. who sit
as traffic judges, of the intent of this resolution and
request their cooperation in the implementatbn thereof.
Further, that City Council request of the Roanoke School
H~ard that facilities and trained personnel be furnished to
establish a Driver Improvement School to instruct those
persons referred to it by the judges of the various courts
mentioned in the above paragraph, and that said school maintain
such records pertinent to the attendance Of vtolaters Seal
to said school as established by conference with said Judges,
and a fixed charge may be imposed on each violater to cos-
pensate for the costs of operating said school, with the
exception, the judges within their discretionary powers may
waive such charges in specific cases where they may elect to
do So.
Finally, that City Council upon the adoption of this program
express it*s thanks to the Rranbleton Junior Nonao*s Club for
their outstanding contribution to community service in
conduct lug a Driver Improvement School in cooperation with
various Municipal Courts in the past.
2. TRAFFIC COURTS: Standard No. 307
The Roanohe Highway Safety Commission states that it feels it
has the concurrence of City Council and of our various Hunicipal
Courts that much can be said about the training of traffic court
personnel, equipment and manuals for traffic courts, and
traffic court records system.
It is the expressed opinion of the Roanoke Highway Safety Com-
mission that reform in the above mentioned areas of traffic
183
court operations should be initiated ut stote level with the
Virginia Legislature and Virginia Highway Safety Division
tubing the Initiative therefor.
This is not the case math traffic courtroom facilities In
Roanoke and the Roanoke Highmoy Safety Commission requests
that Council correct u deplorable condition in nar traffic
court during its current deliberations into courtroom problems.
The Roanoke Highway Safety Commission doan mant to direct
your attention to the fact that Highway Safety Grant Funds
may be obtained for the purpose of modernizing our traffic
court facilities.
Hlth thio thought in mind, the Highway Safety Commission
recommends that an application be filed with the Virginia
Hlghmay Safety Division for a grant.- aid, math the sum
of $5,000 for planning purposes during FY 1971-72, and the
sum of $S0.000 for construction and equipment purposes during
FY 1972-73,
Instructions received from the Virginia Highway Safety
Division indicate that such applications must be filed by
Ray 15, 1971 for favorable consideration during FY 1971-72.
3. pEDESTRIAN SAFETY - CHILDREN: Standard Ho. 314
A very comprehensive program in pedestrian safety for our
school children has been developed, amd is attached to this
report as a supplement. This report sas developed with the
full cooperation of the Roanoke Police Department and school
authorities.
The Roanoke Highway Safety Commission requests that City Council
approve this report, and submit it to the Roanoke School Board
for joint approval of those elements pertinent to schools
participation.
Your attention is directed to the fact that this program can
he initiated mithin the current personnel allocation of the
Roanoke Police Department and sill out involve any additional
appropriation of funds.
A vehicle and certain other equipment will have to be
provided the Police Safety Officer. who is proposed to
implement this program. A highway safety grant to provide
this equipment is shown on the Subelement Plan submitted
with this'report. Since equipment costs are more than offset
by the salary to be paid this specific Police Officer, no
additional City funds will be required to implement the -
police portion of this program. This grant application must
be filed by Bay 15. 1971 if this program is to be implemented
during FY 1971-72.
4. pOLICE TRAFFIC SERVICES: Standard No. 315
The long term goal here is to reduce the number of accidents
involving those drivers with previous violations and removing
from the highways those drivers who fail to obey traffic laws.
The Roanoke Highway Safety Commission bas developed concurrently
with the Roanoke Police Department a program to implement this
objective.
This plan has the folloming elements:
a. Pour nubile specially trained and equipped accident
in?estigation and traffic enforcement units will be
put on the highways in Roanoke over and above the
current effort. It is planned to field two of these
units or teams during FY 1971-72 and two more in FY 1972-73.
Equipment for these units will be provided by means of a
highway safety grant with City costs being offset by
salaries paid the personnel. Details are-shown on the
accompanying Subelement Plan elsewhere in this report.
b. A video camera, recording and reproducing equipment
wilI be added to the station equipment of the Traffic
Division of the Police Departmeat. This equipment will he
used for the purpose of recording visually the ~ondltious or
drank drivers mben brought to headquarters tO be booked.
Later on thin evidence mill be used in court koaSsist in
obtaining n better conviction rate uhere drunk driving
charges are involved., This equipment is also planned to
be obtained with Federal grunt-aid funds in highway safety
during FY 1971-72,
c. The third element in this program involves special train-
ing of all police officers in accident investigation and
related subjects,. This ia pert of the in-service training
program. This training will be conducted on a contractual
basis, and will be repeated on a y~arly basis rot three
years until all local police officers have attended. It
is planned tocouduct this training in such a manner as
to make it uvallabln to all police officers in the regional
area. This program is also proposed to be included in
the grant-aid application and will be offset by salaries.
As has been stated previously, if this program is to be implemented
during FY 1971-72, the project application must be submitted to t~e
Virginia Highway Safety Division by May IS, 1971.
in conclusion, the Roanoke Highway Safety Commission meshes to
express its appreciation for the support and cooperation received from
City Council during the Past lear, and looks forward to continued pro-
9rems in flighuay Safety during FY 1971-72.
From all of us it has been a pleasure to have been of service,
R~spectfully submitted,
S/ James D. Sink
James O. Sink
Chairman"
Mrs, Alice P. Tice, Member of the Roanoke Highway Safety Commission,
appeared before the body and explained portions of the program.
Mr. J. D. Sink, Chairman of the Roanoke Highway Safety Commission. appear~
before Council and advised that Mr. M. 0avid Hooper, Superintendent of Police, has
requested that a police training school be included in this program end pointing
out that copies of the amended program would be transmitted.
Mr. £isk moved that Council concur in the report of the Roanoke Highway
Safety Commission as amended and offered the following Resolution.
(~1g~43) A RESOLUTION approving a report' of the City of Roanoke Highway
Safety Commission recommending ~ 1971 program for highway safety within the City of
Roanoke; directing the City Manager to make certain applications for grants-in-aid;
signifying Couucil*s intent to bear the City*s proportionate share of certain grants
in-aid, should they be subsequently accepted by the City; and providing for trans-
mittal of a copy of said report to the Governor of Virginia, through the State
Highuay Safety Division.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 260.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr~ Thomas and adopted by t~e following vote:
AYES: Hessrs. Garlood. Lis~. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and ~ayor
Mebber 6.
NAYS: None.-- O. (Mr. Mheeler absent)
· UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19620, rezonlng property located on the masterly
side of Gib Street, S, ¥., described as Lot 0, Section 26, Map of the Maseaa
Corporation, Official Tax No. 1130511, from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
Light Manufacturing District. hnviug previously.been before Council for its first
reading, rend and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Thomas offering the
following for its second reading and finnl adoption:
cnlg&20) AN ORDINANCE toamend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 113, Sectional 196b
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 256.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .............................
NAYS: None ............... O. (Mr. Wheeler absent)
STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure directing the City Manager to request the Departmeat of Highuays
of the Commonwealth of Virginia to initiate a project to provide for traffic control
signal devices for Elm Avenue, So E., at the intersection of Interstate Route 581
in the City of Roanoke, setting out the aced therefor and committing the city to
pay its proportionate part of the cost of such improvements, he presented same;
whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(u19644) A RESOLUTION recommending and urging the initiation by the
Department of Highways of a project to provide for traffic control signal devices
Elm Avenue, S. E., at the intersection of Interstate Route No. 581, in the City of
Roanoke; setting out the need therefor; and committing the City to pay its proportio~
part of the east of such improvements,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No, 35, page 261.)
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber~-6.
NAYS: None ..... O.
(Mr. Rheuler absent)
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTy IN ROANOKE VALLEY-STADIUM: Council
having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure signifying the intenl
of the Council of the City of Roanoke to continue to make aeailable certain space in
Victory Stadium to Total Action Against Poverty in Roanohe Valley and Opportunities
Industrialization Center for use in educational and job training programs, upon
;186
certeiu terms, conditions and provisions, he presented same; whereupon. Dr. Taylor
offered the foil,wing Resolution:
(elgh4S) A RESOLUTION signifying the Councilts intent to continue to make
available certain space in Victory Stadium to Total ~ction Agoinst Poverty in Roanoke
Valley and Opportunities Industrialization Center for use in educational end Job
training programs, upon certain terms, conditions and provisions.
(For full text of ResolutJon~ see Resolution Book No. 35. page 262.)
DF. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution.~ The motion nas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mess~s. Garland. Llsk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Nebber 6.
NAYS: None ...... O. .(Mr. Mheele~ absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT-YOUTH COMMISSION: Mayo~ Mebber
pointed out that the terms of Brigadier General Lonnle Knight and Mr. Ronold W* Mill
as members of the Youth Commission will expire on April 30..1971. that Brigadier
General Knight and Mr. Killis have declined to serve another term and called for
nominations to fill the vacancies.
Mr. LJsk placed la nomination the names of Mr. Charles S. Perkins. Jr**
and Mrs. Priscilla Tarplee.
There being no further nominations. Charles S. PerRins. Jr.. and Mrs.
Priscilla Tarplee were elected as members of the. Youth Commission for a term of tun
years each beginning Ray 1. 1971. by the following vote:
FOR MR. PERRINS AND MRS. TARpI~E: MeSSrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas,
Trout and Malor #ebbez ----6. (Mr. Mheeler absent)
There being no further business. Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATYEST:
./City Clerk . - ....... Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
M~ndayo May 3, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Baildingo Monday, May 3, 1971, at 2 p.m., the ~egalar
meeting hoar. with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert AG Garland, David [o Lisk, Noel Co Taylor,
Bampto~ M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent So Mheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Nebber' · .......
ABSENT: None ..... O.
OFF1CERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manaffer, Mr. Byron E. Bauer,
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Klncan~n.'City Attorney, Mr. B. Ben Jones. Jr.,
As~lstant'City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened uith a prayer by the Reverend Edmard T,
Burton° Sweet Union Baptist Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meet~gheld on Monday, April
12, 1971o having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Or. Taylor,
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted, the readin9 thereof was dispensed
with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
SCHOOLS: The Reverend Charles T. Oree~, President of the Local Chapter
NAACP, appeared before Coancil and read a prepared statement exp~essin9 the opinion
that it is the responsibility of the city 9overnment to provide free transportation
for all school children, that the present transportation mhich is being used is not
adequate and it will eot improve and advisieg that Council is obligated to provide
the necessary funds to purchase and operate city-owned school buses.
In this connection, Mrs. Zaman K. McManaway also appeared before the body
nad read a prepared statement opposing aa increase in taxes to provide funds for the
rchase of city-owned school buses.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland advised that the Supreme Court
fi~l have the power and authority to force the localities to provide free bus trans-
portation'for its school students and expressed the opinion that Council should
provide this service before it is forced to do so. '
Mr. Thomas expressed tie opinio~ that the overall transportation program
in the City of Roanoke should be studied, that all the citizens should be considered
a~d not Just the school children.
M~. Thomas then moved that the matter be referred to a committee composed
of Messrs. Robert A. Garland~ Chairman. Vincent S. Mheeler~ Julian F. Hirst and
J. Robert Thomas for study, report and recommendation to Council as to the overall
transportation program in the,City of Roanoke as soon as practicable. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted. Messrs. Garland, Lisk and Taylor votin9 no.
Mr. Garland pointed out that the coumlttee has already spent a great deal
of tine studying this Ratter, that they have sade their recossendations to Council
and to keep referring these matte~back to the committee does not accomplish anfthin~
Hr. Lisk"ihen moved that Council invite the Roanoke City School Board to
meet with the members of Council mlthin the next ten days in connection nith the
matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and lost by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk and Taylor- .3.
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ..........
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
RUILDINGS-CORPLAINTS: Copt Of a petition signed by 28 residents in the
area of ~tb Street and Dale Avenue, S. E., complaining of certain happenings in thel
area, requesting that Council have a house located at SOO 9th Street, S. E.. razed
at once and that police cars be seen more often in the area since these happenings
usually occur after dark, uss before Council.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report advising
that this house has been under contract for demolition and that the Commissioner
of Buildings is pressing the contractor to proceed as soon as possible with the
razing of the house.
Mr'. Trout moved that the petition be referred to the City ~anager for
investigation and report to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
Hr. Thomas then moved that the report of the City Manager be received
and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
APPOINTMENTS: A communication from Mr. George W. Barris, Jr., Chairman
of the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund, Incorporated, requesting
that the Council of the City of Roanoke name a representative or delegate to
participate in The Overall Economic Development Plan Committee, said Committee to
review applications for funds to the Economic Development Administration, was before
the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request and that Dr. Noel C.
Taylor be appointed as said representative, Zhe motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: A communication from Mrs. Annie B. Musgrove, advising that it is
her understanding a tax increase is proposed for real estate and utilities and
pointing out that she is very much opposed to any such increase, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the folloming report
transmitting a communication from the State Water Control Board advising of a
189
hearing scheduled In Richmond, Vlrginia~ on June IS, 1971, with respect to the City
of Roanoke end also transmitting copy of a communication written by him to the
executive Secretary of the State Water Control Board in connection with the Sewage
Treatment Plant:
"Roanoke, Virginia
May 3. 1971
Honoruble Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I enclose for the information and record of the City Council
a copy of a letter received by Mayor Webber and dated April 23,
1971o from the State Mater Control Board advising of a hearing
scheduled in Richmond on June 15, 1971, with respect ~ the City
of Roanoke.
For the record also, I enclose a copy of my letter of April
23, 1971, to Mr. A. B. Passeler, executive Secretary of the State
Water Control Board, and I believe that my inquiry, because of the
reasons stated in my letter, prompted this letter from the Water
Control Board to the City. Apparently, from copies of correspon-
dence that we have received, the County of Roanoke is experiencing
restraints being placed upon it by the State Water Control Board
because of problems that the Board has determined in the Roanoke
County sewer line system.
It should be pointed out and restated that the initial
request by the State Mater Control Board to the City for a pro-
Jection of conditions or revisions to its sewage treatment plant
were prompted by the nam Federal Stream Pollution Standards. -As
far as I have been able to evaluate the situation, the operation
of the Roanoke plant, its load capacities or its standards of
efficiency had little if any bearing upon the initial request of
the State Water Control Board for schedules of plant.development
work. The application of these Federal standards is universal on
all public and private treatment facilities. Practically all public
and private treatment facilities came under the same request for
schedules, improvements, et cetera.
The difficulties which Roanoke County is apparently experi-
encing in its own semage collection system has apparently
mushroomed to a variety'of matters and the Roanoke Treatment
Plant has been caught up in this whole general situation as relates
to the County collection system and as relates to various activ-
ities in the Valley. to the extent that, it would appear to me,
the issues being raised by the Water Control Hoard now go beyond
the Federal Pollution Standards and also into the operational
characteristic of the plant itself.
' This past week in testimony before the annexation court, Mr.
Richardson of our consulting engineers, Alvord. Burdick and Howson.
'introduced the schedule as determined by the engineers mith res-
pect to a time table for their engineering studies. This past
week was the first time that it has been possible for the engineers
to have brought together all of the preliminary data necessary
to project their schedule and thus we proceeded to introduce it
into the annexation proceedings. We, administratively, are now
reviewing that schedule as to certain internal timings and it is
hoped to have the schedule before the Council at your next meeting
and if you find the schedule and its method of presentation to the
Hoard satisfactory, we would then transmit it on to the State
Water Control Board.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection. Mr. M. Caldmell Butler, Attorney. representing the
Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association. appeared before Council in connection
~190
with the show cause order issued by the State Mater Control Board at its meeting
of April 5, 1971, in which the staff reported to the Board that the City of Roanoke
had not submitted · program and a schedule for construction of treatment facilities
and other data.
Mith reference to the matter, a communication from Mr. Lee B. Eddy,
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, informing Council of the
of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County over the possibility that the
State Mater Control Board may place a ban on new connections to the sewage
system that is served ~y the Roanoke City Sewage Treatment Plant. respectfully
and earoestly requesting that Council adopt whatever policies and actions may be
necessary to prevent such a ban from being imposed or. if imposed, to remove the
ban at the earliest possible date and advising that it has come to his attention that
the Roanoke City Semer Committee plans to hold a meeting to discuss this matter with
their Sewage Plant Consultants and interested Roanoke area officials mhen certain
necessary information has been received from the Consultants and welcoming the
opportunity to have a representative from the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
that meeting, was also before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Manager, the statement read
by Mr. Butler and the communication from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
be received and filed. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopte*
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $350.00 be transferred from Other Equipment - New to Printing
and Office Supplies under Section n47, "Fire Department, of the 1970-71 budget, to
provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(wig546) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sectio~ ~47, *Fire Department,
iof the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 264.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. LJsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........ 7.
NAYS: None- O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred a request of the Mill
Mountain Development Committee that the new road up Mill Mountain from Malnut Avenue~
$. E.. to the mountaintop be f~rmally named the *J. B. Fishborn Parkway** that a
marker of native stone be erected at or near the beginning of the "J. B. Fishburn
Parkway* on Malnut Avenue and that a suitable bronzi plaque citing appropriate facts
be erected thereon to the City Manager, ~e City Attorney and the Chairman of the Mill
Mountain Development Committee for the purpose or marring out the details of the
proposal, the City Manager submitted the follouing report advising that the voodmey
could be opened to the general public without any formal dedication ceremony and whe
the details for the formal dedication and proper commemorative plaque have been
resolved Council mill be ashed to schedule a formal dedication ceremony:
~aoanoke, Virginia
May 3. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanote, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, April 26, 1971, Mr. Mo Carl Andrews, Chairman of the
Hill Mountain Development Committee, appeared before City Council
to request that the new.road leading from Malnut Avenue, S.
to the top of Mill Mountain be formally named 'J. B, Fishburn
Partway'; that a mather of native stone be erected ut or near the
beginning of the Parhmay and that a formal dedication ceremony
be heM at such time os the marheF and a plaque were ready.
City Council referred this matter to the City Manager, the City
Attorney and Mr. Mo Carl Andrews and his Mill Mountain Committee
to worh out the details of his proposal and to report bach to City
Council at its next regular meeting on Monday. May 3, 1971.
As members of the City Council are aware, both the City Manager
and the City Attorney have been fully occupied in the annexation
proceedings tahing place in Salem. As a result no meeting could be
scheduled betmeen Mr, Andrems* committee and the City Manager and the
City Attorney to much out full details; homever. Mr. J. D. Sink,
Superintendent of Traffic and Communications, and the Assistant City
Manager have discussed this matter with Mr. M. Carl Andrews. It is
the feeling of these three that at such time as the construction is
complete and at such time as the proper marrings and signing of this
roadway is complete, the roadmay could be opened to the general
public without uny formal dedication ceremony. Mh~m the details for
the formal dedication and proper commemorative plaque have been
resolved, Council will be ashed to schedule a formal dedication
ceremony.
It would be asked that City Council concur that at such time
as the City is advised of the acceptance by the State Highway Depart-
meat of the completion of the construction contract, the roadway could
be opened to the general public. In the interim the matter of the
report bact_to the City Council regarding naming and dedication
will be pursued.
Hespectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Mannger*
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19647) AH ORDINANCE dedicating ns n public street or road of the City
a certain new 1.GH-mile recreational access roadway on the north and east sides of
Mill Mountain; designating and naming said new roadway, together'with another
O.509-mile roadway on Mill Mountain. as the J. B. FISHBURH PARKMA¥; authorizing
the opening of said new 1.68-mile roadway to public travel and use; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Ho. 35. page
Hr~ Wheeler moved the udoption of the Ordinance. The motion uss seconded
by Dr~ Taylor and odopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomos, Trout, lheeler end Muyor
Webber T.
NAYS: Hone
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Homager submitted o uti,ten report trans-
mitting a request that Council consider reducing the contractor's retainage for
coos,ruction of the Roanoke Civic Center from 10 per cent on the first $0 per cent
of the contract amount and S per cent on the remaining SO per cent of the contract
amount to 3 per cent of the contract, amount.
Hr. T~omas moved that the matter be referred to a committee to be appointe
by the Mayor for stndy~ r~port and recommendation to Council. The motion uae
seconded by Mr. ~lsh and unanimously adopted.
Hayor Mebber appointed Messrs. Hampton M. Thomas, Robert A. Garland,
Vincent S. Wheeler. Julian F. Hire, and J. Robert Thomas a~ members of the committee.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting u quarterly Progress Report on Buildings Condemned from Mr, Lo
Leftwich, Commissioner of Buildings, advising that there exists a balance of
$4,860.00 to continue ~his program of building demolition for the remainder of the
fiscal year.
In this connection, the City Manager called to the attention of Council
Supplement to the Quarterly Condemnation Report from Hr. Leftwich in mhich he
states that he has tabulated the expenditures for demolition workcompleted during
the month of April and finds the figure to be $3,150.00 leaving a budget balance of
$1.710.00 and advising that to complete the schedule of demolition for the current
fiscal year it is estimated that an additional $2,000.00 will be needed.
Mr. Garland moved that the report of the City Manager and the Progress
Report from the Commissioner of Buildings be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure appropriating $20000.00 to Fees for Professional and Special Services
under Section ~4U, "Department of Huildings," of the 1910-71 budget, to provide
sufficient funds to. continue the removal of condemned houses within the City of
Roanoke for the current fiscal year. The motion mas seconded by Mr..Llsk and
unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHHAYS: The City Manager submitted the following report in
connection mith the U. S. Route 220 Project. advising that he has been informed by
the Virginia Department of Highways that the Highway Department mad~ a final inspec-
tion and ~ccepted on Ma~ch 20, 1971. the construction project for Franklin Road
from south of McClanahan Street to the south corporate limits of the City of Roanoke:
193
'Roano~, Virginia
May 3, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Soanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
We are advised by the Virginia Department of Hlghmoys through
Hr. G. L. Robertson, Resident Engineer, that the Hlghmoy Oepartment
has made final inspection and has accepted on March 20, 1971, the
construction project for Franklin Road from Just.south of
RcClanahan Street to the south corporate limits of the City.
As the members of the City Council, present and past, are
most amare, this brings to a conclusion · long and involved
project. From its conception some years bach. through the
involvement with the property omners in the preliminary stages,
through the procedures of the Highway Department finally being
able to schedule its construction, through the property right of
may acquisition and its related complications and litigations and
then through the bidding and construction, it has been one that will
be long remembered. It is though a rnther considerable improvement
for the City and another accomplishment under the 1967 Capital
Bond Program.
It had been my hope that at the time of completion it might
be possible to have some ~orm of recognition of completion of this
roaduay because it represents the completing of the four-laming
of U. S. Route 220 from the Franklin Road Bridge in Roanoke south
to the North Carolina line. Homever ue became involved in other
matters and have not been able yet to provide for this recognition
of the significance of this event. Perhaps though it may hopefully
still be done.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure commending the Virginia Department of Highways,
officials, representatives and contractors engaged in the prosecution of the public
improvements provided in the widening and improvement of U. S. Route 220 and
authorizing that an appropriate public ceremony be arranged to recognize such
accomplishment. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manger submitted a written report
transmitting a notice of a hearing by the State later Control Board in Roanoke,
Virginia, on May 25, 1971, at 10:00 a,m., in the National Guard Armory, regarding
the discharge of sewage and other wastes from boats and vessels.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Thomas and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report advising
that the City of Roanoke has hod under way a program of experimentation with a new
waste collection procedure from dwellings, that the original test Md been scheduled
for a 30-day period, that it has become desirable to extend this period at no
additional cost t'o the city and that the extension of time will offer the city
additional time to better evaluate the program and the equipment being.used.
:194
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney forpreparatlon of ~e proper
measure. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: Council having entered into a contract with the James
;McHugh Construction Company for Contract *0', - Catawba Creek Diversion Project,
for the sum of $20144,000.00, the City Manager submitted the following report
recommending t~e approval of a change order to the contract to provide for the
Diversion
installation of a horseshoe-shaped tunnel section in the Catawba Creek
Project:
*Roanoke, Virginia.
May 3, lgTl
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Since the award of the contract to James McHugh Construction
CoapanT. Chicago, lllinois, for the construction of the Catawba Creek
Tunnel, various consultations have tahen place between the contractor,
the consulting engineers and the City~ The initial boring for the
tunnel is already in progress. The design of the tunnel as prepared
by the consultants and upon which contract was awarded is for a
circular cross section.
As a result of consultations referred to it has been concluded
that it would be advantageous to change the cross section from a
circle to a horseshoe shaped tunnel section.
This shape, will improve construction process by providing a
level floor section for easier movement through the tunnel during
construction, will retain all elements of stability and will increase
the water carrying capacity at the lower level of the tunnel cross
section. This design change is concurred in by the consultanis
and the contractor.
A change order has been prepared to accomplis~ this design
change at no adjustment in the original contract amount of $2.144,000.
The change' order and accompanying papers have been forwarded to
the City Attorney for his review with the request that his office
prepare the appropriate resolution or ordinance as would authorize
the City*s signature to the. change order.
It is recommended that City Council concur in this ordinance
or resolution and so approve the change order.
Respectfully submitted.
$! ~ulian F. Hirst
Julia~ F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Lisk moved that Counci~ concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution:
(~19646) A RESOLUTION approving the City Mnnager*s issuance of Change
Order No. 1. Jnconnection with the City*s contract for the construction of the
Catawba Creek Diversion Project.
(For fall text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No.
· Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
I95
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and N~yor
Webber ........ ?.
NAYS: None~ -0.
STABIUIf: Council having referred a report of a committee composed of
Wessrs. Byron E. Raner, Rex T. Nitchell, Jr** and B. B. Thoupso~ recommending that
the proposal of Stone's Enterprises in the amount of 39 1/2~ for the operation or
concessions at the Roanoke #unlcipal Stadium and athletic grounds at Maher Field
for the period beginning May 1, 1971, and ending December 31, 1971, uith an option
to renew for two additinnal years under the conditions stipulated in the bid form,
to the Stadium Advisory'Committee for the purpose of determining if it would be
more feasible for the City of Roanoke to operate the concessions at Victory Stadium,
the committee submitted the following report advising that they have contacted Mr.
James #. Satterffeld, Chairman of the Stadium Advisory Committee. regarding the
matter and that Mr. Satterfield has informed them that the Stadium Advisory Commit-
tee recommends acceptance of the proposal of Stone's Enterprises for at least one
year which will give the Stadium Advisory Committee enough time to forward to
Council its recommendation as to whether or not the city should plan to operate
the concessions and recommending that Council authorize acceptance of the bid of
Stoue*s Enterprises in the amount of 30 1/2X for the period beginning May 1, 1971,
and ending December 31, 1971, with the understanding that should Council at n later
date determine that the concessions should be operated by contract, Mr. Stone will
be given the privilege of extending by option his contract for two years:
"Roanoke, Virginia
May 3, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemefl:
On Monday, April 26, 1971, City Council received a report
recommending that the proposal of Stone's Enterprises for operating
the concessions at the Roanoke Municipal Stadium and athletic
grounds at Maher Field for a period beginning May 1, 1971, and ending
December 31, 1971, with an option to renew for two additional years
be accepted. Upon receiving the report, City Council referred this
matter back to the committee who received the bids and recommended
that they check with the Stadium Advisory Committee regarding their
previous recommendation that the concessions at Victory Stadium be
handled by ~ e City and not be put out on bids.
Your committee contacted Mr. James Satterfield, Chairman of the
Stadium Advisory Committee, regarding this matter. As the first
events of the season are scheduled to begin at Victory Stadium in
May, Mr. Satterfteld was asked to contact his committee as expedi-
tiously as possible to determine their recommendation.
M~.Satterfield bas informed your committee that the Stadium
Advtsory Committee would recommend acceptance of the bid of Stone*s
Enterprises for at least one year. This would give the Stadium
Committee time enough to forward to City Council its recommendation
as to whether or not the City should plan to operate the concessions.
Due to the fact that activities are scheduled to begin next month
at the Stadium, the Stadium Advisory Committee feels that acceptance
of the bid of Stone*s Enterprises would provide sufficient time for
consideration, plannin9 and proper phase over should the City decide
to operate the coucessions themselves.
;196
Mr. Robert E. Stone,.owner of Stone's Elterpr~seo, his been
contacted os'to mhether bls bid would still aSand if eot given the
additional option of two years for this concession contract. He is
mailing the City a letter stating that he could operate the Stadium
concessions iron Way 1, 1971, to pecember 31, 1971, without an option
to renew for tmo additional years. Mr. Stone will qualify this
statement stating that should the Stadiuw Advisory Comuittee st a
later date recoumend that the concessions be operated by an outside
concessionnoire that h~ be given the privilege to continue, operating
the concessions for*hot two year period. This would be fair.
It is your comuitteets recouuendutlon that City Council authorize
the acceptance of Stone°s Enterprises* bid in the amount of 38 1/2
percent for the operation of concessions at the Roanoke municipal
Stadium and athletic grounds at Maber Field for the period beginning
Ray I and ending December 31, 1971, with the understanding that
should City Council at o later date deterelne that these concessions
would be operated by contract his lira would be extended the privilege
of extending by option this contract for two years,
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Byron E. Hamer
Dyron E. Hocer
S/ Rex T. Mitchell
Rex T. Hitchell
S/ B. D. Thompson
B. e. Thompson"
Mr. Lisk unwed that Council concur in the recommendation of the committee
and that the matter bo referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure. The notion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Plonuing Commission for study
report and recommendation the request of Mr. Ceorge F. Cadd, that property located
at 445 Riverland Road. S. E., described as Lot 24, Block 23. Map of Roanoke Gas
and Water Company, Official Tax No. 4031111, be rezoned from RG-I, General Residenti~
District. to RG-2. General Residential District, the City Planning Commission sub-
mitted a written report recommending that the request for rezoning be denied.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. C. John Renick, Attorney,
representing the petitioner, advistog that his client desires a public bearing on
the request for rezoning, sas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the requesi for rezoaing be
held at 2 p.m.o Monday June 7, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission submitt
the following report'recommending that a small bronze plaque in honor of Steve
Brody be placed on the wall of the Roanoke Civic Center Plaza at th'e base of the
American Flag staff:
"April 29. 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
197
Recently, Steve Hrody presented to Council nn American ring
for use at our new Civic Cehter. At the time of the presentation
by i~Carl Aedreus, it was stated that this would be the last
flag to.be presented by Hr, Rrody to tlmCity,
As all residents of the Roanoke Valley knout Hr, Rro~y his
for many years given of hfwself and hfs limited resources, to further
humanitarian causes. His gifts or American flags for use. at public
for his adopted country, and his actions reflect great respect for
the American flag and what It represents.
The Civic Center Advisory Commission respectfully submits to
City Council the following recommendation:
That a snail bronze plaque in honor of Steve Brody be placed
on the wall of the Civic Center Plaza at the base of the American
Flag staff.
It is recommended that the plaque not exceed flx 10 inches and
carry the following inscription:
STEVE BRODY
A PATRIOT
HUMANITARIAN
HE LOVED HIS COUNTRY
1971
Respectfully subnitted.
CIVIC CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
S/ John Kelley
John Kelley, Chairman
Horace S. Fitzpatrick
Robert H. HcLelland
Frank N. Perkinson, Jr.
MrS. Andrew L. Turner, Jr.'
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Roanoke
Civic Center Advisory Commission and that the matter be referred to the City
Attorney for preparation of the proper measure, The motion was seconded by Mr.
Nheeler and unanimously adopted. .
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission submitt,
the following report recommending that a metal plaque be mounted ~n the inside wall
of the Coliseum lobby at the Roanoke Ciric Center for the purpose o'f recognizing
certain individuals, groups and organizations associated with the construction
of the Roanoke Civic Center;
"April 29, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Civic Center Advisory Commission respectfully sub~tts
to City Council the following recommendation:
That a metal plaque be mounted on the inside wall of the
Coliseum lobby at the Roanoke Civic Center for the purpose
of recognizing certain individuals, groups, and organizations
associated with the Center's construction.
198
Ne would recommend that the follouing groups, individuals,
and information be incorporated in the plaque:
1, City Councilmen st the time abe Contract uss signed
2, City Councilmen et the tine of Dedication
3. The City Manager
4. The Architectural Firm ·
5. The Architectural Project Director-John Chappelear
6. The. Contractors
T, The Civic Center Advisory Commission
8, The Dedication date
9, The official Civic Center emblem
Your consideration to this recommendation mould be appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSIO~
$! John Kelley
John Kelley, Chairman
Horace S. Fitzpatrick
Lawrence H. Hawlar
Robert M. RcLelland
Franh N. Perkinsono Jr.
Mrs. Andrew L. Turner, Jr.*
Mr. Lisk moved that the recommendation of the Roanoke Civic Center
Advisory Commission be referred to the City Manager for study, report and recommends,
tlon to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission sub-
mitted the following report transmitting certain recommendations which will provide
for good press relations:
· April 29, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
· Your Civic Center Advisory Commission has been giving
serious thought to a number of ideas which we feel will help our
Center attract maximum attendance to the various events scheduled
there.
One of the most obvious is qood press relations, which we can
develop by providing excellent proper accommodations for the press
corp knowing that good facilities and service for their use will
result in a 'good press' for our Center.
The Civic Center Advisory Commission respectfully submits
the following recommendations for consideration to the Council:
I. The issuance of special indentificntion cards for the press.
These cards would include a photograph, name. news affiliation,
other pertinent data. and be laminated.
Me would recommend that these passes be issued by the
Civic Center Director with the concurrence of the City
Manager.
II. The designation of a ,specified area for press parking, and
that the area be appropriately marhed and policed. It is
further recommended that special stickers or other indentifying
signs be distributed for use on press cars.
This matter is very important-reporters and photographers
cover many fields and are inclined to arrive shortly before
an event's starting time and have to leave early to meet
deadlines.
Requirin9 them to park at a distance is a severe restriction.
III. The folloming additions to Ordinance 18569:
Lessee ngrees to deliver to the Director, for general promo-
tional purposes, free or charge, up to twenty-four (24) admis-
sion tickets (the location of mhich as determined by the Direc-
tor) for each performanco daring mhich the premises are open
to the public or trade daring the term of this ~use.
For events sponsored by the City, the Civic Center Director
shall determine, in bis professional Judgment, the ticket
admission charges, amount of ndvertising and mhere it is used,
the nuuber of complimentary tickets and mb*re used, nad similar
fees and charges associated with the sponsorship and presenta-
tion of such events.
The approval of these two additions to Ordinance IG56g would
assist the Civic Center Director in the performance of his duties
and make easier his dealings with tho press.
It Is extremely important that drama reviewers, uusic critics,
entertainment editors, sports writers, feature reporters, editorial
mriters, etc.o etc.t be given choice seats and 'red carpet* treatment.
The Civic Center Hanager should have the authority to issue compli-
mentary passes and assign choice seats without personal embarrassment
and mithout embarrassment to the recipient.
IV. The opproval of a special room for the press to be designated
as the 'Press Club* room.
A suitable room now known ns the 'News Hedia Room* is on the
north concourse and includes a storage room. toilet, and
clothes closet. This room is bare and no funds have been
requested for furnishings.
Realizing the need of equipping the room your Commission has
discussed the matter with Mr. George Cartledge, Jr. and
Hr. Robert Bennett, President and Executive Vice President
of Grand Piano and Furniture Company, and they have gener-
ously agreed to furnish and decorate the room with sofas,
chairs, carpet, pictures, lamps, tables, and nil as a gift
to the City,
Ne think this is a most generous, thoughtful, and expensive
gift and urge the Council to accept mith appreciation,
He would also urge that the City Council:
A. Authorize a telephone to be installed in the Press Club
room at the City*s expense.
B. That a special lock be installed and keys to the room be
issued to bonafied nemsmen and other proper authorities.
Your early consideration to the above recommendations would be
appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER ADVISORY
COMMISSION
S! John Kelley
John Kelley, Chairm~n
Horace S. Fitzpatrick
Laurence H. Namlar
Robert M. McLelland
Frank N. Perkinson, Jr.
Mrs. Andrew L. Turner, Jr.*
Mr. Mheeler moved that the recommendations of the Roanoke Civic Center
Advisory Commission be referred to the City Manager for study, report and recommend~
tfon to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted'.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission sub-
mitted the following report recommending the issuance of special identification
cards or passes which would permit certain persons to move freely about the premise*
of the Roanoke Civic Center and that special sticters or signs be distributed for
use on the cars of the same persons:
'April 29, 1971
The Honorable Msyor nnd Members
of the City Conncil
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Civic Center Advisory Comuission respectfully submits the
following recommendations for considerntion to the Council:
The issuance of special identification cards or passes which
mould permit certain persons to move freely about the premises
of the Roanoke Civic Center,, These cards mould include photo-
graph, name, title, and other pertinent date of the recipient,
and be laminated. It is further recomuended that special
stichers or signs be distributed for use on the Cars Of the
same persons.
It is recommended that these special passes and stickers be
reserved for the City Councilmen, Civic Center Commission
Members. City Manager, Assistant City Manager, end other such
persons ns the .Council may designate.
It is believed the issuing of identification cards to the
Center's official family mill eliminate the embarrassment of
being stopped or challenged by nem employees, such as ushers,
ticket takers, etc.. as me perform our official tasks.
Respectfully submitted.
CIVIC CEN~ER ABVISORY CORRISSION
S/ John Kelley
John Kelley, Chairman
Horace S. Fitzpatrick
Lawrence H. Hamlar
Robert M. McClellaud
Frank N. Perhinsou. Jr.
Mrs. Andrew L. Turner, Jr."
'Mr. Wheeler moved th~ the recom~ndations of the Roanoke Civic Center
Advisory Commission be referred to the City Kanaqor for study, report and recommend{
tion to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUR-~OLISEt~: Mr. John A. Kelley, Chairman of the Roanoke Civic
Center Advisory Commission. appeared before the body and requested that Council
adopt a measure extending an invitation to the Southern Conference to hold the
Southern Conference Basketball Tournament in the Roanoke Civic Center next year.
Mr. Nheeler moved that Council concur in the request and that the matter
be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
Later during the meeting, Hr. Trout offered the following Resolution
extending the request of the Council of the City of Roanoke to officialsof the
Southern Conference to conduct the 1972 Southern Conference Basketball Tournament
in the Roanoke Civic Center:
(~lgh49) A RESOLUTION extending thc Council's request to officials of
the Southern Conference to conduct the 1972 Southern Conference Basketball Tourna-
ment in the Roanoke Civic Center.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Rook No. 35. page 267.)
201
Nr. Trout moved the ndoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Br. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and #ayor
Webber
NAYS: None .............. O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE-MATER DEPARTMENT-HEALTH DEPARTMENT:
Ordinance No. 19640, amending Title XIII, of The Code Of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
as amended, by the addition of a new chapter, designated as Chapter IS, requiring
certain owners and occupants of land to keep such land in clean and sanitary con-
dition; containing certain definitions; providing procedures for the enforcement
of the Ordinance; prescribing penalties for the violation of the Ordinance or of
certain orders of the Commissioner of ltealth made hereunder, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again before
the body.
In this connection, the City Manager requested that the second reading of
the Ordinance be deferred pending more information.
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and that action on the second reading of the Ordinance be deferred pending more
information. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE-WATER DEPARTMENT-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE
REMOVAL: Ordinance No. 19641, amending Chapter l, Offenses Against Property, Title
~XllI, Misdemeanors and Offenses, Of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, by the addition of a new section, designated Section ~3, making unlawful
the dumping of trash or litter on public or private property, prescribing penalties
for the violation of such section, having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over, was again befor~ the body, Mr. Wheeler offering
'the following for' its second reading and final adoption:
(~19641) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 1, Offenses Against Property,
of Title XXIII, Misdemeanors and Offenses, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
as amended, by the addition of a new section, designated Sec. 13, making unlawful
the dumping of trash or litter on public or private property; prescribing penalties
for the violation of such section; and providing for certain publication of this
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 263.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
202'
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler end Mayor
Webber--- ?.
HAYS: Hone. O.
STREET HAMES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure changing the names of certain ~treets end fixing the names of certain
proposed streets within the corporate limits of the City of Hoanohe in the Hollins
Road-Whiteside Street-Patrick Henry Avenue Corridor in order to provide a unified
street name system, he presented same; mhereupon, Mr. Lisk moved that the following
Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n19650) AN ORDINANCE changing the names of certain streets and fixing
the names of certain proposed streets mithin the corporate limits of the City of
Hnanohe in the Hollins Road-Whiteside Street-?atrich Henry Avenue Corridor in order
to provide a unified street name system.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has reported.to Council under date
of April 22, 1971~ that said Planning Commission recommends certain changes and
renaming of streets 3od certain names for proposed streets in the Holllns Road-
Whiteside Street-Patrick Henry Avenue Corridor so as to provide for a more unified
name system for the streets in the City of Roanoke.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAXNED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
names of certain public streets in the City of Roanoke he changed and renamed as
follows:
1. Change to Hollius Road, N. E.:
(a)9th Street, N. E.. from N ~ M Main Line {o Orange
Avenue, N. E.
(b) Whiteside Street. N. E., from Liberty Road, N.
to Preston Avenue. N. E.
2. Change to Kimball Avenue, N. E.:
(a) Wells Avenue, N. E., from Second Street, N. E..
to Fourth Street, N. E.
(b) Seventh Street. N. E., from Walker Avenue, N. E.,
to Orange Avenue, N. E., and from Louisana Avenue,
N. E.. to Indiana Avenue. ~. E.
(c) Patrick Henry Avenue, N. E., from Indiana Avenue,
N. E., to Liberty Road, ~. E.
3. Change to Read Road, N. E.. that portion of Old Rollins Road,
N.E.. between Kilgore Street. N. E., and its termination.
HE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the following proposed streets be designated
and named as follows:
1. That a proposed road linking Mhiteside Street, N. E** and Hollins
Road, N. E., from Eilgore Street, N. E., across the N ~ W Shenandoah
Division to Liberty Road, N. E., be designated and named Hollins
Road, ~o
~. That a proposed road from Fourth Street~ N. E.. 'to a connection
with the existing Kimball Avenue, N. E., between Fourth Street
and Fifth Street, N. E., be designated and named Kimball Avenue,
N. E.;
3~ That 8 proposed connection across Orange Avenue, N. E., between
the existing segments of Seventh Street, N. E., be aimed Kimbell
Avenue. N. E.
EE IT FINALLY OROAINEO that the City Engineer be, and he is hereby
directed to cause the shove street names to be appropriately noted on ell maps and
plate lodged in hfs care; thor the City Nuueger be, and he is hereby nathorfned
to cause the placement of appropriate street nome signs on said new streets; and
that the City Clerk transmit to the Postmaster ut Roanoke six (6) attested copies
of this ordinance, in order that said Postmaster be apprised of the aforesaid
'street names.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Rayor
Webber T.
NAYS: None O.
FIRE DEPARTRENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure directing that George R. Webb. a member of the Fire Department.
be paid his regular salary for the period of March 31, 1971. through April 5, 1971.
he presented same; whereupon, Dr. Taylor offered the following Resolution:
(alg651) A RESOLUTION directing that George R. Webb, a member of the Fir~
Department, be paid his regular salary for the period of ~arch 31, lO?l, through
April 5. 1971.
(For full textof Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35. page 26?.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: ~essrs. Garland, Limb. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and ~ayor
· ebbet ---?.
NAYS: None. -0.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Trout presented the following statement
recommending that the City of Roanoke under take the development of an expanded zoo[
that funds be appropriated for the construction of a hippo house and that sufficient
funds also be appropriated to upgrade the Ghildren*s Zoo atop Mill Mountain to a
condition which will enhance the reputation of the City of Roanoke:
"ROANOKE MUNICIPAL ZOO
For many years the children and citizens of this Valley and
tourists have enjoyed the Children's Zoo located on Mill Mountain
adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Roanoke is the only city that
has a direct connection to the Parkway. Last year some 11 million
people toured the famous Parkway and it is projected that 12 million
people will travel over the Parkway during 1971. If we could attract
one-tenth of this travelling population to come into our city this
would result in 1,200,000 visitors and If they would spend $1.00
each this would result in un income of
The late Frump-Frump proved beyond a doubt that the children
and adults of this area are interested in an expanded zoo facility
complete with the larger animals.
~03
A~le~ the.un~fmely death or Frump-Frump many leading citizens
expressed an interest in the development or the_zo9 uhich ia evidenced
by several donations or enamels being made public.
Mr. Claude Smith, President of Stale Amusement, has donated · baby
hippo presently grouing up in the Washington Zoo a~d it is lost
lmportanl lhat ue move the hippo from Washi~gi°n to Roaaohe by
May.
Mr. Adolph Krisch. Chairman of the Board or American Motor Inns,
has agreed to purchase a baby elephant and give it to the citizens
of the city. We have localed u 4~ year old elephant and a decision
must be reached on · timetable to bring the elephant to Mill Wooutaln~
Also, the local ameers or the McDonaldts reslaurant have agreed to
donale to the City a second elephant. (Most elephants live to an
age or 90 and Jl mould be companionship to have ama elephants.)
The American*Institute of Architects has presented o plan at
no expense to Council that meets the requiremenls to adequately house
a hippo, lmo elephants and the large bear nam localed on lhe
Mountain. It is important lhat construction begin in the very near
future so that the citizens and visitors can enjoy the nam facility
lhis summer. The expanded zoo mill cost approximately $107,000
(see attachment provided by City. Manager and architecls.)
FINAH~NG AND OPERATION OF EXPANDED ZOO
Last year ll?,3BT people paid to visit the zoo. Based on the
projection of the committee's report recommending that the fee be
increased from 10¢ lO 25~ mould result in on income of $29.34B for
the three-month period. Houever. the poll of elementary school
teachers Indicates that 9?% of elementary tqachers desire the zoo
season to extend from March I to December 1. I feel that during
this additional six-month period attendance mould increase by at
least one-half of last year*s total. This mould result in additional
$14.674 in admission fees for a total of $44,022.
Added to this sum would be a minimum of $?,000 in concession
profits earned last year, giving a total of over $S0,000 to operate
the zoo for a nine-month period. This mill more than cover the
maintenance and staff expenses which are approximately listed below:
Some $8,000 for a zoo keeper, one-third to be charged against admis-
sion fees at the Transportation Museum.
Tmo maintenance men at $11,000
Part-time help at $9,000. which equals $1.000 a mouth.
Therefore, the operation expenses of salaries would he approximately
$26.000 and $4,000 per year in expenses for food and visits by the
veterinarians mould give a total of $30,000 to operate the zoo,
thereby leaving a net gain of some $20.000 to be used for further
expansion of the zoo. To assure year around attendance and interest
at the zoo, I have contacted tmo zoos and they are willing to allow
the City to borrow interesting animals for as much as 30-day periods.
This will result in continued exhibits for the school children not
only in Roanoke but throughout Southwest Virginia.
Once a zoo keeper is hired, it mill be his responsibility to
coordinate and encourage towns and counties outside of Roanoke to
visit the zoo for educational purposes.
~ROPOSAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Based on the interest of our citizens in an expanded zoo and
the fact that the zoo would be self-supporting and profit-making.
it is my recommendation that City Council appropriate the archi-
tects' recommended cost of hippo house, the sum of $21,000 plus a
10~ contingency factor which results in a total sum of
The untimely death of Frump-Frump pointed out that there are
many shortcomings at the' present Children*s Zoo which can only be
corrected by upgrading the fgcility. I support the City Manager*s
recommendation that $10,000 is needed to refurbish the facility to
a condition that mould enhance the City's reputation."
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the folloming report
transmitting certain figures representing the overall cost of improvements to the
Children's Zoo:
205
· *Roanoke, Virginia May 3, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on December 21, 19?O,.recelved and referred to
me · report from the Mill Mountain Development Committee Subcommittee
recommending expansion of the Mill Mountain Zoo and authorizing appro-
priation of one half of the funds for the construction of the facility.
I replied to the City Council on January 4, 19?la with various
observations and comments regarding expansion of tbe Zoo. The matter
was.referred back to me to confer with Southwest Virginia Section of
the American Institute of Architects to develop a plan regarding up-
grading.the Zoo and to prepare specifications on the subcoumlttee°s
proposed expansion.
The' proposal has been reviewed over a period of time with the
architects and with those heads of City Departments as mould be in-
volved in engineering, construction, utilities and operation.
. The overall cost of improvements at.the Zoo is estimated as
follows:
~EM ANIMAL BUILOIN6
· l. Blephant House (including pool outside and moat) $32,317
2. Hippo House 21,37fl
. 3. Bear facility (not including a pool) 13.016
$66,?13
. 4. Pavilion 29,820
5o Bridge and exterior walks !.280
.... $97,813
engineerin9 and allowance - 10% q. THl
Sub-total new building $107,594
- 6, Sanitary sewer System for toilets and
animal pools 13,099
7. Public toilet facilities (replacin9 facilities
in the present Zoo) 23.575
Sub-total - sanitary system $36,674
6. Hew lightin9 for present Zoo area and proposed.
new animal buildin9 area-estimated 25,000
g. Allocation for renovation of present Zoo and
area (estimated) 2S,000
10. Upgrading mountain water system 26.284
Total of overall plan $220,S52
The subcommittee requested that we review these estimates as to
where reductions might be made.
8. Instead of a complete lighting system, the installation of
dusk to dawn lights-approximately 21-would be $1,000 annual
costa ' ,
10. Instead of a full upgrading of the water system, including
fire hydrants, an interim or temporary system.would be
estimated at 100 g.p.m, booster pump, valves and controls,
3" line to Zoo area
plus 10%
$3,750
375
$4,125
$10,000
g. Reduce. remodeling of present Zoo area to
7. Eliminate new public toilet facilities in
present Zoo area '
These changes revise the estimate as follows:
Total new animal buildings, pavilion, bridge and
walks $107,594
6. Sanitary sewer system $13.099
plus 10~ 1,309
14,408
9. Partial remodeling present Zoo area 10,000
10. Interim upgrading water system 4.125
Total $13b,127
At the suggestion of the subcommittee, I have advised the archi-
tects to proceed with preparing in more detail plans un. the building
facilities, it being understood their work is at no cost to the City
and with no commitment Of the City.
'206 ~
I om ·dvised th·t a young hippopotamus la to be delivered to the
Zoo in · very short.time, It thus is necessary that our forces move
r·pidly to prep·re aa ·re· to ·ccommod·te the mammal. This necessi-
tates to the re·r or south of the present Zoo and clearing and
leveling an ·re· for such f·cilities os the Council may authorlze~
because of the limited time, I have already directed our personnel
and equipment to this work.
Me will need Councll*a direction and ootborJnation on further
funds for f·cilities.
The subcommittee ·lso recoemende~ increasing the ZOO stuff,
including n Zoo Manager.
Current budgeted Zoo staff is:
I Animal Caretaker $ 5,712.00
Part-time employment including
turnstile operators ~,400.00
Total 911,112.00
To staff the full facility as proposed by the subcommittee
(annual)
1.ZOO Manager (full time)
6 months @ $672.00
months · $?08.00
Total year
additional animal caretakers (full tine)
months @ 93T0.00
months @~9390.00
x 2
$4.044~00
4,24~,00
98.292.00
92.220.00
2.340.00
$4.580.00
$9,160.00
$5,712.00
Under the present Zoo operation 2 full time caretakers are
considered needed instead of the p~esent one which is a total cost
of $9,160.00.
This is submitted for the consideration and direction of the
City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
'Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Manager be referred to lgYl-
budget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout expressed the opinion that he
would like for Roanoke to accept the hippopotamus, make the temporary improvements
required to house the mammal and hold off taking anymore animals until it can be
ascertained whether or not the zoo will he a money making venture.
Mr. Robert M. Moody appeared before Council and advised that there is
a tremendous interest in the Children*s Zoo, that the zoo could be made into a
money making venture for the City of Roanoke and that Mill Mountain is a very
good asset to Roanoke.
After a lengthy discussion over the casts involved in upgradhg the
Children's Zoo. Mr, Trout moved that the matter be referred to'the City Attorney
and the City Auditor for preparation of the proper measures. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland.
3. I full time caretaker already employed
4. 2 turnstile workers 9 $1.65 per hour.
6 hour shift for 229 days.
@ $11.10 per day 92,541.90
x 2 $5,083.80
Total personnel annually $28,245.80
207
Mr. Ll·k Git·red · sub·tltute aotlon that the matter be referred lo the
City M&a·ger'for the purpose ot providing Council with · coaplete cost breakdown
o~ expenditures involved. The motion was seconded b! Mr. Thonas end unanimously
adopted.
There b&ln9 ao further business~ ffaTor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROYED :
ATTEST:
2O.8
COtffqClL, REGULAR
Monday, May lO, 1971.
The Coaocil nf the City Of Roanohe met ia vegnlor meeting ia the Coaocll
Chamber ia the Maaicipal Bolldlego Moaday, May 10, 1971, at 2 p.mo, the regular
meetlag hour. mith Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Cooacllmea Robert A. Garland, David M, Liah, Noel C, Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James On Trust, Vincent $. Nheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mehbev
ABSENT: None 0
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. flirst, City Maaager, Mr. Hymn E. ~aner.
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James H. Klncauon, City Attorney, Mr. H. Hen Jones, Jr..
Assistant City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Marvin Jenninga, Pastor, Virginia Heights Baptist Church.
R1Nt~ES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting bald on Monday,
April 19. 1971, end the regular meeting held on Monday. April 25, 1971. baying been
furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Lisk, seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes approve¢
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Couucil having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Monday, May 10, 1971, on the request of Matts 6 Breakell, Iucorporated, that 24th
Street, S. W., extending from Patterson Avenue to the right of way line of the Norfo]
and Meatern Railway Compauy and Bridge Street, S. M., be vacated, discoutinued and
closed, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
*April 8, 1971
The Houorable Roy L, Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roauoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited Fequeat was cousidered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetiug of April 7, 1971.
Mr. Alleu W. Staples, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and noted the following:
(a) that this section of 24th Street is a paper street.
(b) that oue of the ouly private property owners located
in the immediate vicinity, the Norfolk aud Mestern
Railway, voiced ua objections to this street closure.
(c) that the petitioner h'ad conferred with the Eugtneering
DepaFtment, aud they expressed ua objection to this
street vacation.
(d) that the street does contain a water aud gas line, and
there is no objection from the parties affected con-
cerning the relocation of these lines at the petitioner's
expeuse.
(e) that the petitioner owns the properties on both sides
of the street, nnd plans to construct a new warehouse.
Mr. WattS. the petitioner, appeared before the Planning
Commission and presented bis plans for this area,
The Planning Director noted that he does not envision any
problems associated with this particular street closure.
Accordingly, motion nas made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S! John D. Parrott by L. #.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report sd-
vising that they have viewed the street in question and the neighboring property ot
are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience mould result either to any
Individual or to the public from vacating, dis'continuing and closing the street,
No one appearing fn opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing th*
street. Hr. Hheeler moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(n196S2) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that portion of 24th Street. S. W.. in the City of Roanoke, Virginia extending fro~
Patterson Avenue in a southerly direction approximately 185 feet on the west line
and 199 feet on the east line to the right of way Of the Norfolk and Mestern Railwe
Company and a public road as shown on Sheet No. 131 of the Tax Appraisal Hop of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia. and lying between Sections 50 and 57 on the Nest End
and Riverviem Map.
WHEREAS, Watts ~ Breskell. Inc. have heretofore filed a petition with the
Council of the City of Roanoke. Virginia, in accordance with low, requesting said
Council to permanently vacate, discontinue and close that certain portion of 24th
Street, S. W., above described, of the filing of which petition due notice was
ivan to the public as required by law; and
HHEREAS, i~ accordance with the prayer of said petition, viewers were
appointed by the Council on the 15th day of March, 1971, to view the property and
to report in writing whether in their opinion any inconvenience would result from
)ermanently vacating, discontinuing and closing said street; and
WHEREAS, it appears from the uritten report of said viewers filed mith
the City Clerk on the 30th day of Watch, 1971, that no inconvenience ~ouid result
either to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing
and closing said street; and
WHEREAS, Couucil at its meeting on Watch 15, 1971, referred the petition
to the City Plaaning Commission, which commission by its report dated April 6, 197]
and filed with Council, recommended that the petition to v~cate, discontinue aud
close the above described portion of 24~h Street, S. W., be approved; and
WHEREAS, u public hearing wes held on the question before the Council et
its regular meeting on Moy 10, 1971, after due ond tiuely notice thereof published
in The ~orld-Neus, et uhich bearing all parties in Interest and citizens were affor~
ed an opportunity to be heard on the question; and
MHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, tho Council considers that no incon-
venience uill result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating,
discontinuing and closing that part of 24th Street, S. #** as applied for by the
petitioner, which said street has in fact.never been improved, opened or used as
such, and that said street should be permanently closed as hereinafter provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that all
of that portion of 24th Street, S. N.. in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. extending
from Patterson Avenue lo a southerly direction approximately 185 feet on the nest
flue and 199 feet on the east line to the right of may of the Norfolk and Western
Railway Company and a public road as shown on Sheet No. 131 of the Tax Appraisal
Map of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and lying betueen Sections 50 aud 57 on the
Mest End and Riverview Map. be, and it hereby is. permanently vacated, discontinued
and closed; and that ali right, title and interest of the public in and to the
same be, and it is hereby released insofar as the Council of ~e City of Roanoke is
empowered aa to do, tho City of Roanoke hereby expressly reserving an easement in
said street for the maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of any existing
water line, or other municipal installation or public utility now located in said
street, such easement or easements to terminate upon the later abandonment of use
or permanent removal from the street of any such municipal installation or utility
by the owner thereof.
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the 'City Engineer.be, and he hereby is,
directed to mark *permanently vacated** on said portion of 24th Street. S. M., on al
maps and plats on file in his office on which said portion of 24th Street, S. M.,
ishown, referring to the book and page of Ordinances and Resolutions of the Council
of the City of Roanoke wherein this Ordinance shall be spread.
DE IT FURYHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of tho Council deliver to the Clerk
of the Rustiugs Court of the City of Roanoke. Virginia a certified copy of this
Ordinance in order that the Clerk of said Court may make proper notation on all
maps and plats recorded tn his office upon which are shown said portion of 24th
Street, S. Mo, hereby vacated, as provided by leu, and that, if so requested by an~
party in interest, he may record the same in the deed book in his office indexing
the same in the City of Roanoke as grantor and in the name of any party in interest
who may request it ns grantee.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set e public hearing for 2 p~m,,
Monday, May lO, 1971, on the request of the Rovu Corporation that u portion of
Junette Avenue, S, #**between Fourth Street nad Franklin Road, S, M., be vacated,
discontinued end closed, the matter mas before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the rolloming
report recommending that the request be granted with the City of Roanoke retaining
all easement rights:
"April 8. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
end Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at both its meetings or March 17 and April ?, lg?l.
Mr. Mattern appeared before the Planning Commission and
noted that this property will eventually be taken for the
construction of the Southmost Expressway, He also stated that
this portion of Janette Avenue mill be vacated whether the
expressmay is built or not. He stated that the street closing
will be beneficial to him and to the City. Finally, he noted
that there are no utility problems associated with this street
vacation,
Rr~ A, B. Coleman. Plannin9 Commission member, stated that
the Soutbmest Expressway would take about fifteen years before
it is completed.
Mr. John Parrott, Chairman of the Commission, mas concerned
both with the timin9 of the Southwest Expressway and the derelopm~t
associated with each stage'.
Mr. Sam McGhee, III, City Engineer, noted at the April ?
meeting that Janette Avenue will be closed by about January, 1972,
with the construction of the Southbound off-ramp of the Southwest
Expressway. He saw no reason for not vacating this street by
January 1972 mith the clear understanding however, that the City
retain easement rights within the right-of-way of Janette Avenue
until such time as all utilities are relocated.
Mr. J. O. Lawrence, Planning Commission member, questioned the
feasibility of an alternate use for Janette Avenue. Mr. McGhee,
eoted that he could envlsioe no alternate oses.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved, recommending to City Council to grant this request,
with the City retaining all easement rights.
Sincerely,
S! John H. Parfait by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Tho viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the street in question and the neighborin9 property
and are unanimously of the opinion that ua inconvenience would result either to nny
individual or to the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing the street.
In this connection, the City Attorney called to the attention of Council
that Janette Avenue will be closed by January. 1972, due to the construction of the
off-ramp of the Southwest Expressway and advised that if the Ordinance is adopted
written it will take effect ten days after its second reading and raised the questioh
as to whether or not it is the desire of Council to physically close the street now
=&Il
After a discussion of the matter, it mas decided that since there would b
no Inconvenience to anyone concerned, the street would be physically closed at this
time; whereupon, Mr, Nheeler waved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its
first reading:
(n19653) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing al
that portion of Janette Avenue, S, N.. between the westerly line of Franklin Road,
$. #,, extended and the easterly line of Fourth Street, S. ~.. (being also the
westerly edge of "Calvin Place"), in the City of Roanoke. Virginia.
WHEREAS, Raga Corporation has heretofore filed Its petition before the
Council of the City of Roanoke. Virginia, In accordance with lan, requesting the
Council ~ permanently vacate, discontinue and close all that portion of Janette
Avenue, S. ~.. betmeen the westerly line of Franklin Road, S. W** extended and the
easterly line of Fourth Street, S. W. (being also the westerly edge of 'Calvin
Place"). in the City of Roanoke.'VJrginJa, and more particularly hereinafter
described, of the filing of which petition due notice was given to the public as
required by lam; and
WlIEREAS. in accordance with the prayers of said p~titiop, viewers were
appointed by Council on the 1st day of March. 1971, to view the property and to
report in writing whether in their opinion any inconvenience mould resalt from
permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing the hereinafter described portion
1! described as follows:
213
BEGINNING at a point in the west line of Franklin Rood, 5. ~.,
mklch point of beginning il N5° 28'53' U 20.00 feet from the
intersection.of-the,north line of Jouette,Avesue and the mst
line of Fronklin Road, S. ~** ned which point of beginning is
further described ns the point of curvature of n 20.75 foot
rodius curve at the northwest intersection of Franklin Rood
mud Jnuette Avenue; thence running.through the right-of-way,of
Franklin Rood and Jauette Avenue, S$° 20'S3' E. 42.05 reef (this
course being an extension southerly of the west line or Frnuhliu
Road) to the point of intersection with the proposed limited access
line (right-of-way) of the southwest expressway (ProJ.
101 R/U-201); thence, continuing through the right*of-way or
Jnnette Avenue,with said limited access line 74.24 feet slung
the arc of a curve to the right, which curve has a radius of 63.00
feet and the chord of which nrc bears S43° IO'§4'.W. 70.02 reef
to the end of said curve; thence continuing through the rightoof*way
of Jauette Avenue.and s~till with the limited access line ST6°56'30'
u. 39.20 feet to the intersection with the south line of Junette
Avenue: thence still with the limited access line and with the south
line of Janette Avenue, 502° 24'20' # 320.46 feet to a point:
thence continuing *with the limited access line and with said
south line of Jauette Avenue extended Westwurdly across Fourth
Street, S. M., sa2° 24'30' W. 369.02 feet to a point of curvature
in the south line of Janette Avenue at the southwest corner of
Jauette Avenue and Fourth Street, S. #.: thence departing from
the south line of Janette Avenue and running throughthe intersec-
tion of Janette Avenue and Fourth Street, S..~., N57o 46'09' E.
91.~4 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left (which curve
has a radius of 199.95 feet and which curve is concentric with
and SO feet from the right-of*way line ut the northwest corner of
Jauette Avenue and Fourth Street, S. W.): thence 116.$0 feet aloqg
the arc Of said curve to the left (the chord of which arc bears
Ndl0 04'39' E 114.05 feet to the end of said curve)~ thence
continuing through the intersection Of Jauette Avenue and Fourth
Street, S. N., R24° 23'11' E 98.30 feet to a paint in the east
line of Fourth Street, S. ~., which point is.on the curve at the
northeast corner of Jauette Avenue mud Fourth Street, S. W.;
thence 213.n~ feet along the arc ~f said curve te the left~ which
curve has a radius Of 150.052 feet and the chord of which arc bears
S5~° 55'37' E. 195.$0 feet, to the end of said curve in the n~rth
line of Janette Avenue; thence with the north line of Jaoette
Avenue, N02° 24'10' E. 394.44 feet to the beginning of a 20.75 foot
radius curve to the left which curve is at the northwest corner of
Janette Avenue and Franklin Road, S. N.: thence 31.03 feet along
the arc of said curve to the left (the chord of which arc bears
~300 27°39' E 28.80 feet) to the point of beginning. Containing
1.349 acres and being a portion of the rights-of-way of Franklin
Road, S. W., Janette Avenue and Fourth'Street, S.
~e, and it hereby is, permanently vacated, discontinued and closed; and that all
:ight, title and interest Of the City of Roanoke and of the public in and to the same
be, and they hereby ore, released insofar as the Council Of the.City of Roanoke is
~mpo#ered so to do, except that any public utility easements located therein are beret
reserved by the City.
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, a~d he hereby is.
directed to mark 'permanently vacated' on the above described portion of said street
all maps and plats on file ~n his office on which the above described portion of
said street Is shown, referring t~ the book and page of Ordinances and Resolutions
of the Council of the City of Roanoke wherein this Ordinance shall be spread.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of the Council deliver to the Clerk
of the Hustings Courtfor the City.of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this
Ordinance in order that the Clerk of said court maymuhe proper notation on all maps
or plats recorded in his office upon mhich are shown the above described portion of
said street, os provided by law, and that, if so requested by any party in interest,
le may,record the same in the deed book in his office,.indexlng the same in the name
)f the City of Roanoke as grantor and in the name of any party in interest who may.
request it as grantee.
The motion was seconded by Mr* Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland. Llsko Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler mud Mayor
Webber ................................ 7.
HAYS: None ....~ ............ O.
ZONING: Council ~uving set n public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday. May lO.
1971. on the request of Mr. R. B. Narr that property located on Brombleton Avenue. S M**
west of Rontgomery Avenue. described us Lots 17. lB and 19. Block 20. Nap of Park
Square.'Of~icial Tax Nos. IS61137 nnd Is61i39. be rea,ned from RS-3. Slngle-Fnuily
Residential District. to RD. Duplex Residential District. the matter nas before the
body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commisilou submitted the following
report recommending that the request he granted:
"April B. 1971
The Honorable Roy.L. Webber. Mayor
and Rembers of City Council
R.un,k,. Virginia
Dentlemen:.
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of April ?, 1971.
The petiti ..... Or, R. B. ~aff,.opp .... d before t~e ~lanning
Commission,and noted the follomiug pertaining to this fez,ming
request:
(a) that he plans to construct t~ree (3) duplexes.
(b) that this lot is located on a steep bank, and will require
some grading activity.
(c)~hat there ar; duplexes presently located in this general
area, built however, prior to the new.zoning ordinance.
(d) that.the area is ideally suited for duplexes and vii{ also
enhance the overall character of this area.
The Planning Director noted'that this particular area is a quality
single family residential one nod should remain as such.
Rro A, B. Coleman, Planning Commission member, noted that this
parcel is, perhaps, better suited for duplexes.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and approved with a
voice vote of 5 ayes and 1 nay to recommend to City Council to grant'
this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L.M.
John H. Parrott
ChaJrmn~'
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout moved
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19§54) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 156, Sectional 1966 Zone
Map, Citl of Roanoke, in relation to Zoniog.
MtEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the Citl of Roanoke to
have ErambIeton Avenue, S. W., m,st of Rontgomery Avenue, Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block
20, Map of Park Square, designated on Sheet 156 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City
2'_15
of B,sa,he, es official Tux No (s) 1561137. eud 1561139 rezoned trow RS-3, Single-
Foully Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential Dlstrlct~ and
WHEREAS, the City Planni'ng Commission has reconuended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoued from RS-3, Single-rankly R~sidentlul District, to RD,
Duplex Residentiel Oistrict~ and
bltEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be publiJhed
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4,1, Title X¥. ortho Code of The
City of Roanoke, 1936, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and poste(
as required and for the time provided by said section; and
MIEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice Was held ou the loth
day of May, 1971, at 2 p.m** before the Cnuncil of the City of R, au,he, at which
hearing all parties lu interest and citizens were 91yen au opportunity to be
heard, both for and against ~be proposed rezooln9; and
IfllEREAS, this Council, after consdering the evidence as ~erein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rex,ned.
TREREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code Of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning~ and Sheet No. 156 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, be amended in the fol~owing particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Drombleton Avenue, $. M., west of Montgomery Avenue
described as Lots 17, IR and 19, Block 20. Map of Park Square, designated on Sheet
156 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, ns Official Tax No (s).
1561137 and 1561139, be, and is hereby, changed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential
District, to RD,:Duplex Residential District, and that Sheet No. 156 of the aforesaid
map be changed in this'respect.
The motion was ~econded by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and M~or
Webber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearingfor 2 p.m.~ Monday, May 10,
1971, An the request of Mr. S. Wallace Cundiff, et ux.,'and Mr. M. F. Silver, et ux.,
that a .56 acre tract of land located at 2101 Dole Avenue, 5. E., described as Lots
5, 6, 7 and 6, Section 3, Map of Parkview, Official Tax Nos. 4310905, 4310906,
4310907 and 4310908, be fez,ned from AG-I, General Residential District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitt~d the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"April O, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regularmeeting of April ?, 1971.
Rt. Richard Cromwell, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the PlnnaJag Commission and noted the following:
(a) that the property in question has au excessive slope, nnd
mill bare to be graded by the petitioner at a cost to him
of $25,000.
(b)that this proposed use is in keeping uith the overnll
character or the area.
(c) that this parcel abuts au existing C-2 zone,
Sr. J..D. Lnmrence~ Planning CoumJsion member, inquired about
the future uses proposed in this property. Hr. Cranuell noted
that it mould be a geoernl business use. but could not specify its
precise nature.
Hr. Wentuorth, Planning Commission member, inquired about
the need to construct a concrete wall In this development; Mr.
Craumell replied in the affirmative.
Hr. Rochester. a local resident, appeared before the Planning
Commission and. opposed the petition since the petitioner bad not
made known the precise nature of his proposal.
Mr. A. B. Coleman. Planning Commission member, disqualified
himself from this particular petition.
· Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and approved mith
u voice vote of 5 ayes and one abstention to recommend to City
Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrottby
John H. Parrott
Rt. C. Richard Cranwell, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for resuming, Mr. Thomas
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19&55). AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 431. Sectional 1966 Zone
Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the Clt~ of Roanoke
to have a .56 acre tract of land located at 2101 Dale Avenue, S. E., described as
Lots 5, 6. 7 and 0. Section 3, Map of Parkview. Official Tax Nos. 4310905.
4310906, 4310907 and 4310909, rezoned from RO-1. General Residential District. to
C-2, General Commercial District: and
WI]EREAS, the City Planning Commission bas recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District, to C-2, General
Commercial Oistrict: and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section TI. Chapter 4.1. Title IV. of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956. as a~ended, relating to Zoning, have been published and poste(
as required and for the time provided by said section: amd
WHEREAS, the hearing as provide~ for in said notice mas held on the 10th
day of May, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning: and
217
~IEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence ss herein provided,
is nY the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoaed.
THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1, Section2, of The Code of the City ~f Roanoke. 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 431 ot the Sectional 196~ Zone Map, City of EosnoRe
be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at 2101 Dale Avenue, S. E., described as Lots $, 6, T and
Section 3, Rap of Parhview. designated on Sheet 431 of the Sectiosal 1966 Zone Rsp,
City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 4310905, 4310906, 4310907 and 4310908, be and i
hereby changed from EG-I, General Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, and that Sheet No. 431 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Rebber ............................. ?.
NAYS: NoOe ..............O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, May I0, 19 L,
the request of Messrs. James Iloward Shirley and Benjamin F. Shirley, that property
located on the westerly side of Edison Street, N. E., and a short distance north of
~lberty Road, described as Lots SE, SF, and SG, Map of the property of D. P, Magannt
being a division of Lot 5, Section 1, Liberty Land Company, be rezoued from RD,
~oplex Residential District, to RG-2, Ceneral Residential District, the matter was
before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that an RG-I rezoni~g be approved in lieu Of the request for On
RO-2, rezoeing:
"April 8, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of April 7, 1971.
Mr. N. G. Creasy, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planniu9 Commission and noted the following in regard
to this rezoning petition:
(a) that the Ix~perty is presently vacant.
(b) that it is not suited ~ duplexes.
(c) that he would provide for sufficient off-street parking
facilities.
(d) that there is a great need for apartments in this general
area.
(e) that the proposed use would enhnuce the general area, and,
in addition, provide for a buffer use.
Mr. J. D. Laurence, Planning Commission member, inquired about
the number of units he proposed to construct on this site. Mr.
Creasy noted that be plaus to construct two (2) apartment structures
with twelve (12) units each, totaling 24-housing units.
219
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-Io General
Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice aud the posted sign reqnired to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanobe, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, hav~ been published and paste(
Jam required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the 'hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the loth
day of May, 1971, at 2 p;m., before the Council *of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties In interest and citizens were giren aa opportunity to be beard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
IFllEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
Is of the opinion that the hereinafter desc¥ibed land should be rezoned.
~BEREFOR£, DE 1T ORDAIN£D by the Council of the City of Boauobe that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1, ~ectiou 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoh'e, lq~5, as amanda
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 310 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke
be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.,:
Property located on the westerly side of Edison Street, N. E,, Roanobe,
Virginia, a short distance north of Liberty Road, described as Lot's SE, 5F, and SO,
Map of D. P. Magnum, being a division of Lot 5, Section 1, Liberty Land Company Map,
designated On Sheet 310 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanohe, es Official
Tax Nos. 3100912, 3100913 and 3100914, be, and is hereby, changed from RD, Duplex
Residential District, to BO-2, General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 310
of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was'seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..................................... &.
NAYS: Mr. Lisk ..................1.
SCHOOLS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m
Monday, May lO, 1971, on the request of the Roanoke City School Board that Council
dedicate and incorporate into its public street facilities a right of way extending
from Darrell Street southwesterly and intersecting 5th Street, N. W., at a point in
the vicinty of the northeast corner of the Lucy Addison High School, to assure contint d
freedom of access to the school site, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Plannin9 Commission mbmitted the folloulng
report recomm~ndin§ that the request be granted:
"April §, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber,' Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roard~e, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commissioo at both its meetings of March 17 and April 7, 1971.
'220
Hr. Richard P. Via, Director of School Plants. appeared
before the Planning CommisSl6n~ on behalf of the Roanoke City
School Board amd noted that thin graveled road in question that
for the school buses transporting children from the Bllllamson
Road nrea~ heavy traffic on Orange Avenue and the steep quaudrants
on Fifth Street preclude the use of these corridors rot this
purpose. Mr. Via stated that the road is partially completed
7 meeting that the City has closed this street mltbout
apparent reason.
Hr. J. D. Lawrence,' Planning Commission member, questioned
the s~us of the landfill area located in this park.
Br. John L. Rentmorth, Planning Commission member, inquired
about the drainage situation. In addition, he noted that the
closure of this street would result in excessive traffic nu
Orange Avenue. Br. Laurence, Commissinn member, concurred mith
BF. Meatuorth*s statement and noted that the park is presently
physically divided anthem h! the topography of the land,
The Planning Director noted that he is not in SUppoFt of
any road cutting through a park, particularly since it is utilized
extensively by neighborhood children (safety factor). Also, he
noted that improving this road would cost the City about $35,000.
Mr. John Parr*ti, Commission Chairman, requested the views
of the Parks and Recreation Director in this matter.
The Planning Director noted that he had contacted the Parks
and Recreation Director mbo stated that he uBS opposed to this
street dedication, since it would serve to impede the harmonious
development of this park.
Mrs, Haxey, a local resident, noted that she had a child
going to Addison High School, and supported the street dedication
petition.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded with a voice vote
of 5 ayes and 1 nay, to recommend to City Council to 9rant this
request.
Sincerely,
S! John D. Parrott by
John D. Parrott
With reference to the matter, the City Attorney submitted the following
report recommending that should it be the decision of Council to concur in the requ~
of the Roanoke City School Board that Council direct that appropriate plans or
drawings of what would be threaded to be made a public street be prepared prior to
the adoption of a foraal Ordinance on the subject:
"Ray 10, 1971
The Honorable Rayor and Members of
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Roanoke City School BoardVs proposal of the Council*s dedication
as a public street a certain right-of-way extending from Burrell
Street southwesterly to and intersecting with 5th Street, ~. W., to
assure certain access to Lucy Addison High School site, recommended
by the City Planning Commission, will be the subject of a public
hearin9 before the Council on Ray 10, 1971.
Should it be the decision of the Council to concur in the proposal
and inasmuch as the undersigned has found no map uhereon the limits
of the right-of-way are shown and since the file of papers available
in the matter do not suggest a mldth or any other det~lls'of the right-
of way. it is suggested to the Council that it direct that appropriate
plans or drawings of what would be intended to be made a public street
be prepared prior to the adoption of a formal ordinance on the
subject.
Respectfully.
S! J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon"
221
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney and that the matter be referred to the City Manager for the purpose of havin
· the necessary plans and drauings prepared. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Llsk and
unanimously adopted.
.INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION-RECREATION DEPARTMRHT-PARMS AND PLAYGROUNDS-TOTAL
ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY: Mrs. Frances Barber, Chairman of the Hurt
Park Commu<y Council, appeared before Council and read · prepared Statement aud'
presented a petition signed by 102 residents of the Hurt Park 'area requesting and
petitioning that the City of Roanoke open and operate the swimming pool in Hurt Park
this summer.
Mr. Trout moved that the statement and petition be referred to the City
Manager for his information in connection with his study of the matter. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power Company
transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
April, 1971, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication and list be received and filed. The
motion Mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COURT: A communication from *Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,
Chief Judge of the Municipal Court, requesting that 950.00 be appropriated to Office
Furniture and Equipment - New under Section 320, *Municipal Court," of the 1970-71
budget, to provide funds for the purchase of a used desk and credenza, was before
Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the r~quest of Judge Fitzpatrick
and offered the fonowing emergency Ordinance:-
(~19657) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~20, *Municipal Court
of the lg?O-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 269.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded bi
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler amd Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
BUllET-MUNICIPAL COURT-CITY EMPLOYEES: A communication from Judge Beverly
T. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge of the Municipal Court, requesting that $615.00 be appro-
priated' to Personal Services under Section m20, "Municipal Court," of the lqTO-?l
budget, to provide funds for the establishment of u new position of Clerk-Typist II,
Grade 12, Step 1, $410.00 per month, in his office due to an increase in the caseload
being handled by the Municipal Court particularly in the traffic division, was before
Council.
22,2
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur in therequest of Judge Fitzpatrick
and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(zig650) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section ~20, 'Municipal Court,
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 270.)
Mr. Trout moved the odoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. LJsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LJsR, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~neeler and Mayor
Webber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None ................. O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-COMPLAINTS: Copy of a petition signed bY 93 citizens
complaining of certain conditions existing in Elmwood Park, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the petition be referred to the City Manager for fnves-
t~atlon and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
BUDGET-TAXES: A communication from Mrs. Juanita L. Spencer, transmitting
u petition signed by 59 citizens protesting the raisi?g of their real estate t~xes,
advising that they are already overtaxed and would like to have the tax~s lowered,
was before Council.
In this connection, Mr. O. D. Hardin appeared before Council in connection
with the matter.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication and petition be referred to 1971-72
budget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.,
In a discustion of the matter, Mr. Garland expressed the opinion t~at he
did not wont the citizens to think that the City Of Roanoke will be able. to operate
next year without an increase in taxes.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: ,Mr. Jack M. Goodykoontz, President of The Science
Museum Association of Roanoke Valley appeared before Council and read a prepared
statement requesting that the City of Roanoke join The Science Museum Association of
iRoanoke Valley in inviting the State Science Museum Hoard of Trustees t~ consider
Roanoke as u location for "The Science Museum of Virginia," and to indicate a desire
make a portion of Mill Mountain Park available fo,r the site of the Museum and
further requesting tho city to join the Association in inviting the State Museum
Board to hold its June meeting in Roanoke at mbich time the Mill Mountain area can
be viemed and its appropriateness discussed,
Mr. Trout moved that the matter he referred to the City Attorney for pre~
paration Of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsh and unanimously
adopted.
SEKERS AND STORM DRAINS: A Resolution ,adopted by the Roanoke County Board
of Supervis,ors on Nednesday, April 28, 1971, expressing general approval of n draft
of the Interim Sea,rage Plan for the Fifth Planning District and requesting t~e
223
immediate creation of eR organization,to implement the recommendations contained in
the plan. was before Council,
Hr. Th*ass moved thor theResolntion be received and filed.: The motion
seconded by Hr.'Garland and onnnimousl~ adopted.
CITY GOVERNHENT-ROANOKE VALLEY: A Resolution-adopted by the Roanoke Count!
Board of Supervisors on Thursday, April 290 1971, expressing its willingness end con-
tinuing desire to work together with any or.all o! the governments of the Roanoke
Valley to provide governmental services and facilities on a regional basis and also
e sing the hope that this endeavor may find favor with the other governments of
the Roanoke Valley, mas before Council.
Hr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY: A communication from Hr. Hack Ah*rom, offering to
purchase three lots on Orange Avenue, N. E,, described as Lot 10, East Gate Addition,
Official Tax No. 32211Ofl, for the sum,of $250.00; Lot.16, East Cate Addition, Offici~
Tax No. 3221116, for the sum of $250.00: and Lot 33, East Gate Addition, Official
Tax No. 3221133, for the sum of $300.00, was before Council.
Mr. Trout ~ovcd that the matter be xeferred to a committee composed Of
Messrs. David K, Link, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst, Janes N. Kincanon and J. Robert
Thomas for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Hr. J. Gary Osborne, requesting that pr*pertl
located in the 900 block of Hershberger Road, N. W,, described as Lot IO, Block 3, ·
Air Lee Court, Official Tax No. 21glOlO, be fez*ned ir*mRS-3. Single-Family Resid~nti
District, to RD, Duplex Residential District, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for fez*ming be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and reco~mendation to Council. The notion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-ELECTIONS-REGI~TRAR: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting a request of Hr~ Andrew B. Thompson, 'Chairman'of the Electoral Board,
that $1,500.00 be transferred from Printing and Office Supplies to Office'Furniture
and Equipment under SeCtion mO5, *Electoral B~ard** Of the 1970-71 budget, to provide
funds to purchase certain office equipment needed for added storage space.
Hr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request Of the Electoral Board
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(nlq659) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section mB5, *Electoral Board,
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see O~dinunce Book No, 35, page 270.)
Hr. Garland moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link ~nd adopted by the following vote:
224;
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, ThomaS, Trout, Fdeeler and
Mayor Webber .......... ~ ............ T.
NAYS:. None .............. O.
HUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: .The City Manager submitted u written report
transmitting n requeat of #r. M. Duyld Hoop,r, Superintendent of the Police Departmez
that certain transfers be made within the.Police Department budget and recommending
the adoption of an appropriate Ordinance.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur In the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n19660) AN ORDINANCE to amend andreordain Section n45, "Police Depart-
ment,# of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 35, page 271.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following.vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LisR, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... T.
NAYS: None~--~ ....... O.
SEMEMS AND SZORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting the follomin9 ·draft of a communication written by him to the Honorable
Norman M. Cole, Jr., Chairman, and Members of the State Water Control Board, in
connection with a projected time schedule of additional development of the Sewage
Treatment Plant:
*May T, 1971
Honorable ~ornan M. Cole, Jr., Chairman
and
Members of the Store Nater Control Hoard
Commonwealth of Virginia
P. O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Gentlemen:
The State Mater Control' Board has requested of the Clt~
of Roanohe a projected time scheduling of additiooal development
of the Roanohe sewage treatment facilities, This request was
initially prompted by the appIication to State Matersof the
Federal Stream Standards. More recently the request has been
indicated to also apply to the treatment capacity of the present
RoanoRe plant.
The City last September, lg?O, engaged the consulting firm
of Alvord, Hurdick and Howsoo, Chicago, Illinois, to proceed
with preliminary studies as would be necessary to determination
of a timetable and the scope of lx~atment plant development. This
firm designed the present plant, has served as consultant on addi-
tions and improvements to the plant through the years .and has
served in various other capacities in connection with the utility
systems of the City· :
During and since lmt fall the consultants and/or the City
have been engaged in a number of activities related to treatment
and disposal of sewage wastes, all as would have hearing upon the
Mater Control Board*s initial request and the City's own interest
225
Procedural experimentations within the present plant operations.
Continoation of actual programs for the reduction ulthlq the City
of storm water introduction and infiltration into the system
ultimately subject to treatment. This water has a material rela-
tionship to the volume demands being pla~ed on the present plant,
Consummation of an.agreement with neighboring Tomn of Vinton to
cooperatively benefit the problem that Town has in its treatment
plant.
Participation in · study undertaken by the Fifth Regional Planning
District on the long range requirements of the Region for the
bundling of sanitary and industrial semage wastes. This study is
primarily orientated to collection and transportation systems.
6. Discussion~ with officials of the County of Botetourt as to the
possible need of portions of that County for public sewer
facilities math resulting treatment.
7. Testing for and current successful application of procedures
in the treatment process to miminize locally the increasing
phosphate problem which is facing practJ tally all treatment
facilities.
Interim studi~s and recommendations of improved sludge disposal
methods and facilities.
Experimentation in the us~ of Polymers for the reduction of
the recirculation of sludge through the plant process,
Studies and inspection of lands for possible expansion of or
additional treatment facilities.
Efforts to evaluate future volome requirements'upon a sewage
treatment plant, with such information being in rehtion to
geographical area and the development of such area.
Following the above, the City, with the advice of the Consulting
Engineers, now feels a schedule projection can be made. In accordance
with the request of the Water Control Board, the following is submitted:
A. The Report by the Consulting Engineers to be submitted to
the City by December 1, 1971.
B. This Report to be reviemed by the City, the Water Control
Board, the State Department of Health, the appropriate
federal agencies ·nd any other governmental units as may
be necessary or associated.
The review anticipated to be completed by March 1, 1972.
C. Upon authorization to proceed, the design period required
by the Consultants is estimated to be -- 9 months.
D. Approval of design by appropriate bodies and agencies --
I month.
Authorization, advertisement and receipt of bid~ -- 2 months.
Contractlo~ authorization - 1 month.
Construction period required ~ 14 months.
This schedule would place such new facilities in operation on
or before June 1, 1974.
The above outline does not provide specifi~ time inclusions
for development of financing capabilities. It woulq be anticipated
· referendum and issuance of bonds would be required. There would
be also anticipated an application ~ r and grant of 80~ of the project
costs by federal and state funds.
The development of · referendum and the applications for federal
and state funds can run concurrently with other steps as outlined,
commencing most logically in the latter part of Stage B.
One aspect of this total matter, and an aspect to which there
has been a great deal of effort and attention devoted over the past
several years, has been as to the surrounding County of Roanoke.
The sanitary sewer systems which the County owns are, by contract,
connected to the City of Roanoke system for transportation and
treatment,
9.
10.
11.
226
Roanoke County represents i significant'and rapidly
increasing volume In the operatlonnl demands on the treatment
plant. Further future County areas end County development are -
major determinations In the criteria for design or additional
treatment facilities. In turn these bear upon costs and local
area participation in costs.
By extensive efforts in many directions, including attempts
througb contractual negotiations and projects* of governmental
unification, it has been sought to resolve this aspect as to
semage collection end treatment as well os other matters. Endeavors
are co, tinning uith the hope of the City that this ospec~ might'
be solved to the benefit of the program as outlined above aa such
a program is materially dependent upon the endeavors.
This schedule, with the accompanying comments, is submitted
to the Water Control Board for revlon and consideration. The
City of Roanoke will be glad to advise further to the Board us
might be requested'or appropriate.
Respectfully,
S/ Julian F. flirst
Julian F. flirst
City Manager"
After a discussion of the matt~. Mr. Thomas moved that the City Attorney
be directed to prepare a Resolution endorsing the report of the City Manager as set
forth in a certain communication dated Ray 7, 1971, addressed to the Honorable
Norman M. Cole, Jr** and, further, pledging the support of Council in implementing
Treatment Plant and the financing of same by the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, May 17, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted
BUDGET-pARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Manager to
the Children*s Zoo atop Mill Mountain in order to accommodate a hippopotamus, a bear
and an elephant, the City Manager submitted the following report transmitting said
"Roanoke, Virginia
May IO, lg71
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
following is a reorganization of the cost data, submitted .
last week, in relation ~ the specific animals and the committee*s
proposal for new facilities.
The proposal of the. committee to the City Council sas to
situate the new facilities immediately south of the present
as to clearing of timber and existing sheds, gradin9 and access
furnished to us by the architects,
The walkway bridge bas been included below because of the
concern of the situation that~uld othermise exist of zoo visitors
baying to walk across the ~acks of the small railroad that operates
227
A, For the hippopotamus only:
1. alppo house $21,.378
2. Pavilion 29,820
3. Eridge sad exterior mulks 1.280
Engineering and ullomsnce 5,24?
Subtotal $57,72S
4. Clearing end grading site 1,400
5. Access rosdmay 100
6. Lighting new area only 300
7. Sanitary oemer system 14,408
8. Interim upgrading of
#ountain water system,
including 100 g.p.m, booster
pump, valves and controls,
3" line to zoo ares -
$3,750
plus 10~ .375
4,125
Total for hippo' ~
If pavilion not included, less
$32,801 $45,857
B. For the hippopotamus and the bear
From above $78,658
8ear facility (not including
a pool) $13,018
plus 10~ 1,302
14t320
$92,978
$60,177
If pavilion not included, less
~32,801
C, For the hippopotamus, bear end the
elephant
From above $92,978
Elephant house $32,317
plus 10~ 3,231
35t548
$128,526'
The above does not include any remodeling in the present zoo.
The water system proposed above does anticipate improvements
necessary for any future development on tbs mountain. The sanitary
sewer system, above estimated, could adequately serve the present
or new public rest ~oom facilities in the existing zoo.
Personnel costs are restated, as follows from the report of
last week, May 3.
If the City Council wishes to proceed with the full management--
promotion arrangement at the zoo, tbs following would be personnel
requirements:
Current budgeted zoo staff is:
1 animal caretaker $5,712.OO
Part-time employment
including turnstile operators 5,400,00
Total $11,112.00
To staff the full facility as proposed by the subcommittee (annual)
1. Zoo Manager (full time)
6 months · $672,00 $4,044.00
6 months @ $TO8,00 4,248.00
Total year $8,292.00
2. 2 additional animal caretakers (full time)
b months e $370.00 $2,220.OO
6 months @ $390.00 2,340.OO
$4,580.00
x 2 $9,160.00
3. I full time caretaker already
employed $5,712.OO
228
4. 2 turnstile workers S $1.85 per hr. ~
6 hour shift for 229 dsys.
· $11..IO per day $2,541o90
x 2 $5.083,80
Total personnel annually $~8,245.80
If the zo~ proceeds at its current level of operation, the
personnel requirements are estimated as follows:
I additional animal caretaker (full time)
6 months $370.00
6'months $390.00
I full time caretaker already emploled
2 turnstile workers $1.85 per hour.
6 hour shift for 229 days.
811.10 per day
$2,220.00
2r340tO0
$~,580.00
$5,712.00
$2,541.90
x 2 $5,083.80
Respectfully submitted.
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager*
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that Council adopt an
Ordinance appropriating the necessary funds for a bear house and a hippo house and
ialso to provide funds for an adequate sanitary sewer and water system. The motion
Iseconded by Mr. Garland.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lish raised the qnestio~ us to mhat
first - the people pr the animals - that when the zoo was originally establishe
the concept mas that it would be a zoo to handle small animals, that there is not
enough personnel avaJlabl~ to adequately care for the animals, that the citizens of
the City of Roanoke want to see the enlargement of Mill Mountain but they also want
make sure that the .animals are properly cared for, that Council has established
a list of priorities, of items which need to b'e accomplished and that it is his feeling
if Council proceeds with this proposal ut this time it will be greatly Critized by
the public~
Mr. Garland advised that Mill Mountain mill attract many people to Roanoke,
that the City of Roanoke will realize a profit from the zoo and expressed the opinion
that Council should ~roc~ed with the project at this time.
Dr. Taylorlexp~essed the opinion that be realizes the list of priorities
important, that he would like to see Mill Mountain fully developed but in light
of the priorities he mould have to put the needs Of the citizens Of Roanoke first and
that he would be in ~avo~ of referring thel matter to 1971-72 budget study.
Mr. Lisk t~en ~ffered a substitute motion -that ~ e entire matter be
referred to 1971 -72. budget study to estab.lish u proposed list o~ priorities,
The motion was seconded ~y Mr, Thomas and ~dopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: MesSrs, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Nbeeler ................4,
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Trout and Mayor ~ebber ........
229
APPALACHIAN POWER CORPANY-EASEMENTS-WATER DEPARTMENT: The City Man·get
.submitted n written report ·drawing th·t the City or Roanoke is in receipt of u
propos·l from the Appalachian Pomer Comp·ny-for · new power eesewent.To$03 feet in
length ·nd 200 feet in width ·nd that the matter has bean referred to the City
Attorney for his review.
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted the folloming report ~ith
reg·rd to the matter:
'May 10, 1971
TheHonorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Vlrginl·
Gentlemen:
App·lachian Pomer Company has proposed to the City, through the
City's Mater Departuent, that the City convey to that company a
perpetu·l e·sement for the right-of-may for a new electric
transmission tower line through, over and across four portions
of the City's Carries Cove watershed property, the loc·tiDe of
the right-of-w·y to be, generally, close to the ridge extending
southuesterly from the Carvins Cove Hen. As proposed, the
right-of-way would be 200 feet in width (a~'conpared to the 150-foot
wide right-of-way granted that company by the City through other
portions of the watershed area in 19&l) and would, I assume, be
measured On a horizsontal plane rather than on the surface of the
ground. The company has stated that the 7,503-foot right-of-way
will be cleared of trees and restricted as to b~ildings and would
proposed that it be given the right to erect not more than six
towers for its wires and cables~ to trim, cut and remove trees
and rights of ingress and egress over existing roads to tho
extent suitable for operating and maintaining its electric
transmission lines. The land area within the right-if-way
would effect approximately 34.45 acres of the Clty*s watershed
property/
As consideration for the aforesaid easement, Appalachian Pomer
Company has proposed payment of a lump sum of $4,375.00, which
is stated to be based on the company*s purchase price of an
adjacent tract of land, or, os an alternative to a lump sum price,
has advised that it may mahe available to the City all or bart
of a .72.61-acre tract of land acquired by its holding company
.in another transaction, which is wholly or partly within the Carvins
Cove watershed and which will also be crossed by a part of the -'
uaw electric transmission line.
In transmitting the proposal to me through the City Manager, the
Water Department Manager has made cogent suggestions with reference
to stipulations restricting burning and the use of herbicides or
other chemical compounds in any clearing or maintenance of any
right-of-may which may be provided and has made recommendations with
respect to the alternative considerations proposed by the Power
Company. Stipulations of the first kind have been made part of
recent similar easements authorized by Council and should, I think,
be insisted upon. Similarly, the width of any such right-of-way,
necessitating the complete clearance of trees, should be kept os
narrow as possible so as to reduce the effects of erosion and to
minimize the effect of the right-of-way with respect to its
appearance from other portions of the watershed and recreational
area.
Understanding that the proposal has not been considered by the
Council*s Real Estate Committee and in order that the Council be
advised as to the method of payment which mould best serve the
interest of the City, it is suggested that the matter be referred
to the Council's Real Estate Committee for consideration and
recommendation back to the Council.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
Mr. Lisk moved that the report of the City Manager end the report of the
;ity Attorney be referred to a committee composed of Messrs. David K. Lish, Chairman,
Julian F. Hits, t, James N. Kinconon nnd J. Robert Thomas for study, report and
recommendation to Council. The motion mos seconded by Mr. Trout nnd unanimously
adopted.
EASERENTSoPAR£S AND PLAYGROUNDS-SEllERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having
referred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation a request of the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that Council 9rant n 20-foot wide perpetual
easement through proposed public park and recreation area lands owned by the City of
Roanoke located north of Shenandoah Avenue and west Of Peters Creek in Roanoke County
for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 2?-inch sanitary sewer line and
manholes, the City Manager submitted the following report recommending that the re-
quest be granted with the stipulation that any disturbed areas be seeded and restored
to as near original condition ns possible:
'May 10, 1971
TO The Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemem:
At your regular meeting on Monday, April 5, 1971, you received a
res*latium from the Roanoke Count~ Board of Supervisors requesting
aa easement for sanitary semer purposes through City-owned property
north of Shenandoah Avenue and west of the corporate limits. This
request was referred to me for study and recommendation.
The property in question consists of 14.773 acres donate~ to the
City in 1965 by Nilmont Realty Corporation for developuent as a
portion of Strauss Pa~k. The terrain is rather hilly and wooded,
intended for future improvement,witb nature trails for,hiking.
'The easement is requested for u relief'interceptor sewer being
installed by the Roanoke County Public Service Authority~ This
new li~ is u continuation of the County's ~eters Creek facilities,
previously completed between Salem Turnpike and the Norwood Area.
The present construction is southeTly'from Salem Turnpihe to the
vicinity of the Roanoke £1ectric Steel property.
The proposed County semer is not considered detrimental to the
development of the City's park property. It will provide a relief
to the City*s Peters Creek Interceptor, occasionally surcharged with
sewage flows under present conditions. Math the stipulation that
any distrubed areas be seeded and restored to as near original
condition as possible, it would be recommended that the C?unty's
requestfor a sanitary sewer easement be granted.
' Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. HirSt
Julian. F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that Conncil concurin the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the CltyAt~orney for preparation Of the
proper measure. The motion MSS seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUILDINGS-COMPLAINTS: Council having referred to the City Manager for in-
vestigation and report a petition signed by 28 residents in the area of 9th Street
and Dale Avenue, S. E** requesting that a house located at 506 gth Street, S. E.. be
razed at once, the City Manager submitted a written report advising that the house
231
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING-HOUSING-SLUR CLEARANCE: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper meaaure initiating an amendment or Paragraph 7 of Section 24,
Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
to Zoning, which would provide for a decrease in the number.of off-street parking
spaces required in the case of high-rise apartments constructed as non-profit public
housing projects for occupancy primarily by persons of the age of 62 years or older.
the City Attorney submitted the follomJng report transmitting a Resolution referring
the matter to the City Planning Commission f~r study, report and recommendation to
Council and providing for a public hearing to be held at 2 p.m., Monday, June 7, 1971
on the question:
"Hay 10, 1971
Hoooroble Mayor aod Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the meeting of the Council held on April 19, 1971, Council
entertained the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Dousing Authority to waive the requirements of paragraph
7. of Sec. 24. of the City's Zoning Ordinance presently re-
quiring one off-street parkin9 space for each dmelling unit
on the premises in the case of high-rise apartments.
Said Housing Authority is presently constructing a hi~h-rise
apartment complex at the southeast corner of 31st Street and Melrose
Avenue, I. W., which will contain 212 dwelling units. This project
is being constructed as a low rent public housing project for
occupancy primarily by persons.of the age of sixty-two years or
older.
The Executive Director of the said Housing Authority has advised
Council that other cities which have this type of housing for the
elderly report a very low incidence of car ownership by the occu-
pants of such projects.
The matter having been referred to this office for preparation of
the proper measure, there has been prepared and lstransmitted
herewith for Council*s recommended adoption a resolution which
would initiate an amendment Of paragraph numbered 7. of Sec. 24.
Chapter 4.1, Title XV of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
as amended, relating to Zoning, mhlch would provide for a decrease
in the number of off-street parking spaces required in the case
of high-rise apartments constructed as non-~rofit public
housing projects for occupancy primarily by persons Of the age of
sixty-two years or older. The proposed resolution mould refer the
matter to the Planning Commission for study and report to the
Council and, further, would provide for a public hearing on the
question to be held on June 7, 1971.
Respectfully,
S/ R. Re~ Jones, Jr.
for the City Attorney"
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney and
~ffered the following Resolution:
(n19661) A RESOLUTION initiating an amendment of paragraph number 7. of
Sec. 24, Chapter 4.1, Title XV of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning, providing for a decrease in the number of off-street parking
232 "
spaces required in .the case of high-rise apartments constructed as non-profit public
housing proJects for occupancy by elderly persons, as contained in said paragraph,
(For full text of ResOlution, see:Resolution Bosh Rs, 35, page 272.)
Hr. LJsk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Trout and adopted by the following ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlands Lisk, Tnylor, Thomas, Trout, I~heeler and
Mayor ~ebber .................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........
EASE#ENTS-SENERS AXO STORM DRAINS: Council havJn9 directed the City
Attorneyto prepare the proper measure authorizing and providing for the acquisition
by the City of Roanoke of a certain perpetual easement for sanitary seuer purposes
needed for the proposed construction of a sanitary sewer through certain property of
Wilson Trucking Corporation, for the nominal consideration of $1.0~, the City Attorne
submitted the following report transmitting said Ordinance:
"Ray 10, 1971
Honorable Rayo~ and Renhers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council has heretofore been petitioned by Nll~on ~rueking'
Corporation.to release a part of a sanitary semer easement
located in portions Of Lone Oak Avenue and Larchmood Street,
both of which portions of said streets have been vacated and
discontinued as public streets, in consideration of mhich
release said carpathian has proposed to grant to the City a
hem sanitary sewer easement through certain of its property
adjacent to said former streets. The said corporation has,
since filing its application mith the Council, tendered to
the City the requisite deed of easement, which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
Accordingly, there is transmitted heremith a form of ordinance
which would authorize and provide for the City's acquisition
of a certain perpetual easement for sanitary sewer purposes
needed for the proposed construction of a sanitary sewer
through certain property of Wilson Trucking Corporation, for
the nominal consideration of $1.00, and which, further, would
.provide for.the City's release, quitclaim and abandonment of
all right, title and'interest in a portion of anadJacent sanitary
sewer easement presently located ia Lone Oak Avenue and Larchwood
Street, now vacated.
The City Manager bas previously recommended that the Council cm cur
in said corporation's request and has advised that the expense of
relocation of the sewer line would be borne bi Wilson Trucking
Corporation.
Respectfully,
S/ H. Ben Jones, Jr.
for ~e City Attorney"
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(algb62) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City*s acquisiti*
of a certain perpetual easement in land needed for the proposed construction of a
sanitary sewer main'through Lots I and 2, Dloch 2, according to th~ Union Sto~k Yard
Corporation Map, in the City, upon certain terms and conditions; and, in consfderatlo
233
of the grant of said easement, providing for the City"s release, quitclaim lad nbln-
dowqnt of all right, title and interest in and to a portion of an adjacent s~nltary
easement through Lone Oak Avenue, N, E,, and Lnrchwood Street. N, E,, now
sacated.
WHEREAS, Virginia National Bank. Trustee of Employee Profit Sharing and
Sqne(it.Plan of Rilson Trucking Corporation, through Nilson Trucking Corporation, has
~etitloned Council to abandon certain portions of an existing sanitary sewer easement
'unni~g through portions of Lone Oak Avenue and Larcbwood Street, N. E., which partial
of said streets have been heretofore duly vacated, discontinued and abandoned; and
offered, in return for the release, quitclaim and abandonment of said easement, to
grant and convey to the City a new easement for sanitary sewer purposes 'through
certain adjacent portions of said corporation's property; and has tendered to the Citl
the ~eqaisite deed of easement which deed of easement is on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
~IEREAS, the City Manager has advised the Council that all of the expense
of the relocation of the sanitary sewer line presently !n Lone Oak Avenue and Larchwoc
Street, N. E., to its proposed location will be borne by Rilson Trunking Corporation,
and has recommended that the existing easement in said streets be released, and be
relocated through Lots I and 2, Block 2, according to the Bnion Stock Yard Corporatioz
Map, such release and relocation being shown in detail on a certain plat attached to
the.deed of easement tendered to the City as aforesaid; in which recommendation the
Council concurs.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. That the City doth hereby accept the offer of Virginia National Bank,
Yvustee of the Employee Profit Sharing Plan of Nilson Trucking Corporation, to grant
and convey to the City a certain perpetual easement through property ia the City of
Roanohe, within a right-of-way bounded and described as follows:
BEING a lO-foot wide sanitary sewer easement measured 5 feet
equidistant from and on both sides of a centerline the beginning
point of which is located as follows:
Beginnin9 at an iron pin at the present'southwest co~ne~ of
Larchwood Street, N. E., said point bain9 on the easeterly line
of Lot 4, Block 2,.Union Stock Yard Corp. Nap~ thence, N. 61°
32' ~. ~5 feet to the centerline of an existing sanitary sewer
easement in Larchwood Street, N. E., now vacated; thence, S. 09o
$6' 08" E. 9q.42 feet to the ACTUAL BEGINNING POINT of the lO-foot
wide sanitary sewer easement herein granted; thence, along the
centerline of said new sanitary sewer easement So 57059*50" N.
188.21 (eet to a point on the nortberly line of an existing
sanitary sewer easement, 10-feet wide, in Lone Oak Avenue, N.
now vacated; and being shown in detail on a plat prepared by
Ross G F~ance, Civil Engineering C Land Surveying, Manassas,
Virginia, prepared under date of December 7, 1970, and entitled
"Plat showing the vacation of an existing lO~,wtde sanitary sewer
easement and dedication Of a new 10' wide sanitary ~ewq( easement
to be conveyed to the City 5 f Roanohe~ Virginia from N~lson Trucking
for nominal consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), cash, and that proper City Officials
234
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be, and the/ nrc hereby aathorized nnd
directed, for and on behalf of the City, to execute, seal and attest respectively,
a deed of release.and quitclaim, pursuant to mhlch snJd deed the City would release,
quitclaim and convey unto the fee simple omner all of the City*s right, title.and
interest in and to n portion of that certain sanitary sewer main and easement
therefor, located on Lone Oak Avenue. N. K., now vacated and Lnrchmood Street, N. E..
nam vacated, in the City, ns oh*mn on a plat prepared by Ross ~ France. Civil
Engineering ~.Land Surveying, Manassas, Virginia under date of Decenber 7. 19700 and
entitled =Plat shaming the vacation.of an existing 10' aide sanitary sewer easement
and dedication of a new 10' mide sanitary sewer easement to he conveyed to the City
of Roanoke, ¥irginla, iron #ilson Trucking Co.", said deed of release and quitclaim
to he prepared and approved as to form hi the City Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler andMayor
Webber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None ....... O.
SEh~RS AND STORM DgAINS: The City Attorney submitted the f, Il,ming ~Fort
transmitting a Res~ution which would direct the release of an erroneous sewer
assessment made on the property of Roy J. and.Bessie RcDanlel. described as Kenwood
Acreage, Official Tax No. 333040b, advisln9 that the sewer assessment should have,
been made on the adjacent property which at the time of assessment was owned by C. H.
and Salli~ M. Ferguson and that assessment on the Ferguson property cannot, at this
late date, be made:
*May 10, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In examfnlng the title to a certain tract of land located on
the east side of Uayland Street and to the north of Carvin
Street, N. E., Mr. John L. Hart found a sewer assessment against
property owned by Roy J. and Bessie McDaniel said property
hearing Official No. 3330406 and described.as-Kenmood acreage
and supposedly fronting 60 feet on the north side of Carvio
Street. The amount of such assessment was originally $97.58.
Mr. Hart related to the undersigned the fact that the property
owned by the McDa&iels did not front on Carvin Street nor W~
it then or since served by City sewer.
Investigation of the matter reveals that by Resolution No. 12317,
adopted*January 31, 1955, the Council erroneously assessed the
McDaniel property, described as aforesaid, when in fact the
assessment should have been made on an adjacent property, which,
in fact fronted,approximately 60 feet on the north side of
Corvin Street, N. E., which property was at the time of assessment
owned byC. H. andSnllie M~.F~rgusGn. The undersigned is of
opinion that the omission of the assessment against the Ferguson
property is not, at this ~te date, properly able to be made and,
further, that the erroneous assessment against the McDanfel
property should be released since the latter property was not
at the time Of assessment nor since served by City sewer.
235
Accordingly, there has been prepared and is transmitted hereul~h for
Council's recommended adoption u resolution uhich would direct the
release Of the erroneous assessment heretofore made on the property
belonging to Roy J, and Bessie #cRanial.
Respectfully submitted,
~S/ ~, Rea Jones
for the City Attorney'
Hr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the report Of the City Attorney
and offered the folloming Resolution:
(#19663) A RESOL~rlOH directing the release of a certain sanitary semer
assessment heretofore erroneously assessed against a certain parcel of land in the
City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Boob No. 35, page 273.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption Of the Resolution, Yhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Rebber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None .........O.
COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted a ~ritten report requesting an oppor-
tunity of meeting with the Mayor and Member of Council, the City Manager and the City
Auditor in Executive Session during or after the Council meeting for the purpose of
discussiR and considering certain pending legal matters.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
and that an Executive Session he held at the conclusion of the Council meeting. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Rebber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC I~ELFARK: The CltyAuditor submitted copy of a monthly
statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended April 30, 1971.
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-AUDITORiUR-COLXSEUR: Council having referred a report of the City
Manager recommending that $200,000.00 be appropriated to Special Promotion Fund under
Section m77, "Civic Center," of the 1970-71 budget, to provide necessary funds from
which to pay entertainment costs to a committee composed of Messrs. Julian F. HJrst,
~hairman, J. Robert Thomas, John A. Kelley, Howard E. Bedford and J. H. Johnson faf
study, report and recommendation, the committee submitted a mritten report recommendiE
that the request be granted.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report advising tb~
Jt is necessary to have these additional funds because ~ the extent of events at the
Roanoke Civic Center and for payments to engagements or entertainers as their con-
tracted proportion of the receipts.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the como
mittee and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:·
(Ul966¢) AN ORDINANUE to- amend and reordain Section u?7, #Civic Center,'
of the 1970oY1 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 274.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LiaR, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................................... T.
NAYS: None ............................O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having referred to a committee composed of
Messrs. Hampton M. Thomas, Chairman, Robert A. Garland, Vincent S. Wheeler, Julian F.
HJrst mud J. Robert Thomas .for study, report and recommendation a report of the City
Manager transmitting a request that Council consider reducing the contractor's
retainage for construction of the Roanoke Civic Center from 10 per cent on the first
50 per cent of the contract amount and 5 per cent on the remaining 50 per cent of the
amount to 3 per cent of the contract amount, the committee submitted a
written report recommeodiug that the appropriate change order be prepared to the
contract Of the City of Roanoke with N, Ilo L. T,er Company for the construction of
the Roanoke Civic Cente~ to revise the retainage conditions as atatedabo~e, said
retainage being in addition to the liquidated damages and work incompleted.
In this connection, the City Auditor submitted the following report
furnishing certain information concerning the contract for the construction of the
Roanoke Civic Center by N, Ilo L. T,er Company, advising that in view of the informa-
tion contained in his report it is his belief that the City of Ronnohe should carry
the provisious of its contract:
"April 23, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Ge'ntlemen:
Pursuant to your direction of last Monday, the following
information is furnished concerning the contract for construction
of the Civic Center by Nello L. Teer Co.
The total amount of the contract as amended by change Orders
ia at present $11,0d3,274.62, the amount of murk completed on the
contract through March 25, 1971 amounts to $10,725,513.00 and the
materials stored as of that date, for mhich payment is due the
contractor under terms of the contract, is $9&,2~6.00, making a
total of $10,H21,779.00., From this amount the City is withholding,
under the terms of the contract, $817,170o81 to insure the proper
· performance of the contract and has withheld as liquidated damages
$82,000.00, leaving a net of $9,922,608.19, which bas been paid
to the contractor. There still remains $2,250.00 of liquidated.
damages to be retained by the City from future payment under the
provisions of the contract. The total liquidated damages assessed
against the contractor from the original completion date of
April 20, 1970, to the date of March 25, 1971 when the City OCCU-
pied the partially completed project ia for 337 days at $250.00 per
day, equalliog
The original contract was entered into on March 28, 1968 and
allowed for 750 consecutive calendar days of construction time from
237
April Ii lq68~ the starting date agreed to between the City and'the
contractor, which established a completion date of April 20. 1910.
The contract provides rot progress payments to be made by the
City to the contractor and for final payment to the contractor
under Articles 6 and T, which are quoted belom:
*ARTICLE 6. PROGRESS pAYMENTS: Oased upon Applications for
Payment submitted to the Architect by the Contractor and
Certificates for Payment issued by the Architect. the Onner
shall nuke Progress Payments on account of the Contract Sum
to the Contractor as provided in the General Conditions and
the Supplementary General Conditions of the Contract for
Construction as folloms:
Not later than the loth day of each calendar month the
Owner shall make a progress Payment to the Contractor for
all work peformed under this Contract during the preceding
30-day period up to the 25th day of that month. The Con-
tractoy*s ~pplications for Payment.shall be submitted to the
Architect not later than the first day of each month. To
insure the proper performance of this Contract the Owner shall
retain ten percent (10~} of the amount of each Application fur
Payment until fifty per cent (50~) of the York as measured by
the total of all previously approved Applications for Payment,
is completed and then the Owner shall retain five per cent
of the amount of each AnnlicatJon for Payment thereafter until
final completion and acceptance of all work covered by this
Contract
The preparation, sub~ission, and approval of all Applica-
tions for Payment and Certificates for Payment shall be in
accordance mith the provisions Of the General Conditions and
Supplementary General Conditions Of.the Contract for Construction.
ARTICLE ?. FINAL PAYHENT: Final payment, constituting the entire
unpaid balance of the Contract Sum, shall be paid by the Owner to
the Contractor within thirty (30) days after completion of the Mark,
unless otherwise stipulated in the Certificate of Substantial
Completion, provided the Rork baa then been completed, the Con-
tract fully performed, a final Certificate for Payment bas been
issued by the Architect, and the Owner*s City Manager has issued
written acceptance of all said work.'
The City has fully complied with this contract and made payment to
the contractor as provided thereunder.
The contractor, through the architect, has requested that the City
release the entire retalnage specified under the contract, with the
exception of $1OO,0OO.00. After receipt of this request some two weeks
ago, the City Engineer, Mr. Sam McGhee, discussed the matter with the
City Attorney, City Manager and myself and advised the architect, and
through him the contractor, that it is the belief of the City that the
contract specifications, with respect to the retainage, should be
followed, which in effect denied the contractor's request. (Copy of
letter is attached)
Insofar as ~ keow, delays in completion of the contract were
totally those Of the contractor and the City at ua time being a~
fault. Because of tee delays, the City lost the uae of its facility
through the last fall and winter s~ason, which along with the spring
season constitute the time that the City must receive the most of the
income it will realize from the Civic Center operations. Consequently,
the City has sustained considerable loss of revenue. In addition, the
City is paying approximately $1,000.OO per day in interest on bonds
issued for the construction of the Civic Center. The money being
retained under the contract Js invested and tk~ City is receiving
approximately $1,600.00 per month in in.rarest on this investment, which
will to some extent offset the losses sustained by the City by reason
of the contractor*s delay in finishing the project.
In view of the information contained above, it is my belief that
the City should carry oat the provisions of its contract.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor"
238
Mr. Thomas moved tbat Council concur In the report of tko committee and
offered the following Resolution'providing for Said change order to the contract with
Wello L. Tear Company for the construction of the Roanoke Civic Center~
(a19665) A RESOLUTION proposing and authorizing the issuance of a Change
Order to the City's contract nlth Wello L. Tear Company, dated-March 28, 1968, rot
the construction of the Roanoke Civic Center so as to reduce from 10~ on the first
50% of the contract amount and 5~ on the remaining 50~ of the contract amount to
three per cent (3~) of the total contract amount the City's retainage of partial
payments provided to be made to the contractor by the City under Section 14 of the
Supplementary Ceneral Conditions of said contract.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 274.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Besolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. 6arland, Llsk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Rebber .................................. 7.
NAYS= None .........................O.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the report of the City Auditor be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENY-INYEGRATION-SEGREGATION: The Community Relations Sub-
Committee submitted the following report on police-community relations in the City of
Roanoke, recommending that the report be referred to the City Manager for his review
and recommendation and to be returned to Council as soon aa possible in order that
budgetary items nay be considered for the coming year:
"May 10, 1971
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUBCOMMITYEE ON
POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS:
Following two meetings with Donald W. Graham, Personnel
Director, and M. David Hooper, Superintendent of Police, together
with representatives Of TAP and various other civic organizations,
plus several additional meetings of the Subcommittee on Police
Community Relations, the following report and recommendations are
submitted:
1. TheCommittee has reviewed the matters referred to it by
the Roanoke City Council on December 14, lETO, ~egarding certain
matters concerning police community relations as outlined in the
report of City Manager Julian F. Oirst, prepared in response to a
request of the Community Relations Committee on July 6, 1970, and
hereby reaffirms its commitment to the hiring or appointment of a
"Community Relations Officer* for the City of Roanoke with
special responsibilities assigned to take the initiative for a
continuing program and improving police community relations
throuohout the City. The Subcommittee envisions this position to
be a newly created position, directly responsible to the City
Manager and City Council, with such responsibilities and duties
as may be assioned with the underlying purpose Of improving com-
munications between the Police Department and various other
branches of local government as they relate to the entire community
with particular emphasis on the relationship with the black
community.
The Subcommittee feels that this position would he in keeping
with the recommendations of the recent studies provided by the
Fifth Planning District report and previous requests of the
Community Relations Committee, which requests were based upon its
extensive studies and current trends for establishing a continuing
program of police community relations.
The Subcommittee is further of the opinion that based upon
its studies that the creation of the post of *Community Relations
239
Offlcer~ is needed et the earliest possible date end mould
effectively eliminate the *communication gap* which exists
betmeen local government and the citizens of Roanoke et the
present time.
2. Th~ Committee recommends the creation of a hem division
of the Police Academy to.consist of participants in · new careers
program to be formulated and partially funded by TAP in
Initial stages.
The purpose of the program would be to train police recruits
primarily between the ages or 19 and 21 over o two-year period in
preparation of t police career. Thesepsrticiponts MOuld be
trained by the hem careers program and partially funded by TAP
over the two-year period of police preparatory training. The
Committee feels that this program would provide a continuing
manpower pool of potential applicants available and trained for
police work.
It is our understanding that the new careers program would
subsidize the salaries of the participants up to $1.60 per hour on
the basis of a 40-hour Moth meek. Hopefully, the City of Roanoke
would supplement these funds as needed to provide adequate salaries
to attract participants in the program.
Additionally. the Committee feels that this type program
would serve to eocourage and motivate more young men to enter law
enforcement mark. Participants would be available to serve as
police aides during and as part of their training. The attached
list of duties indicates the functions they could serve, thereby
relieving the regular force and producing savings to offset the
CJty*s share of the program costs.
The Committee recommends that the above stated suggestions
be referred to the City Manager for report back to Council at its
next meeting or as soon thereafter as possible. The Committee is
Of the opinion that time is of the essence inasfar as the subject
matters are concerned and that solutions must be forthcoming
without further delay.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ William C, Thomas
William C. Thomas
Subcommittee Chairman
S/James O, Crooks
James B. Crooks
S/ David R. Goode
David R. Goode"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be,referred to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation to Council as soon os possible. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREET NAMES: Ordinance No. 19650, changing the names of certain streets
and fixing the names of certain proposed streets within the corporate limits of the
City Of Roanoke tn the Hollins Road - Whttesfde Street - Patrlch Henry Avenue
Corridor in order to provide a unified street name system, having previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the
body, Mr. Llsk offering the follomlng for Its second reading and final adoption:
(~19650) AN ORDINANCE changing the names Of certain streets and fixing
the names Of certain proposed streets within the corporate limits of the Clty of
Roanoke in the Hollins Road*Whiteside Street-Patrick Henry Avenue Corridor in order
to provide a whirled street name system.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35. page 269.)
24O
Nr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinsnce. The motion was seconded by
Or. Taylor end adopted by the following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Th,nas, Trout, Wheeler and #ayor
Mebber .......................................... ?.
NAYS: None ...........................O.
BUDGET-BUILDINGS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure appropriating $2,000.00 to Fees for Professional and Special
Services under Section n48, 'Department of Buildings** of the lg?O-?l budget, to
)r,vide funds for building demolition for the remainder of the fiscal year, Mr.
Wheeler offered the f, Il,wing emergency Ordinance:
(n19666) AN ORDINANCE tO amend and reordain Section #4R, *Department of
Buildings** of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance D,oh No. 35, page 275.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsh, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor h'ebber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None .........................O.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to continue for a period Of 30 days
an experimental system of refuse collection which was previously numb,rimed by
Ordinance No. 19519 on February 1, 1971, he presented same; whereupon, Hr. h~eeler
offered the following Resolution:
(u19667) A RESOLtFflON authorizing the City Manager to continue for a
period of 30 days an experimental system of refuse collection which was authorized
by City Council by Ordinance No. 1951q, adopted February 1, 1971.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 2?6.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrso Garland. Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
!Mayor Webber .................................. T.
NAYS: None .........................
AC~S OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having directed the
City Attorney to prepare the proper measure directing the installation of a plaque
at the Roanoke Civic Center in honor of STEVE BRODY, he presented same; whereupon,
Dr. Taylor offered the f, Il,wing. Resolution:
(n19669) A RESOLtFflON directing the .installation of a plaque at the
Roanoke Civic Center Plaza in honor of STEVE RRODY.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 276.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsh and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor. Th,mss. Trout. Fdeeler end
Mayor Mebber ......... ~ ........................
NAYS: None ......................... O.
STADIUM-MAHER FIELD: Council having directed the City Attorney to preper
the proper measure euordiag certain concession privileges to be exercised at Victor
Stadium and the athletic grounds at Meher Field upon certain terms and provisions,
he.presented some; mb,reap,n. Mr. Mheeler moved that the following Ordinance be
placed upon its first reading:
¢n19669) AN ORDINANCE nmardieg certain concession privileges to be
exercised at Victory Stadium end the Athletic Grounds in Mober Field uponcertaln
terms and provisions, on the basis of a certain bid made therefor: directing the
execution of a requisite contract; end rejecting all other bids made for the award f
said privileges.
~IIEREAS~ on April 20. 1971. and after due and proper advertisement had
been made therefor certain bids for certain concessien privileges to be exercised
Victory Stadium and the Athletic Grounds In Maher Field were opened in the office o
the City*s Purchasing Agent by three members of a committee appointed for the
purpose, and thereafter were tabulated and studied by the committee which has made
written report and recommendation to the Council through the City Manager; and
b~EREAS, the City Manager concurs in the committee's report and has
directed the same to Council recommending amard of the concession privileges as
hereinafter provided: and the Council considering all the same. has determined tho
the bid hereinafter accepted is the lowest and best bid meeting the City's specifi-[
cations made for the award of such privileges, and should be accepted.
THEREFORE, DE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of R,an,he that
the period commencing as of May 1. 1971. and ending December 31. 1971. with an option
to renew for two additional years provided that the City shall not itself have
undertaken to provide such articles and services and have so notified Robert E.
Stone, trading as Stone*s Enterprises by November 30, 1971, in consideration of
which said concessionaire shall pay to the City *the sum equal to 38 1/2% of said
concessionaire's sales of goods, beverages and all other articles, commodities or
services made on the premises, settlement to be made by the concessionaire with the
City within three (3) days after the end of any separate activities; all in full
accordance with the City*s specifications made therefor, and with said concession-
atre*s proposal which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and the City
Manager is hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City, to enter
into and execute a requisite contract in writing with the aforesaid concessionaire
respecting the concession privileges to be exercised by said concessionaire us here
awarded, such contract to have incorporated latakia all Of the terms, provisions an
conditions contained in the Cityts form of proposal advertised for bids in the
premises and on which the aforesaid concessJonalre*s bid to the City. dated April
1971, mos made, said contract to be, otherwise, on such form as is approved by the
City Attorn'ey.
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all other bids received by the City for the
award Of the aforesaid concession privileges be, and said other bids are REJECTED;
the City Clerk to so notify each said other bidder and express the City's
appreciation for the submission of said bids.
Them6tlon man'seconded by. Mr~ T~out hid*adopted by the r,Il,wing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlnnd, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler lad ~
Isyor iebber .................................. ?.
NAYS: None .............= ........... O.
STATE NIGHRAYS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepsee the
~rnpermezsnre COBBCBdJBO the Virginia Department or Highways nnd its contrsctors
n connectloi math recent iBprovements or U. S. Route 220 (Frnnhlin Road, S. I.),
from R,on,he River south to the corporate limits and authorizing that an spproprlot~
snblio ceremony be nrrnnged to recognize such accomplishments, he presented snne;
thereupon, Mr. Mheeler offered the f, Il,wing Resolution:
(n19670) A RESOLUTION commending the Virginia Department or Highways end
its contractors in connection with recent improvements or D. So Route 220 (Franhlin
Road, S. M.). from goanohe River south to the City's Corporate Limits: end author-
izing that an appropriate public ceremony be arranged to recognize such accomplish-
ments.
(For tull text of Resolution, see Resolution D,ok No. 35, page 2??.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mos seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lash, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Rheeler and
Rayor Rebber .................................. ?.
NAYS: Hone ......................... O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
LEGISLATION: Mr. Garland read the follouing prepared statement expressing'
the opinion that it is incumbent upon Council to pass a Resolution voicing their
:consternation and concern and urging the Hureau of Insurance or the State CorporatiO~
Commission to establish more stringent guidelines in allowing insurance companies to
~perate within the State of Virginia:
"10 May 71
Mayor Roy L. ~ebber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
Being a regular patron of the "Quicklime" column in the local
newspaper, which I find very interesting as well as informative
and helpful, I have noticed recently muny complaints from our
citizens concerning the failure of certain insurance companies to
promptly pay or process or even completely ignore, claims that are
submitted and apparently due. Judging from the number that I have
read and others which I hnow of personally and probably many others
that just don't bother to complain or have the means to and allow
the matter to 9o unchallenged, it appears to me that this problem
has now reached proportions that require a much closer scrutiny by
our state officials in allowing these *fly by night' s~ull print,
shyster type insurance companies to operate within the State of
Virginia. It should be obvious that many of our citizens are
being duped and misled by these unscrupulous and unethical com-
panies. I think that our citizens deserve better protection from
these fast operators than they are presently afforded. In many
instances, these victims are sich, desperate and in a financial
bind and nut in a position to challenge these companies.
Roreover, these practices and conditions make it very difficult
for the legitimate, honest and ethical companies, agents and
salesmen because the public quite naturally becomes suspicious
when so many claims go unpaid or ignored.
I realize that this is not a matter that the Council has the
power to correct but can only urge its citizens to deal ~Jth
reliable and hnown companies which have local representation.
However, I do feel that it is incumbent upon this Council to pass
u resolution {oicing our c~nsternation and concern and urging the
Bureau or Insurance of the State Corporation Commission to esta-
blish more stringent guidelines in allowing insurance companies to
operate within the state and that copies of this resolution be sent
to our representatives in the General Assembly, Senator Hopkins,
Delegates Butler. Anderson and Garland for their consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ ~ubert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland'
Hr. Thowns moved that the matter he referred to the Legislative Advisory
Committee for study, report and recommendation to Council, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-BUSES: Hr, Thomas read the following prepared Statement In*
connection with the overall transit facilities rot the City of Rounohe, advising
that he has contacted the Fifth District Planning CommiSsion and that Mr. Robert M.
Shannon, Executive Director of the Fifth District Planning Commission, has advised
him that without cost to the City of Roanoke he and n representative of Rllbur
Smith G Associates of Columbia, South Carolina, will appear before Council, In a
work session, and discuss various methods whereby the city can implement the Urban
Transit Study Report of the Firth District Planning Commission:
'May I0, 1971
TO: MR. MAYOR-MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
FROM: COUNCILMAN HAMPTON M. THOMAS
It seemed quite evident that the matter of over-all transit
facilities for the City of Roanoke had reached the stage mhere it
must be handled by the entire Council actJn0 ss · committee of
the whole if we are to avoid further delay. Therefore, I have
requested this meeting.
Mr. Garland-as Chairman Of Council's Transportation Committee-
made this point verbally ot the last Council meeting. Additionally
he emphasined this In a letter to the Editor on Wednesday, May $
(published Friday, May 7 and copied to the Council on our agenda
this week). He states in his letter that the Committee has reached
an impasse on the bare proposition of purchasing 50 school buses.
I would point out that the committee has not, to COuncil*s know-
ledge, gone beyond the scope of this single question. I think this
is unfortunate because I believe if the Committee could hove looked
at the over-all transit picture, this impasse could have been
avoided - certainly insofar as Council is concerned. ! understand
Mr. Garland intends for the Committee to meet tomorrow to continue
its work.
The matter of a Transit Authority as it relates t6 buses was
included in the Fifth District Planning Urban Transit Report
released in June, 1970. The matter of a Parking Authority was
avocated by Downtown Roanoke last year. Mr. Garland referred to
these proposals in his minority report of March 22, however, there
Garland and his committee that I have no desire to pre-empt their
work end will gladly defer at thin point if they have accumulated
data for the Council on this subject. My only interest is to see
that Council is not loched into a position where it will *equivocate
end delay until faced with a real crisis and be forced to act
hastily under a Court order* as Mr. Garland predicts in his letter.
fares (from 25t to 2&t and students to 17-1/2~) approximately 6
- we immediately lost *Ride ~ Shop* Program
- lessening of bus service in the valley area.
It was for t'his reason that I made the followin9 motion some
243
*That the Transportation Committee review the Transit Study
Report with the Fifth Planning District Committee representa-
tives prior to reporting back to Council with a recommendation.'
I felt then-and I feel now-that the ultimate solution lies in
one or more of the recommendations in that report. It mas for this
reason that I did not support the request for 50 school buses. It
simply does not make good business sense when something can be done
better and more economically. To the contrary Council would be
derelict in its duty if it df/ otherwise.
I wrote the City of Minneapolis, Minn. on April 5 on the
recommendation of the National League of Cities office pursuant to
244
uy inquiry because I'mss concerned about the.mutter and felt
that there mast be n better ms7 to approach the over-ali
situation.
They put me in touch with Simpson and Curtin
Transportation Consultants.
On April 23, I received certain information from Simpson
and CurtJn which tied into our Urban Study Report and Recommenda-
tions to the effect that a Transit Agency or Transit Authority
. covering buses and parking.is the facilities* most logical and
most economical approach to our problems. They supported this
proposition with examples, statistics and experience.
Three forms of operating control:
(l) Agency ownership and management
(2) Agency ownership with contract management
(3) Agency ownership math lease-back to private management.
0uestions:
(1) Are present transit services adequate?
(2)'If not, in What respect are they deficient?
(3) Financial requirements for present and next five years?
(4) Available revenues from fares, tax relief, operatin,g economies
and prospective assistance from State and Local funds?
(5) Form of ownership and manaqement needed to satisfy the
public interest in your own particular locality?
Same questions in every instance:
I submit:
- Roanoke*s situation - (*city-wide* only)
include: a. School buses?
b. Parkin9 facilities?
c. perhaps'other facilities?
I have contacted Fifth Planning District and Mr. Shauon advises
that without cost to the City Of Roanoke he and a representative Of
Wilbur Smith ~ Associates of Columbia. S. C. will appear before the
Council - in a work session - and discuss various methods whereby
the City of Roanoke can go about implementing the Urban Transit
Study. He assures me that while the District would prefer that we
take a valley-wide approach to au agency - this would not affect
their participation if we limit it just to the City - which I
avocate at the present time**
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that Council resolve
to continue the work of the Transportation Committee, that the Committee review the
entire transportation picture in the City of Roonohe, including that of school
buses, parking and such other facets of transportation as the Committee deems
pertinent; that the Chairman of the Committee contact Mr. Robert M. Shannon,
Executive Director of the Fifth District Planning Commission, to arrange a meeting
between the Committee, Mr. Shannon and a representative Of Wilbur Smith ~ Associate:
at the earliest possible date in order to discuss the orderly, timely and effective
implementation of the recommendations set forth in the Urban Transit Study Report.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ..................................
NAYS: None .........................O,
!1
245
COUNCIL: Mr. ~eeler requested that Council hold ua Executive Session
ut ihe cohclnsioa'of the Council meeting on o reel estete metter.
Hr, Trout moved that Council concur in the request. The motlon was
seconded b7 Hr. Thomas smd adopted by the following vote:
AYES: ~Re~srs. Gsrlend. Limb, Thllor. Thomas. Trout, ~eeler and
Ralor Webber ..................................
NAYS: None ....
J~ENILE AND DONESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The Cl~y Clerk reported'that
#rs. Priscllle Tarplee and Ur. Charles S. Perkins, Jr.. here qualified as members
or the Youth Commission fer terms of'tug leers each ending April 30, 1973.
Hr, Lish nOTed that the qualificetions be'received and filed. The motion
'Was seconded by Mr~ Trout end unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Nayor'Mebber declered the meeting
adjoureed~
APPROVED
ATIEST:
246
COUNCIL, EEGULAB REETING
Mo~d~y,.Ma~ 17, 1971,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber Jo the Municipal Building, Monday, May IT, 1971, ut 2 p~m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Rabbet presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. List, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. h~eeler and Mayor Boy L.
Nebher ....................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ...................... O.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney, Mr. H. Ben Jones.
Assistant City Attorney, and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting nas opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
MINI~fES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
May 3, 1~71. having been furnished each member of Council. on motion of Mr. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof mas dispensed
with and the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING-STATE BIGHRAYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Monday, Bay 17. Ir71, on the request of the City of Roanoke that Section 32.
Building setback lines and sign provisions for major arterial highways, Chapter
Zoning. Title XV. Construction, Alteration and Use of Land. Buildings and Other
Structures. of The Code of the City Of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, be amended by
providing for the modification or ~aiver of certain of the limitations and
restrictions contained in said section by the Board of Zoning Appeals in special
cases, the matter was before the body.
No one appearing in opposition to the request, Mr. Wheeler offered the
following emergency Ordinance:
(~19671) AN ORDINANCE amending and r,ordaining Sec. 32. Building setback
lines and sign provisions for major arterial highways, of Chapter 4.1 Zoning, of
Title XV, Construction, Alteration and Use of Laud,'Buildings and Other Structures,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 195&, as amended, by providing for the modifica-
tion or waiver of certain of the limitations and restrictions contained in said
section by the Board of Zoning Appeals in special cases; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 288.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
247
AYES: Messrso Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and
Mayor Webber .................................. T.
NAYS: Hone .........................
In u discussion of the aattero Mr. Llsk asked the City Manager if the
City of Roanoke would be placing itself in Jeopardy by adopting this Ordinance.
The City Manager replied that the city mill be placing itself in Jeopardy
but he sees no other alternative.
Mr. LJsk than moved that the City Manager be requested to review the list
of requests of property owners for building permits that have been denied by the
City of Roanoke because of the building setback lines and determine mhether or not
the city should acquire any of these properties before the property owners request
that · maiver be 'applied to that particular building. The motion uae seconded by
Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
WATER DEPARTMENT-EASEMENTS: Mr. Lawrence L. Tapscott, Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. Nolao Jackson, et mx., and Mr. James B. Turner, et ox., appeared before
Council and advised that his clients are presently developioq some land on
Wtlliamson Road north of Florist Avenue in Roanoke County for shopping center
purposes, that it is the desire of his clients that the water distribution system
in the shopping center be owned, operated and maintained by the City Of Roanoke and
that his clients would like to give the city all the property easements and lines
necessary to enable the City of Roanoke to operate the water system.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $6,248.29 be appropriated to Maintenance of Buildings and Property
under Section ~?000, *Schools - Haintenance of Plant and Equipment," Of the 1970071
budget, representing amounts received from various insurance companies for certain
damages received through a fire at the Patrick Henry High School and to enable the
School Board to pay Regional Construction Services for satisfactory repairs which
have been completed, was before Council.
Mr. Llsk moeed that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(cig6?2) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =T000, 'Schools -
Maintenance of Plant 6 Equipment,' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for an emergency.
(For foil text Of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption Of thc Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber[ .................................. 7.
NAYS: None .......................... O.
248
AMBULANCES: . A communication from the Roanoke Volley Regionol He,lab
Services Planning Council, Incorporoted, in cosoectJon with · request from United
Ambulance Service. Incorporated. that ambulance operators who wish to operate in
the City of R,an,he be required to secure · certificate of public convenience and
necessity and that the city grant such · certificate to United Ambulance Service.
Incorporated. on on exclusive basis so long os said Company provides competent
ambulance service, advising that a report will be forthcoming after the issue has
been odequately explored and evaluated by a broadly represent,tire group in the
valley and anticipating that the report will be made Jn three months, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communicotion be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unonlmously adopted.
AIRPORT: A communication from Mr. Randoll L. Hurlburt, Acoustical
Engineer, ~oise Ab,t,meat Division, lnglewood, California, in connection with
aircraft pollution noise, advising that a congressional mandate requiring that
aircraft engines be made quieter is needed and suggesting three immediote actions
which could be taken by the governing bodies in connection with the matter, was
before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the Airport Advisory
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was sec,nde(
by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPO[~S OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-MARKE?: Council having referred to the City Manager for study
and report a communication from Mrs. R,maid B. Harris, representing the Downtown
Roanoke Beautification Committee, requesting that Council appropriate $200.00 to be
used for the purchase of a canopy and that $450.00 be appropriated to pay the
solary Of a retired employee three days a week, four months a year, to man a produce
pick-up station ia the City Market area, advising that if the program is successful
the Farmers' Market Association will continue the service at their expense, the City
Manager submitted the following report suggesting that $450.00 be appropriated to
Personal Services and that $200.00 be appropriated to Other Equipment - Replacement
under Section ~66, "iarhet," Of the 1970-71 budget to provide funds for the
employment Of a nan to take care of the pick-up station in the City Market area
and for the purchase of a canopy:
"Roanoke, Virginia
May 17, 1971
~onorable Mayor and City Council
Roaooke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On April 26, 1971, representatives of the Downtown Roanoke
Beautification Committee once again appeared before City Council
to request the matter Of a pick-up station on the City Market be
considered. This matter was before City Council on June 8, 1970.
At that time. City Council approved the expenditure of $200 for
procurement of an awning to shelter the proposed loading area.
However, as funds were not provided for hiring a person to work
249
six to sere· hours a dey'to assist In handling the merchandise
procured at the Market by the patro·s, the Beautification
Committee did not spe·d the funds for this awning.
At the time of their appearance on April 26. the representa-
liver asked that the $200 be reappropriated that they might
purchase the amning and that City Council also appropriate $450
which in their estimate of the funds required to bite an
ettendsnt to ara·sport this merchandise. This amount mas based
on biting aa i·dlvldual tn work three days · week part time at
approximately $1.60 per hour. When this report mas brought to the
City Council, it was referred to the City Manager to determine If
manpower was available nt the Market to perform this function.
Such is not the case and funds would be needed to hire such an
i·divldual. Councll°s cnmmlttee who investigated and reported on
this situation a year ago questioned whether the City could
properly employ a person for this purpose.
Should City Council feel it desirable to do so, funds would
best be appropriated to Extra Help Account for the City Market.
On April 26 when representatives of the Downtomn Roanoke
Beautification Committee brought this request to Council, the
consensus of opinion of City Council appeared to be that they
should go ahead. If this is still the case it mould be suggested
that City Council appropriate $200 to Department Code 66, Market,
Object Code 370, Other Equipment, to procure the awning and
$450 to Object Code 106, Extra Ilelp, under Personnel.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City MnnngeF"
Or. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=19673) AN ORUINANCE to amend and reordain Section n66. 'Market," of the
1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Ho. 35, page 2gl.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by th~ following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ..................................
NAYS: None .........................On
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $2,500.00 be appropriated to Personal Services, that
$~.200.00 be appropriated to Fees for Professional and Special Services. that
$2,000.00 be transferred from Medical and Housekeeping Supplies to Operating Supplie~
and Materials under Section =77, "Civic Center." of the 1970-71 budget and that the
new position of Senior Mechanical Engineer he established at the Roanoke Civic
Center:
"Eoanoke, ¥irginia
Ray 17, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
AS has been indicated recently in several other requests, the
volume of business and activity at the Civic Center mithin thls
short period of time has gone somewhat beyond that which had been
These os indicated below will be included within tke
coming year*s budget~ however, where noted, it is felt that
there is a positive necessity that these people be brought on
os soon as possible and that we have the opportunity of securing
people for the,positions Just as soon as we can. These appro=
pristions thus are for the current i970-71 fiscal year as relate
for one full month.
1. It is recommended to establish a position of Senior
Mechanical Engineer. The Personnel Department has been
requested to prepare specifications to be taken to the
Personnel Board for their review and action. To enable
us to go further math this position, it is recommended
that it be established at mange 24, Step I of the City
Pay Plan. This mould require an appropriation Of STlO
for the current fiscal year. The volume and precision
of mechanical work has indicated that this cannot be
handled fully by the Maintenance Superintendent as had
been originally anticipated.
2. Due to the illness of the Maintenance Superintendent of
the Civic Center, it is necessary to secure part-time
assistance by already competent personnel in the
handling of the various mechanical and control equip-
ment. Aa arrangement has been offered by the Honeywell
Company mbo were the prime suppliers of this equipment
and it is estimated that their contractual services
wuuld cost approximately $1,200 for the remainder of
the fiscal year.
It is recommended that Code 71, Object Code 210, Fees
for Professional Services, be increased from $200 to
$1,400.
3. Under Object Code IOI, Personal Services, the expense
of extra help will shortly deplete this account. It
is believed that overall there are adequate fonds.
$19,000 of the $40,000 originally appropriated has been
transferred to cover stagehand cost although we feel
that this total amount of money will be needed to this
purpose.
It is recommended that this object code be increased by
an additional appropriation of $2,500.
4. It is recommended that $2,000 be transferred from
Object Code 312, Medical and Housekeeping Supplies, to
Object Code 320, Operating Supplies and Materials.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F.' Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
Calf674) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~77, "Civic Center,"
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 291.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber .... ~ ......................... ~---7.
NAYS: None ......................... O.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report
advising Of an agreement with the Norfolk and Western Railway Company for the lease
Of a small tract of land adjacent to the present site at Wells Furniture Company fo]
landfill purposes, that he is referring the agreements as prepared by the Norfolk
and Western Railway Company both as to the lease and as to crossing maintenance and
251
protection over the tracks to the City Attorney and recommending that the tm*
agreements be authorized, subject tn the approval or the city Attorney.
In n discussion of the matter, the City Manager advised that this is a
limited area and that it dues not eliminate any ef the other areas he has suggested
to Council.
Mr. Link expressed the opinion that the landfill problem is s serious one,
that we need an area for sufficient disposal of waste and urged that the Mayor
appoint a new Chairman of the Landfill Committee in order for that committee to work
with the City Manager in his selection of proposed landfill sites.
Mr. Llsk then moved that Council concur in the report Of the City Manager
and offered the foil*ming emergency Ordinance authorizing the city to enter into
agreement with the Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company for landfill purposes:
(m19675) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City's leasing of approximately
6.2 acres Of land from Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company for a term of six months,
for public purposes of the City, and acquiring from said Company necessary rights of
access thereto; and providing for an emergency.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3~, page 2q2.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and
Mayor Webber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None .........................O.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting a memorandum from Mr. M. David Ho,per, Superintendent Of the Police
Department, regarding fees charged for towing of auto,*biles and for the storage of
such automobiles while impounded and retained at the city-owned compound, recommend-
ing that Title X¥III, Chapter 1, Section 157, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as amended, be amended to provide for an increase in the amounts charged:
"Roanoke, Virginia
May 17, lq71
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roan*Re, Virginia
252
companies are suffering a loss while towing these vehicles for
the City. As indicated in the last paragraph of Chief Hooper's
report other companies and persons will deliberately leave
vehicles stored in the City°s Garage or et the vehicle storage
yard and let this 25t a day rate a accrue rather than readying
the vehicle to other storage places mhieh would charge n higher
storage rate.
I have asked the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to
Title ]0, Chapter 1, Section 157, incorporating the revised fees
recommended in Chief Hooper*s report..
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Nanager"
NF. Oarland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Ransger and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19676) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining subparagraph (a), Sec.
Chapter 1, Title XVlll. of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relatle,
to Notor Yehicles and to the manner of redeeming impo.unded vehicles, and the costs
thereof: and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 294.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Mebbcr ..................................
NAYS: None ................~ ........ O.
BUDGET-DEpARTMEr~ OF pUBLIC h~LFARE: The City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting the proposed 1971-72 fiscal year budget material for Public
Assistance which will be forwarded to the State Department of Melfare and Instltutio
for their review.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report and proposed budget be received and filed
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting a recomm~ndation from Mr. Samuel H. McOhee, III, City Engineer, that a
change order be issued to the contract with Hudgins ~ Pace, Contractors, for the
Somerset Avenue Storm Drain Project, to provide for the connection of a 30" pipe Jn
Peakwood Drive to the proposed new Somerset storm drain, in an amount of $6,045.00
and advising that the recommendation from the City Engineer has his concurrence:
"DATE: May 6, 1971
TO: Mr. Hirst
FROM: Mr. McGhee
SUBJECT: Somerset Avenue Storm Drain
This project, under contract to Hudgins and Pace, Contractors, ls
now complete and as built quantities have been determined. The
original contract price was $75,37g.00; the revised contract
amount based on the as built quantities is $68,073.23. This leaves
$'/,305.77 remaining in this contract.
In designing the project certain items were eliminated in order to
keep the estimated contract cost reasonably close to the amount
253
mbich was available for the constrnctinn, lu doing this n
section of pipe uo~ deleted which would hove connected on
existing thirty incb (30") pipe in Penkwood Drive to the pro-'
posed new Somerset storm drain. Me have estimated the cost or
providing this connection bused on the unit price in the con-
tract end have determined tkis cost to be~$6,O45.0q Which amount
is less than that remaining in the contract.
The contractor his indicated to us bis'willingness to construct
this portion of the line nt the existing unit prices as'are 'in his
existing contract.
It is ny recommendation that City Council be requested to approve
the fsouance of n change order for the construction of this
connection, which change order would include an iucrense of
twenty (20) working days In the contract time for the construction '
of this particular segment of line only."
Mr. Mbeeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and the City Engineer and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney
for preparation of the proper measure. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
DUDGET~MARER FIELD: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting a request of American Legion Post Nos. 3 and 248 that the City of
Roanoke waive the requirements of payment of the cost of night lighting and of the
services of officials at baseball games sponsored by the American Legion Posts at
Maher Field during the 1471 season:
"Roanohe, Virginia
May 17, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In the !pring of both 1969 and 1970 City Council received
.requests from American Legion Posts 3 and 248 for assistance in
conducting an American Legion Baseball Program in the City of
Roanobq. This request for assistance was limited to the City*~
payment of the cost of night lighting and for.officials* services
for these games.
By Resolution No. 19251, dated June 29, 1970, City Council
approved the expenditure of appropriated funds for this purpose
for the 197q season.
At this time the Parks an~ Recreation Department has again
been requested to provide these same services for this year.
It has been determined that funds are available within the Parks
and Recreation budget to cover these costs and the City Attorney
has been asked to prepare a re~olution to cover this calendar
year should City Council desire to approve the expenditure of
funds for this activity this year.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. DUrst
Julian F. Hirst
C~ty Manager*
Nro Lish moved that Council concur in the request of the American Legion
Posts and offered the following ReSolution:
(~19677) A R~SOLUTION approving and directing the City's payment of the
of night lighting ~nd for service~ of o~ricials at baseball games at Maher
Field between teams competing in the American Legion Baseball Program.
(For full tax( of Resolution,' see B~solutiou Book ~o. 35, page 295.)
2~4
#r. Link moved the adoption of th~ Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adapted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Bheeler end #myer
Mebber-- 7.
NAYS: Nooe --0.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report recommending that
payment be made to Sherertz and Franklin, Architects, in the amount of $14,146.16 end
$2,062.00 for planning and design on proposed alterations and additions to the
Airport Terminal Building at Roanoke Bunicipal (Moodrum) Airport:
'Roanoke, Virginia
Lay 17, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As will be recalled, the City engaged Sberertz and Franklin,
Architects, for planning and design on the proposed alterations
and additions to the Airport terminal building, This matter has
continued for some period of time and we contacted that firm to
advise us as to their costs to date in order that the City might
pay then for services that have thusfar been rendered so that the
accounting for this project might be kept current.
It will be possibly further recalled that the firm prepared
plans and specifications for work at thet~minal which resulted
in an estimated construction cost of $562,750. This encompassed
expanding the lobby, offices for the FAA, enlarging the restaurant
on the first floor, canopies, basement, baggage space and interior
remodeling.
A requested alternate to this mas for new ceiling, lighting
and air conditioning for the existing lobby which estimated at
$30,000. This produced a total project of $592,750. The firm
has advised as follows with respect to that phase of the project.
*Base Hid $552,750.00
Alternate Bo. I (Not included in our
Statement No. 1) 30.000.00
Total $592.750.00
Total Fee is 6~. Percent of fee now due is
6% of $592,750.00 is $35,565.00
.75~ of $35,565.00 = $25,gb3.91
Less Previous Payment 11.817.75
Amount Now Due $14,146.16
*ln accordance Mltb the AIA contract, 75~ ia due at the
tine of bidding, However.. our mechanical consultants had
not completed the air=conditioning specifications. There-
fore, we feel that 73~ is a fair amount.'
After the above the City Council then asked for additional
studies which principally involved a second story restaurant
facility and an enclosed and expanded baggage facilities. The
product of this latter phase was s~hematic drawings. No planning
and specifications were prepared for actual bidding. This phase
is best determiued on a cost plus basis as provided in the
contract with the architects. The firm advises that this latter
phase is calculated as follows:
'Architect's Time 59 Hrs. 8 $6.40
Draftsmau'$ Time 83 Hrs. ~ $4.00
Partner*s Time 42~ Hrs. @ $15.00 =
Travel 53 mi. @ 10S
$ 377.60
332.00
$ 709.60
x 2
$1,419.20
637.50
$2,056.70
5,30
$2,062.00'
255
It is considered that payment of these two amounts are in
order and it is accordingly recommended that the Council authorize
from the capital fund for the Airport terminal payment to Sherertz
end FrenRlin or $14,146,1~ end $2,062,00,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, ~lrst
Julian F. Nirst
City Msna~er'
Mr. Mbeeler mooed that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney fo~ preparation of the
proper measure. The motion mas seconded by Br. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion of ~e matter, ~r, iLisk raised the question as to mhethev
the City can utilize any of the plans as prepared by the architects.
The city #anage~ replied that it would depend upon the location of the
terminal building and that the plans are suitable for bidding on expanding the
terminal.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the City Manager be'requested to furnish Counci
with a status report on how Council should proceed in the 1971-72 budget in connec-
tion with the Airport Terminal Building, The motion mas seconded by Br. Taylor
and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a written ?eport
transmitting a recommendation of the Mill Mountain Zoo SubcommittEe that the
entrance charge to the Children*s Zoo atop Mill Mountain be increased from ten
cents to tmenty-five ~ents.
Mr. Ltsh moved that Council concur in the recommendation and that the
matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that he bas two copiesof a document from the Fifth Planning District
Commission entitled, "Interim Sewage Plan," and that he mill endeavor to rotate
these copies among the Councilmen.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Dr. ~aylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The Cit.y Manager submitted a writte]
report in connection with the employment of u Zoo Manager for the Children's Zoo
atop Mill Mountain.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council .concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure incorporating this position into the Pay Plan. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-SALE OF PROPERTY: The City Attorney suumitted the following
report ad.vising that Se Ci,ty of Roanoke has now received from their .insuran~e
companies and deposited in the General Fund checks in the sun total of
as payment in full for the fire loss of the London Elementary School:
256
"Nay 17. 1971
Honorable Mayor ned #eebera
of'Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Vlrginln
Gentlemen;
On Noveeber 1, 1970, the London Elementary School in the City of
Roanoke uas destroyed,by fire or unknovn origin. On November 16,
1970, Council appointed a committee to act on the matter of insurance
adJustment fur the loss.' The City, through this office has filed
proofs of claim for the above loss mith the insurance companies mhich
had policies providing coverage for both the City of Roanoke property
end companies providing coverage for tbe School Bm rd of the City
of Roanoke.
Prior to the filing of proofs of loss, the Conncii*s Committee,
considering an appraisal made of the value of the building,*
fixed the valuation of $87,000.00 aa the amount of the loss. The
cost of the appraisal mas $400.00.
Proofs'of loss mere thereafter made to the insurance companies
involved mbo subsequently agreed upon the sue of $67,000.00 as the
amount of the CJty*$ loss, disallowing the $400.00 cost of appraisal.
This is to advise that the City bas mom received from said companies
amd deposited in the General Fund checks in the sum total of
$87,000.00, as payment in full for the fire loss of the London
Elementary School.
Respectfully,
S! Edward A. Matt
Edward A. Natt.
Assistant Cl~y 'Attorney"
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted a mritten report requesting the
opportunity of a meeting math the Mayor and Members of Council, the City Manager
and the City Auditor in Executive Session during or after the eeetin9 for the
purpose of discnssin~aud considering certain pending legal matters.
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the 'request of the City Attorney
for an Executive Session at the conclusion of the Council meeting. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of Roafl(
for the month of April, 1971.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion of the report, Mr. Garland predicted that based on the
figures contained in said report the City of Roanoke mill have a surplus of over two
million dollars at the end of the present fiscal year on June 30, 1971.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation n request of Mr. James M. Brammer, et mx., Mrs. Ida Ollie
Byrd, Mr. John G. Pollard, et mx.. Mr. Houston M. Ferguson, and Mr. Elmer G. Quam,
et mx.., that property described as Lots 20, 21 and the eastern lO feet of Lot 19,
257
Block 8, Onkridge Addition, Official Tax No, 4212216, Lot l, Block It McDonald
Addition, Official Tax No. 4212221. Lot 2, Sloc~ 1, McDonald Addition, Official Tax
No, 4212220, Lot 1, Block 9, McDonald Addition, Official Tax Mo. 4212308 and Acreage
end the eosterly 30 feet, more or less, of Lot 14, J. B, Mebb Map, Official Tax
Nos, 4220211 and 4220212. be rezoned iron RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2,
General Commercial District. the City Planning Commission ~ub~itted the follomfug
report r~co~mendlng that the request be denied:
"April 8, 1971
7he Bonoruble Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, ¥1rgieia
Centlemen:
The aboYe Cited request was considered'by the CiaI Planning
Commission at both its meetings of March 17 and April ?, 1971,
Mr. Thomas Engleby, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the petitioners are
requesting to rezon~ these residential properties for a commercial
district designation. Be noted that the property is only about a
block or two from u commercial district. Be also noted that Mr.
8rammer is seeking to operate a laundromat, and Mr. Pollard owns
the property on the north side of Dale Ave. and.feels that his
property should be joined in with the other property. Re stated
that Mr, Ferguson has no purpose in mind for his property and
Mr. ~uam wishes to develop a small commercial shopping center,
Re stated that th~ property to the north side of Dale Ave.
IS separated by a steep hill.
Mrs. Mary Quarles, a local resident, appeared before the
Planning Commission and presented a petition signed hi 50
residents in opposition to the rezonieg request. She stated that
property owners care about what happens in their immediate
neighborhood.
Mr. McQuire. a local resident.'appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated that everybody in the neighborhood is against
the reaoning petition.
Mr. J. D. Laurence, Planning Commission member, ilquired if
this rezoning petition was put together for any one particular
purpose.
The Planning Director noted that {his petition represents
a clear spot zoning type situation, in addition to strip commercial
development which will serve to blight and debilitate the area.
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unanimoasly
approved recommending to City Council.todeny this request.
Sincerely,
$/ John H. Parrott, by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
In this connection, a communication from Rt. J. Thomas Engleb~, III,
Attorney, representing the petitioners, advising that his clients do not desir~ n
public hearing on the request for rezonJng and that the request be withdrawn,
was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Cooncil concur i~ the request to withdraw the petition
for rezoning. Thc motion ~as seconded by Mr. Thomas'and unanimously adopted.
,258
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISBEO BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDI~NCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 19652, vacating, discontinuing and
closing 24th Street, S. W., extending from Patterson Avenue to the right of
way line of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company and Bridge Street, S,
having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mas
again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the following for its second reading
and final adoption:
(~19652) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
tbat portion of 24th Street, S. M., in the City of Roanoke, Virginia extending from
Patterson Avenue in a southerly direction approximately 195 feet on the west line
and 199 feet on the east line to the right of may of the Norfolk and Western
Railway Company and a public road as shomn on Sheet No. 131 of the Tax Appraisal
Nap of the.City of Roanoke, Virginia, and lying between Sections 50 and 57 on the
Meat End and Riverviem Yap°
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook NO. 35, page 279.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notJo~.was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mehbe~ ........
NAYS: None ..... O.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 19653, vacating, discontinuing and clos
lng a portion of Janette Avenue. S. W., between Fourth Street and Franklin Road.
$. R., having previously been before Council foe its first reading, read andlaJd
over. was again before the body. Mr. Lisk offerin~ the following for its second
reading and final adoption:
(a19653) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing all
that portion of.Janette Avenue, $. N., betmeen the westerly line of Franklin Noad,
S. N** extended and the easterly line of Fourth Street. S. W.. (being also the
westerly edge of *Calvin Place~), in the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 2BO.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ..........
NAYS: None O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19654, rezoning property located on Branbleton
Avenue, S. M., west of Montgomery Avenue, described as Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block
20, Map of Park Square, Official Tax Nos. 1551137 and 1551139, from RS-3, Single-
2'59
Family Residential Dlstricto'to RD. Duplex Residential District. having'previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again beror~ the
body. Mr, Mheeler offering the folio,Jug for Its fecund reud~ng and final adoption:
(n19654) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥. Chapter 4.1.'Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanohe. 19S6. ~s amended.' and ~heet No. lS6. Sectional 1966
Zone Rap. City of RounoRe. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text o£ Ordinance. see Ordinance Rooh No. 35. page 282.)
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoptlun of the Ordinance. The motion ,as seconded
by Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber T.
NAYS: None. O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19655~ rezo~ing'a .56 acre tract of land located
at 2101 Dale Avenue. S. E.. described as Lots 5. 6. 7 and fl. Section 3. Rap of
Parkview, Official Tax Nos. 4310g05. 4310906. 431090T and 4310908, from RG-I,
General Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
the body, Mr. Trout offering the followin9 for its second reading and final
adoption:
(nlg655) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanohe. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 431, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text'of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 2R3.)
Mr. Trout moved th~ adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was'seconded
by Er. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES~ Messrs.'Garland, Lisk. ?aylor,'Thomas, Trout,'Nheeler and Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19656. rezoning property located on the .esterly
side of Edison Street, N. E., and a short'distance north of Liberty Road, described
as Lots §E, 5F and 5G, Map of the property of D. P. Magann~'bein9 a division of
Lot 5, Section 1, Liberty Land Company Nap, from RO, Duplex Residential District.
RG-2, General Residential District, having ~ eviously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body. Mr. Trout offering
the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(nlg656) AR ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥. Chapter 4.1, Section'2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1g$6, as amended, and Sheet No. 310, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35, page 284.)
260
Hr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Hr. Wheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Thonss. Trout. Rheelev and Mayor Mebber~6
NAYS: Mr. Link -1
SENERS AND ~ORN DRAINS: Ordinance No. 19662. authorizing and providing
for the acquisition by t~e City of Roanoke of a certain perpetual easenent in land
needed for the proposed constructlo~ of a sanitary saner main through Lots I and 2.
Block 2. ~ccerdlng to t~e Union Stock Yard Corpo~ation Nap. in ii, City of Roanoke.
upon certain terns and conditions; and. in consideration of the grant of said ease-
sent. providing for the c~ty*s release, quitclaim and abandonnent of all right, title
and Interest In and to a portion of an adjacent sanitary sewer easement through Lone
Oak Avenue. N. E** and Larchuood Street. N. E** non vacated, having previously been
before Couflcllfor its first reading, rend and loJdorer, was agaln before the body. Mr,
7haman offering the follouiag for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19662) AN ORDINANCE authorizing nad providing for the City's acquisition
of a certain perpetual easenent in land needed for the proposed construction of a
sanitary namer main through Lots I and 2, Block 2, according to the Union Stock
Yard Corporation Bap, in the City, upon certain terns and conditions; and, in
consideratioo of the grant of said easenent, providing for the City's release,
quitclaim and abandonment of all right, title and interest in and to a portion aY
an adjacent sanitary sewer easement through Lone Oak Avenue, N. E., and Larchwood
Street, N. E** oas vacated.
(For full text of OrdinanCe, See Ordinance Book No. 35, page 286.)
ir. Thomas nov~d the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Mr. ~rout and adopted by tie following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber --?.
NAYS: None. .O.
STADIUM: Ordinance No. 19669, accepting the proposal of Stoae*s Enterprise
for concession pritileges to be exercised at Yfctory Stadium and tbs athletic grounds
in Raher Field for the period commencing as of May 1, lqYl, and ending December 31,
lgYl, with an option to renew for two additional y~ars provided that the city shall
not itself have undertaken to provide such articles and services and have so notified
Robert E. Stone, trading as Stone*s Enterprises by November 30, 1~71, having previous-
ly been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
the body, Mr. Trout offering the follouiag for its second reading and final adoption:
(#lO6~g) A~ ~RDINANC£ awarding certain concession privileges to be exer-
cised at Victory Stadium ~nd the Athletic grounds in Baher Field upon certain terms
and provisions, on the basis of a certain bid made therefor; directing the execution
of a requisite contract; 'and rejecting all other bids made for the award of said
privileges.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 267.)
'261
Mr. Trout mated the adoption of the. Ordinance. The notion nas seconded
by Dr~ Taylor end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland, LISh. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ,?.
NAYS: None, .0.
PARES ANB PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure extending an invitation to the Hoard of Trustees of The
Science Museum of ¥irgfnia to neet in the City of Roanoke in June end. while
in the city. inspect and investigate the clty*s Mill Mountain Path area as a possible
location rot the establishment and construction of a State Science Museum facility.
he presented sane; nhereupon, Mr, Link offered the following Resolution:
(#IgC?H) A RESOLUTION extending an invitation to the Hoard of Trustees
of The Science Museum of Virginia to meet in Roauoke and consider Roanohe as a
location for a State Science Museum.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hooh No. SS, page 295.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None .... O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mrs. Zaman K. McManaway appeared before Council
and read a prepared statement in connection with appropriating money for the
construction of a hippo house at the Children's Zoo atop Mill Mountain, expressing
the opinion that if the reputation of a city depends upon providing a shelter for a
hippo, then we must reexamine our values for things.
Mr. Lisk moved that the statement be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STADIUM: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that the term
of Mr. C. James Colston, President of the Touchdown Club expired on December 31, 1970
that the name of the Touchdown Club has been changed to the Roanoke Valley Sports
Clob, that the President of the Roanoke Valley Sports Club will serve as a member
of the Stadium Advisory Committee for a term of one year ending December 31, 1971,
and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr, Link placed in nomination the name of Andrew H. Thompson.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Andrew H. Thompson was elected
President of the Roanoke Valley Sports Club and a member of the Stadium Advisory
Committee for a term of one year ending December 31, 1971, by the following vote:
FOR MR. THOMPSON: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nhoeler
and Mayor Mebber 7.
CITIZENS* ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mayor Mebber called to the attention
~ooncil that there is n vacancy on the Citizens* Advisory Committee created by the
resignation of Mr. George E. Riddick, for n term ending April 14. 1972, and called
for nominations to fill the vacancy,
Dr. Taylor placed in nomination the nam~ of the Reverend G. Thomas Turner~
There being no further nomJnationso the Reverend G, Thomas Turner
elected ns a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee to rill the unexpired term
of Mr. George E. RJddich. resigned, ending April 14, 1972, by the following yore:
FOR REVERENH TURNER: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout,
Mheeler and Hayer Mebber ...............
PLANNING: Mayor Rubber called to the attenti'on of Council that there Is
a vacancy on the Fifth Planning District Commission'created by the resignation of
Mr. Henry S. Hoynton for a term ending June 30. 1973. and called for nominations
to fill the vacancy.
Rt. Mheeler placed in nominatien the ndme of John H. Parfait.
There being'no further nominations. Mr. John H. Parrott was elected
as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission to fill the unexpired term
of Rt. Henry B. Boynton, resigned, ending June 30. 1973, by the following votel
FOR MR. PARROTT: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler
ond Mayor #ebber .7.
There being no further business. Mayor Mebbef declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
A PP RO VE'D
Mayor
263
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
Monday. May 24. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roan,Re met in regular meeting In the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, May 24, 1971, at 2 p.mo, the regular
meeting hour. with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A° Garland, David K. Link, Noel C, Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber---T°
ABSENT: Nose O°
OFFICERS PRE$£N~: Hr. JulJafl F. Hlrst. City Manager, Mr. Hyron £. Hamer.
Assistant City Manager. Mr. James N. Klncanon, City Attorney, Mr. fi. Ben Jones, Jr..
Assistant City Attorney. and Mr. A. N. Gibson, Assistant City AodJtor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend Rranan G.
Pastor, Colonial Avenue Baptist Church.
MINIVER: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday. May
10. 1071, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Dr. Taylor.
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed
with aod the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA~ER$:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, May 24,
1071, on the request of Mr~ John M. Thompson, et ux., that property described as
Lots 20, 21, 22 and the westerly and southeasterly portion of Lot 23, Block 3, Map
of Liberty Land Company, Official Tax Nos. 3101304, 3101305, 3101306, 3101307 and
3101310. be fez.ned from RD. Duplex Residential District. to RE-l. Gm oral Reside
District. the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"April 22. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The above cited reqsest was considered by the City Planning
Co,mission at Its regular meeting on April 21, 1971.
Mr. Frank N. Perkins,n, Jr., attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and made a presentation outlining the
proposed fez,ming of the property in question. Be showed the Commis-
sion members preliminary drawings of the apartments proposed for the
site and stated that there was no opposition in the area ~ the fez,ming,
although one neighbor had expressed the desire that certain trees
located on the site be retained, which would be done. In support of
in the area, that such a development would not adversely affect neighbor-
ing properties, and that the site was in proximity to a LM district.
Mr. Thomas U. Brown, a local resident, requested clarification of
certain aspects of the proposal in order to find oat what impact it
might have on his own property. Be also stated that his questions did
not constitute opposition to the proposal,
Thompson,
264
Mr, Light of the City Building Department asked what relationship
the area hod to the nearby L# district.
#r,'Grlffin, Assistant Planning Director asked why the petitioner
had not sought to build duplex units on the property and thereby con-
form to the existing zoning.
After some discussion concerning the possibility of ultimately
developing that portion of the site on Rhlteside for commercial use,
a motion'wis wade, duly seconded and unanimously approved recommending
to City Council to approved this.request.
,Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. ~emon by
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Vice--Chairman'
Mr. Frank N. Perkinaon, Jr., AttOrney. rep~esenting the petitioners.
a~peared before Council in support of the reques~ of his ~lients.
No one appearing in opposition to th~ r~quest for rezoning, Mr. Wheeler
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n19679) AN ORDINANCE to'amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City or Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 310, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roauoke, in relation to Zoning,
WHEREA~ application has been made to the Council of the Cit~ of Roanoke.
to have those certain parcels of land loca{ed in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on
Fugate Road, ~. E, and being ~ore particularly described as Lots 20, 21,22 and the
westerly portion of'L~t 23. and southeasterly portion ~ Lot 23. Block 3. according
to the Bop of Liberty Land Company; and
Being the same property devised to John W. Thompson and Dorothy Thompson
by Will on record in the Court of Law and Chancery for the City of Roanoke. Virginia
in Will Book 37. at page 125; and being designated as Roanoke City Official Tax
Numbers - 3101304, 3101305. 3101306. 310130~ and 3101310, roughed from RD, ~uplex
Residential District. to RG-I, General Residential District; and
NHEEEAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General
Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and posted
as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearin~ as provided for in said notice was held on the 24th
day of Ray lq?I, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be beard,
both for and against the proposed rezonin9; and
MHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described lnnd should be rez'oned.
265
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the Code or lhe City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning. and Sheet.No. 310 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke
be amended in the rol~omlng particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Fugnte Road, N. E, and described as Lots 20, 21. 22 u~
the uesterly portion of Lot 23, end southeasterly portion of Lot 33. Block 3, accord-
lng to the Map of Liberty Land Company; and being the sane property devised to John
M. Thompson and Dorotb~ Thompson by Rill on record in the Court of Law and Chancery
for the City of Roanoke.'¥irginia. Jn Mill Book 37. at page ]25. designated on
Sheet 310 of the Sectional 1966 zone Rap, city of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos.
3101304, 3101305. 3101306, 3101307 and 3101310. be. and is hereby, changed from RD,
De, lei Residential District, to RO-I, General Residential District. and that Sheet
No. 310 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LJsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Rheelerand Mayor
Webber ................... ?.
NAYS: None ...... O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, May 24.
1971, on the request of Messrs. James E. Ailstock and William fl. Patterson, that
property located at the corner of'Missouri Avenue and Tenth Street. ~ E., described
as Lot 3, Block 10. according to the Map of Fairmont. Official Tax No. 3060601, be
rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2. General ~esidential District.
the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follomlng
reportrecommending that the request be granted:
"April 22. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
RoOnoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plantin9
Commission at its regular meeting of Apri~ 21, 1971.
Mr, C. Richard Cranmello attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Co~mission and stated that the petitioners wish
to rezone the property in question from a RD to a RG-2 zooin9 classi-
fication in order that two 0 unit apartment buildings be constructed
on the site. The property itself, according to Mr. Cranmell, is
approximately 16,000 square feet in size, and, owing to its steep
ch!ratter, would require some fill before the apartments could be
built.
No questionswere asked by members of the Planning Commission
except for one request for clarification about the amount of fill
that would be required by Mr. Boynton,
The Assistant Planning Director pointed oat that the question'at
issue was whether or not a higher ~opnlation density would be desirable
in this area. Owing to the proximity of industry, the character of
existing development and the low lc?el of public iqvestment in the
area in terms of street improvements, etc., he felt that it was by
no means certain that such a rezoni~ wo~ld be in the best interest of
the City.
266
Accordingly, motion was made. duly aeconded ond unnnimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request,
Sincerely.
S! Creed K. Lemon by NRG
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Vice-Chairman'
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezonlug, Dr~ Taylor
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(m19680) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 306. Sectional 1966
Zone Rap. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MREREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property located at the corner of Missouri Avenue and Tenth Street. N. E.,
described as Lot 3. Block 10. according to the Rap of Fairmont, Official Tax No.
i3060601, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2. General Residential
District; and
NHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General
Residential District; and
MHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4~1, Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and poste(
required and for the time provided by said section; and
NHEREAS,~e hearin9 as provided for in said notice was held on the 24th
day of May, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
#HEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. DE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, that Title
XV, Chapter 4,1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 306 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map, City of Roanoke
be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at the corner of Missouri Avenue and Tenth Street, N. E.,
described as Lot 3, Block 10, according to the Map of Fairmont,. designated on Sheet
306 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 3060601,
be, and is hereby, changed from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General
Residential District, and that Sheet No. 306 of the aforesaid map be changed in this
respect.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, l~ylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None O.
2'67
S~IrERS AND STORM DRAINS: Ri. Lee B. Eddy, Chairman of the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisor~, appeared before Council and r~ad n prepared statement in
connection with the possibility that the State Borer Control Board may act t~
prohibit nam sanitary sewer connections in'all areas ~erved by the Roanoke City
Semn~e Treatment Plant. advising that the State Rater Control Board has scheduled
this matter for a hearing at I p.m., on June 15, 1971, that n unified and coordinated
approach to the June IS hearing mill be the most effective one, and respectfully
and earnestly requesting that the City of Roanoke allow the Rosnoke County Board of
Supervisors to participate in that response and suggesting that a meeting be held at
the earliest possible date to include t~e full membership or representatives of all
affected political Jurisdictions and other interested organizations to plan a Joint
presentation mhJch will have the maximum favorable impact on the State later Control
Board'on June 15, 1971.
Mr. G. M, Nicks, Mayor of the Town of Vinton~ Virginia, Mr. E. Al Graybill,
former Mayor of Troutville. Virginia, and Hr. Jack C. Smith, Executive Vice ~resident
of the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the request of the
ifloa~d of Supervisors of 'Roanoke County.
Mr. Frank Angell, representing the Roanoke County Public Service Authority,
ia'ppeared before Council and spok~ in support of the request of the Board of Super-
visors of Roanoke County and urged that the 9overnin9 *bodies of all of the political
subdivisions in the Roanoke Valley work together in solving the problem, Mr. Angell
stating that ~e is confident every member of the Roanoke County Public Service
~uthority will resignif this is mhat it mill take to permit future sewer connections
in the Roanok~ V~lley.
At the request of Mayor Jabber, the City Manager outlined the status
~f sewage treatment facilities in the City ~ Roanoke and plans for future expansion
lad improvement.
Mr. Hampton H. Thomas. Chairman of the Sewer Committee appointed by the
3ity of Roanoke, outlined the mark being done by his committee in connection with
sewage treatment facilities.
After a very lengthy discussion. Mr. Garland m~ved that the matter be
~eferred to the Sewer Committee for its i~formation in connection with its study
)f semage treatment facilities.
The motion was Seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously
Jdop~ed.
B~O~ET-TAXE$:' Mr. Leslie O. Long, State DireCtor of the American Associa-
;ion of Retired Persons, appeared before Council and read a prepared statement
~etitioning Council to adopt an Ordinance to annul Ordinance No. 16225 aug further
*etltioning the body to provide in the nam Ordinance that all bona-fide citizens of
:oanoke whose age is 65 years or over, ~he own or live in their homes,'be 9ranted
~xemption from paying real estate taxes on their homes, provided their total income
foes not exceed $5,000.00 per year and their assets, other than their homes, do not
xceed $20,000.00.
268
After a discussion of the matter, Mr, Thomas moved that the request be
referred to 1911-72 budget study~ The'motion'nas seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimous]
adopted,
TRAFFIC-SCHOOLS= Hr, Charles E. Rrlght, Government Teacher ut Jefferson
Senior HJgb School, appeared before Council and introduced Miss Jane Duncan, Mr.
Hike Sassard and Hr. Richard Ferris uho presented the results'of certain surveys
conducted at Jefferson Senior High School in connection with the parking problem
there, recommending that the City of Roanoke issue on street parking permits for
students on the streets indicated in their traffic survey, that the city purchase n
parking lot on Luck Avenue and 6th Street. S. H., and that a wall on school property
adjacent to the right front lawn of Jefferson Senior High School next to the alley
be leveled off and this segment of lomn converted into parking spaces and ~equestlng
that the matter be referred to a committee composed of two City Councilmen, Hr.
Richard P. Via and Mr. John R. Hraybill for study, report and recommendation to
Council.
Rt. Lisk moved that C~uncil concur in the request of representatives from
Jefferson Senior Hi9h School that a committee composed of Hr. Richard P. Via, Hr.
John R. Graybill and two City Councilmen be a~pointed by the Mayor to consider the
problems of parking at Jefferson Senior High School. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Hobber then appointed Messrs. Noel C. Taylor, Chairman, James O.
Trout. R~cha~d P. Via and John R. Graybill as members of the committee.
BUDGET-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION-RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS.
TOTAL ACTION AGAINST FOVERTV IN ROANOKE VALLEY: The Reverend . M. L. MinnJck, Jr.
President of the Roanoke Valley Ministers Conference, appeared before Council and
read a prepared statement requesting th~ the City of Roanoke operate the swimming
pools in Rashington Park, Eureka Park and Hurt Park during the summer months of 1971
and that u study be made of the feasibility of a municipal swimming pool system for
the City of Roanoke, said study possibly to include · plan for phasing out the
pools in Mashington Park, Eureka Park and Hurt Park as the new smimming pools are
built and put into operation.
In a discussion of the matter', Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that Council
should take definite action on the matter at the present meeting and moved that the
request be granted, th~ City Attorney to prepare the proper measures accordingly.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor moved that the question of'providing a municipal swimming
pool be referred to the City Manager to confer with the Department of Parks and
Recreation for study,'report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
269
In this connection, a communication from Hr. Robert N. Fishburn, Chairman
of the Board o£ Directors, Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, advising that
It is the recommendation o! the later Safety Committee of the Roanoke Valley Chapter,
American Red .Cross, that the City of Roanoke should operate the swimming pools in
Washington Park, Eureka.Park and Hort Park on an Interim basis mhlle a permanent
solution is sought, mas befo~e Council,
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
TAXES: A communication from Mrs. Marguerite R. Peters, requesting informs
tiou as to whether or not the real estate taxes for elderly persons will be reduced
and if so, how much, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COMRONWEALTN*S ATTORNEY: Copy of un Order from the Hustings Court of the
City of Roanoke with regard to the appointment of a Comronwealth*s Attorney for the
City of R~anoke to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Samuel A. Garrison. III, resigned,
and ordering that Mr. Richard Lee Lamrence be appointed as Attorney for the Common-
wealth, effective May 1, 1971, was before Council.
Mr~ Trout moved that the Order be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY MANAGER: The City Manager submitted a written report recom-
mending that $132.00 he transferred from Printing and Office Supplies to City Manager
Special Fund under Section ~3. "Manager," of the 1970-71 budget.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lObOl) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u3, -Manager,# of
the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: iessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
lebber 7.
NAYS: None .... O.
BUDGET-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report recommending
that $500.00 be transferred from Rotor Fuel and Lubricants - Resale to Personal
Services under Section ~55, "Airport** of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds
compensate traffic amd communications personnel at the airport who have been
working the runways at night when the airfield is inactive and to provide sufficient
funds for uny emergency mhich might occur.
270
Mr. Trout moved that.Council concur In the recommendation or the City
Manager nad offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19682) AN OMDINANC£ to amend and reorduin Section n6S, 'Airport."
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 297,)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the-Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by MF~ Mbeeler.aud adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland..Lish. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ?
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting the
proposed 1971-72 fiscal year budget.
Mr. Thomas moved that the proposed 19?l-T2 fiscal year budget be tahen
under consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection. #r. Lisk presented the following communication suggest
lng certain budget proposal procedures:
*No. 1. I would like to suggest that when we start our
1~?1-72 budget sessions to request that these
sessions be recorded by a member of the City .
Clerh's Office,
No. 2. That Council meet as a whole to discuss salaries
of all top administrative personnel, with a copy
of information on each administrative personnel
such as name, date of employment, position held,
salary that has been paid for each of last five
)~ars and length of time to serve before retire-
ment.
No. 3. That a list of priorities be established under
Capital Improvements as well as Replacement of
Equipment for consideration when working on the
budget.
No. 4, That we try to meet on May 26, 27, 28. 31 and June
2 and 4. from 2 p.m.. to 5 p.m., and 7 p.m.. to lO
p.m. I would hope that this would be sufficient
time to complete the total budget."
in a discussion of the proposal that budget study sessions be recorded
by a member of the City Clerk*a Office. Mayor Webber pointed out that the City
Auditor a~d the Assistant City Auditor. the City Manager and the Assistant City
Manager attend all budget study sessions of Council, that under the Cit~ Charter
the preparation of the budget for its final adoption by Council comes under the
jurJsdictlou of the Eity Manager and the City Auditor. that with the present
workload of the City Clerk's Office to take an employee out of that office to attend
budget study sessions would necessitate the employment of an additfunal employee in
that office to insure the continuance of the present work schedule during the
budget Study sessions.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that a record of the matter discussed
in budget study sessions will benefit him personally as the sessions progress and
suggested that Council at least obtain a tape recorder for the recording of said
budget study sessions.
After a further discussion of the matter, Mr. Llsk moved that the budget
study sessions be recorded, The motion mss seconded by Mr. Th,mss,
Mr, Garland offered u substitute motion that the City Msnnger obtain
a tape recorder to record the b~dget study sessions. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lfsk and adopted, Councilmen Trout, MAe,lev amd Mayor Mebber rating no.
With reference to his suggestion that Council meet as a Committee of the
Mhole to discuss salaries of all top administrative personnel, Mr. Lisk moved that
Council abolish Its committee provided for under the Pay Plan to review the
salaries of unclassified employees and that the City ~ttorney be directed to prepare
the proper measure ~ccordingly. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and nnnniuousl
adopted.
Mlth reference to his suggestion that a list of priorities be established
under Capital Improvements as mall as Replacement of Equipment for consideration
when marking on the budget, Mr. Lisk moved tbatthe City Manager be directed to
furnish such n list of priorities for the information of the members of Council.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
After a discussion of the matter of setting the hour and date for the
budget study sessions. Council decided that the sessions mould he held from ? p.m.
to 1! p.n,, on June 1o 2, 3, and 4, lg?l.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the
foil,ming report on the status of the personnel in the Police Department and the
~ire Department for the months o~ March and April, lgTl:
*Roanoke, Virginia
May 24, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Listed below ace the personnel changes for the Policeand the
Fire Departments forth, months of March and April 1971:
Fire Deoartment
There mere ua changes in personnel in the Fire Department during
the months of March and April, 1971. There is one vacancy in the
Name Hired
Milliam N. Rams,y, Jr. December 1o 1969
David Lariy Smith March 8, 19TI
John F. Port,cfi,Id March 10, 1971
Victor L. Hamblett March 15, 1971
George C. Handle March 15, 1971
Dennis M. Davis March 29, 1971
Tommy Curtis Bradley March 29, 1971
Paul Jacob Jones ~pril 5, 1971
Fred Wayne Robinson April 5, 1971
Frnda Lovert Till~nn,' Jr. April 5, 1971
Benjamin Lewis Cart April 19, 1971
George Douglas Matts April 25, 1971
Ending April 30, 1971 (25) vacancies.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian Fo Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Resioned
March 4,.1~71
Mr.' Thomas moved tba~ the report be received nnd filed. Tbe mbtion was
seconded by Mr. Trout nnd'ununlmo'usly adopted.
CLAIMS-SCHOOLS: The City Attorney submitted n urttten report'in connectlol
with n motion flied by Cynthia D~ Green, utc., et el., v. The School Board of the
City of Roanoke. et al., praying that each member of Council be made parties
defendant in'the case, advising that, ns authorized nnd directed by Council, there
was on May 14, lqYi, filed on behalf of Council and the City of Home*he · motion
in opposition to the motion of the plaintiffs that the members of Council be named
parties defendant in said case.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the CltyPlonning Commission for
study, report and recommendation a request of Mr. Roy Brandon, that the easterly
half of Lot 3, Block l. Map of'Upson Addition, the uesterly half of Lot 4, Block 1,
Rap of Cpson Addition and the westerly half of Lot 3, Block 1, Map of Cpson Addition
Official Tax Nos. 316020?, 3160226 and 3160208, be fez*ned Rom RD. Duplex Residenti~
District. to RG-2. General Residential District, the City PlannJn9 Commission submit-
ted a written report recommending that a RG-I rezoning be approved in lieu of the
requested RG-2 rezoning. ' '
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for fez*ming he held
at 2 p.m., Monday, June 21, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimous
ly adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of Mr. James M. Brand*n. that property located
on Riverland Road. S. E., described as Lot 2-A on a plat showing 43-subdivision of
property of James O. Kasey. being all of Lots 11-22, inclusive, and Lots 22-A and
A-l, Section No. I and all of Lots 1 - 8, inclusive. Section No. Z, Map of Malnut
Hill. Official Tax Nos. 4041105, 4041109. 4041110. 4041112, 4041113 and 4041115.
be fez*ned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District. to RD, Duplex Residential
District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that
the request for rezoning be granted.
Hr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for fez*ming be held
at 2 p.m.. Monday. June 21. lgYl. The motion mas seconded by Mr; Trout and unanimous
ly adopted.
ZONING: Councl] having referred to the Clay Plnnnlng Commission for stud~,
report and recommendation the request of Mr. Russell Lewis Short, that property
located on the westerly side of Mestside Boulevard, N. M.. described as Official Tax
INos. 2751201 and 2750909. be fez*ned from RD, Duplex gesidential District, to HG-2,
General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommending that the request for fez*ming be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the requent for rezonlag be held
at 2 p.n,, Monday, June 21. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and uoanimou~
ly adopted.
ZONING: Council buying referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report nod recommendation the request of Hr. Luther J. Hammond that property located
in the 1900 bloch of London Avenue, N. ~** described aa Lots 3 end 4. Sloch 31,
Hyde Pork Land Map, Official Tax mos. 2323511 and 2323512, be rezoned from RG-I,
General Residmtial District. to L#, Light Manufacturing District, the City
Planning Commission submitted n written report recommending that the request for
rezoning be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday. June 21. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred to the City Manager to
confer mJth the Mill Mountain Development Committee a report of said Committee
requesting that sufficient funds be appropriated by Council to proceed with detailed
landscape plans for a proposed wild flower garden area in Mill Mountain Park,
the Mill Mountain Development Committee submitted the following report advising
that it has been determined that the scale drawings for the wildflower garden will
cost approximately $500.00 and requesting that said $500.00 be included in the
1971-72 budget:
May 19, 1971
Son. Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
Members of City Council
On April 12, I appeared before you on behalf of the Mill
Mountain Development Committee with request that sufficient fnods
be appropriated to cover the cost of preparing scale drawings for
the proposed Mildflower Garden on the mountain, subject to the
Committee. ascertain what is needed, and report bach.
Subsequently. Assistant City Manager Byron E. Hamer, Planning
Director Lothar germelstein, Parks Director Rex Mitchell and others
met with the Committee on the Mountain and went over the project
with Mr. Joe Seer, a Blue Ridge Parkway landscape architect.
At this time it was determined that preparation of the scale
dramings necessary to permit work to begin later this year and to
be completed in the spring of 1972 will cost approximately $500.
Me therefore request that the sum of $500 be budgeted for this
purpose in the next fiscal· year, 1971-72.
Opening of the new J. S. Fishburn Parhmay is expected to create
additional parking problems. However. the Committee wishes to defer
making recommendations until after it is learned if the State may be
for parking expansion.
In 8ny~event, funds for pl~nnlag the parhing area probsbly
should be provided ia the new badger,
Respectfully~ '
S/ M. Carl Andrews
M. Carl Andrems
Chairman, Mill Mountain
Development Committee'
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council co~cur in the request of the Mill Mountain
Development Committee and that the matter be re[erred to the City Attorney for
preparation ?f the proper measure accordingly. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
SCDOOLS: A committee composed of Messrs. David K. Llsk, Chairman, J.
Robert Thomas, Janes N. Kincanoa and Julian P. HOrst submitted the foll~wiag report
recommending that Counci~'give'~uthorization t~ removing the building ~n the former
London Elementary School property and refer the use of the property to the City
Planning Commission for a recommendation or recommendations as to the studies they
would give to said property, and. also, recommending that the matter of the former
Rlverdale Elementary School property be referred to tb~City Planning Commission as to
the disposition or use of that property:
*Roanoke, Virginia
May 24, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
Your Real Estate Committee met on May 19, 1971. and considered
a number of matters which will be reported to the City Council from
time to time. One immediate matter mhich had been referred to the
Committee deals with the former Leaden Elementary School property.
It is the opinion of the Committee at this point'that t~e City
should proceed to demolish and remove the building. The Committee
further feels that the most advantageous use of this property would
be to convert it to an attractive neighborhood park area.
It is recommended to the City Council that the Council give
authorization to removing the building and also refer the use of the
property to the City Planning Commission for a recommendation or
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Cooncil as to the
studies that the Commission would give to the property.
The Committee also recommends to tb~City Council that there be
referred to the Planning Commission the matter of the former Riverdale
Elementary School property for a recommendation as to the disposition
or use of that. property.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ David K. Lisk
David K. Limb, Chairman
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S/, J. N. Kincanon
~. N. Kincanon
S/ Julian F. HOrst
Julian F. Nlrst*
Mr. Llsh moved that Council concur in the recomuendotiuns of the committee
nnd that the matter be referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report nad
recolmendutlon to Council. The motion wan seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
on June 22. 1970, providin9 a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan.
by adding to said Pay Plon Code Position 1234. Zoo Manager and Code Position 3174.
(u19653) AN ORSINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19R36. heretofore adopted
· (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 29T.)
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by tho folJosiug vote:
~ebber .... ?.
SEMERS AND STORM 0RAINS: Council having directed the City Attoraey to
prepare the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to issue, for nnd on behalf
~of the City of Roanoke, Change Order No. I to the contract with Hudgins & Pace,
Contractors, dated October 13, 1970, for the construction of the Somerset Avenue
storm drain~oJect, so as to provide for the installation of a section of pipe in
Peahmood Drive to the proposed new Somerset Avenue storm drain, he presented same;
whereupon, MFo Trout offered the follouing Resolution:
(nighS4) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager*s issuance of Change
Order No. 1, in connection with the City*s contract for the construction of the
Somerset Avenue storm drain project.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 3§, page 298.)
Yro Trout moved the ~option of the Resolution, The motiun nas seconded
by Mr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Yebber ......................7.
NAYS: None ........ O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure increasing the entrance charge at the Mill Monntaln
offered the folloming Resolution:
(nlghRS) A RESOLUTION increasing the entrance charge at the Mill Mountain
Zoo from 10 cents to RS cents.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 3S. page 299.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas Seconded
by Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and M3yOF
~ebber ?.
NAYS: None O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mrs. Lela Spitz, Director of the Humane Education
Services. appeared before Council and read the following prepared statement recommend
Jag that the City of Roanoke employ a qualified director of the Children's Zoo, give
him the authorization along ~th a Board of Directors to dram up a master plan for the
Zoo. give the Zoo Dizector and the Hoard of Directors full authority to determine the
selection of animals and facilities needed, etc.. and in the meantime, recommendin9
that any obligation to accept large animals be delayed or cancelled, thereby givin9
the new Zoo Director a chance to survey the situation and suggesting that Council
consider building a Planetarium on Mill Mountain which mould enhance the chances of
obtainin9 the State Science Museum in this area:
Mrs, Lelm Spitz
1971 Oak Dr,, Rt. 4.
Salem, Virginia. 24153
iny 24, 1971
To: Roanoke City Council
SUBJECT:'Alternative plans for Chlldren*s Zoo nad related proposals.
Gentlemen:
First I wish to compliment the study committee for their hard moth;
businessmen for their willingness to donate animals; and architects
for their proposed plans for the zoo. I am pleased to see such
enthuslnsim over prospective plans to improve the zoo; however, in
all the excitement I feel that the original purpose of the Zoo
Improvement Committee Just 'got lost in the shuffle.'
The publicly stated purpose of the Zoo Improvement Study was: To
evaluate the conditions at the existing zoo Including housing, feed-
ing, and general care of the animals as well as of their selection.
The study was Supposed to leah Into the location of the Zoo, Its
potential and determine if the mountain top is the best place for
it, including cost, facilities, general animal-living conditions,
space projection and how the animals 9ot along together.
Instead. according to the news media,, the whole idea of a Children's
Zoo became centered around its potential as a money-making project,
rather than an educational one. The question of having large animals
at ail became secondary to the prospects of how many elephants were
wanted, who should name them, and whether city ordinances would
allow names of commercial business donors on public property. And
then when a hippo became available, transportation arrangements
were made for it. an arrival date was publicly announced, and
construction of 'temporary hippo quarters' wes started - all without
prior consent or approval of City Council - and in spite of the fact
that Council slashed funds by more than half the requested amount
for the existin9 Zoo.
Two large animals do not constitute a Zoological park; and while
they probably would attract crowds, they would also create a carnival
'freak~show' atmosphere, which is the very opposite of the academic,
scientific and educational purpose of a Zoological Park. To
paraphrase Desmond Norris. former curator'of the London Zoo, and
now one of the world's best-known zoologists: The heyday of this
type of zoo was back in the time when Africa was still darhest and
intrepid adventurers brought back exotic and astonishing creatures
for all to see for the first time. Today. you can 9o on a holiday
safari and see animals roaming in their natural habitat. If you
can*t afford that, the cinema's wide screen will bring it right into
the home. At the same time that wildlife is vanishing in almost
every corner of the globe, can we really afford to rob the wild of
its few remaining riches for this type of zoo?
There WaS an excuse for it oece, centuries ago, when we were ignorant
of all the fascinating details of animal life and looked upon
animals simply as brute beasts provided for our pleasure. But we
have come a long way since then, and the medieval menagerie should
be no more than an ancient monument.
Mr. Morris says that a city zoo usually covers a small area and
houses a large selection of animals. They cram the animals in to
give the public its money's worth - as if the animals were candidates
for some ludricrous Noahts Ark, or, worse still, singly, in a
painful solitary confinement. He says that this policy leads to
the exhibition of bored, frustrated and neurotic animals, and that
eventually this type of zoo will nauseate our society. He suggests
smaller, sore'specialized type of zoos which have been tried and
found successful both educationally and financially.
In my opinion, Roanoke will not support'a professional Zoological
Park at the present time; and therefore, I suggest that we work
towards a first-class Children's ZOO, with smaller,'tame, some even
pet,able animals. The building now housing stuffed animals could
be used to display conservation or ecology-oriented projects, and
'the showing of filmstrips related to the environment.
Z ~e¢~m&nnd t~=t the clay employ · qcelified director for the Child-
ren*r Zoo; qive hlm tho authority {along mltb a board of directorr}
to dram ~p a maimer plan for the zoo, and give them full authority
to determine'the selectiOn of animals, facilities needed, etc. In
any case, it ir imperative to oeparate costs for necessary improve-
ments for existing no6 from future expansion plans. A breakdown
of costs on each item in each proposal ia needed, Also establish
a separate priority list for improvements nad.expansion.
In the meantime, I recoumend that any obligations to accept large
animals be delayed or cancelled, thereby giving the new Zoo
Director a chance to survey the situation,
Another suggestion, is to consider bull~ing a Planetarium on Hill
Hountain, thereby enhancing'our chances of obtaining the State
Science Huseum in this area. The Chlldren*s Zoo and t~ Planetarium
together mould fit in nicely with any type of nature-science, center
plan for the'moontnln; and mould most certainly attract to*rifts
from all over the area.
Sincerely.
S/ Lela Spitz
Hrs. Lela Spitz, Director
H~HANE EDUCATION SERVICES'
Hr. Thomas moved that the statement be referred to the Hill Mountain Zoo
Committee and to 1971-72 budget study for their information. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Carland then moved that HFS, Lela Spitz beappointed as an additional
member of the Hill Hountain Zoo Committee. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council having referred to 1971-72 budget study the
question of constructing a field house im Highland. Park to be used by students at
Jefferson Senior High School, Hr. Trout read the following prepared statement
recommending that funds be appropriated as soon as possible for the construction
of the Jefferson Senior High School Field House and that the recommendations of the
City Homager for upgrading the lighting and parking area in High hud Park be
deferred until budget study:
"Roanoke, Virginia
Hay 20. 1971
Honorable Hayor and Hembers of Roanoke City Council:
A recommendation that we reconsider the request to construct
the Jefferson field house.
At the time Council received the original request, incoming
revenoes were at tho downtre6d while expenses of the Ci%y still had
to be met. However, the financial position of the City has changed
in the past leu ~onths. Since th~ request me have gained revenue
from our licemse tags and the arbor'us*al tax revenues. Also,
Council'deposited in the general fund the insurance check for the
Sum of some $60,000 for the Loudon School property.
· e should recognize the fact that the field house request mas
made by the School B~rd. Therefore, I feel it mould be in order
for us to consider using the revenue from the Lood0n School for
this purpose. Any decision concerning the school could not be
consummated in the budget time anyway. Therefore, ! think it is
more important to go ahead and use this revenue'for a facility
that has already been planned; namely, the Jefferson field house.
279
At the time the total construction cost for the neu facility
men some $??,000. Later ft was recommended by the City Neneger
that we Increase this amount by adding' in the cost or the improve-
meats that would be required rot u sidemslh from the roadmey up
to the building nnd adequate lighting of this melkuay iud Improve-
meats to the parking urea. Also, it mas rocomtelded that there
should be a rellghting and upgrading of~e lighting system along tho
roadmay through the park and at the immediate park entrance, There-
fore, the additional recommendations greatly increased the total
project cost to n point where Council Just could not neet this
request at that time. However. having voted with the maJority, I
do reel that It is my privilege to recommend that me reconsider
this request under the present circumstances.
In order to have the field house completed by next football
season. It is most important rot us to advertise rot bids and
appropriate the money as soon as possible. Therefore. it mould
be my recommendation that me appropriate the money for the field
house as originally planned and carry over into our budget study
the City Manager's recommendation for upgrading the lighting and
parking area.
S/ James O. Trout
James O. Trout
Vice Mayor*
Mr. Trout moved that Council reconsider its previous action. The motion
seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor and Tm ut ...................... 4.
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas, Hheeler and Mayor Mebbet ................... 3.
]na discussion of the matter, the City Manager stated that he does not
reel uoexpended school funds derived from the insurance proceeds from the Leaden
Elementary School should be used for this purpose.
After a further discussion, Mr. Trout moved that the question of appropri-
ating funds for the construction of the Jefferson Senior High School Field House be
referred to the City Attorney and the City Auditor for preparation of the proper
Mr. Link offered a substitute motion that the Council of the City or
Hoanohe request the Roanoke City School Board to appropriate funds Out or the aoexpen
ed balances in its 1970-71 budget for the construction or the Jefferson Senior High
School Field Douse. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted, Mr. Trout
voting no.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-STATE HIGRMAYS: Mr. Mheeler offered the following
Resolution commending and expressing the appreciation of the Council of the City or
Roanoke to the Virginia Department of Highways. the Virginia Commission of Outdoor
Recreation, the National Park Service and the Blue Ridge Parkway, and their officials
and representatives, for their assistance to the City of Roanoke and for their
cooperation in providing the hem 1.69~mile recreational access road on Mill Moantain
constructed as Highway Project 9999-129-102-C-501, and designated and opened on
May 17. 1971, as the new J. B. FISHBUBN PARKYA¥:
(#19686) A RESOLUTION commending the Virginia Department of Highways, the
Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation and the ~atieael Perk Service tn connection
with recent provision of an access road from the City to the top of Mill Mountain
and to the Blue Ridge Pathway.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 299.)
280.
Mr. Mkeeler moved the adopt/on of the Resolution', The motion was seconded
by Nr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Ta'ylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber- 7.
NAYS: None* O.
INDUSTRIES: The Cit.y Clerk reported the Nessrs. M. Bolling Izard and Rober
M. Moody have qualified as Directors of the Industrial Development Authority of the
City of Roanoke. Virginia, for terms of four years, each. ending October 31, 1974.
Mr, Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion nas
seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted. . .
PLANNING: The City Clerk reported that Mr. John H. Parrot, has qualified
as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission to fill the unexpired term of
Mr. Henry B. Boynton, resigned, ending June 30, 1973.
Mr.'Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: The City Manager submitted a mritten report respectfully request-
la5 the opportunity og an informal meeting math Council on m~tters pertaining to
property, said matters having developed since the preparation of the Agenda and
advising that he considers it appropriate to confer witch Council as early as
possible.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concui in the request of the City Manager for
an informal meeting with the members of Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
Mebber
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
T.
NAYS: None
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting adjourn.
ed.
APPROVED
ATYEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
281'
CO0~CIL, REGULAR MEETING,
TueSdoy, Juee 1, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 1, 19TI, ut 2 p.m., the regular
meeting houro With Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David E. LJsh, Hoel C. Taylor,
Hampton W. Thomas, James O. Trout, YJocent S. l~beeler aud Mayor Roy L. Webber ..... 7.
ABSENT: None ...........................................................O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Bauer, Assistant City Manuger,. Mr. B. Ben
Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, and Mr. A. N. Gibson, Assistant City Auditor.
INVOCATIDN: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend E.
flenJamin Sanders, Pastor, 'St. Elizabeth*s Episcopal Church.
MINUrKS: CopF of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday. May lq
1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Llsh, seconded
by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and
,be minutes approved aF recorded.
CITY GOVERNRENT: Mr. Llsk advised 'that he attended a meeting of the Sister
City Committee on May 270 1971, at the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce and that
Dr. Robert F. Doth of ~onJu, Korea, presented to him mud be accepted on behalf of the
City of Roanoke a solid wooden block carved bilaterally with Chinese calligraphy
which i,s an example of Korean 'Mokphan* ur moodeo printing plate, Mr. Llsk pointing
out that it 'is One of at least seven such blocks which comprise the printing plates
· for a Korean Government Official's family record, that the block is a cultural and
social necessity for anyone in government affairs or prominent in society in general
and that Confucian and Buddhist practice also require SUch records as a.sign of
filial piety, i. e. respect for ancestora.
Br. Lisk then presented the wood printing plate to Mayor Webber on behalf
of the Sister City Committee.
Mayor ~ebber accepted the wooden printing plate on behalf of the members
of Council and the cltizeas of the City of Roanoke and expressed appreciation for
said gift,
mayor ~ebber then presented the wooden printing plate to the Assistant City
Manager who was instructed to have the plate displayed in an-appropriate locatiou for
all citizens of the City of Roanoke to view. *
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ACTS OF AcKNowLEDgEMENT-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Reverend Calvin B. Fulton
Chaplain of the Mountain Dale Lodge m4g, appeared before Council and introduced
Mr. William Tripplett, Past Grand .Master of Virginia,, Mountain Dale Lodge m49o who
presented an American Flag to the members of Council to be displayed inside the
Coliseum at the Roanoke Civic Center.-
282:
On behalf of t~e members of Council and the citizens of the City of Roanoke
Mayor Mebbe~ acce~ted the American FLag and expressed appreciation to Moontaiu Dale
Lodge #49 for their most generous gift to the City of Roanoke.
Mayor Webber then presented the flag to the Assistant City Manager mbo UBS
Instructed to bar~.t~e flag Clown ~n the proper lo~atlon,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BU.DGET-SCB~OLS: A communl,cation f~om the Roanoke City School Board, re-
iquesting that certain transfers be made within thei,r 1970~71 budget,, was bqfore
'Council.
· Mr.. Lisk moved that Council. concu~ in the ~equest of the Roanoke City
School Uoard and offered t~e following emergency ~rdlnance: ,.
(zig66?) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1970-
71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for on emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 303.)
~r. Lis.k moved the adopt,ion of the Ordinance. The motion uss seconde~ by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, h~eeler and Mayor
Webber ................................ 7. :
NAYS: N,aa .................O.
BCDGET-SCBOOLS: A communication from t~e Roanoke City School .Board, re~
questing that ~227,210.55 be appropriated to Section #71000, *Schools - Project SSS
(Tonic for Learning),* of the 1970-71 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, to
~rovide funds for a program which will reach approximately 1700 children, grades
£ - 5, at no cost to the city since ,it ts 100 per cent reimbursed from Title l, P.
69-10 funds, Was before Council.
Dr. Taylor ~oved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
Project SSS (Tonic for Learning)** of the 1~70-?1 Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dunk No. 35, page 304.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, I/heeler and Mayor
Webber ...............................
NAYS: None ................O.
BUDGET-SCBOOLS: A c~mmunlcation from the Roanoke CitT School Board, re-
questing that $51,000o00 be appropriated to ~ocial Security - Others under Section
zao00, ,'Schools - Fixed Charges,," and that $25,000.00 be appropriated to Social
Security - Food Services under Section #~000, "Schools - Food Services," of the
1970-71 budget of the Roanoke City School Board,. to provide funds to reimburse the
283
Genera) Fund of the City of Roanoke for FICA payments made on behalf of.classified
personnel during the 1970=71 fiscal year, mas before Council.
Mr. LJsk moved tbst Council concur Je the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(s19609} A~ OBOINANCE tm amend and reordnfa Section se000, "Schools -
Fixed Charges,' and Section m9000o "Schools - Food SerVices,= of the 1970-71 Appro-
priation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 305.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded bY
Mr. Garland and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber~ .............................. ?.
NAYS: None .....v .......... O.
BUDGET-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: A communication from Mr. Richard L.
Lawrence, Commonwealth*s Attorney, requesting that $1,415.00 be appropriated to
Office Furniture and Equipment - New and that $g2.50 be appropriated to Maintenance
o~ Machinery and Equipment under Section ~22, "Commonmealth~s Attorney," to provide
funds for certain dictating equipment and main~enance contracts thereon to be used
by his office, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred.to IgYI-T2 budget study. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
hie POLLL~ON COA~BOL: A cgmmuaJcation from the State Air Pollution Con-
trol Guard, advising of certain meetings of the. State.Air PollutionControl Board
tn various parts.of the Sta~e of ¥irginia to consider the mnjor,~eF!slqn of all
State Air Pollution Control Board Rules in order,to comply with the.requirements of
the ~lenn Air Act of 1970, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by ~r. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: A communication ~om Mr~ James L. Hunter, Executive
Director, Virginia Commission for Children and Youth, advising thatthe Governor of
Virginia has requested his office to assist in nominating young Virginians for the
award of the Young American Medals for Bravery and Service in,lq?O, and requesting
that the City of Roanoke submit their,nominations to him by June 30, lqYl, mas
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement. The motion
seconded by Dr. ~aylor and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition signed by 2& residents in the vicinity of
Eases Road, S. E., requesting the consideration of Council for repairs to an impass-
able situation exirting on Eases HaRd, S. E., from Yeataor Street to the Roanoke
County line, was beforq Council.
28'.4'
' ' Hr. Llsh moved that the latter be referred to the Cltl Hanoger for lnvesti*
gntien and report to Council, The motion nos seconded bl Hr. Fneeler and unenllousl~
adopted;
AUDITORIUH-COLISEDH: Mr. Warner N. Delhouse appeared before Council end
advised that the Room,he Vnllel Chomber of Conmerce formed a committee earlier this
lear to study the idea of n convention bureau for Roan,he nith its new.Civic Center
facilities, and transmitted n recommendation for the formstion of.au effective
Convention Bureau on an.economical but productive basis and urged favorable consider-
ation of this proposal in order to enhance the reputation of~the City of Roan,he as
a leading convention center and provide new sources of revenue for mae Roanoke Clric
Center.
Hr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to lg?l-?2 budget study. The
motion nas seconded bi DF. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING:. A petition from Hr. James R. Fulghum, Jr** Attorney, representing
Hrs. Ethel n. Bndford. requesting that ?.38 acres of land, bounded on the northeast
by Hiller Street, N. H., and on the west and south by Peters Creek, described as
Official Tax No. 2720105; be rea,ned from RS-3, Single-Foally Residential Districte
to BG-2, General Residential District, mas before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rea,ming be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. )/heeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranuell, Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. C. A. Karim and Mr. J. L. Mead,r, requesting that property located on
Fallon Avenue, $. £., described as Lots 1 - 8, inclusive, Section 5, ParhvJew Court,
Official Tax Nos. 4311101 - 43i1108o inclusive, be reT,ned from aG-I, General
Residential District, to aG-2, General.Residential District, mos before Council.
Dr, Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to.the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas
seconded byMr. Faa, let and nnanimously adopted. :
ZONING: A communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. William J.,Moody, requesting that property located in the 4100 block of
Virginia Avenue, N. W., described as Lots ID, lg and 20, Section 2, West Park,
Official Tax Nos. 2761208, 2761209 and 2761210, be fez,ned from C-2, General
Commercial District, to C-l, Office and Institutional District, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for reT,ming be referred to.the City
Planning Coamtssion for study, report.and recommendation to Council. .The motion was
seconded by Mr. ~heeler and unanimously' adopted. :
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
leDGEr-SEWERS A~D STORM DBAINS4BONDS: The Assistant City Manager submitte~
a mritten report of the City Manager recommending that ~3,000.00 be appropriated to
Fees for Professional and Special Services under Section m320, "Water - General
Expense,' of the 19TO-TI Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance and that $1,000o00 be
appropriated to Fees for Professional and Special Services in the 1970-71 Sewage
Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, to provide funds to cover legal fees lncl
red in connection uith the issuance and sale of bond on March 2, 1971.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager end offered the foliouing emergency Ordinance appropriating $3.000,00 to
Fees for Professional and Special Services under Section a320, "Mater-General
Expense,''of the 19TO-TI rater Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(x19690) A~ OSDINANCE to amend and reordain Section a320, 'Water-General
Expense," of the 1970-71 Water Department Fund, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Boob No. 35, page 305.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ............. O.
Mr. Thomas then offered the follouing emergency Ordinance appropriating
~1,000.00 to Fees for Professional and Special Services in the 1970-71Seuage
Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(~19&91) AN ORDINARCE to amend and reordain the 1970-71 Sewage Treatment
Fund, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordieance Book ~o, 35, page 306.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .... 7.
NAYS: None .0.
BUDGET: The Assistant City Manager submitted the folloming report of the
City Manager recommending that $3.300.00 be appropriated to Morkmen*s Compensation,
$500.00 to Refund of Fines, $300.00 to Damages to Property and ~lB&.44 to State Tax~
Morkmen's Compensation under Section z91, 'Ngn-Departmental." of tbs 1970-71 budget]
to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥1rginia
Gentlemen:
An analysis of Non-Departmental Fund Account 91 reveals
overexpenditures.
Object Code 116, Morhmen*s Compensation is overexpended
by $639.g0 with an outstanding award of SI,S00 yet to be paid
to James H. Turnbull. Jr. It is estimated that $3,300 should
be appropriated to this object code.
Object Cede 91, ieruad Of Fines iS~o~verexpeuded by S288,10.
It is estimated shut On sppropriation of $500 will provide suffi-
cient fonds to cover this account the remainder of the year. Tmo
additional Hon-Departmentul accounts, Account Via ure short of
fonds. During construction the n~u municlpsl building incurred
damage to one of its large glass windows. The insurance company
paid the City rot the repairs; homever, the balance of $800 in
Object Code 532, Dsmage to Property, is inadequate to cover the
cost of $1o100 to replace this glass. An additional $300 ii
everdramn end needs additional funds. As · result of this tbs
An additional $186.44 iu needed to balance Object Code $34,
It would be recommended that $3,300 be appropriated to Non-
Departmental Account 91, Object Code 116, lorkmen*s Compensation,
$500 be appropriated to Object Code 53go Refund of Fines, $300
· be appropriated to Object Code 532* Damage to Property and $186.44
to Object Code $34° State Tox-Workmen's Compensation,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Nirat
City Manager'
MF. Thomas moved that Council conc~F in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
Cmlg692) AN OMDIRANCE to amend and reordain Section mgl, *Non-Departmen~
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 35, page 306,)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. ~isk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheele~ and Mayor
Nebber 7.
NAYS: None, O.
BUDGET-AIRPORT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report of
the City Manager recommending that $100.00 be transferred from Motor Fuel and Lubr
cants - Resole to Operational and Constructional Equipment - Replacement under
Section ~65, *Airport,' of tbs 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the replacement
of a power push mower which sustained a cracked ma'in motor housing and shield ~hich
is not replaceable or repairable at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport.
Mr. Nheeler moved that Council concur ~ the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#lgGg3) AN ORDINANCE to amend and ,reordain Section n65, *Airport,*
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 307.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout,.Nh~eler and Mayor
Webbex '.7.
NAYS: None ,0.
287
BUI~ET-AUDITOBIU#-COLISEU#: The Asolstont City Manager submitted · mrltten
report of the City Manager recommending that $2000000.00 be appropriated to Special
Promotion Fund under Section n??, 'Civic Center.' of the 1970-71 budget, 'to provide
funds needed to reimburse entertainers nad promoters for engagements nt the Roanoke
Civic Center.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(m19694) AN ORDINANCE to amend end reordeiu Section xYT, "Civic Center."
of the 1970-?1 Appropriation Ordinance. end providing for aa emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 308.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the f, Il,wing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................. T.
NAYS: None .................. O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City ~ansger advising that a proposed contract agreement between the City of
Roanoke and The ~lrst Netioeal Exchan9e Bank, mhereby the bank is underzrlting the
full cost to the city for the purchase from General Indicator Corporation of the
scoreboard and message board for tbe Coliseum at the Roanoke Civic Center, will be
oubmitted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(=1969S) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City's lease to The First National
Exchange Bank of Virginia of the exterior space available on the scoreboard in the
Coliseum at the Roanoke Civio Center and fifteen percentum of the time available for
the electronic transmission or display of advertising messages on or by neons of the
scoreboard, upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, offer having been made to the City by The First National Exchange
Bank of Virginia to enter into the lease agreement hereinafter provided and referred
to, a copy of mhich said proposed agreement is on file in the office of the City Clef
and
IsHEREAS, the City Manager and the Council's Civic Center Advisory Committee
having recommended to the Council that such proposal be accepted by the City.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City. Manager be. and he is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the
City and the City Clerk to.seal and attest a written lease to The First National
Exchange Bank of ¥irginia leasing to said Back: First, all of. the exterior space
available for the display of visual advertising upon; and, Second, fifteen percentnm
of the available time for the electronic display of visual messages by means of and
upon the score and message board ("scoreboard') of the City, installed in the
at the Roanoke Civic Center, upon the following terms and conditions:
288 '
ns of March 25, 1911;
2.. Said Bank shall pay to .the City upon ~ritten demsnd as rent for the
entire term of tmelve years the sum or $74,295,40;
3, The construction of said scoreboard shsll be SUhStnntinllyr in accordsn,
with the pious and specifications contained in an exhibit to be attached to said
lease;
4. The ~lty shall retain exclusive control and right to control the use
and operation ~f the scoreboard and at its own. cost shall repair and maintain the
same in gc~d order and condition daring the term of the lease and shall arrange for
its operation at all times b~ a competent person or persons;
5. The City shall indemnify and save harmless the Bank from all claim oF
liability for injury or. death to persons or damage to property 9taming oat of the
use and operation of the scoreboard;
6o The Bash shall have exclusive ~se for display advertising of all
available space upon the scoreboard and appurtenances and to the exclusive use of
approximately fifteen percentum of the time during which same is in use or available
for electronic display of advertising me,sages during scheduled events and activitie]
for and daring the term of said lease, and shall have exclusive use and control of
remaining available electronic display time not leased and awned by lessee and may
permit others sponsoring current or future events at thc Civic Center to el~ctronical
ly display announcement of such sponsorship and the names and advertising messages
of such Sponsors during such time;
7. The Bank shall use such space only for the purpose of displaying thereo
its name or corporate symbol or trade or service mark or that Of its corporate parent
or of any subsidiary of said corporate parent; and shall use the electronic display
time for the purpose of identifying and describing its services and those of its
parent and parents' other subsidiaries and for the display of such other messages as
may be proper and lawful, the contents thereof to be the decision of the Bank, pro=
vtded the same be reasonably related to a description of the foregoing, the text of
all such advertising messages so displayed to be furnished to the City in advance of
the tine for display as shall be necessary for proper programming;
6. The Bank shall not sublease or assign to another or others any of its
rights h~reunder, nor make any charge for the use of any portion of the available
electronic display time reserved by the Bank;
9. The Bank shall ~ndemnify and save the City harmless from all suits,
claims and liabi~ties, including costs connected therewith, for any infringement of
trade or service marks, copyright, libel, slander, invasion of privacy or unlamful
publication 9rowingout of the display of advertising messages upon and by use of th(
scoreboard;
,!
-289
10. In the evest of the damage or destruction of tbe Civic Center by fire
other casu<y und the City's election mithheld for slx months tbereufter not to
repair or replace the sase, including the scoreboard, than auld lease abull terminate
or the date or such damage or destruction, and the City shall prorate and remit
to.the Bask that portion of prepaid rest applicable to the unexpired term of the
lease;
11. The City shall reserve the right to replace or modify said scoreboard
provided such replacement or modification shall not reduce the exterior space
available for the display of visual advertising upon or adversely effect the use of
as a means of electronically displaying visual messages;
12. The City shall not lease or permit the use of surface space or permit
electronic display of visual messages on said scoreboard for the purpose of adver-
tising or of electronic display of visual messages of any other bash or financial
organization or institution, nor permit the use of any other surface space in the
Coliseum for advertising which would obstruct OF interfere mith the sight of the
scoreboard ·from any of the seats in said Coliseum; provided, that such shall not be
construed to limit or restrict the use Of surface space or Of electronic display on
Civic Center, o~ any part thereof, for any use or activity permitted by the City and
the display of such advertising or of visual messages is related to amd limited by
the period of such engagement.'
13. By mr'itten notice given by the Bank to the City not less than six
months prior to the terminatio~ of the tm*lye-year term of said lease, the Bank shall
have the rig ht to lease the scoreboard then installed in the Coliseum and fifteen
percentum of the available time for electronic display of visual messages thereon for
an additional term of eight iears at an annual rental of $&.lBS.00 per annum, payable
each year in advance, and, otherwise, upon the same terms, conditions and provisions
are set out and provided herein; provided, however, that should the City subsequent
to receipt of such written notice of election to extend the term of said lease have
obtain an offer or offers from others than the Bank for the lease of the rights an~
privileges herein provided to be leased to said Bank, any one of which such other
offers are then acceptable to the City, the Bank shall have the right to extend the
within provided lease of said scoreboard and of fifteen percentam of the electronic
~lsplay time thereon for the same tern and upon the same rental and conditions as
may then have been offered by such Other person, firm or corporation and found ,
acceptable by the City.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
· AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..................... ~ .......... 7.
NAYS: None ................. O.
29'0
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having referred to the CitI Manager for
studio report and recommendation a report of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory
Commission recommending that th~ City of Roanoke accept the gift of the Grand Piano
and Furniture Company, Incorporated. to.completely furnish and decorate, without
expense to the City of Rounokee the 'Sews Media Room' at the Roanoke Civic Center,
t~he Assistuat City Manager submitted the following report of the City Manager
reconnending that the offer be accepted:
"Roanoke° Virginia
June 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
As the Civic Center Advisory Commission has informed the
City Council, the City is in receipt of a very generous offer
from Mr. George Cartledge, SF.o and Grand Piano Furniture
Corporation. of the donation of furniture and furnishings for
a room in the coliseum of the Civic Center. This room will be
used for the accommodation Of the working news media during
the tine of events at the coliseum and will be available for
use by special visiting dignitaries to the Civic Center complex.
The room Will be under the supervision and control of the
management Of the Civic Center and the specific details of its
use have not fully beon developed bat will be norked out jointly
with all concerned. In the design of the building, a room on the
main floor of the concourse was provided for such a p~pose.
A resolution has been prepared by the City Attorney ex-
pressing appreciation fo~ this generous offer and it is
recommended for approval by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection, the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission submitted
a written report again recommending that the City of Roanoke accept the offer of the
Grand Piano and Furniture Company, Incorporated,. for the furnishing and decorating
of the *Sews Media Room* at the. Roanoke ~Jvic Center.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory
Commission be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor then moved that Council concur In the recommendation of the Clt
Manager end offered the folloning Resolution:
(~1~695) A RE$OLUTXOS ecceptin~ an offer of Grand Piano ~ Furniture Com-
pany, Xnc. to furnish and decorate the room and spaces at the Roanoke Civic Center
to be designated for the use of representatives of the press and other news media,
as a gift to the City.
(For full tex~ of Resolution, see Resolution Rook SO. 35, page 308.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: ~essrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ................................. ?.'
NAYS: Hone .................. O.
At this point, the City Manager entered the meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ~ELFAR£: Council baying referred to the City Manage]
for study, report and recommendation certain queslions in connection mith the
dity food program, the City Manager submitted tho foil*ainu report summarizing the
City of Roanoke commodity food program, past and ~current, as to volume, commodities
expenditures and schedules; a listing of four typical aitualJona for comparison of
the client or user costs between commodities and food stamps; and the proposal of
the Commodities Distribution Section of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Commerce for financially participating in the Roanoke commodity food program,
vising that there does not seem to be justification to try to operate both the
commodity food program and the food stamp program since the confusion of the
administration and decisions upon the clients would soon discontinue such a paralle
arrangement, proposing that a warehouse type building In the 500 block of Salem
Avenue, S. W.. be rented amd that the distribution system be transferred to that
location~
"Roanoke. Virginia
June 1, 1971
Honorable Way or and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The City Council has had before it requests of various
individuals, from time to time, asking that the City change
the commodity distribution program to the food stamp program.
This is a subject of many facets and to avoid 9*lng into
lengthy writings on everything Involved, I mill endeavor to
be brief in this report and can supplement by verbal comments
as might be needed.
There are attached the following:
A-l, A-2, A-3, A-4 -- a summary of the City of Roanoke
commodity program, past and
current, as to volume, commodi-
ties, expenditures end schedules.
E-l. B-2 -- a listing of four typical situatio~ for
comparison of the client or user costs
between commodities and food stamps.
C-I, C-2 -- the proposal of the Commodities Distribu-
tion Section of the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Commerce for financially
'participating in the Roanoke commodity
program.
The City Council and City Ranager have recetved ~arious
petitions, letters and verbal'requests from users requesting a
'change in programs. Me have also received requests from users
who do not want a change. To the extent of opinions, there are
opinions on both sides.
The commodities program offers a better dollar value to
the client. The impression is sometimes put out that the
client will get stamps on top of their present welfare checks.
As the attachments R-I and B-2 show this is erroneous.
We have bade a humber o*f contac'ts lu ~ther loEnlitles ~a
tO experience under both programs. The existence of one program
or the other usually depends on w~ich one naa started first.
Sane of the localities that have been in the business m long time
started in the days of surplus roCds before stamps. Those that
have gotten into this aspect of public assistance in more recent
years have go'ne to used food stamps. These days it~ is simpler to
start with food stamps than commodities.
From nil of the contacts that me have msdeo I think the
best summary'analysis is from a paper that was prepared by a
college student employed in the Lynchburg Department of Public
Welfare mbo conducted a survey of the attitudes of their 'clients
to the food stomp .program..The summa.fy is as follows:
*Food StSmD Preoram. Only 30 percent of those responding
to the questions about food stamps said that they wsde
use of the Food 5tamp Program. although most persons who
receive n public assistance grant are eligible to partici-
pate in the program. Twenty-seven percent of the recipients
like the program and have no complaints. Nine percent
listed things they dnn*t lihe. such as: if you miss three
times, you eun*t 9et anymore; too much money to pay out at
one time, would like to get them twice a month; not being
able to buy household items; disliked the purchase time;
and the price of stamps increased when the check is
increased.
'Of the 93 nonusers, 10 said they were not eligible; 21
said they couldn*t afford them or that they were too
high; 6 said it nas too much trouble either to go to
the bank or to find a store participating fn the program;
3 said they couldn't buy household items; 2 were em-
barrassed to use them; 5 had not applie for them; 3 said
they didn't need them; 3 dldn*t care to use them; 5 don*t
understand them; I said she didn*t know about them; and 1
said she n~eded the money for other things.*
Aa will be noted Jn these reactions, there is a fairly
standard situation of some disagreements with any program..
It is generally known that national welfare groups have
indicated as one of their current goals the seeking of action
in the welfare food programs, be they stamp or commodities.
This may be a part of that which we are currently involved.
* The suggestion has been made that one or more groups conduct
a balloting at the commodities center among the clients as to which
program they want. If t~ese groups which to ballot the ~lients
then I do not think it should be at the center. The clients or
users should not be put under coercion at timds when they are
getting assistance. Further many users simply do not have the
information upon which to responsibly make decisions of this
nature. I also do not feel that the City or its welfare staff
should be involved in this type of voting project.· It does not
seem that decisions*on programs such as this can be properly
determined by pspular votes a~ the moment.
The question has been raised as to a recent public law and
the possibility that it would permit both programs to be conducted.
The following is extracted from a letter to me from the State om
this matter.
'The copy of Public Law 91-671 of January 11, 1971, which you
enclosed is part of the recent legislation amending the
Food Stamp Act of 1964 (Public Lam: 68-515). However, this
recent legislation bas not been given to the States by the
U. 5. Department of Agriculture, who administers the Food
5tamp Program nationally, fur implementation yet and probably
will not before July lg?l. Therefore, Public Low D9-525 is
still in effect. Section 4(b) of this law reads as follows:
'In ~reas where a food stamp prooram ia in effect,
there shall be no distribution of'federally owned
foods to households under the authority of any
other law except during emergency situations caused
by a national or other disaster as determined*by
thq Secretary.'
'I have talked with the U. 5. Department of Agriculture Regional
Office in Atlanta, Georgia regarding the section of this new
legislation as pointed out to your City Council by the Welfare
Rights Organization and as underlined by you on the copy of
this legislation which yon enclosed with your letter. According
to the Regional Office, effective July 1971, a Joint operation
of the two programs in the same political subdivision ca~n exist
during the period of transition from the Commodity Program to
293
the Food .Stamp Prqgrawo duping,temporary emergency situations
es determined by the Secretary, or by request of the State
agency. They were unable to cite any specific ~eosoas for
criteria which would be used in making such a request**
They further advise that the process 'for Joint administration
of two programs, if available, would be through an application
finally going to the Secretory of the Department of Agriculture.
I om also advised that ir the two programs were Jointly administered
by n locality, the Federal government mould provide funds for the
food stamp program only.
There does not seem to be Justification to try to operate two
programs. The confusion of.the,administration and decisions upon
the clients would soon discontinue such a parallel arrangement.
The present budget for the City is approximately $29,000
for food distribution.program. Re estimate to operate a food
stamp program would require a minimum of six personnel with a
minimum annual payroll cost of approximqtely $26,000 to SS0,,00.
In addition, under the stamp program, the issuance is usually
through banks with a charge by each bank unit of $25 per south
plus ?St for each transaction. Incidentally. Roanoke County
employs 3 persons for their.stump program with a much smaller
number of users.
Together with the State Department of Agriculture there
has been formulated a pr,grow of improvement to the operation
of ibc present commodities distribution system.
There is available for rental a warehouse-type building
in the S00 block of Salem Avenue, S. W. This will provide ex-
cellent indoor uniting area, better storage facilities, a good
parking lot and wider counter space, This will relieve.current
problems at the present location,
Attachment C-I and C-2 sbow that the State, through Federal
and State funds, will underwrite the renovation and equipping
of this building and if we move they will also assume the cast
which the City Js now bearing of transportation of food, They
will further pay $450 per month to the City to offset th~ City*s
equal cost of rental.
I would recommend your authorization that we make necessary
arrangements to rent this property and transfer the distribution
center to there. Unless other arrangements can be made we are
committed to rental of the building on Campbell Avenue, S.
until June 30, 1972. Even with this commitment I feel that tho
City is justified in relocating~ Consideration has also been
given to operating two centers. We mould like to continue to
explore this but go ahead with the shifting and full scale
operation at the new location. The consideration on the two
location proposition, is that a small operation be worked out
at the present Campbell Avenue building for the southeast area
only. This might be on basis of ~ne week a month or one or two
days a week. The problem is partially staffin9 but mainly'the
problem of maintaining two stocks of goods and the ~omplications
of records on clients whicb cannSt be reasonably broken down
for a two center system. We are though continuing to work on
this point.
If we can provide further information, I would be glad
tO do SO.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Homager*
In this connection. Mrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman for the Roanoke Valley
Welfare Rights Alliance, appeared before Council and read a prepared statement raisin
certain questions mhich in the opinion of the Welfare Rights Alliance, are not
adequately answered in the report of the City Manager.
29,4
Nith reference to the mutter, Hr. James H. Stamper. Director, TAP Program
Planning ~ Evaluation, appeared.before Council and presented a.communication endorsin
the plan of the.City'Houager in connection uith the commodity food program, advising
that whether the city goes to food stamps or continues with commodity food distribu-
tion, the Dourd of Directors of TAP has indicated a desire to use the resources of
OEO*s Emergency Food and #edical Services Program to help the City of Roanoke wake
Its food program as widely available as possible to the families who need it the most
After a discussion of the matter, Hr. Llsk moved that the report of the Citl
Manager be ~sken under consideration pending clarification of certain questions
raised by the Roanoke Valley Nelfare Rights Alliance. The motion was seconded by
Hr. Thomas-and unanimously adopted.
HUD~ET-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION-RECREATION DEPARTMENT~PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-
TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY: Council ha~lng referred to the City
Manager for study, report and recommendation the question of whether the City of
Roanoke should operate the smimming pools in Eureka Park, Washington Park and Hurt
Park during the summer season, the City Manager submitted the following report
recommending that the City of Roanoke operate for the current summer season the three
TAP swimming pools:
*Roanoket Virglnia
June 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke,-Virginia
Gentlemen:
From our consideratioe and tespectious of the matters over
a period of a year or so, it would be recommended that the City
operate for the current summer season the three TAP pools. This
recommendation takes into account the limited scope of use of
the facilities and also the condition but itis believed that
the need overrides these factors;
Administrative staff consisting of the directors of the
departments of public health, parks and recreation and public
works estimate a cost of approximately $65,000 to upgrade these
pools to first class operation. This would include dressing
rooms, a bashet storage area and system and various concrete
construction. Considering budgeted funds it is not believed
that these monies are available. In lieu it would be proposed
the pools operate in the nature of neighborhood facilities Jn
that children would come to them attired-for water activities.
Me mould staff the pools much as TAP did lust year as it
is felt that their experience in prior years set up a much
better staffing in the summer of 1970. Xf Council authorizes
the program, we would try to get the pools in operation as soon
as possible. Some staffing contacts have already been made.
The City constructed this past year a much needed sewer line
for the Hurt Part pool which corrected a bad situation there.
I attach a breakdown of costs and budget distribution.
If the project is approved, to maintain a balance in the
recommended budget, we would delete an equal amount in
other recommended recreation facility improvements.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager*
,295
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
ger nnd offered the following emergency Ordinance providing for certain appropriation
tn Sea,ion z?s, 'Recreation, Porks and Recreational Areas,' or the 1970-71 budget,
rovide necessary r~uds rot the operation of the three smlmmiog pools:
(al9&9?) A~ ORDInAnCE to amend and reordain SectiOn z75, 'Eecreatfon, Park
od Recreational Areas,' Of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Cook Ho. 35, page 309.)
Mr. Lish moved the adopt'ion of the ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYE'S: Messrs, Garland, Llsh, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Iflteeler and Mayor
Webber ...................... ~ ....... 7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
Mr. Llsk then offered the foll~wing emergency Ordinance authorizing the
City Manager, acting through the Department of Parks and Recreation. to operate and
maintain the swimming pools located Jn Eureka Part. Hurt Park and Washington Path,
formerly operated through a grant of permission from the City of Roanoke to Total
Action Against Poverty in' RoanoEe Valleyt as part of the recreational facilities of
,the City o~ Roanoke:
(a19690) AN ORDINANCE providing that certain swimming pools in the City
located at Eureha Park. Mallard Hurt Park and Washington Park, constructed and former*
ly operated by Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, by permission of the
Council, be hereafter operated by the City as a part of its park and recreational
facilities; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 3S, page 310.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The m~ ion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland', Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber~ ................... . ......... 7.
NAYS: ~one .............. O.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report recommending that
telephone reservation beard be installed at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 1, lgTl
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council mill recall that it has had referred to
it and Jn turn has referred to me the proposal of a telephone
reservation board at the Municipal Airport.
Orer some period of time we have stndied this and it is
considered that such an installation would be beneficial to
the traveling public and to the accomodation facilities in the
area.
296 ~
Mr. Harris, Airport Meander, has summarized the proposal ns
follows:
'The Cfi7 to make End install ome wood and formica telephone
reservation center board 5* - 6' high by O*.- O" wide by
14" deep standing on two (2) legs of same material.
Materials: Mood froee covered with wood tone formica
outside and off white formica Inside nad
sized to accommodate lO hetelomotel adver-
tisers iud one area nap in color.
Li~htina: to be fluorescent tabes (*100
candle power on bottom shelf) behind milk
white glass suitably lettered as to pur-
pose. If advertisers exceed lB this arrange-
ment could be duplicated, placed *back to
back' and the entire center moved to an open
location.
Estimated cost less ads and telephones $400.00
Advertiser~ Each to famish, at least one, H~' x 11' frameable
ad panel containing all their desired material
including telephone nomber (s} or code number
depending on the system to be Installed by the
telephone company. The od panels will be placed
in uniform frames and secured to the "board" by
the Airport Department mbo mill "key In# the
numbers in the magic call unit (which will not
honor any number except those "keyed in" or
locked in. The City will furnish the two (2)
private magic call lines necessary for this
reservation center and charge each advertiser
one price for the compete service.
COSt tO advertiser per space per month $50.00
Note: Of those similar airports contacted the
rates for similar services ranged from
$25.00 to $'/5,00 per space per month.
Summary: The fully controlled reservation center board is
, recommended over the single unit mall system by
every airport contacted. The telephone company
urges this two (2) line magic call system over
the multi lime method.
Initial cost to City: Reservation center board installed
One time telephone installation
Frames, maps, etc.
Total initial cost
Monthly operating cost to City: two (2) telco, lines
~ $16.75 each
two (~) magic call
units @ $10.00 each
Total monthly cost
Ultimate monthly income 16 spaces at $50.00 ~
It is recommended that the City Council give approval, in
whatever form mould be appropriate to our proceeding with this
installation and wit} the authority to lease its use. Should
funds be necessary iu the current budget year, they will be
separately requested nod mould apply only to the accounting
for the materials. Me will mahe adjustments' in the 1971-72
budget to reflect operating costs.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manage.r*
$400.00
40.00
50.00
$ 33.50
20~00
$ 53.50
$900.00'
297
Hr, Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that-the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure, Tbs motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
SE~ERS AND STORM bRAINS: The City Hanager submitted the full*wing report
recommending that Council advise ROanoke CoUnty of a time period within which it
would be requested that a recording flow meter be installed on oil lines Intersecting
the city sewage system and farther recoamendleg that prior to uny additional granting
of extensions, resolution areas or significant connections, that a recording flow
meter be Installed on the interceptor or ultimate line through nhich the particular
or location ultimately con~ cts to the city system:
~Roanoke, Virginia
~une 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Cedar the original contract of September 28, 1954, entered
into between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke for the
Clty*s treatment of County sewage discharge, there was a provision
that the County provide.and install a recording flow meter under
that contract. This particular initial agreement applied to what
is generally known as the Sortb 11 area. This particular line,
through the Tinker Creek Valley, is metered, although from time
to time there have been some problems with the meter and its
use. However, as the years have progressed and the large number
of resolution areas bay* been added tO the original contract,
the City and County have somewhat strayed from the original
concept of metered registrations on all inflow into the City's
system from the County. Various methods, dependent upon the
areas, are used to calculate flows into the City system.
It is felt that all lines from the County into the City
should be metered at the point of entrance into the City system.
There Is value In this to both the County of Roanoke and the
City of Moan*ko in assuring a uniform basis for the calculation
of volume and billing charges. There is also a further value
that has more recently developed and which at this point prompts
this recommendation. The current value is that wis th*involvement
of the City and the Valley wi~ the mater Control board and pro-
Jected long-range planning on overall sewer systems, there is
an important value In determining flows within the system at
strategic ~oints. This information becomes a part of total
calcalations within the systems. Metering, as proposed, would
serve as significant monitoring for these short an~ long range
calculations and the result of planning.
In some instances, it is believed that meters have not been
installed because it was felt at th*time that the amount of flow
was not sufficient to accurately propel a meter. Home of these
instances the additional areas or additional connections.have
raised the flow to the point that if meters had been originally
installed, there would be the adequacy of volume. At the same
time, if meters were put in initially this condition would be
remedied at a later point.
It Is recommended that the City Council advise Roanoke
County of a timeperiod within which it would be requested that
metering go Iu on all lines intersecting the City system. This
time period would be reasonable to enable the purchase and
installations. It would be further recommended that prior to
any additional granting of extensions, resolution areas or
significant connections, that there be requested on any
particular line, that there be requested of the County that a
meter be Installed on the interceptor or ultimate line through
which the particular area or location ultimately connects to
the City system.
298.
· Ag&ia~'it'ls believed that this proposal mill murk to the.
benefit of both the County and the City and that it mould be
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Julian F. airs*
Julian F. flirst
City Nsnager'
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in
the recommendation of the City Ranager and that the City Manager be authorized to
contact the parties Involved in an effort to ascertain the. period of time for the
proposal to be implemented, t~e City Attorney to prepare the proper measure accordin.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. tO, meier and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Hr. Thomas presented a draft of a proposed Resolution
proposing nod committing the City of Roanoke to an Interim Plan for Sewage Treatment
and a Schedule of Program for Long-Range Development of the Roanoke Sewage Treatment
Plant, based upon state and federal participation thorein and directing that said
Interim Plan and Lon~-Range Program be filed with the State Water Control Board, uith
the request that the same be approved by said Board.
Mr, Thomas then moved that the draft of the proposed Resolution be referred
to the City Attorneyfor preparation of the proper measure by the next regular meetin
of the body on.June.7,1gTl~ 'The"motion was seconded byMr, W~eeler and unanimously
adopted.
STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having taken under advisement a report of the City
Manager in connection with approving plans for the Southwest Expressway Project from
Elm Avenue to Franklin Road as presented at the public hearing on February IH, 1971,
and having directed the City Managerto inquire os to the opinions and suggestions
of the Department of Highways for a Cloverleaf arrangement at the intersection of
Interstate Route 561 and Elm Avenue and report back to Council, the City Manager sub-
mitred the folloming report advising tho the Department of.Highways has completed its
further studies as to the provision for a cloverleaf interchange at this intersection
and that the decision of the Department of HJRhways is to construct the interchange
os it was presented at the public hearing held on February lB, 1971, and that their
feeling, as stated, is that the extension of the Southwest Expressway plus the instal
tiao of traffic signals, will relieve the present congested situation at this
intersection:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
AS the City Council will recall, there was referred to me
for consultation mftb the HighWay Department the natter of
creasing the access ramps at the intersection of Elm Avenue
(Virginia Route 24) with Interstate 591 as it extends into the
proposed Southwest Expressway (Route 220 South). Following that
referral, me again, os me have a number of times, discussed the
matter with representatives of the department and then held an
open discussion meeting on April 14, at which ti~e several of
the members of the City Council and citizens sat in with us.
299
Through Mr, G. F. Rellem, District.Reglae~ro I nm advised
that the department has completed its further studies ns to the
provision of a cloverleaf interchange at this intersection. It
is further advised that the decision of the department is to
construct the Interchange as it was presented at the Public
Hearing held several months ago at the National Guard Armory,
?half feeling, nj fasted, la that the extension of the Express-
uny, plus the Installatiou of traffic signals, will relieve
the present congested sithetion ut this intersection. '
By other correspondence, the department has elaborated to
me on the situation and in the belief that these commbnts will
be informative end constructive to the watter,'I cite them as
follows:
'Fnma the Interstate System was established it wes
located so as to pass to the~north of Roanoke and
as a result a spur connection, which is present Route
1-581, was included, extending from the Interstate
Route Bio south to Orange Avenue and a connection math
Hilliamson Road.
Since it ems recognized that this would create problems,
because of the street pattern of Roanoke and, particularly
the crossing of the railroad, the Federal Highway Adminiis-
station agreed to extend this spur. south to Elm Avenue,
based on the understanding that a continuation would be
feasible beyond Elm Avenue to the south. All of this pro-
vided the city with a direct connection to the Interstate
Fanta, and an expressway south to Elm Avenue at no cost
to the city, since it was financed math luter~tate funds.
At that time, Elm Aveoue seemed a logical termination
point. The location o1 the Community Hospital had not been
established at Elm Avenue and it did not appear that there
would be any insurmountable problems in terminating this
road at that'point...Since'then, of course, development has
occurred, traffic has increased, end the Community Hospital
has been built.
Rhea the Hlghmay Commission designated the Arterial network
in Virginia, studies were conducted looking tomard some
way Of carrying Route 220, which is an Arterial road, either
through or around Roanoke~ The Master ~ranportatlon Plan
that had been prepared for the Roanoke Valley area indi-
cated an expressway facility extending south from the termi-
nation of Route 1-581 to U. S. 220, south of Roanoke and
after a rather extensive study, it was our opinion that the
most feasible location for Arterial Route 220 mould be to
follow' Interstate Route 561 and the Southwest Expressway
location to a continuation of Route 220 south of Roanoke.
As you hoow, the Arterial system is financed entirely by
State and/or Federal funds with no contribution required
from the city. As a result of this decision. Roanoke is
the only city. or one of the only cities, in the State
that mill obtain a complete expressway through the city
without cost to the city itself, or without imposition
of tolls on the users.
In preparing plans for this extension, which is generally
known as the Southwest Freeway, the department, of course.
has attempted to provide the facility at the earliest
possible date, primarily toserve the through traffic os
Route 220, but with consideration given to the need to
provide service to local traffic.
As you well 'know, the funds for our highway construction
in the State are extremely limited. We were falling behind
on our nine-year plan to the extent of $200 million a year,
at the beginning of 1970 and with inflation continuing at a
rapid rate this gap is now even greater.
It is, therefore, necessary that we attempt to economize to
the fullest extent with consideration given to providing the
maximum traffic service for the minimum amount of money. '
This all leads up to the problem in question which seems to
be the interchange at Elm Avenue. Me have designed our
interchange as *diamond type* which will require left turns
300
om £1m AveBue. It is recognized that there is some problem
existing now, since all ut the'traffic' trbm the south de-
siring to go north oB Route 220, or utilize Interstate Route
91 or Route 460, West make. e left turn CB £1w Avenue in
the face of Res*baaed Elm Aveuue traffic, if it wishes to
use this Inter·tote spur end avoid .the downtown area. Also,
'traffic existing from Interstate 1-581 has · problem due to
the short distance between the romp'termini and the trucb
route, the Community Ho~pital, etco
All of our engineer· feel that this problem mill be relieved
to u great extent mhen the Southwest Freeway is extended to
Franklin Rood. The traffic to and from the south can enter
and exit directly it Franklin Road and, as 7oe hnow,~at the
request of the city, we hare provided a loop movement for
southbound traffic to exit into Franklin Road. We also are
planning to install traffic signals at the ramp termini on
Elm Avenue and plans are non under way. All of this will,
in our opinion, provide a'satisfactory arrangement at thc
Elm Avenue connections, certainly one as good or better than
that existing in similar situations in many other areas
through the State**
'The further comments are if it is the feeling of the City,
strongly, that'refinements should be node at this interchange then
the department would be glad to'consider them if the City would be
willing to bear the additional cost.
'The department feels 'that the only feasible alternate
would be the prorlsioa of a loop in thc sou*beast quadrant
to accommodate the traffic now left turning on Elm Avenue.
This mould necessitate the acquisition of additional rights
of way and one or more buildings and I might point out that
in addition to the cast, another public h~ng mould be
required, since additional Fights of may would be'necessary.
This, coupled With the design, would necessitate a delay
iu the project almost a year. As you know. the project has
already been*delayed frbn four to six months due to the
revisions to provide a loop at Franklin Road. '
The design of the loop at Elm Avenue would be rather complex
and might even necessitate the lengthening of the bridge on
Elm Avenue. The resulting movement from the south to Elm
Avenue would be affected also~
~hile we desire to~operate with the city insofar as we can,
me do want to paint out that our funds are limited and that
Route 220 is being built as Un Arterial project and with
Arterial funds, primarily for through traffic. We believe
that the design as now proposed will be satisfactory, and
that it is proper under the conditions that exist and for
' the traffic to be served.'
It is noted to me that as the design proceeds to the south from
Franklin Road there will be other similar situations where there may
be extremely ex~ensive designs that may be desired by the City.
The department indicates that throughout this project, they 'will
and any refinements over andahove what can be justified, including
will have to be financed with other funds**
It is hoped that this fully summarizes the matter for City
Council and if we can advise further, we would be glad to do so.
The resolution of the approval Of the City to'the project
will be resubmitted with a iecommendatlon of your approval.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Rtrst
Julian F. Rirst
City Manager~
Mr. Garland expressed regret thatthe Department of Highways did not choose
to go along with the City of Roanoke for a cloverleaf arraugenent at the intersection
of Interstate Route 581 and Elm Avenue and offered the following Resolution approving
certain plans for the design of the Southwest Expressway:
30].
(n19699) A RESOLUTION approving certain plums for thedesigu of the South-
west £xpressway, ns developed by the Virginia Department.of Highways for Project
6220-128-104, PE-IOI, C-50l, and Pmject 059g-128-101,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 3~ page 311,)
Hr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Jfl~eeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Hessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Yhonas, Trout, Wheeler and #aver
Webber ....................... 7.
NAYS: None ........ O.
CITY EHGIhE£H: The City #aaOger submitted a mritten report advisia9 that
he has beeo unable to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the owner of property
at Patterson Avenue. near SbaffeFs Crossing, which'had been considered for a service
center site, and accordingly he is dropping his consideration of this property and
proceeding to look at other locations.
Hr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STAVE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that
the Virginia Department of Highmays will hold its annual.allocation hearings for thi2
on Wednesday, June 16,-1971, at 9 a.m., at The Ho~el Roanoke.
Hr. Carload moved that the report be received and filed. The morton.s
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously'adopted.
CITY ENGIAEER-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having requested that the City
Manager cheek into the possibility of whether or nut Maple Avenue, S. W., could be
sidered as ode of the priority areas for street paving, the City Manager submitted
a mritten report advising that Maple Avenue, S. W., is scheduled on the street re-
aurfacingprogram for the current year.
Dr. Taylor moved.that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr..Lisk and unautmously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUADS-COMPLAIHTS: Council having referred to the City
Manager for investigation and report a petition signed by a number of citizens com-
plaining of certain conditions existing in Elmwood Park, the City Manager snbmitted
the following report transmitting a memo from Mr. Rex T. Mitchell, Jr., Director of
the Department of Parks and Recreation[ in connection with the matter:
"Roanoke, Virginia June 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on April 21, 1971, received a petition
stgued by a number of persons regarding varims matters in connec-
tion with Elmwood Park. I attach a report that I have received
from Mr. Mitchell,.Director of Parks and Recreation, which report,
I believe, adequately summarizes the various items that were
raised by the petitioners and also summarizes the situation with
respect to the park.
302
*DATE: May 13, 1971
TO: Mr. Dlrat
FROM: - Mr, Mitchell
SUBJECT: ElmwO0d Par~
above aa to petition received. The following facts are
submitted:
(1) This Department does not place fish.in the pond,
nor does it recomnehd that bthera do au, The fish that
were there, lu all probability, mere put there by private
individuals and without this Department*s permission or
huomledge.
(2) Regarding the mooden rail that the petition
referred to as being dangerous is in reality a mooden
fence, as designed by the architect mhen the pond and
theatre mere built. It has a railing at the bottom,
one iu the middle and one.at the top, The open space
between eaob railing is perhaps only a foot mlde. The
placing of mesh wire upon the fence mould mithout doubt
make it more safe for those parents who cannot control
their children, but it mould destroy the beauty of the
design, The fence is in good shape and is firm in all
places.
(3) Trash cans have been placed in the park. but
as in all our parks, people hare the bad habit of stealing
them. We mill again place trash cans In Elm.nod Park,
but to insure they remain there, mill hare to chain and
padlock them. This of course, limits their usefulness
as to location, as the chain mill have to be placed around
a tree or something substantial to assure they mill,remain.
· (4) Regarding the condition of the pond, it mas ,
dirty. We have since cleaned it, however, this does not
correct the situation. The pond and theatre are so designed
that their location lies surrounded by steep banks and
flomer gardens. At any time me have rain, dirt from the
bank and flomer gardens wash down into the theatre area
and then into the pond. The only correction I can see is
that we place a retaining cement mall around the area.
This, of course, will perhaps interfere with the beauty
and design of the facility.
I would like to get the opinion of your office and
any other persons you may deem necessary, before proceeding.
Yours truly, ·
S/ Rex T. Mitchell, Jr..
Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.
Director*
It should be added that I am advising Mr. Mitchell to reestablish
the refuse containers in the park and to chain them damn if necessary.
As to his comments with respect to the pond, X might insert the
following as a personal observation. The Department of Parks and
Recreation did a very fine job in cleaning ant the pond and I ob-
served it to be in almost ideal condition. One meek later, as a
result of which ! can only attribute to be the intervening range,
the pond mas again becoming discolored and allo~lng another week
or two it returned to mhat apparently was the condition that was
of concern to the petitioners, ldo not huom, at this point, how
we might establish a reasonable arrangement to provide that this
pond be in a continuous desirable condition. However, we will
keep pursuing the matter to see if any thing can be worked out
along this line.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Dirst
City Manager*
303
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
'sec~nded b7 Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the following report of the
City Attorney transmitting a Resolution providing for n public hearing to be held On
Monday, June 21, 1971. in connection with proposed J~creases in certain Of the rix
levies of the City of Roanoke to provide revenue for the proposed 1971-72 budget:
*June 1, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Manager's Budget Message submitted to the Council
May 24, 1971, proposed increases in certain of the City*s
tax levies to provide revenue for the proposed 1971-72
Budget accompanying the Budget Message. General law provides
as follows:
'Before any local tax levy shall be increased in any
county, city, town or district, such proposed increase
shall be published in a nemspaper having general
circulation in the locality affected at least fifteen
days before the increased levy Is made and the citi-
zens of the locality shall be given an opportunity to
appear before, and be heard by, the local governing
body on the subject of such increase.'
in order that the legal prerequisites be met for uny such
increase of tax levies as may be decided upon by the Council',
! have prepared and transmit herewith to the Council a resolu-
tion mbich would provide for the conduct of a public bearing
of citizens before the Council on all such subjects, providing
in the resolution that such public hearing be held on June 21,
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. ~. Kincanou'
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report ~f the City Att*they and
~ffered the following Resolution providing for a public hearing on the question to
held on Monday, June 21, lg71, at 2 p.m., in the Councll Chamber:
(#19700) A RESOLUTION providjn9 for a public hearing before the Council
the subject of an increase of the local tax levy on taxable real estate and tangib
personal property iu the City; on the subject of an increase in the rate of the City*
tax on utility services; on the subject of an increase of the ?lt~*s license taxes
*rovided in the License Tax Code of the City of Roanoke, lgS&, as amended, on the
*rivtlege of doing business or operating in the City; and on the subject of a single
.*cai license tax for all dogs.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book Ho. 35, page 311.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ..............................
NAYS: ~one ...............O.
304 ,,
lB this connection, Messrs. Garland iud Thomas advised thio l~ voting for
the adoption of the Resolution providl~g for the public hearing au the tax question
does not wean they are supporting the recommendations of the City Ms~cger rot the
said tax increases,
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SCHOOLS-RUSES: Council having referred the overall transportation pr*gram
la the City of Roanoke to the Transportation Committee for study, report and
ds,ion, Mr. Robert A, Garland, Chairman of the Committee, presented a progress report
advising of a meeting of the Transportation Committee with a repre~entative of Milbs]
Smith and Associates and Mr. Robert M. Shannon, Executive Director, Fifth Planning
District Commission, that it mas the conclusion of the committee that pertinent
ifaotual information should be gathered especially as to costs, relating to both tbs
operation of public transit and school transportation, that the administrative staff
through the Planning Department, has been instructed to prmptl~ proceed to contact
the Federal Department of Transportation as to the making of an application for a
grant of federal funds to assist in the development of this study and that the
mmittee mill keep Council informed of its progress.
#r. Garland moved that' the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In thi~ connection, a communication from Hayes, Sear, Ha,tern ~ Mattern,
Architects and Engineers, wishing to note their interest and desire to be considered
for the transportatioe consultant services which may be required for p~ssJble creotio
of a local Transit Authority, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas mated that'the commonlcatioa be referred to tbs Transportation
Committee for their information in' connection with their study of the matter. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: hONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AI~D CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES A~D RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19679, Fez*ming property described as Lots 20, 21,
22 and the westerly and southeasterly portion of Lot 23, Bloch 3, Map of Liberty Land
Company, Official Tax Nos. 3101304, 3101305, 3101307 and 3101310, from RD, Duplex
Residential'District, to RG-I~ General Residential District, having previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body,
Dr. Taylor offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~lg&?9)* A~ ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1056, as amended, and Sheet No. 310, Sectional 1066 Zone
Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to zoning.
(For full text of Ordinnn~e,'see Ordinance'Book No.'35, poge'3Olv)
s
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion*nas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Uheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19660, Fez*ming property located at the corner of
Missouri Avenue and Tenth Street, N. E.. described as.Lot 3, Dlock 10, according
to the Nap of Fairmont, Official Tax No. 3060601, from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-2, General Residential District, having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr.
Trout offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(algbOo) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XY, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 306, Sectional 1966
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 3DR.)-
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following+vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None ....... O,
BUDGET-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council baying directed the City Attorney to pre~
the proper measure discharging the Council's Salary Committee as.heretofore
pare
established and constituting the Mayor and Members of the Gity Council a Committee
of the #hole to consider and recommend the annual salary of the city's unclassified
personnel, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered .the following Resolution:
(a197Ol) A RESOLUTION discharging the Council's Salary Committee as
heretofore established and constituting the Mayor ~nd Members of the City Council
a committee of the whole to consider and recommend the annual salaries of the City'
unclassified personnel.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Rook No. 35. page 312.)
Rt. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
NAYS: None .0.
RUDGET-AUDITORXUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Llsk offered the following emergency
Ordinance appropriating $12,O00.00 to Public Ceremonies under Section ~??, "Civic
Center." of the 1970=?1 budget:
--. (~19702) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reovdain Section ~77, "Civic Center
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing rotan emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35. page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Or. Taylor end adopted by the follomieg vote:
AYES: Nessra~ Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Jheeler and Mayor
NebbeJ 7.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Trout.offered the following emergency
Ordinance appropriating $500.00 to CIP 71-108 Mill Mountain Garden Plans under
Section #ag, 'Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund,' of the 1970-71 budget, to
rovide funds for scale drawings of a proposed wlldflomer garden on Mill Mountain:
(n19703) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section e89, "Transfers to
:apl*al Improve~ Fund,' of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 35. page 314.)
#r. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Mr. ~isk and odoptqd by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Gqrland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ?.
NAYS: None O.
MOTIONS AND MI~GELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: The Assistant City Attorney verbally requested that an Execntiv*
Session be held at the conclusion of the Council meeting on a real estate matter.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Assistant City
Attorney for an Executive Session at the end Of the meeting en a real estate mattel
The motion was seconded by Mr. ~beeler and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ,7.
NAVS: None O.
There being ua further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE ST:
7Ctt~ Clerk' Mayor
307
.'COUNCIL, REGBLAH MEETING,
Monday, June T, 1971,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met In regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June ?, 1971, at 2 p,m,, the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Webber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A, Garlnnd, Noel C, Taylor, Hampton W. Thomas,
James O, Trout, Vincent S, Mheeler and Mayor Roy L, Webber~ .................
ABSENT: Councilman David K, Lisk 1
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E, Hamer,
Assistant City Hanager, Mr. Robert P. Geary, Assistant City Attorney, and Mr. J,
Robert Thomas, City Auditor,
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Robert
Bradley, Pastor, lesthampton Christian Church.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having Set a public hearing for
2 p.m,, Monday, June 7, 1971, on the question of amending and reordainin9 paragraph
? of Section 24. Chapter 4.1, Title XV. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956.
amended, relating to Zoning, by providing for a decrease in the number of off-
street parking spaces required in the case of high-rise apartments constructed as
non-profit public housing projects for occupancy primarily by persons of the age
of 62 years or older, the matter was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the public hearing bo continued until the next regula
meeting of the body on Monday, June 14, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted,
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Honday, June
1971, on the request of Mr. GooF9e F. Cadd that property located at 445 Riverland
Road, S. E.. described as Lot 24, Block 23, Map of Roanoke Gas and Nater Company.
Official Tax No. 4031111, be rezoned ~om RG-I. General Residential District. to RG-2,
General Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be denied:
'April 22, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its meeting on April 21. lgT1.
Mr. C. John Renick, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission with the request that his client's property be
· 3'08
rezoned from RG-I to aG-2, In support of this proposal, #r. geuick
stated that his client, Mr. Cadd, a barber, had purchased the property
to supplement his retirement income, Being lnfamllinr with the
zoning, Hr, Cadd sought to expand the four unit apartment to eight
units, and had substantially completed the remodeling when halted by
the Building Department for non conformance with the zoning. In
support of the zoning change, Br. Renick noted that the building
was constructed as an apartment before the advent Of zoning and that
it was located in an older neighborhood,
-Hr. ~o~nton, Connissi'on member asked what provision bad been
made for parking, to which #r. Renich replied that an arrangement
to provide the needed parking could be made with the adjoining church,
and that n garage on the property could be removed to make way for
more automobiles,
Mr. Cadd also spoke 'in favor of rezonJngMs ~roperty.
Mr. Griffin, Assistant Planning 5irector, opposed the rezoning
.on two grounds, one that it would .constitute creation of a non-
conforming use because the eight units on 7,500 square feet would he
. more than permitted in the RD-2 district, and two that rezoning this
property to a higher density might well precipitate general decline
throughout this neighborhood which was already showing some signs
of deterioration. Be further pointed Out that existing lot widths,
streets, and neighborhood facilities did not lend themselves to a
higher density than that permitted in RG-I.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to deny this request,
Sincerely,
$/ Creed K. Lemon by NHG . ,
Creed g. Lemon, .Jr.
Vice-Chairman~
Mr. C. John Renick, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before
Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Hr. Garland
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(=19704) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section '2, of The
Code of ~he City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 403. Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
HBEREAS, a~p~ication has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
have Lot 24, Block 23, Map of Roanoke Gas and Mater ComPany, Official Tax No.
4031111 rezoned from RD-I, General Residential District, to RD-2, General R'esi'dential
District; and
HH£REAS, the Ci'ty Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land not be rezoned from RD-l, General Residential District, to RD-2,
General Residential District; and
NNER£AS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the
of Roanoke. 1955. as amended, relating to Zoning, hav~ been published and posted
required and for the time provided by said section; and
HHEREAS. the hearing a.s provided for in said notice was held on the 7th
of June, 1971, at 2:00 P.B** before the Council of the City of Roanohe. at which
leafing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
309
IH£REAS, this Council, niter considering the evidence ns herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinofter described lend should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIBEO by the Council of the City of Soanohe that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended,
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 403 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of
Roanoke, be amended in the follomlng particular and no other, viz;
Property located at 445 RJverland Road, S.E., described as;
BEGINNING at a point on the south side of Bellerllle Street,
206,69'feet M. of Diagonal Street; thence S. 41° 65* M. 150 ft~
to an alley; thence N. 46° 05* M. mJth said alley SO ft. to a
point; thence No 41° 55* E,*ISO' to Belleville Street; thence S.
46° 05* E. 50* to the beginning; and being known and described
as Lot 24. Section 23, as shown-by the map of the Roanoke Gas
and Mater Company in Deed Book 1214, at Page 594,
designated on Sheet 403 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke. as Official
Tax Ho. 4031111, be, and is hereby, changed from RG-I, General Residential District,
to 20-2, General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 403 of the aforesaid map
be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .6.
NAYS: None -0. (Mr. Lisk absent)
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that
there should be some may in which a citizen could be instructed when he applies for
building permit as to what may be constructed in that particular area in order
for him to be in conformance uith the Zoning Ordinance.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-PARKS AID PLAYGROUNDS: Council having requested the Roanok
City School Board to ascertain whether there are unexpended funds in the 1970-71
budget of the Roanoke City School Board t o provide for the con.ruction of the
Jefferson Senior High School Field House, a communication from the Roanoke City
School Board advising that it appears very doubtful that there sill be any substantJa
balances at the end of this fiscal year in the School Board budget, that an in-depth
study is being made of every budget category at this time and the final results of
this study will be submitted to the School Board at its meeting on June 8, 1971.
at which time a very definite response will be made to Council as to any funds
which may be available, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors at its meeting on Wednesday, May 2b, 1971. restating its
willingness and desire to pay a fair and equitable share of the costs related to the
310
construction, maintenance odd nperotion of those sewage transportation iud treotwent
systems as are necessary end adequate for the health, surety and welfare of the
Hoanoke Yalle~ area and downstream waters so long as any related agreements guarantee
long-term availability of service for p~esent and future sewage rloms originating
In Roanoke County end respectfully and earnestly requesting an opportunity to resume
discussions with representatives of the governing bodies of Roanoke. SaleuoVinton
and Botetourt Connt~ leading to the effectuation of the principles expressed In said
Resolution. was before Council.' '
Hr? Thomas.moved thatthe Resolution be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by.Hr. Mhe~ler and unanimously ad,pred..
In a discussion of the matter. Mr. Garland expressed th~ opinion that now
is the tine for the preseni sewage treatment contracts to be renegotiated to more
realistic figures.
Hr. Garland then moved that the question of renegotiatin9 the present
contracts for sewage treatment to note realistic figures be referred to the Sewer
Committee for study, repoFt and recommendation to Council** The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
AUDITS-CITY TRERSUR£R: Copy of an audit of the accounts and records of
Mr. J. H. Johnson, City Treasurer, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1970, was
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the audit be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-~fATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMHONMEALTH'S ATTORNEY-CITY TREASURER-
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE-CItY SERGEANT: Communications from the State Compensatio
Board, tentatively fixing the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Attorney for
the Commonwealth, the City Treasurer, the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City
Sergeant for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972. were before Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the communications be referred to 1971-72 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS-MATER DEPARTMENT: A communication from Mrs. J. A. Trent,
complaining of the amount of her water bill for the period from July 21, 1970. to
October 19. lgYO, and requesting that some adjustment be made in the final amount
be paid, was before Council.
Mr'. Wheeler moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report to Council. The ~otion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously a~opted.
S~REET LIGHTS: Copy Of ~ communication from the Appalachian Power Company
transmitting n list of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
May. 1971. was before Council.
3il
Dr, Taylor moved that the communication and list be received and filed, The
motion mas Mconded by Hr. Garland nnd unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUOG£T-FARK5 AND PLAYGROOHOS: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending~at $1,150.~0 be appropriated to Other Equipment - Hem under Section
m?S, 'Recreation. Parks and Recreational Areas.' of the 1970-71 budget, to provide
funds for the replacement of tug turnstiles at the Children*s Zoo atop Rill Mountain
and the Roanoke Transportation Museum,
DF. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Rannger end offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19705) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u75, "Recreation, Parl
and Recreational Areas," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 317.)
Dr. Taylor moved the ~option of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Rr, Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrso Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Rayor
~ebber -6.
HAYS: Hone O. (Rt. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTREHT: The City Manager submitted the following report
recommending that $2,?00.00 be appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies under
Section u45. "Police Department," of the 1970-71 budget, said amount to be refunded
under the Lam Enforcement Administration Grant:
"Roanoke, Yirginia
June ?, lg?l
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Chief of Police Hooper advises as follows:
'The above Federal Grant which mas approved in October, 1969,
with a total Federal contribution of $1.695.00 for a Handbook
(Ranual) for the Roanoke Police Department was later expanded to
include a statewide Ranual separate from the one being developed
in this Department.
It was not until Ray, 19?l,~nt the local Manual was complete.
An application for funds was made to the Division of Justice and
Crime Prevention which awarded $2,700 for the publishing of the
local Manual. The $2,700 would include the original $1,695 plus
an additional
In compliance with the Division of Justice and Crime Prevention
requirements bids have been opened and awarded. To my knomledge
the check has not been received but me are advised that it forthcom-
ing within the next few days. These monies must be spent by June 30,'
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate ~2,TO0 to
the Police Department budget which sum will be refunded under the Law
Enforcement Administration Grant.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager'
312
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
tanager and offered'the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(UI9T06) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u45, "Police Oepartmen
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 317.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The'motion mas seconded
by #r. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and #ayor
Webber 6.
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a written report in connection with
appropriating $1,000.00 to Fees for Professional and Special Services under Section
s21, "Lunacy Commission,# of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for the remainder
of the fiscal year.
Mr. Trout moved that Cooncil concur in the report Of the City Manager and
offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(a19707) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~21. "Lunacy Commis-
sion." of the 1970-?1 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 318.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of toe Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mhe~ler and Mayor
Nebber
NAYS: None- .0. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS-FIRE DEPARTMENT-GARAGE-PARKS AND pLAyGROUND~
iSTADIUM: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection with
appropriating funds to various utility accounts in the 1970-71 budget, to provide
funds for the remainder Of the fiscal year:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 7, 1971
Honorable Mayor and C'ity Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
An analysis of utility accounts performed by the Auditor has
indicated that utility accounts for five departments are in need
of additional funds. These accounts are as follows:
a. Fire Department, Account 47. Object ~ode 201, Utilities,
was $684.50 overdrawn as of 10 May 1971. $2.500.00 is
needed to balance this account and fund the May and June
utility costs.
b. Garage Department, Account ~1. Object Code 201. Utilities,
was overdrawn $936.78 as of 10 Ray 1971. It is estimated
that $2,?00.00 is needed to balance and fund this account
for May and June.
· 3~3
c. Fnrko nnd Ruernotlon, Account 73, Object.Code 201, Utllltieo,
hsd u bolnuce on 10 May 1971 of $2,161 which mas sufficient
for one mouth only. It is estimated that nn nddittousl
$2.500 is needed to fund the June expenditures.
d. Stadium Department, Account 76, Object Code 2Ol, Utilities.
is presently over expended. As o result $3°000 additional
mill be needed to cover the over expenditure and the remainder
of the yeor.
e. Sewage Treatment Fund, Object Code 201, Utilities is over
expended by some $5,000,00 mlth the month of June tn go.
. The high application of air to reduce the BOB of the final
effluent has increased utility costs at the plant. An
additional $10,000 is needed to cover this over expenditure
and proride utilities for June.
The City Auditor has prepared a budget ordinance to provide
for the appropriation of:
$2,500 to Fire Department, u47, Object Code 201, Utilities
$2,?00 to Garage Department, #71, Object Code 201, Utilities
$2.500 to Paths g Recreation Department, u75, Object Code 201,
Utilities
$3,000 to Stadium Department, u?6, Object Code 201, Utilities
$10,000 to Sewage Treatment Fund, Object Code 201, Utilities
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. HOrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z19708) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1970-7
Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For.full text af Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 319.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Zrout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Yebber
NAYS: None .... O. (Mr. Lisk absent).
Dr. Taylor then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$10,000.00 to Utilities under the "Sewage Treatment Fund," of the 19?O-T1 Sewage
Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(~19709) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain "Sewage Treatment Fund," of
the 1970-71 Sewage Treatment Fund, and providing for and emergency.
(For full text.of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 319.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-SEWERS A~D STORM DRAINS: The City Nnnager Submitted n written
report requesting~nt $250.00 be nppropriuted to Printing and Office.Supplies under
'Sewage Treatment ruud,~ of the 1970-71 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation
Ordinance, tm provid~ funds for the remainder of the fiscal year,
Mr. Garland moved that Council.concur in the request of the City Manager
end offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(nlgTlO) AN OROINANC£ to amend end reorduln 'Sewage Treatment Fund,'
of the 1970~T1 Sewage Treatment Fund. and p~orJding for an emergency.
(FaF fu~l text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 3S, page 320.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted b7 the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .6.
NAYS: None O. (Mr, Llsk absent)
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
requesting that $1,000.00 be appropriated to Dues, Memberships and Subscriptions
under Section u45, *Police Dep~rtment," of the 19YO-?I budget, said $1,000.00
:having been received from the Division of Justice and Crime Prevention to be utilized
in the furtherance of a *Drug Abuse Education Program.~
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the request of th~City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19711) A~ ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n45, *Police Department
of the 1970-?1 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of.Ordinance, see Ordinance Book NO.
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler, and Mayor
Nebber .6.
NAYS: None ,0. (Mr. Lisk absent)
SEMERS AND STORM ORAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
in connection with Lick Run Channel improvement, advising it has become apparent that
fun to the instability of embankment conditions immediately adjacent to the Norfolk
and Mesterm Railway Company*s eastbound track, it mill be necessary to request that
all train traffic from the eastbound tracks throughout the length Of the project for
a period not to exceed ten consecutive calendar days be temporarily detoured, trans-
mitting a communication which he would propose to forward to the Norfolk and Western
railway Company for their approval and execution and requesting authorization of
Council for the transmittal of said communication:
*Roanoke, Virginia
June 7, ~?1
Honorable Muyor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
There is uttuched for your information and consideration u
nose from Hr. Ssm. RcGhee, City Engineer. As Mr. McGhee notes. It
now becomes apparent that duo to the instability of embankment
conditions Immediately adjacent to the Horfolh and ~estern Railuay
Company's eastbound track, it mill be necesssry to ask to temporarily
detour all train traffic from the eastbound trachs throughout the
length of the project for a period not to exceed ten consecutive
calendar days.
The original agreement between the Horfolh and Mestern Railway
Company and the City o~ Roanoke which provided for the railroad~
continued operation mithout Interruption mould need to be revised.
Of particular concern to the Ci~Attorney and the Railmay is the
matter of insurance coverage and indemnification as it mould apply
to any accidents which might occur involving the detouring of
trains. The insurance compauy for D. R. Allen aN Son, the Corps
of Engineers' contractor for this project, has advised the City
that the contractor's insurance does cover the detouring of these
trains.
Since there mould apparently be an extension of the City's
liability over and above that which was contemplated in the
original agreement, there is submitted to City Council a letter'
which me would propose to'forward to the Norfolk and Mestern
Railway for their approval nod execution. Prior to submitting
this letter to the Norfolk and Mestern I would ask City Council
for yourapproval of this letter and the City Attorney has been
asked to prepare an ordinance authorizing the City*s execution
of this letter agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Mheeler moved that the matter be referred back to the City Manager
for the purpose of conferring with the Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company and
report back to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: Council hovin9 taken under consideration
report of the City Manager in connection with the commodity food program pending
clarification of certain questions raised by the Roanoke Valley Melfare Rights
Alliance, the City Manager submitted the following report in response to said
questions as pose~ by the Melfare Rights Alliance on Tuesday, June 1, lq71:
~Roanoke. Virginia
June ?, lq71
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
In response to the citizen comments made before the City
Council this past meek. June 1, regarding my report on the
commodities program and its expansion and the consideration
of food stamps, ! would advise as follows as to those points
which have not already been covered in my report of Jane
316
1, As to my alleged foilure to get in touch with o group gad
advise that I uaw going to submit a report on June 1, I can
only advise had'they not gotten In touch mith me I probably
mould not have submitted the,report onJune.l but a meeh
later mhich mould have given me more time to inform uny
people ah* might be directly interested,
2, As to informing the recipients about my report, I feel that
if this is done all of the recipients should be advised end
this is very difficul~ rot some 4000 people. I knom of no
reason to pict out any particulor snail group to'tell mhat is
being done or what is not being done.
3. The matter of surveying recipients has already been commented
4. The matter of one or two distribution centers h~s already
been commented on.
5. The complaint that southeast has a problem in getting to
a hem center that night be in southmest can be turned around
by saying that, on the same basis, southmest now has pr*bleu
in getting to southeast. Unless there is a center in each of
the four sections of the.City, someone is always going.to have
to 9o to another section.
6. The information of availability of the commodities program is
made known through our public assistance staff in their
contact moth persons and cases.
7. I do not feel that the City has an obligation to provide
transportation to and from a center. There are certain of the
very elderly or informed mho have travel difficulty. TAP
has conducted a progiam of distribution which I understand
has mom been assumed to some extent by the Red Cross.
Transportation is an excellent opportunity for civic projects
by civic groups for the very aged and the infirmed.
On the question of explaining a better dollar value in the
commodities program, I mould refer bach to the report of June 1.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. HOrst
Julian F. HOrst
City manager"
Hr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Wt. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
In this connection. Mrs. Carolyn Crowder, Spokesman for the Roanoke'Valley
Rights Alliance, appeared before Council and read a prepared statement
idvising that it is the opinion of the Welfare Rights Alliance that the City Manager
should have hept them informed as to the contents of his report as presented to
on June 1, 1971, that the City of Roanoke should provide free
melfare recipients to and from the commodity food distribution center, that it is
the responsibility of the City of Roanoke to inform persons Who are eligible to
receive commodity foods and raised the question as to mhy the distribution center
in southeast Roanoke cannot be kept open,
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland pointed out that the City of
Roanoke could remove itself from some of the controversy by alloming the melfare
recipients to conduct a survey to ascertain whether they prefer food stamps over
commodity foods iud until such a survey is taken the city mill continue to have
*roblems along these lines.
3.~7.
S~I~R$ AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted n written' report
trunsmittiog the followln~ commonicstion addressed to him from the State Mater
Control Board in connection with the Sewage Treatment Plant, advtsiog that meetings
have been held with representatives of the State Mater Control Board and that
farther stndy is being given to the prepared report mhlch will be presented to the
State Mater Control Board:
'May 13, 1971
Mr. Julian F, Birst
City Manager
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hirst:
This will achnowledge receipt of your letter of May 11, 1971,
addressed to the Chairman and Members of the State Mater Control
Board. The staff has reviewed the information you supplied and
we have the following comments to offer:
1. Mhile it appears that the City has embarked upon a program
mhich ultimately will lead to a solution of problems result-
in9 from existing plant performance for the City of'Roanoke,
we do not believe that the schedule offered on Page 3 of
the letter reflects the urgency of the situation, Me do
not believe the City of Roanoke has at this point determined
to expeditiously attack the problem on all fronts and with
the view of obtaining an early solution to the pollution
problems in the area as has Fairfax County and other
localities in the Stute.
2. We are particularly concerned that while the Board made it
clear that it was equally concerned with existing plant
operation as well as the long range implementation program,
there are evidently uo firm plans for the City to immediately
embark upon an interim program to improve plant performance
between now and the time the long range schedule is imple-
mented. The staff is of the definite opinion that the
acceptability of the ~og range plan will be directly related
to the interim performance improvements instituted by the
City in timely fashion.
Since there is little time between now and the June 15 hearing date
me should have a full discussion of the City*s problem and the pro-
posal made to date, Me urge that the City have representatives of
its consulting engineering firm present at the meeting since they
have not contacted any members of the staff since they were retained
by the City and it is very possible that should they continue to
work without consultation with the staff, problems may arise when
their report is rendered.
Me urge that you contact ns immediately indicating days that will
be convenient for appropriate representatives of the City to meet
with the staff for a detailed discussion of this matter.
Very truly yours,
S/ A, H. Paessler
Executive Secretary"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communication be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a mritten report
recommending authorization of the rental of four square feet of floor space in the
main equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill Mountain to the United
States Government for use by its Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
318
Dr, Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n19712) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) square feet of
floor space in the main equlpnent room of the transmitter building atop Mill
Mountain to the United States Government for use by its Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, upon certain terms and conditions.
WHERKAS. the Council by. Ordinance No. 16642, adopted September 27, 196s,
had authorized the rental of four (4) square feet of space in the main equipment
of the City's transmitter building on Mill Mountain to the United States
Government"s Department of Agriculture, Forest Service for a rental of $324,00 per
year, payable quarterly, the term of the lease being from year to year commencing
July 1, 1966 but expiring June 30, 1971; and
MHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the Cooncil that the Government desi~
continue to rent said space and is agreeable to the terms and provisions herein-
after contained.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the C~ncil of the City of Roanoke that said
City does hereby agree to rent to the United States Government, for use by its
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, four (4) square feet of floor space in the
main equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill Mountain for the agency*s
for the placement and operation of a radio transmitter and receiver, with
associated equipment and, also, space adjacent to said building for an antenna
support with an antenna attached, to be connected by coaxial cable to the radio
equipment in said building, upon the following terns and conditions:
1. That the right of such use shall commence July 1, 1971; and shall be
for a term of one (1) year, and thereafter, at the option of the Government. from
year to year but not to extend beyond June 30, 1976;
2. That the Government pay to the City ~e sum of $324.00 per year,
)ayable in equal quarter-annual payments of SHl.O0, each;
3. That the City supply mithout additioial charHe therefor heat, light,
water and electric power, but not telephone service, reasonably necessary for the
)eration of the aforesaid radio equipment;
4. That authorized representatives or employees of said Government*s
jency have a free riHht of ingress and egress to and from the aforesaid premises
all reasonable times in and about the operation and maintenance of said radio
equipment;
5. That the iadio and other equipment instalied on the City*s premises
pursuant hereto be located in such place or places and be of such type as is
specified or approved by the City's Chief Communications Officer; and
319
6, Thst the clty'ekp~esJly reserves the right to terminate the aforesaid
sgreenent at any tine on 30-days* prier notice in writing to said Governmental
agency should the City need forits Dun use the space or premises hereinabore
mentioned or should said agency°s radio equipment interfere, by its operation, uith
the operation of the City*s radio or communications equipment.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the agreement herein authorized to be entered
into on behalf of the City may be effected by the City Manager*s execution on behalf
of the City of a written lease agreement embodying the terms herein provided or,
the option of said Government, by the issuance of a purchase order of said
Government. referring to the terms and provisions of this ordinance.
The notion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-LEGISLATION: The City ~anager submitted a
written report transmlttin9 information for the consideration of Council from Mr.
Harold Baumes, Executive Secretary of the ¥irginia Municipal League, advising that
the Legislative Committee of the Virginia Municipal League nail soon be meeting to
prepare a preliminary legislative program for presentation at the September League
Convention and that the Committee will be glad to receive suggestions from Council
of items which should be considered for inclusion in the legislative program.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be taken under consideration. The motion
iwas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report transmittin
a communication from the Roanoke Valley Mental Health-Mental Retardation Services
Hoard, requesting approval by the City of Roanoke ~f aa addendum budget request by
the Hoard to the state for state funds, that there is no local tax money involved
but the matching funds are provided by contributions and donations and that insofar
he is able to evaluate this matter, it mould appear to be in order that Council.
by Resolution, indicate its concurrence in said budget.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter bereferred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure. The motion nas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously ado~ ed.
- STATE HIGHMAYS: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the following repor~
of the City Attorney recommending that the 'sum of $13,17b.00 be paid by the City of
Roanoke to Mr. Ernest W. Mitchell, owner of certain business property situate on the
east side of 1st Street, S. E., between HullittAvenue and Elm Avenue, S. E.,
designated as Official Tax No. 4013307. as damages resulting to said property by
reason of the change in grade of 1st Street, S. E., abutting the property in
construction of the 1st Street, S. E., ramp to Elm Avenue:
32O
· Tge Honorable Mayor and Members of
· Roanoke City Council
Rosuohe, Virginia
In coastroctiSn of the ramp on 1st Street, S. E.o betneen Bollitt
Avenue and Elm Aveeoe, the then existing grade of 1st Street was
materially changed, so that 1st Street would connect with the
reconstructed Elm Arenas at the grade of the latter street. In
varying degrees several of the properties abutting ou the east
side of 1st Street in that block, all E which properties were
fully improved, were adversely affected by raising the former
grade of 1st Street. For that reason and others certain of those
properties were purchased by the City and the owners of others were
compensated in damages agreed upon.
The business property consisting of a narehouse-type building at
Ho. 726 1st Street, S. E., Official Ho. 4013307, owned by Mr.
Ernest M. Mitchell, was one of those properties adversely affected
by the grade change. None of that property was required for the
construction of the Elm Avenue - Route 2~ Project and no easement
in the property for cot or fill was necessary, honever, the
raising of the former grade of 1st Street in order to construct the
aforesaid ramp effectively deprived that property in its then
condition iron vehicular access to the street. The owner.s
asserted a claim, as he is entitled, to damage by reason of the
foregoing.
Routine and usual appraisals of the value Hi such damage have been
made by qualified persons approved by the City and by the State
Highway Department, on the basis Hi which it has been determined
that the sum of ~13,176.00 would be a fair and reasonable
value of the damage. The State Highmay Oepartment has approved
that sun as the one to be used in settlement of the claim of the
property omeer.
The nhole property is involved in the current Downtown East Renewal
Project and is to be acquired, after the matter of damage is settled,
by the City of Roano[e Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
It is recommended that the Council authorize settlement ~ith Hr.
Frnest ¥. Mitchell of the'damage resulting to his abovementioned
property by reason of the street improvement by payment to him of
the son of $13.176.00, cash, with proper release to be simultaneously
given by Mr. Mitchell, and that the undersigned be directed to
prepare the papers necessary to be brought to the Council for that
purpose. The sum. when paid by the City. is one in which the
Commonwealth would share under the provisions of the City's overall
agreement relating to the Elm Avenue - Route 24 Project.
Respectfully,
S/ Jo H. Kincanon
J, N. Kincanon"
Mr, Carland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of.the City
Sttorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19713} AN ORDINANCE providing iHS settlement of certain d~mages resultin
real estate on the east side of 1st Street, S, E,, designated Official No, 4013307
by change in the grade of 1st Street, S, E,, in connection with construction of the
City*s Route 24 - Elm Avenue, S. E., Project; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page 321.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Trout and adopted by the iol~ow~ng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheele~ and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O. (Mr. LJsk absent)
DEPART#ENT OF FBDLIC WELFARE: The City Auditor submitted copy of the
monthly statement of expenditures for public welfare rot the month ended May 31. 19'
Br. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Mheeler and u~animously adopted.
In this con~ectlon, the City Manager submitted a written repoFt recommend*
lng that $8.000.00 he transferred from Aid to Bependent 'Children. that $4.000.00
be appropriated to Old Age Assistance and that $4.000.00 be appropriated to Aid to
?ermanently and Totally Disabled under Section u37. 'Public Assistance.' of the 197(
?1 budget.
Dr. Taylor noted that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the follouing emergency Ordinance:.
(n19714) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~37. *Public Assis-
iitance,* of the 1970-Y1 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 322.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Yebber-
NAYS: None ................ O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
REPORTS OF'COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-POLICE DEPARTMENT-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION:
!!The Community'Relations Committee Sub-Committee on Parks.and Recreation submitted
the follouing report in connection with their.1971-72 inspection of parks uithin
the City of Roanoke, recommending that the requests contained in the report be
referred to lg?1-72 budget study and to the City Manager for consideration and
recommendation and requesting that the City Manager advise Council and the Budget
Study Committee of his recommendations regarding the report of the Police-Community
Relations Sub,Committee mhlch was referred to him several weeks ago:
"TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITYEE SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT
ON pARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: June T, 1971
Please find attached the report of the Community Relations
Committee Sub-Committee on Parks andRecreatton which, I believe,
is self-explanatory. Mr. Charles A. Davis, Chairman of the Sub-
Committee, will be present to present the report to Council.
The Committee requests that the repor~ be referred jointly to
the City Manager and the Budget Study Committee for recommendation
and action, respectively.
*The Community Relations Committee*s Sub-Committee on Parks
and Recreation made its 1971-72 inspection of the parks in
the City of Roanoke on May 8, 1971. Ybis inspection reveales
thutwork on the up-grading of the parks is moving along very
well, These improvements Include the constrmction and
lighting o! basketball and baseball facilities, These lights
Mere not operational ut time ~f inopectione but Mere in place
and ready to counect to the paver lines, Also, Playground
equipment bus ~+~n Installed .Jrt some porks, The Sub-Committee
reulises the shortage of funds undue feel certain that the
Porks Depurtment will complete this work os soon os funds
and munpomer ore available. Some of the request in the 1971-72
budget ore curry-over from the 1970-71 Committee request,
The .Sub-Committee reported it*s findings of the Park survey
along with n study of the Budget Request for 1971-72 from
the Department of Porks und Recreation, The report und the
Budget mos discussed by the Committee at Large. We find that
there ore some request that ue question as being feasible
at this time.
The Committee is also concerned about the City having facilities
at It's schoole in the city and they are notovailuble for
use by the Recreation Department, and during the summer months.
It has been suggested that the School Board, and The Department
of Parks set damn and work out some plan where the school
facilities cum be lntergrated into the park system and be -
used to the best advantages for both Departments. All of
these properties, school and Parks are the property of the TAX
PAYER. and should he utilized to the fullest in stretching
the tax dollar. It is necessary that duplication of services
and facilities be eliminated wkereeeer possible, and as soon
as it is possible.
After careful nod deliberate consideration The Community
Relations Committee suggest thutthe folloming budgetary
items nat be funded at this time. We also list our reasons
and recommendations on these issues.
SHRINE HILL PARK: $250,000.00
The request for a Coumunity Center for our Senior Citizens
is well taken, but me feel that a structure in this area and
at the stated cost is not feasible at this time. With the
Patrick Henry High School to .the east. and Grandam Road School
to the Melt, me feel that these buildings could accommodate
our people to some degree. When more tax dollars are available
the Center will be a great addition to the park. It was further
suggested that one of the larger homes along Grandtn Road could
be purchased at a great savings to the~ty. This house
could be altered to meet the needs of a Community Center.
This would possibly mean a saving of possibly $200.000.00
to the City.
KENNEDY pARK: $40,750,00
The geography of this park has to be considered in any planning
for development. With Eureka Park only five {5} blocks to
the East, and Monroe Junior High School some 200 yards to
the South with some of the same facilities that are asked for in
the budget. This would be a tremendous duplication of
facilities. The Committee suggested that Kennedy be developed.
but make another use out of it. Re feel that the Black
Community should have some input in how Kennedy is to be
developed. This should hold true in all comuunities where
Tax Dollars are spent, mhether white or black. Re feel
sure that the residents will be cooperative, and receptive
to any planning.
CRYSTAL SPRING PARK: $9,000.00
This Park is just e fe~ blocks from South Roanoke Park. and a
mile from Wasena Park. Both Of the parks have excellent
facilities for night tennis. With the.shortage of available
· parking in the area due to thc Roanoke Memorial Hospital it
will be nora convenient for people to use one of the fore
mentioned parks.
The lights at this park will not benefit the general Public.
The Tennis Courts will be of more benefit to the Staff at the
Hospital. There fore me are requesting that a thorough study
be made before money is set aside for this project.
32.3.
SHELTERS: $171000,00 (Euck)
The'committee.feels tbnt this price to be paid for Just n
shelter and toilet is-uny oat of line. We further feel that
you, or rather the City cnn build n modest five (5) room hesse
for $17,000.00. And this will be complete and rmdy for occupancy.
The ~omwittee suggest that this matter be leered into thoroughly
before any. SH£LTERS are contracted out. It is our understand-
ing that there are only o~e (1) bid on the building 9f
these shelter~. If this is so the ~ommittee suggest that we
have mare bids on these shelters. If the Contractor bond and
etc., requirements are too strict, ue sugges~ that n study
be made and revisions made in order to get mare bids and
possibly a better price. We need to stretch the tax dollar
as far as possible, and still get the best construction
possible for our citizens.
It is further suggested that repairs and upkeep o~ all of the
paths,tube place to avoid n larger outlay Of monet in the
future to replace ~nstead keeping up our present Park facilities**
AdditJonailyo the Committee requests that the City Raaager
advise the Council and the Hndget Study Committee as to his recommenda-
tions regarding the report of the Police-Community Relatio~ Sub-
Committee referred to him some meehs ago. This also is needed for
action by the Budget Study Committee as soon as possible.
Respectfully subnittedo
S/ Hampton R. Thomas
Hampton I. Thomas, Chairman
Community. Relations Committee"
Rt. Charles ~. Darlso Hember of the Community Relations Committee Sub-Com-
mittee on Parks and Recreation, appeared before Council and verbally explained certai
phases of the report and advised that the Committee does not feel funds should be
expended at this time for improvements at the Mill Hountnin Zoo when there are so
many other things mhich need to be .accg~pltshed in the City of Roanoke.
Hr. Trout moved that the report'be referred to 1971-72 budget study and to
the CitT Ranager for consideration ~nd recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Rt. Thomas and~unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERT¥-HOUSIHG-SLU~ CLEARANCE: The Real Estate Committee
submitted the following report recommending that an offer of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority to purchase from the City of Roanoke certain
properties lo~ated on the east side of Ist Street, S. E.. between Hullitt Avenue
and Elm Avenue, for a consideration of $99,000.00 as a part Of tho Domntown East
Urban Renewal Project, VA. R-42. be accepted:
"June 7, 1971
~he Honorable Mayer and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Hade to the City through ~he City Manager an~ considered and dis-
cussed by the Councilts undersigned Real Estate Committee is a
uritten offer of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority to purchase and acquire from the City, for the Authority's
Downtown East Renemal Project, certain properties located on the
east side of 1st Street, S. E,, between BullJtt Avenue and Elm
Avenue, known as Nos. 716-724 1st Street, S. E., and as Official
Nos. 4013304, 401330~ and d013306. The Authority has offered
the City a consideration of $99,000.00, cash, that value being
stated to be based upon a review of three (3) appraisals made of the
volue of the properties for the Authority.
324
These properties ore ones which were or, lihely, would have been
effected by countrnctlou~of the-Clty*n. Elm Avnnne, S. E. - Route
24 Project, end by the change or 1st Street. S. E,t necessitated
by'the-project;' As 8 resultof thus fact nnd then'understanding
that et least'the residues of those properties would lutor be needed
to be acquired by the City or Roanoke Redevelopment nad Rousing
A.thhrity forthe purpose of Jts'current'reneunl project, the City,
in 196?,'acquired from its then'owner Of£fcful No. 4013305 for
$21.ooo~oo. cash. end acquired Nos. 4013304 end 4013306 from their
then'owners for $119.000,00. cash. and aggregate consideration of
$140,O00.00, out of funds then appropriated to the Downtown East
Renewal Project. No portion of this purchase price has been shared
in by the Commonwealth.
Construction of the abovementioned street.project damaged, to a
considerable extent, the former access had to those properties from
1st Street.
After cooalderatioo of the matter and witb something less than
complete approval of the value of $99,000.00 which has been offered
the City, your undersigned Committee, nevertheless, recommends that
the Council concur in the proposal of the Authority and direct the
City Attorney to prepare end bring back to the Council an ordinance
by mhich the proposal would be accepted by the City end by which
authority to make appropriate conveyance, upon payment of the
above purchase price to the City, would be given.
Additionally, ~ur Committee recommends that the City Manager be
directed to take up with the State Highway Department the matter
of participation.by the Commonwealth with the City in payment of an
appropriate portion of the value of damage done to the aforesaid
properties by reason of construction of the 1st Street ramp approach
to Elm Avenue, S. E., (Route 24), mhJch has now been reflected in
the reduced sale value of the properties abovementioned.
Respectfully,
COMMITTEE:
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
S! J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S! James N. Kincaaon
James N. Eincanon
SI David K. Lisk
David K. Lisk. Chairman"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the committee
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the ~oper
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-FIRE ~EPARTRENT-ROUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: The Real Estate
Committee submitted the following report recommending that an offer of the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to purchase from the City of Roanoke the
No. I Fire Station property, situate on the south side of Church Avenue, S. E.,
tween Jefferson Street and 1st Street, S. E., extending back to the north line of
Luck Avenue, S. E., for a consideration of $90,000.00, as a part of the Downtown
Urban Renewal Project, VA. R-42, be accepted:
'June 7, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Dousing Authority has submitted
. to the City through the-City Manager an offer to purchase and acquire
325
from the, City, for a consideration of $90,000,00~ cash,'upon delivery
of deed, the property now occupied by the City*s No. I Fire Station,
on the south side of the first block of Church Avenae, S. E.' it Is
stated that the amount offered is based upon a reviem of three (3)
ippraisals made'for the' Authority in its acquisition of properties
for its Downtown East Renewal ProJect. The No. I Fire Station
property has been given the designation of Parcel 2=4 on the plans of
that ProJect. The proposal has been brought to the attention of the
Councllts Real Estate Committee and considered by its undersigned
members.
Although provision has been made in the Capital Improvement Program for
a nam fire station, to replace Fire Station No. 1, relocation has not,
so fart been effected and, obviously, no disposition of the present
fire station should be made without reserving for the City the clear
right to occupy and use that property as a fire station until such time
as it has removed to a nam location or been satisfactorily replaced.
Mo consider, however, that the amount offered as n purchase price for
the property represents a reasonably fair and adequate value of the
property.
Accordingly, and subject to provision being madefor the City*s
continued mod uninterrupted ~se as aforesaid, your undersigned
Committee recommends that the Council approve and authorize the City*s
sale of its No. I Fire Station property to the Authority for a
consideration of $90,000.00. cash oadelivery of deed, but subject to
the express provision that the City continue in possession ~nd use of
the property until a new fire station, to replace Fire Station No. 1.
has been constructed and occupied; and, Such arrangement being found
agreeable to the Authority, that the City Attorney be directed to
prepare and bring before the Council an ordinance by which such sale
and conveyance would be authorized by the Council.
Respectfully,
COMMITTEE:
SI Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
Sf J, Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S/ James N. Kincanon
James N. Kincanon
S/ David K. Lisk
David g. Lisk, Chairman"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur ia the recommendation of the committee
and that the matter be referred to the City .Attorney for preparation of the proper
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Ordinance No. 19695, providing for the l~asiug to
~he First National Exchange Bank of Virginia of the exterior space available on the
scoreboard in the Coliseum at the Roanoke Civic Center and fifteen percentum of
the time available for the electronic transmission or display of adv~rtising messages
or by means of the scoreboard, upon certain terms and conditions, having
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid overt was again before the
body, Hr. Trout offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19695) AN ORDINANCE providing for *he Clty*s lease to The First National
Exchange Bank of Virginia of the exterior space available on the scoreboard in tho
Coliseum at the Roanoke Civic Center and fifteen percentum of the time available
326
for Ibm elect,,afc transmission or display of advertising messages on or by means of
the scoreboard, upon certain terms and conditions.
(For f~li text of Ordinance. see. Ordinnn~e Book No. 35. page 314.)
Mr,'Trout moved th~ adoptfo~o£ the Ord{osnce. The mo,fan ~sa seconded
by Mr. Th,ins and adopted by the foil,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler ann Mayor
lebber
NAYS: None ..... -0o (Mr. Lisk absent)
AIgPORT: Council buying directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
providing'for the l~stnilntion of a telephone reservation board in the
Terminal Building at Roanoke Municipal (Mo,dram) Airport, he presented same.
After .a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the proposed Res,In-
,ion be referred to the City Manager for clarification as to the amount charged per
month per space. The motion nas seconded by Mr: Mheeler and unaoimously adopted.
*AUDITORIUMoCOLISEDM: Dr. Taylor offered the follouing Resolution expressin
the appreciation of the Council of the City of Roanoke to officials and members of
the Independent Order of Odd Fell,us. Mountain Dale Lodge n49 for the generous gift
of an American Flag to be displayed inside the Coliseum at the Roanoke Civic Center~
(nlgYlS) A RESOLUTION accepting an American Flag from the Independent
grder of Odd Fellows, Mountain Dale Lodge a49; and expressing the City's appreciation
for said gift.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 322.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follnuing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. ~heeler and Mayor
Webber .................
NAYS: None -0. (Mr. Lisk absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:'
INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council
that there is a vacancy on the Community Relations Committee created by the resigna-
tion of Mr. Julian $. Mis* and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Thomas placed in nomination the name of Mr. Frederick L. Bulbin.
There being no further nominations Frederick L. Bulbin mas elected as a
of the Community Relations Committee by the foil,ming vote:
FOR MR. BULBIN: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler
and Mayor Mebber 6. (Mr. Lisk absent)
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
City Cloth
Mayor
, 327
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, June 14, 1971.
The Council of the City of R,au,k, met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 14, 1971, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Webber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David R, Lash, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Rheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber .....
ABSENT: Nome ...........................................................O.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Ban,r,
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Elncanon, City Attorney and Mr. J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor.
ACTS OF ACRNORLEI~EMENT: At the request of Mayor Webber, those present
observed a minute of silence in tribute to Lieutenant Governor J. Sargeaut Reynolds
mbo died on June 13, 1971.
Mr. Garland moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the
proper measure expressing regret and sympathy to the family of Lieutenant Governor J.
SurE,ant Reynolds. The motion mas Seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Paul
AlmJne, Pastor, First Church of the Brethren.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday, May
24, lq71, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with
and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having continued a public hearing
on the question of amending and r,ordaining paraoraph 7 of Section 24, Chapter 4.1,
Title XV, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning,
by providing for a decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces required in th
case of high-rise apartments constructed as non-profit public housing projects for
occupancy primarily by persons of the age of 62 or older, the matter mas again before
the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the matter be denied:
"June 2, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of May lg, 1971.
328
Mr. Edward Hilt, Assistant City Attorney, appeared before
the Plannfng'Comwfssion aid presented a resolution initialing
an amendment to Sec. 24 of the Zoning Cede providing tar a
de,reuse in'the number or off-street parking spaces required
in the case of high-rise apartments constructed as non-profit
public housing projects rnr occupancy by elderly persons.
The Planning Director presented n report supporting this
resolution, noting, that the one p~rking spice rot each three
dwelling units was reasonable Bud generally in consonance with
national standards. He stated that such municipalities ns
Pittsburgh, New York City and Philadelphia have special parking
req~fvement~ for ~he elderly mrJttea into tbs zoning ordinance.
Mr. Coleman, member of th~ Planning Comwlss!on noted that
a blanket requirement of this nature would not be workable in
special situations, particularly where a new keusing derelopment
for the elderly mas not convenient to a shopping or a public
.transportation system. Be noted that situations of this nature
would necessitate n high degree of cat ownership by tenants since
essential services and facilities would not be in proximity to
their residences. Mr. Coleman favored a system where each new
housing development for the elderly would be reviewed and
treated as o separate and lndifldualunJty.
The Planning Commission members generally supported Mr.
Coleman*s concept, and favored retention of the existing system
whereby tb~ Planning Commission reviews each application for
conformity with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance
prior to the Zoning Administrator issuing b zoning permit for
the erection of a high-rise apirtcent; and in the case of Zoning
Board of Appeals action on a high-rise apartment (as a special
exception) the Planning Commission making recommendations to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Accordingly, motion ~an made, duly seconded and unanimous]y
approved recommending to City Council to deny thin resolution
initiating on amendment to Sec. 24, Chapter 41, Title X¥ of the
Zoning Code.
Sincerely,
S/ John N. Parfait by
John ~ Parrot
No one appearing in opposition to the matter, Mr. Trout Offered the
following emergency Ordinance:
(Xlg716) AN ORDINANCE amendin9 and renrdaining paragraph numbered ?. of
Sec; 24, Niqh-rise apartments, of Chapter 4.1, Title XV, relating to Zoning, of the
Code of the City of Roanohe, 1955~ as amended, providing for a decrease ia the numbe
of off-street parking spaces required in the case of high-rise apartments constructe(
as non-profit public housing projects for occupancy by elderly persons; and providiu
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Trout mo~ed the adoption of the Ordinance.' The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, £isk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................. O.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland, Dr. Taylor and Mr. Thomas ex-
pressed the opinion that iustead of adopting this Ordinance, it would be far better
329
ZONING~ The Reverend Calvin B. Fulton, Vice President of the aiverdale
CIvic League, appeared before Council and presented a petition signed by 17 residents
in the Riverdale section of southeast Roanoke requesting that property located on
Brownlee Avenue, Carlisle Avenue, Gordon Avenue and Bennlngton Street; S,
described as Lots I - 32, inclusive, Block 4, Eastover Place Map, Official Tax Nos.
4330601 - 4330632, inclusive, Lots I - 26, inclusive, Block S, Rastover Place Map,
Official Tax Nos. 4330701 - 4330726,.inclusive, Lots I - 3, inclusive, Block 6, East-
Place Map, Official Tax No. 4330B02, Lots 14 - 16, inclusive, Block &, Eastover
Place Rap, Official Tan No, 4330814, Lots I - lC, inclusive, Block 1, Eastover Place
Map, Official Tax Has. 4340201 - 4340216, inclusive, Lots I - 23, inclusive, Block
Eastover Place Map, Official Tax Has. 4340301 - 4340325, inclusive, Lots I - 3,
inclusive, Block $, Riverdale Map, Official Tax Nos. 4340501 - 4340503,.inclusive,
and Lot 2B, Block 5, Riverdale Map, Official Tax No. 4340526, he rezooed from
Light Manufacturing District, to RD, Duplex Residential District.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezonlng be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMHUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council having directed the Roanoke City School Board to
ascertain whether there are nnexpended funds in the 1970-T1 budget of the School Baal
provide funds for the construction of the Jefferson High School Field House, a
ommunication from the Roanoke City School Board transmitting a list of the antici-
ated balances in the lq?O-?l budget of the School Board, said list showing the best
stimate which can be determined at this time, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor n,red that the communication be referred to 1971-72 budget study
The motion was seconded by Mr. J~heeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board, re-
questing that $21,26S.00 be appropriated to Section ~72000, "Schools - Bard of Hearin
of the 1970-71 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, the object of said program
being to provide qualified personnel to conduct classes for preschool children having
identifiable hearing problems and to be conducted at no cost to the city since it wil
be 100 per cent reimbursed from TitleVI-A, P. L. 89-10 Funds, was before Council~
Hr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(mlg?l?) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~72000, "Title VI-A,
Po L. 89-10, Hard of Hearing," of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 35, page 327.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................................
NAYS: None ........................O.
330
SCflOOLS: A Resolution adopted by. the Roanoke City School'Sosrd at its
meeting on the 8th day of June, 1971, individually and collectively, extending to the
staff of the Roanoke Public Schools and most particularly to that administrative
leadership ubich set the tone for the entire school system. 8 commendation for com-
*letion of u year that proved the excellence of the system, mas before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.,
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD: Copy of a coumunicotion from the State
Compensation Doard. advising that all payrolls and vouchers for the month of June
must be filed with the Compensation Board by July 7, 1971, in order to be paid out
of the.budget allouances for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1971, mas before Council
Mr. Thomas moved that .the communication be referred to the City Auditor
for his information. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF pROpERTY-WATER DEPARTMENT: A communication from Mr. Millard G.
Rlevios offering to purchase the old Cave Spring Rater Marks which Joins the rear of
his property at 3955 Colony Lane, S. M** in Roanoke County, mas before Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the communication be referred to a committee com-
posed of Messrs. David E. Ltsk, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst, James N. Rincanon and J.
Robert Thomas fay study, report and recommendation to Couoctl. The motioo was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: A Resolution adopted by the Roanoke County Publi
Service Authority at its meeting on June 1, lgTl. restating its willingness and desire
pay a fair and equitable share of the costs related to the construction, majnte-
and operational those sewage transportation and treatment systems as are
necessary and adequate for the health, safety and welfare of the RoanokeValley area
and downstream waters so long es any related ogreementsgnorantee long-term avallabil~
ity of service for present and future sewage flows originating in Roanoke County; and~
requesting on opportunity to further discuss with representatives of the governing
bodies of Roanoke, Salem, Vioton and Botetourt County any steps leading to the effectu
,ion of the principles expressed in said Resolution. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution he received and filed. The motion
~econdcd by Mr. ~heeler and unanimousl~ adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-AUDItORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $1,600.00 be appropriated to Advertising under Section a?7. *Civic
Center** of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for advertising certain events at th*
Roanoke Civic Center for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Dr. Yaylor moved that Council concur.in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
.331
(s19718) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordein Section n77, "Civic Center,'
of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing rot un emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35, page 327.)
Dr. Tnylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Mas seconded
by Mr, Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsh, Taylor, Th*nas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ...............................
NAYS: Nope ................
BUDgET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted
the following report requesting that $1,000.00 be appropriated to Overtime under
Section ~45, *Police Department,' of the 1970-71 budget, to provide funds for iht*rio
police protection at the Roanoke Civic Center:
'Roanoke, Virginia
June 14, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Qalte often shows and productions mhJch appear at the
Roanoke Civic Center request and are furnished interior police
protection. During the early phase of Civic Center operation
it uss the practice for the using activity requesting the police
protection to pay the police officers direct for their time.
Several Instances have occurred whereby the officers had diffi-
culty in obtaining their funds. In one instance a check supplied
by the promoter was submitted on a closed banh account. This
meant that the individual who accepted this check and paid the
other officers was not reimbursed for the money he had paid out.
At the present time attorneys are endeavoring to correct this
situation.
It is customary for the Civic Center to bill each production
for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in staging of their attrac-
tions. Me have instituted a policy whereby when interior police
ave requested the Civic Center Director will bill the promoter of
this production for the police costs in addition to the other
normal charges. This money will then be deposited to the city*s
general fund account and the police on duty at this activity will
be paid through the normal police overtime account.
Unfortunately when this year*s Police overtime account was
established, this was not foreseen and their exists inadequate
funds in the Police Department Overtime Account to make these
payments during the month of June of this fiscal year. After
consoltation between the Civic Center Director and the Chief of
Police, it is apparent that 42 police officers will be needing
an average of 4 hours at a total cost to the police overtime
account of $979.44.
It would be requested that City Council by budget ordinance
appropriate an additional $1,000 to Police Department, Account 45.
Object Code 114, Overtime, tn pay these police officers and it is
anticipated that an equal amount will be deposited to the General
Fund through the Civic Center deposits.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Divst
J~lian F. Dirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager and
Offered the following emergency Ordinance:
332
(n19719). AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ed5t 'Police Deport-
meat,' of the .1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing rot an emergency.
(For full tent. of Ordinance, see Ordinance B,oh No. 35, page 328.)
Hr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
INto tt~eeler and adopted by the /ollomleg vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and #ayor
Mebber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the f, Il,ming ~eport
transmitting an Ordinance authorizing ,nd providing for the repair of certain damage
the scoreboard in the Coliseum at the Roanoke Civic Center, advising that the
General Indicator Corporation has quoted a price of $18,116.50 for the repair u,th.
that the purpose of the Ordinance is to enable authorization to proceed with repair
of the scoreboard with the understanding that determination of technical responsibili
is in the process of being made:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 14, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemee:
'The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance, mhich is
recommended to the City Council, authorizing and providing for
the repair by General Indicator Corporation of certain damages
mhich occurred to the scoreboard in the Coliseum at the Civic
Center. The unit has been removed from the building, disassem-
bled and the damaged sections sent back to the Company. They
have advised that the scoreboard will be considered as new and
mill consequently be covered by the original guarantee and
can be reached as to the liability fur the expense and the ex-
are associated with the building at this time.
The General Indicator Corporation has quoted a pri~e of
$118.115.$0 for the repair m,th. The purpose of the ordinance
with the understanding that determination of technical responsib-
ility is in the process of being made.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Nlrst
City Manager'
Mr. Lisk mo~ed that Council concur Jn the report of the City Manager and
offered the f, Il,ming emergency Ordipance:
(~19720) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the repair by General
Indicator Corporation of certain damage to the scoreboard in the Coliseum at the
Roanoke Civic Center, upon certain terms and conditions; and providing for an
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance B,oh No. 35, page 328.)
333
Hr. LJak Bayed the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded by
#r, Thomas and adopted by the following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mkeeler and Mayor
Webber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None ...................O.
BUDGET-SA~ OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE NIGflMAYS-INDUSTRIES:' The City Manager
submitted a mritten report recommending that authorization be given for the expendi-
ture of approximately $935.00 to cover initial appraisal work and related mattersin
connection with the commencement of acquisition of right of way for the industrial
leading from Tenth Street. N, M.. north to the area of the Mache Company property and
that $S50.00 be appropriated to Capital Outlay'from Revenue - Land Acquisition under
the 'Sewage Treatment Fund.' Of the 1970-71 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordi-
lance, to provide funds for property appraisals and related matters.
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Ranager and
~ffered the following emergency Ordinance authorizing the City Ranager to enter into
uritten agreement on behalf of the City of Roanoke with Mr. Dewe! R. Roberts,no Real
Estate Appraiser, providing for appraisal, preparation and delivery to the city of
appraisal reports on certain property needed to be acquired for the right of may of
the Industrial Access Road Project leading from Tenth Street, N. W.,'north to the
of the Macke Company property, upon certain terms and conditions:
(z19721) AN ORDINANCE authorizing employment of the services of a qualifie*
real estate appraiser, to appraise the value of certain properties needed to be
acquired for the right-of-way of the City's Industrial Access Road Project 9999-128-
103, C-501, C=502; uponcertain terms and provisions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance O,ok No. 35, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ................. ~ ................. 7.
NAYS: None ....................O.
Mr. Lisk then offered the folloming emergency Ordinance appropriating
to Capital Outlay'from Revenue-Land Acquisition under the "Sewage Treatment
und' of the 1970-71 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(~19722) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain *Sewage Treatment Fund," of th!
1970-71 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 331.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Dr, Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None ..................O.
334
D~PARTMENT OF PUBLIC ~ELFAR£: The City Maenger submitted the following
port tranamitting four recommendations for the approval of Council in connection w~tb
the commodity food program:
*Ro·noRe, Virginia
June 14, 1971
Honorable Mayor nnd City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I1 ia my interpretation of the City Councll*s consider·tiaa
during the past two meetings that · decision has'not been reached
or confirmed as to the direction to be taken in the handling of
the Commodities Distribution Program.
If this interpretation is accurate, I should like to refer
to my report of May 24, 1971, and make the following recommendations.
One of these recommendations, it will be noted, proposes the
closing out of use of the Campbell Avenue building. This question
had hinged on whether the City should operate two centers or not.
After further study, it does not appear that the City can Justify
two centers. We get into increasing staff, into the double storage
of foods, into two separate handling systems of m~ lng foods from
warehouse to centers and into a very complicated system of records.
It is considered that these matters plus the point that one center
should conveniently serve · City of this are· indicate that one
center is reasonably adequate.
Yhe reco=mendatlons, ·ubJect 'to approval o f agreements by the
City Attorney, are:
1. That authority be 9ivan to enter into a lease of the
· bulldin9 and property at 534 Salem Avenue, S. W** for
a Distribution Center.
2. That authority be granted to execute an agreement with
the State of Virginia for the State to provide to the
City and to the Center of certain funds, equipment and
services.
3. That approval be given for the relocation of the Distri-
bution Ceflterpresently on Campbell Avenue, S, E., to 534
Salem Avenue, S. N., with the relocation to occur upon com-
pletion of preparing and equipping of the Salem Avenue
building and upon the posting of a notice in the present
building for the information of clients of the moving, said
notice to be posted thirty (30) days in advance of commence-
ment of service from the new location.
4. That authorization be given to terminate the lease on ,the
Campbell Avenue building if the owner is willing to terminate
in ~vance of the provided termination date.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, Hirst
Julian P. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the
City Ma~agero The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, · communication from Mr. James H. Stamper, Director,
TAP Program Planning and Evaluation, clarifying certain remarks he made before Counct
at its meeting on Tuesday, June 1, lgYl, concerning the commodity food program, was
before the body.
Mr. Liar moved that {he communication be referred tO the City Manager for
his information in connection with his study'of the matter. The motion was seconded
by Mr. garland and unanimously adopted.
335
TRAFFIC-SCHOOLS-STATE DIGBMAYS: The City Manager submitted n mritten repot
advising that the Hershberger Road project in which the State Dlgbmoy Department and
the City of Roanoke ore p'articipatlng is scheduled to get underway about June 14,
1971, and it Ja expected the construction will run' through 'to about mid-fall.
Mr, Thomas moved that the report he received nnd filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor nad unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: The City Manager submitted a written report requesting the oppor-
tunity of meeting informally with Council on a real' estate matter.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur In t~e request of the City Manager.
The notion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Attorney submitted a written re-
port in connection with action token by Floyd P. Brown, a dismissed city employee,
seeking reinstatement of employment and award of money damages and, in addition,
certain declaratory Judgment relief, advising that the United States District Court.
by opinion and Judgment handed dorm February S, 1971, found that the plaintiff failed
state a claim upon which such relief could be granted and, accordingly, dismissed
the case, that appeal to the United States District Court for the Fourth Circuit was
thereafter sought hy the plaintiff and that the appellate court, by decision handed
down on dune B, 1971, has affirmed Judgement of the District Court and dismissed the
on appeal.
Mr. Link moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and u~aaimously adopted.
COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted a written report requesting the oppor-
tunity of meeting with the Mayor and Members of Couacil,.the CttI Manager and the COt
Auditor in Executive Sessioc during or after the Council meetiog for the purpose of
discussing certain legal matters within the jurisdiction of Council.
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney for
an Erecutive Session. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the Citl of
Roanoke for the month of May, 1971.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Nheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recoumendation the request of Mr. George M. Webb, et ax., that property
located at 3619 and 3621Buchner Road, S. W., described as Lot 10, Corbleshaw Wood
lap, Official Tax No. 1650934, be rezoaed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential
District, to aG-l, General Resideotial District, the City Planoiog Commission sub-
mitred the following report recommending that the request for rezonin9 be denied:
"May 20, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
336
Gentlemen:
The above oared request me's considered by the City Planning ' '~
Commission st its regular meeting of. Msy 19, 1971.
Mr. Leon R. Mytchen, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated the folloming pertaining
to this petition~
(a) ~het this parcel mas the only lot in the tract not
zoned for a multi-apartment use.
(b) that the surronndlng area nas generally zoned for
apartment use.
(c) that Mr. Webb, the petitioner, proposed to construct
n tKo-story apartment unit.
(d)that. the driveway and entrance to the unit would be
along Hollomell Avenue.
(e) that this parcel would be In keeping with the general
character of the area, and represented the best use for
this property.
The'Planning Director stated that the rezonJng petition mas
in keeping math the overall character of the area, since the re-
maining lots in this tract mere already zoned for RG-I and
ostensibly this lot mas Inadvertently omitted.
Mr. Boynton pointed to the adverse topographic conditions
existing Jn this specific area.
A motion was made by Mr. Lemon and seconded to grant this
request and then lost.
A substitute vote mas made and seconded with a vote of ·
5 ayes and 2 nays to deny this request and was adopted.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L.M~
John H. Parrott
Chairman*
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Leon R. Kytchen, Attorney. '
representing the petitioners, requesting permission to withdraw the request for re-
zoning, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezoning be withdrawn. The motion
W .......ded by Mr. Lfsk and unani .... ly adopted. [ I
m
SCHOOLS: C ....il having ref .... d t ...... itt .....posed of M .... s. ~oel C~ I
Taylor, Chairman. James O. Trout, Richard P. Via and John R. Graybill the matter of ! [
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... [j
lthatthepr°pertycanbepurchase~f°r$33'OOO'OOandthatthecgmmitteels°fthel 1
°pinl°n the parhing site is needed and Will help in s°lvtng the parking pr°blare ] 1
[ during regul .... heel h ......d provide parking f ....rarities held at night in theI /
337
"TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL PAHHING
DATE: June 14, 1971
The Jefferson High School Porhing Committee has studied
various locations for n possible parking facility to be used
by the Jefferson High School Faculty end Students. The most
desirable tract of land is located directly across the street
from the Jefferson High School Gymnasium au Luck Avenue. The
dimensions of this sizeable tract are 126 feet facing Luch
Avenue and extending back in parallel lines 172.25 feet to an
alley. This tract of land consists, of 21,703~ square feet.
It, also, has O brick dwelling of nine (9) rooms' and aoarage
in the rear.
This property may be purchased for $33,000.00. which is
approximately $1.50 per square foot. This can be compared to
the $2.25 per square foot paid for the Gymnasium land. The
lot will accommodate approximately 100 cars and mould be ideal
for use when activities are held ia the Jefferson Gymnasium,
since it is directly across the street. The following Is ·
breahdomn of the total cost for converting this property into
a parhing facility: .
Cost of the Lot and Buildings ~33,000.00
Demolition of Buildings, removal Of trees,
cleanin0 of lot and grading 500.00
To compact surface of entire lot 100.00
Asphalt Paving of entire lot 1,000.00
TOTAL COST $34,600.00
Since this is the largest land area presently available and
knowing that adequate parking space was not made available, at the
time the nam Jefferson Gymnasium mas built, the Members of the
Committee feel that ~is possible parking site is needed and will
help solve the parking problem during regular school hours and
provide for activities held at night in the Jefferson Gymnasium.
Therefore, the Committee request that the report be referred
jointly to the City Manager and the Budget Study Commission for
recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL PARKING COMMIYTEI
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C, Taylor, Chairman
S/ James O. Trout
James O. Trout
S/ Richard P. Via
Richard P. Via
S/ John H. Graybill
John H. 6raybill"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be referred to Council acting as a
Committee of the Whole and to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lish and unanimously adopted.
SKWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred the overall question of
the removal of phosphates at the Sewage Treatment Plant to the Sewer Committee for
study, report and recommendation, the committee submitted the following report
recommending that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of a
Resolution requesting the General Assembly of Virginia to give immediate attention
to the matter at its next meeting and further that a copy of the Resolution be
338
formsrded to the Legislative Committee of the Virginia Municipal Lesgue for consider-
ation in the legislative program et the September L~sgue Convention:
"June 14, 1971
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
FROM: SEWER. COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF.ORDINANCE
SUBJECT: . BANNING OF PHOSPHATE DETERGENTS
At its meeting on Monday, November 30, 1970, the Council
referred to the undersigned Semer Committee, for study amd re-
port, a commsnicatlon from Mr. D. Jo Nathina, Secretary of the
Hoard of Directors of PRIDE, transmitting background material
and the following, resolution adopted by PRIDE at its meeting on
November 18, 1970:
'PRIDE earnestly recommends to the Council of the
City of Roanoke that the Council actively pursue
the implementation of a City Semage Ordinance to
restrict the concentrations of chemicals and or-
ganic materials allowed into the sewer.*
AddJtiouallyo numerous letters regarding the matter of
controlling the amount of phosphate detergents permitted into
our sewer lines have been referred to the Committee by the
Council for study and report.
The Committee submits the following information by way
of background:
1. The National Industrial Pollution Control Council
(NIPCC) Sub-Council on. Detergents, appointed by President Nixon
in 1970, recently released its report on its study of ways to
control the ecological balance of our environment. The report:
(a) Discusses the belief that phosphates frum
detergents may contribute to eutrophication
of waters resulting in gromth of plant life
in waters, particularly algae;
(b) Describes high-priority efforts of industry
tO seek a replacement for phopshates in
detergents; and
(c) Points out that any replacement materials must
be 'adequately tested for safety, effectiveness
amd environmental implications'. Concern was
voiced by the Committee about removing phos-
phates from detergents before a safe substitute
bus been ascertained.
2. The U. S. Federal Trade Commission is currently holding
hearings to consider whether the FTC should adopt a proposed rule
on detergent labeling which, if odopted, would require on deter-
gent packages a warning that phosphates in detergents contributes
to water pollution.
3. The NatiOnal League of Cities has furnished many statutes
and Ordinances which have been adopted throughout the country re-
garding the matter. Host notable are the following:
(a) The ordinance of Akron, Ohio, passed December 8,
1970, requires strict labeling of detergent con-
tent and bans sale of such material after June 30,
1972.. The City of Akron is now temporarily re-
strained from enforcing the Ordinance by injunction.
Hearing for permanent injunction is presently under
way.
(b) The State of Indiana is the first restricting state
to enact a lam banning or severely restricting ·
phosphate detergents. The law takes effect January
1, 1973. A copy la attached hereto for reference.
339
After careful revlem, study nnd thought, the Committee ia of
the opinion that the City or Roanoke should not adopt an ordinance
banning phosphate detergents due to the uncertainty of the safety
of replacement materiel, the proposals currently under consider-
ation by the Federal Trade.Commission, nnd the difficulty of en-
forcing an ordinance which would have only City-wide application.
The Committee does Yeel, however, that the urgency or the
subject matter requires Immediate attention on 8 State-wide level.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the subject matter be
referred to the City Attorney for drafting of aresolutlon re-
questing the General Assembly to give immediate attention to the
matter at its nezt meeting and further that u copy of the resolu-
tion be forwarded to the Legislative Committee or the Virginia
Municipal League for consideration in the legislative program at
the September League Convention.
ROANOKE CITY SEWER COMMITTEE
S/ Hampton W. Thomas
Hampton W. Thomas, Chairman
Vincent S. Rheeler
Julian F. Dtrst*
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
)reparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and
~nanlmously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Mayor*s Committee on Employment of thc llandicap~
submitted the followtn9 report making certain recommendations in connection with the
Roanoke Civic Center:
"June 2, 1971
TO: MAYOR ROY L. WEBBER, MEMBERS CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MAYOR'S COMM1TYEE ON EMPLOYMUNT OF THE HANDICAPPED
ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER COMMITTEE
RE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CIVIC CENTER AUDITORIUM
I. Recently our committee toured the new Civic Center and we
were very impressed with the two buildings. We find that the
coliseum will a~commodate wheelchairs except there is a need
for two restrooms, for male and female, at each end Of the
building. One of the toilet staffs will need to be widened
to accommodate a wheelchair both tn the men*s and women*s
rooms. This can be dane by removing one of the stall doors
and either move the side partictan or filler section out and
install a curtain in place of the door or else install a wider
door. The stall also needs grab bars on each side.
II. Io the auditorium*$ main floor we need to do the same--
mahe one of the stalls to conform to a wheelchair assuggested
above.
Ill. We would lihe to request the outer two seats in row ~
and ~ on each side to be removed. This would allow tmo wheel-
chair patrons to come into the auditorium on each side to
attend shows in the auditorium. Doth portal 11 and 12 are
ramped so wheelchairs could get to row ~ seats I ~ 2 and SD ~
Sq if they were removed. Seats .in row 2, seats u I ~ 2 and
57 ~ 56 should be removed also to allow other people assigned
to row P to enable others to pass by the #heelcbairs to get to
their seats In row ~.
IV. An attendant should be assigned to assist the handicapped
individual for easier mobility when needed.
Va A ramp from the west parking lot to the sidewalk should be
Installed to allow wheelchair patrons to wheel themselves from
the parking lot Onto the sidewalk. From there they can come up
one of two ramps already installed up to the center concourse
which will then allow them to enter either building on floor
level entrance which is very good.
34O
VI.' If possible, the telephone Il the.suditorlum could be
Iouered about 1~ inches mblcb mould ntlom'u mheelcbsir person
to be able to reach the coin operation or the pay telephone.
The C&P Telephone Compnny said thin could be done if the Civic
Center manager directed them to do
'This concludes our report end ue mash to thanh ell of those aha
helped us in our tour end #r. Radford, manager, Civic Center,
mbo man no helpful during ear visit. If we cna be of any help
in the implementation of these requests, please feel free to call
on our committee.
Submitted,
S/ Michael E. Cannaday
' Nichael E. Cnnnaday, Chairman
Architectural Barrier Committee"
Mr. Llsk moved that the report be referred to the City Manager for his
consideration. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19704. rezoning property located at 445 Riverland
:Road, S. E., described as Lot 24, Block 23, Map of Roanoke Gas and Mater Company,
Official Tax No. 4031111, from BG-I, General Residential District, to BG-2, General
Residential District, having previously been before Council for its first reading,
read and lald over, was again before the body. Mr. Thomas offering the following for
its second reading and final adoption:
(~lg?04) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 403, Sectional 1966 Zone
Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text Of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 323.)
Mr. Thomas moved the ~doption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None--~ ..............O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Ordinance No. 19712, authorizing the ~ental of four
square feet of floor space iff the main equipment room o7 the transmJt'ter building ato]
;Mill Mountain to the United States Government for use by its Department of Agricultur,
Forest Service. for a term from year to year beginning July 1, 1971, not to extend
beyond June 30, 1976, for a rental of $324.00 per year, having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Rt.
Trout offering the following for its second reading add final adoption:
(~19712) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) squire feet of
floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill Mountain
to the United States Government for use by itc Department Of Agriculture, Forest
Service, upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 324.)
341
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Dr. Taylor sad adopted by the folloning vote:
AYES: Wessrs. Garland, Llsh, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, ~heeler sod Mayor
Webber ................................... 7.
NAYS: None ....................O.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure approving an April, 1971, addendum to the budget request of the
Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services Hoard, Grant 05570. to pro
side fnnds to assist in the operation of a summer camp program for mentally retarded
children from the Roanoke Valley, he presented same; mhereupon. Mr. Thomas offered thf
following Resolution:
(~19723) A RESOLUTION approving un April. 1971 addendum to the budget
request of the Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services Hoard,
~rant 05570, to provide funds to assist in the operation of a summer camp program for
mentally retarded children from the Roanoke Valley.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 35. page 331.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ................................... 7.
NAYS: None ....................O.
SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having directed the City
to prepare the proper measure providing for the sale and conveyance to the
;lty of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority of certain properties on the east
side of 1st Street. S. E., designated as Official Tax Hoso 4013S04. 4013305 and
1013306. for the consideration of $g9,000.00, cash, needed for the Downtown East Urba[
Renewal Project VA. R-42, he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Lisk moved that the
following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19724) AN ORDINANCE providing for the sale and conveyance to the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority of certain properties on the east side of
Ist Street, S. E., designated as Official Nos. 4013304, 4013305 and 4013306, for
consideration of $99,OOO.OO, cash, needed for said Authority's Downtown East Urban
genewal Project VA. H-42.
I~HEREAS. there has been transmitted to the Council the request and offer of
the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to purchase and acquire from
the City the three parcels of land hereinafter described, needed by said Authority for
its Downtown East Urban Renewal Project VA. R=42, and the Council*s Real Estate
Committee. upon consideration of said proposal, has recommended acceptance Of the
~99.000.00. cash. consideration offered by said Authority as a purchase price for said
properties; and
342
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said offer and of the report of said
Committee made to the Council under date of June 7, 1971, the Council considers it t~
the best interest of the City to accept said offer and provide for sale and conveyanc
of said properties upon the terms proposed.in said offer.
THEREFORE. BE IT OBDAINED by the. Council of the City of Roanoke that the
written offer made to the City by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority to purchase and acquire from the City for consideration of $99,000.00. cash
those certain three (3) properties owned by the City and located on the east side of
1st Street, S. E.. between flullltt Avenue and Elm Avenue. S. E., designated on the
Cityts Tax Appraisal Map as Official Nos. 4013304. 4013305 and 4013306, and designate
on said Authority*s Rap of the Downtown East ProJect VA. R-42. as Parcels 5-2, 5-3
and S-4, be, and said offer is hereby ACCEPTED; and the City Manager is hereby
authorized and empowered, on behalf of the City, to enter into contract of sale mlth
the aforesaid Authority in the premises, if contract of sale be desired by said
Authority, but the same to be upon.such form as is first approved by the City Attorne
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, upon tender to the City by the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority Of the purchase price Of $99,000.O0, cash, as
aforesaid, the Ra~or and the City Clerk be, and each is hereby authorized and
directed to execute on behalf of thc City of Roaaokeand to attest, respectively, the
CJty*s deed conveying to said City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housin9 Authority th~
fee simple title to the three within described properties, the City's deed to contain
General Harranty and Modern English covenants of title and to be, otherwise, upon
form first approved by the City Attorney; and, thereafter, and upon payment to the
City of the purchase price aforesaid, s~cb deed of conveyance shall be delivered to
the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .................................. 7.
NAYS: Noae ................... O.
MOTIOSS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SE~ERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: Mr. Garland read the following prepared statemen
in connection mith the rates contained in the present seMage.treatment contract,
recommending that the City Manager be instructed to make a compilation of alii existio
contracts between the City of Roanoke and other governmental units, the rates being
paid to the citl under these contracts, the yearly operational costs of the depart-
ments involved, per unit cost, the capital investment in the facility as well as the
amount still under obligation by the city, the purpose being the renegotiation of
these contracts:
343
'!345 Lokemood Drive. S.
Roanoke, Virginia
14 Jane 71
Mayor Roy L. Webber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
At lust weeks meeting the City Council instructed the Semer
Committee to start renegotJating the sewage contract of 1954
with the County of Roanoke.
I think that now is the appropriate time to reevaluate all of
the clty*s agreements with the outlying areas involving the sale
of water, Snmage treatment or transportation or any other service
that the City wight provide for these localities.
Since consolidation bas been defeated in the Valley and our
annexation efforts have lacked a lot in being successful or
desired, not to mention the tremendous expense in time, effort
and money involved in these proceedings, it should become in-
creasingly obvious to the Council, that we most now buckle down
and attend to the City's business and to assure our taxpayers
that the. City is getting a fair shake in their dealings with
other governnentol units.
Although all of us are extremely interested in Valley wide
cooperation and progress, our first and foremost obligation
Is to the taxpayers of the City of Roanoke who have elected
us and who have entrusted with us the proper operation of The
City. For the City Council to continue to allow contracts to
exist such as the agreement Of 1954 math the County for the
treatment end transportation of sewage when it is obvious even
to the most naive or financially inexperienced individual, that
the City actually Suffers a substantial loss by offering these
services. Even more.fantastic and ridiculous, in these compila-
tions of costs, no consideration was given for capital improve-
ments, depreciation or improvements to the plant. As all of us
are amore, the City has an investment of approximately eight
million dollars in the sewage treatment plant.
For the Council to allow such an unfair and inequitable contract
to hnowlingly exist without taking steps to abort or correct it,
is exceedingly unjust to our OWn taxpayers and particularly at a
time when we, ourselves may very well have to entertain higher
taxes.
Moreover, ! cannot believe that any fair minded citizen of the
County would expect the City to subsidize and provide these
services at a considerable financial loss to the City. Then too,-
these contracts have been a constant source Of much misunderstanding,
illmill and bitterness through the years and if the other govern-
mental units are interested in the promotion of good relationship
within the Valley, a good start would he in the renegotiating of
these contracts to a realisitic figure but taking into consideration
not only current operational expenses but capital investment and
depreciation as well.
Math this in mind, Mister Mayor, X would therefore move that we
instruct the City Manager to make a compilation of all existing
contracts between the City and other governmental units, the
rates being paid to the City under these contracts, the yearly
operational costs of the departments involved, per unit cost,
the capital investment in the facility as well as the amount
still under obligation by the City, the purpose being the rene-
goiating of these contracts.
Respectfully submitted for your careful consideration,
S! Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland"
Mr. Garland moved that the City Manager be instructed to make said compila-
tion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
344
TAXES: Mr. Trout read the following prepared statement requesting that th*
Mayor appoint a committee to study the rations proposals being made not only In
Virginia but other programs in other states in connection uJth reducing taxes rot
people retired end over the age of 6~ and that said committee report back to Council
math n recommendation as soon es possible:
'June 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council,
Roanoke, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
Just about all municipalities in Virginia have been requested
by senior citizen groups to consider reducing taxes for people
retired and over the age Of
Roanoke City Council was requested to do this and it was re-
farted to budget study. I feel that as individuals and as a
group we have not concentrated very much on this request, l
feel it *auld be most unfair to our senior citizens for us to
be heavily involved in the budget study and other Council
assignments and thereby not 9lye fair study to this request.
Rased on this, it is my recommendation that the Mayor name a
committee to study the various proposals bean9 made not only
tn Virginia but other programs lfl other states and report back
to Council with recommendation as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
James O. Trout*
Mr. Trout moved that the Mayer be requested to appoint said committee. Th~
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber advised that he mould appoint the members to said committee
the next regular meetln9 of the body on Monday, June 21, 1971.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.~
APPROVED
ATTEST:
/ City Clerk Mayor
345
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING,
Monday, June 14. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met in special meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 14, 1971, et S p,m., with Mayor
Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David E. Lfsk, Noel C, Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, Janes O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ..... 7.
ABSENT: None ...........................................................O.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Bauer.
Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorneyt and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the regular meeting of Council for June 14, 197
had already been adjourned and moved that the special meeting Of Council be called to
order. The notion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Uebber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................O.
SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mayor Webber advised that the special meeting of
Council had been called for the purpose of adopting a Resolution proposing and
committing the City of Roanoke to certain plans in connection with the Sewage Treat-
ment Plant.
Mr. Thomas then offered the Iollowlng Resolution proposing and committing
the City of Roanoke to an Interim Plan for Sewage Treatment and o Schedule of Progrum
for Long-Range Development of the Roanoke Sewage Treutment Plant, based upon state
and federal participation therein and directing that said Interim Plum and Long-Range
Progrom be filed with the State Water Control Board with request thut the same be
approved by suid Board:
(~19725} A RESOLUTION proposing and committing the City to un Interim Plan
for Sewage Treatment nad a Schedule of Program for Long-Range Development of the
Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant, based upon State and Federul participation therein;
directing that said Interim Plan and Long-Range Progron be filed with the State Wuter
Control Board, with request that the sane be approved by said Board.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows, viz:
(a) That the City of Roanoke hereby proposes and commits the City to
impJement and carry out as the City*s Interim Plan for Sewage Treatment the Inter-
mediate Plan for Sewage Treatment set out on pages 10 through 31 of the Interim Repot!
on Sewage Treatment for Roanoke, Virginia. dated June 10, 1971, prepared by Alvord,
Burdick ~ Howson, Engineers, including the Schedule of Accomplishment set out on page
28 therein, designed to accomplish over a period of the next succeeding thirty (30)
346
m,nabs specific procedures, including the construction ond cost thereof for optlmlult
the operation o~ present, seuuge treatment localities, construction of nam roolllties
to acc,mm,dote the hydraulic loodings now experienced, to minimize the bypossing of
rom semage, and to reduce the om,nut of phosphorus in the flnol effluent, and propose
and commits said ~ty, also, to the Schedule of Pr,cron for MsJor LongoRczge Develop-
ment of the R,on,he Sewage Treotment Plant, dated June 11. 1971o set out os £mbibit
No. 6. and con}aimed in the City Msougerts report to the Council dated June 15. lC?l,
pTovided that the State, acting by end through its State Water Pollution Control
D0aFd. do allocate to tho City for such purposes the maximum omounts authorized of
Federal and State fund~ available under ibc lam for such purposes, upon lmplementatl~
of said plan and program, by the City; and
(b) That the aforesaid Interim Plan and Schedule of Pr,gram for #aJor
Long-Range Development of the Roanoke Semage Treatment Plant be filed on behalf of
the City ~ith the State Rater Control Doard, uith request that the same be approved
as the City*$ Program for Sewage Abatement.
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carload, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Rebber ................................... ?*
NAYS: None .................... O.
There being no further business, Mayor Rebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
A P P R 0 ¥ E D
ATTEST:
City Clerk ........ Mayor
347
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, June 21, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 21, .1971, at 2 p,m., the regular
meeting hour, mith Mayor Mebber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton N. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ?,
ABSENT: None O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Hamer. Assistant City Manager; Mr. B. Ben
Jones, Jr.. Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, Assistant City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Frank H.
Vest. Jr.. Pastor, Christ Episcopal Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Tuesday,
June 1, 1971, and the regular meeting held on Monda y, June ?, 1971, having been
furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Thomas, seconded by Dr. Taylor.
and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes
approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC RATTERS:
TAXES: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, June 21,
1971. on the subject of an increase in the local tax levy on taxable real estate and
tangible personal property in the City of Roanoke; on the subject of an increase
in the rate of the tax on utility services; on the subject of un increase of the
license taxes provided in the License Tax Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, on the privilege of doing business or operating in the City of Roanoke;
and on the subject of a single local license tax for all dogs, the matter was before
the body.
In this connection, Mr. W. C. Garvey, representing the Concerned Citizens
for Equitable Taxation, appeared before Council and presented a petition signed by
812 citizens of the City of Roanoke vigorously opposing any increase in the real
estate tax.
Mr. Omer P. King, Sr., appeared before the body and advised that he is
aware of the fact that Council has a difficult task in attempting to balance the
budget but that he hopes the request of the retired people for real estate tax
relief will not Ret lost in the shuffle.
Mr. B. Bo Harden also appeared before the body and requested.that Council
establish a freeze on the real estate taxes for elderly persons and that Council
tire the elderly citizens more consideration.
348
Mr. Thomas moved that the requests of Mr. King and Mr, Harden be referred
to the ¢,ommlttee to be appointed by the Mayor to study tax relief for the elderly~
The motion nas seconded by Mr. Llsk and unaniwously adopted.
With reference to the matter, communications from Mrs. Jessie Hay Seay,
the Wildwood Civic League, Mr. W. I. Edunrds and Mr. F. A. Knmmer~n opposition to
the increase in the real estate taxes, mere before Council.
Various petitiont signed by S43 residents of the City of Roanoke opposing
the real estate tax increase, mere also before the body. .
Mc. John D. Young. Attorney, representing the Roanoke Merchants Associnti
Hr. William R. Hill, Executive Director, Domntonn Roanoke, Incorporated; Mr,
Robert W. Woody, representing Graves-Humphreys, Incorporated; Hr. W. Jackson Shepherd
President of Jennings-Shepherd. Incorporated; end DF. Rufus P. Elicit, Jr., repre-
senting the Ronnoke Academy of Medicine appeared before Council in opposition to
the proposed increase in license taxes.
la this connection, communications from Mr. Julian I. Sacks, representin9
Julian's Shoes; Dr. J. H. Dollingsworth; Dr, Milliam H, Kaufman; Dr. Hugh H. Trout;
Mr, Victor. A. Hafner, representing Klngoff's; Mr. L. L. Pratt. Manager, Leggett;
and Mr. S. Finkelstein, representing the Stork Shop. advising that the proposed
increase to the license tax is unfair, unjust and discriminatorl, mere before Council
A communication from Mrs. S. D. Harvey transmitting a petition signed by
15 residents and a further petition signed by 11 residents of the City of Roanoke
advising that they are opposed to any type of tax increase, were before Council.
A communication from Mr. James A. Mandy. President of the Executive
Committee of the Roanoke Education Association, advising that the Association recog-
nizes the necessity of the City of Roanoke remaining competitive in securing and
retaining competent employees in all positions, however, a competitive position
does not evolve without careful and deliberate examination of the sales and fringe
benefits offered in the surrounding governmental agencies, businesses and industries
that for this reason, positions for professional.employees must be compared with
like positions: those requiring a college degree and certification, that the
teachers in the Roanoke City School System have met and will continue to meet the
challenge of teaching ia an urban school system which is under constant ~urveillaece
by the court, that public education is an investment,.an asset ~nd not a fiscal
liability and that if Roanoke hopes to remain a progressive city, it must meet the
challenge of providing the best possible education for its citizens, nas before
Council.
Mrs. Lela Spite, Director of the Homane Education Services.and Member of
the Mill Mountain Zoo Committee, appeared before Council and transmitted additional
data including a priority llst for imprqvenents to the existing Mill Rountain Zoo
and requested that Council answer vario=s questions pertaining to the zoo.
'349
#~. Lisk moved that the data and qnestiuaa posed by Mrs. Spitz be referred
to the Mill Mountain Zoo Committee for its consideration. The motion nas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Milllam Mold. President of the Board of Help, Incorporated. appeared
before Council and requested restoration of the $16,000.00 In the 1971-72 fiscal
year budget for the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Program.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to 1971-72 budget study. The
notion nas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.o Bouday, Jane 21,
1971, on the request of Mr. Russell Lewis Short that property located on the
uesterly aide of Mestside Boulevard, N. M., described as Official Tax Nos. 27S1201
and 2750909, be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General
Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the'City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"Ray 20, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of Nay 19, 1971.
Br. Michael Smeltzer, attorney for the petitioner, appeared he-
fore the Planning Commission and noted the follomin9 pertaining to
this petition:
(a) that his client, Mr. Short recently purchasedthese
specific parcels.
(b) that the petitioner pla~s to construct 4 apartment
stvuctares, with 12 units each.
(c) that the petitioner plans to do extensive ftllin9 of these
parcels to bring them to road grade. This will entail
heavy expenditures on his part for site preparation.
(d) that the petitioner contemplates a total expenditure for
this entire project of approximately $320,000 ($80.000
per unit).
Mr. Lawrence, membe~ o~ the Planning Commission, pointed to
the excessive traffic conditions presently existing along Mestside
Boulevard.
Mr. Boynton, member of. the Planning Commission. inquired about
the parking situation. M.r. S~ort, the petitioner, nated that half
of the parking would be provided for in the front of the lot and
the other half on the rear.
The Planning Director pointed to t~e following factors as
a basis for recommending denial of this petition: the existing
heavy traffic situation on Mestside Blvd.; the access problem to these
parcels owing to the grade situations along Nest.side Blvd.; and,
the fact that these parcels are located in a flood zone.
Accordingly. motion mas made,' duly seconded and approved mith
a vote of 6 ayes and 1 nay, recommending to City Council to grant
this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by LB-
John B. Parfait
Chairman"
35O
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezonlng, Hr. Trout waved
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(al9/26) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, ns nwended, and Sheet No. 275, Sectional 19~6
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MBEREASo application has been wade to the Council. of the City of Roanoke
to have a certain acreage tract located on the northwesterly side of Westside
Boulevard, N. W., and being Roanoke City Official ~27S1201 and a2750909[ rezoned
from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, and
#HEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2. General
Residential District; and
MBEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1. Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published and
)osted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
MHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 21st
day of June, 1971. at 2 p.m.. before the Council of th~ City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in imterest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed vezoning; and
WBEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided.
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 2?5 o~ the Sectional 1966 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the. following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the westerly side of Restside Boulevard, N. W.. and
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin on the northwesterly
corner of Restside Boulevard, N. W.0 and
Panorama Avenue, N. N.; thence with the
northerly side of Panorama Avenue, N. W.,
N. TO° 05' M., 212.22 feet to a point in
the approximate middle of Peters Creek,
marked by an iran pin; thence up Peters
Creek as it meanders the following six
courses and distances: N. 13o 30'
51.0 feet to a point; N. 290 29* M. S1.72 ·
feet to a point; N. G° 10' M. 95.0 feet
to a point; N. 80° 05' M. 35.0 feet to
a point; N. 11° 44* 40" M. ?2.35 feet to
a point; and N. ?o 15' E. lOl.g5 feet to
a potmt; thence leaving Peters Creek, and
with the original northerly boundary line
ofthe Samuel I. Morris property, N. 62°
36* E. 161.03 feet to a point on the westerly
line of Westside Boulevard, N. M.; thence
with the westerly side of Mestside Boulevard,
N. M., the following two courses and distances:
S. 2° 04' I. 100.0 feet to a point and S. 19o -
05' E. 353.72 feet to a point, the place of
BEGINNING, and as more particularly shown on
the plat of survey prepared by T. P.
Parker ~ Son, Engineers ~ Surveyors; and
J
designated on Sheet 275 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as
Official Tax Nos. 2T51201 and 2750909, be, and ia hereby, changed from RD. Duplex
Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, and that Sheet HO.
275 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloming vote:
AY£S: .Messra, Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, gheeler and Mayor
Nebber
NAYS: None ............. O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday, June 21.
1971, on the request of Hr. James #. Hrandon that property located on Rlverland
Road, S. E** described as Lot 2-A on a plat showing 43-subdivision of property
of James O. Rasey. being all of Lots 11-22. inclusive, and Lots 22-A and A-I,
Section No. I and all of Lots l-fl. inclusive, Section No. 2. Map of Nulnut Hill.
Official Tax Nos. 4041106. 4041109. 4041110, 4041112. 4041113 and 4041115. from
RS-3, Single-Family Residential District. to RD, Duplex Residential District, the
matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follomln9
report recommending that the request be granted:
"Nay 20, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roauoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of May 19, 1971.
Mr. Frank No Perkinson. attorney for the petitioner, appeared
'before the Planning Commission and stated that he was representing
Mr. James Brandoo Jr. mhd owns lots 14, 15 and 16 (Tax Map Key
4041107), and Mr. James Willis who owns lots 11, 12 and 13 (Tax
Map Key 4041106). Mr. Frank N. Perkinson noted that Mr. Barry
Lichenstein represented Mr. James O. Kasey who owns lots 17, 18
and 19 (Tax Map Key 4041109), lots 20, 21 and 22 (Tax Map Key
4041110), lots 22A, Al, (5-A) (Tax Map Key 4041112), lots 2. 3,
4 and part of S (6A) (Tax Map Key 4041113). and lots 5 (part),
6, 7 and 8 (YA), (Tax Map Key 4041115).
Mr.' Brandon noted that he would improve the alley if it was
rezoned. Mr. Boynton. member of the Planning Commission commented
on the ability of the alley to service all the lots.
Mr. Barry Lichenstein noted that the area was suitable only for
duplex use, and R was located one block from the Roanoke River. He
noted that this use represented the highest and best use for these
properties.
Mr. Calhoun, a local resident, opposed the petition 'because
it represented a difficult proposition*. Mr. Mitchell, another
local resident, opposed the petition on the same grounds.
The Planning Director inquired about the parking situation and
ham the petitioner(s) plan to handle it. Mr. Lichenstein noted that
the petitioners plan to enlarge the area for parking.
The Planning Director noted that on March 30, 1967, the Planning
Commission had denied this petition on the basis that the properties
were located on a very steep grade requiring extensive cutting, that
the parcels abatt a heuvily traveled street, Rlverlond Rand, which
carries heavy traffic to end from the Roanoke Industrial Center
end the Riverdole residential section of the city, smd finally,
that Riverdnle Road is to be widened to s 4-lane arterial (?0').
Accordingly, motion uss made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend.to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman*
No one appearing in opposition to t~e request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(u19727) AN ORDINANCE to amend Tltle'XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 404, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning. .
MREREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have those parcels of land located in the City of Roanoke. Virginia. on
Riverland Road, S. E., and being more particularly described as follows:
(1) Lot I-A on a plat showing the re-sign]vision of property of James
O. Easel, being all of Lots 11 through 22 inclusive, and lots 22-A and A-I.
Section No. 1. and all of Lots I through B inclusive, Section io. 2, map of
*Malnut Hill" made by David Dick and Harry A. ~all. CES, dated Nay 11, 1965. and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court ~or the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Deed Book 1190, page 320; and BEING a part of the property conveyed to
James R. Millis and Barbara J. Millis, husband and wife, by deed from James Oral
iKasey and Shelby J. Easey, his wife, dated August 19, 1965. and recorded in the
Clerk*s Office aforesaid, in Deed Rook 1199, at page 318. Official Tax No. 4041106,
rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential
District; and
(2) Lot 2-A. on a plat showing the ~e-subdivision of property of
James O. Kasey, being all of lots 11 thru 22, inclusive, and lots 22-A and A-I,
Section No. 1, and all of Lots I t~rough H inclusive, Section No. 2, map of
"Malnut Hill* made by David Dick and Harry A. Mall, CES, dated May 11, 1965, and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Deed Book 1190, pa9e 320; and BEING the same property conveyed to
James M. Brandon by James Ro Nillis and Barbara J. #fills, husband and wife, by
deed July 21, 1970, and recorded in the Clerk*s Office of the Bustings Court for
the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in' Deed Book 1290. at page 72, Official Tax No.
1041107, rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to RD. Duplex
Residential District; and
(~) Lots 3-A. 4-A, 5-A, 6-A and ?-A, on a plat showing the re-$ubdivJsi
of property of James O. Kasey, being all of Lots 11 through 22 inclusive, and
Lots 22-A and A-I, Section 1. and all of Lots 1 through H inclusive, Section No. 2,
'3'53
mnp of #Walnut Hill' made by David Dick nad Harry A. Mall, CES, dated #ay Il, 1965,
and recorded In the Clerk*s Office of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Deed Book llHO, page 320; and BEING a part of the property conveyed
to James Oral Knsey by deed from Mountain Trust Bank, Successor Trustee for Emua L~
Giles, dated March lB, 1965, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings
Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1180 at page 318. Official
Yax Nos. 4041109. 4041110. 4041112. 4041113. and 4041115. rebound from RS-3, Single
Family Residential District, to BO, Duplex Residential District.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to RD,
Daplex Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, IgSb, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
MREREAS. the hearin9 as provided for in said notice was held on the 21st
day of June 1971, at Z p.m.. before the Council of th~ City of Roanoke, at which
hearing allparties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS. this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be reaoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended.
relating to Zoning. and Sheet Ho. 404 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke
be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Riverlaad Road, S. E.. in the City of Roanoke, Virginia
and being more particularly described as follows:
(1) Lot I-A on a plat showing the re-subdivision of property of James O.
Kasey, being all of Lots 11 through 22 inclusive, and Lots 22-A and A-I. Section
No. 1, and all of Lots 1 through O, inclusive. Section No. Z, map of *Walnut Hill"
made by David Dick and Harry A. Wall. CES. dated.May 11, 1965, and recorded in the
Clerk's Office of tbeDustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia. in Deed
Book I160, page 320; and DEIH6 a part of the property conveyed to James RD Willis
and Barbara J. Willis. husband and wife, by deed from James Oral Kasey and Shelby
J. Kasey. his wife, dated August 19, 1965, and recorded in the Clerk's Office
aforesaid, in DEED Hook 1188 at page 318, Official Tax Ho. 4041106, designated on
Sheet 404 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be, and is hereby,
changed from RS-3 Single-Family Residential District. to RD-Duplex Residential
District, and that Sheet No. 404 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
354
(2) Lot 2-A, on n plat showing the re-subdivision of property of Janes
Kasey, being all of Lots 11 thru 22, inclusive, and Lots 22~A and
and all of Lots I through 9 Jnclaslveo Section No. 2, map or *Walnut Hill* made by
David Dick and Barry A. Mall, CES, diced May 110 1965, and recorded in the Clerh*s
Office of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanohe, Virginia, in Deed Rook 1160.
page 320; and. BEING the same property conveyed to James
Willis and Barbara J. Willis, husband and wife, by deed dated July 21, lg?O,.and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Deed Rook 1280, at page 72, Official Tax No. 404110~, rezoned from
RS-3, Single Family Residential Oistrict, to RD, Duplex Residential District; and
designated on Sheet 4ad of the Sectional 1966 Zone Hap, City of Roanoke, be, and
15 hereby, changed from RS-3 Single-Family Residential District. to RD-Duplex
Residential District, and that Sheet No. 404.of the aforesaid map be changed in
this respect.
(3) Lots 3DA, 4-A, 5-A,6-A and ?-A.maplot showing the re-subdivision of
property of James O. Easey, being all of Lots 11 through 22 inclusive, and Lots
22-A and A-I, Section 1, and all of Lots I through
mop of "Walnut Hill'* made by david Dick and Harry A. Mall, CE$, dated ~ay 11, 196S,
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Deed Book 1180, page 320; and BEING a part of the property conveyed
to James Oral Kasey by deed from Mountain Trust Bank, Successor Trustee for Emma L.
Giles, dated March 16. 1965, and recorded in the Clerk*s Office of the Hustings
Court for the City of Roanoke. Virginia, in Deed Book liDO at page 318. Official
Tax Nos. 4041109, 4041110. 404~112. 4041113. and 404111S, designated on Sheet 404
of the Sectional 1966 Zone Bop, City of Roanoke, be, and is hereby changed from
RS-a, Single-Family Residential District. to RD-Duplex Residential District, and
that Sheet No. 404 of the aforesaid mop be changed in this respect.
The motion uss seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: MesSrs. Garland. Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .?.
NAYS: None.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday. June 21,
1971. on the request of Mr. Roy Brandon that the easterly half of Lot 3, Block 1,
Map of Upson Addition. the westerly half of Lot 4, Block 1, Map of Upson Addition
and the westerly half of Lot 3, Block 1, Map of Upson Addition, Official Tax Non.
3160207, 3160226 and 3160208. be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-2, General Residential District. the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that a RG-I rezoning be approved in lieu of the requested RG-2
rezoning:
355
'May 20. 1071
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of May 10, 1071.
Mr. Frank N. Perklns~n, Jr., attorney for the petitioner,
appeared before the Planning Commission and noted the following
pertaining to this petition:
(a)that his client plans to construct 'semi-luxury*
apartments, colonial in style.
(b) that this parcel abuts an existing C-2 district and
would not be detrimental to the surrounding area.
Mr. ~oynton, member of the Planning Commission questioned Mr.
Perkinson about the number of units proposed in this apartment
development. Mr. Drandon, the petitioner noted that bo contemplates
constructing four apartment units, consisting of sixteen housing
units, with parking provided for in the center.
The Planning Director inquired about the possibility of a
RG-I rezonin9 in lieu of the Re-2 request. Mro Brandon noted that
the future widening of 10th Street necessitated a considerable
building set-back, since his frontages along Wlldhurst were to be
taken for the 10th Street Extension. This would reduce his lot area
and make a RG-I rezoning unfeasible. Under the 10§0 Highway Plan
10th Street was extended along Wildhurst, but subsequently City
Council amended this portion of the Plan, because of its adverse
impact on the Johnson Carper Co. The loth Street Extension was
realigned a few blocks north of Wildhurtt Avenue.
Mr. Mcntworth, member of the Planning Commission, inquired
about the drainage situation. It was noted that there are no
existing drainage problems in the area.
Zhe Planning Director noted that an apartment zone generally
serves as a 9god buffer between a commercial and a residential area,
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council. to grant a RG-I rezonino,
in lieu of the original R6-2 rezonino petition.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by LM
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
No 9ne appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Lisk moved
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(mlg72fl) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the Cityof Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 316, Sectional 1965
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have that certain parcel of land located on Mildhurst Avenue, in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
(1) Being.the easterly one-half of original Lot 3, Block 1, Map of Upson
Addition, made by Mllliam Bradford July 1022, as shown on plat shoming new subdivisi*
line through property of Ramon J. Catron, made by David Dick, May 21, 1058, and
BEING the same property conveyed to Roy. Brandon and Vivian S. Brandon husband and
356
wife, by Lillie S. Morgna, widow, by deed dated November 2, 1970, sad recorded ia
the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court for the City of Roenohe, Virginia, in Deed
Rook 1284, et pege 621. Official Te. Bo. 316020T.
(2) Being the western half or Lot Ho, 4, Block 1, as shown by the Map
of the Upson Addition; and REING the same property conveyed to Roy Drendon and
Vivian S. Brundon, husband ced wife, by LillJe S. Morgan, widow, by deed dated
November 2, i970, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court for the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, ia Deed Book 1284, at page 621, Official Tax No. 316022&o
(3) Being the westerly one-half of Lot 3, Block 1, Map of Upson Addition
as shame on plat prepared by David Dick of Upson Addition, CESo dated May 27, 1960;
and BEING the same property conveyed to Roy Brandon and Vivian~ S. Drandon, husband
Jand wife, by deed from Blanche Elsie Ranks. single, et el, by deed dated April 14,
1966, acd recorded in the Clerk*s Office of the Hustings Court for the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, in Doed Book 1198, at page 609. O~ficial Tax No. 3160208,
Rezonod from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-1, General Residential District;
MHEEEAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General
Residential District; and
NHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
masted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
RHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 21st
of June 1971. at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke. at which
hen ring all parties in interest and citizens wore given an opportonity to be heard.
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
RHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED hy the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of tho Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended,
relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 316 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of
Roanoke. be amended in the following, particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Mildhurst Avenue, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
known as the easterly one-half of original Lot 3, Block 1, Rap of Upson Addition
and the western half of Lot No. 4, Block 1, as shown by the Map of Upson Addition
~and BEING the same property conveyed to Roy Brandon and Vivian S. Brandou. husband
and wife, by LillJe S. Morgan, widow, by deed dated November 2, 1970, and recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the RustleRs Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in
Deed Book 1284. at page 621. Official Tax No.s 3160226 and 3160207; AND the westerl
·357
one-half of Lot 3, Block 1, Mop of Upson Addition as shown on plat prepared by
David Dick of Upson Addition, dated May 27, 1960; and BEING the sane property
conveyed to Roy Brandon and Vlvian S. Brand*n, husband and wife, by deed from Blsnch~
Elsie Bsmks, single, et al, by deed dated April 14, 1966, and recorded in the Clerk*l
Office of the Hustings Coort for'the City of Roan*he, Virginia, in Deed Boob 1196,
at page 609. Official Tax No. 3160208, designated On Sheet 31& of tbe Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, be, and is hereby changed from RD,
Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District, and that Sheet
No. 316 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Mebber
NAYS: None ................O,
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, June 21,
1971, on the request of Mr. Luther J. Marmon that property located in the 1900 block
of Loudon Avenue, N. M., described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 31, Hyde Park Land Map.
Official Tax Nos. 2323511 and 2323512, be fez*ned from RG-I, General Residential
District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, the matter was before tho body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"Ray 20, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. #ebb*r, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetings of April T and May 19, 1971.
Mr. Shapiro. attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the
Planning Commission and stated that the property in question is now
vacant and is being utilized for the storage of heavy equipment,
for which it is Jot zoned. He noted that the petitioner proposes
to'construct a cinder block building for storage of this equipment.
Finally. he noted that there are condemned houses near this structure.
indicating the chauging character of the area.
· The Planning Director stated that both the 1980 and tbe. 19fl5
Thoroughfare Plans delineate London Avenue as a major.truck route
to replace Shenandoah Avenue.
At the May 19, 1971 Planning Commission meeting the Planning
Director noted that certain factors, noted below, indicated that the
area generally south of Moorman Avenue (excludin9 the Moorman
Avenue frontages) is best suited for industrial, industrial-related,
and commercial uses:
(a) topography (generally under 7 percent grade).
(b) existing industriol character Of the area.
(c) the future development of Loudon'Avenue as a major
truck route necessitates that the Loudon Avenue
frontage be of an industrial or commercial nature.
(the parcel in question fronts Loudon Avenue.)
(d) the proximity of the railroad, future street widening,
and the closeness of the central business district
indicate that industrial and commercial uses ave in
order for this area.
'358
Accordiugly, notion uae made. duly ueconded and noeniuoasly
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Siqcerelyo
S! John fl. Purrott by LM
John H. Parfait
Chairman"
No one appearing in opposition to the reques~ fur rezoning, Mr: Wheeler
moved that the folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(Zlg?2g) AN ORDINAHCE to auoud Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Cede of the City Of Roanoke,'lg$6, as amended, and Sheet No. 232, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City o~ Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS. application has been made to the Council 5f the City of Roanoke
to have property located in the 1900 Block of Loudon Avenue. N. W.. described as
Lots 3 and 4, Block 31, Hyde Park Land map, Official Tax Numbers 2323511 and 2323512
rezoned from RG-I, Ge~eral Residential District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereiuafter
described land be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District, to LMo Light
hanufacturin9 District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4.1, Title XV. of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
*osted as required and for the time provided by said s~ction; and
NHEREAS, the heatlog as provided for in said notice mas held on the 21st
day of June, 1071, at Z p.m., before the Cooncil of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all.parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described'land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV. Chapter 4.1, Section Z, of The Code of the City Of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 232 of the Sectional 1066 Zsne Map, City of
Roanoke, be amended in the folloming particular and no other, viz,:
Property located on 1900 Block of Loudon Avenue, N. W., described as
Lots 3 and 4, Block 31, Hyde Park land map designated on Sheet 232 of the Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City. of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 2323511 and 2323512, be, and
is hereby, changed from RG-I, General Residential District, to LM, Light Manufactur-
ing District, and that Sheet Ho. 232 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCNOOLS-MDNICIPAL BUILDING: A communication from the Roanohe City
School Board, requesting that $9,801.00 be appropriated to Rentals aader Section
zDO00, *Schools - Fixed Charges** of the 1970-71 budget of the Roanoke City School
Board, to provide fonds to reimburse the General Fund of the City of Roanoke for
the share of the School Board tomar~ rent paid by the city on the former Grand
Piano Ball~iag, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved, that Cooncil concar in the request of the Roanoke City
School B~ rd and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lg?30) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaia Section #BO00, *Schools -
Fixed Charges** of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency,
(For full text of Ordinanc~ see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 334.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
lNebber ....................... 7.
NAYS: None ........ O.
EASEMENTS-MATER DEPARYMENT:. A communication from Mr. Talfourd B. Kemper,
Attorney, representing Pnrkside Plaza. a partnership, advising that in constructing
lthe shoppiog center *Parkside Plaza* on Dale Avenue. S. E.. it is necessary to
extend a public water distribution main into the property of Parkside Plaza so that
separate connections can be made for the tenants of the shopping center, that to
accomplish this, Parkside Plaza is informed an easement must first be granted the
City of Roanoke and requesting that Council take the necessary actio~ to accept
said easement,ms before Council.
Mr. T~omas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and nnani*
mously adopted. .
PLaNNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL. BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Council having adopted a Resolution relating to a. prop~sal from the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. for the provision of a regional courthouse
ifacility and having appointed a committee composed of Messrs. Frank W. Rogers,
Sr.. David K. Lish. John Bo Locke and Lothar Bermelstein to study the matter
along with representatives from the County of Roanoke, the City of Salem and the
Town of Vinton, copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors at its meeting on Wednesday, June g. 1971, calling upon the City of
Roanoke,.the City of Salem and the Tomn of Vlnton to continue negotiations with the
committee heretofore appointed by said Board withou~ deadline as to its ~othority,
but said committee to report its progress to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County not later than October 10 1971, was before Council.
859
360
Mr. Thomas noted that the Resolution be received and filed. The nation
mas seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: A communication from Mr~ Cecil
Simmons complaining or being annoyed by cats in his neighbarhoad and also complain-
ing of the quality of commodity fonds which he is forced to eot because he is a
recipient of public welfare, was before Council.
Mr, Nheeler maved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by ~r. Trout and onanimously adopted.
DUDGET-PLANNING: A communication from Mr. Robert M. Shannon, Executive
Director of the Fifth Planning District Commission, advising that the proposed
Roanoke City budget revision allocations to the Fifth Planning District were
tentatively reduced, transmitting information which affects future planning and
implementation for the City of Roanoke and urging that the 1971-72 fiscal year
budget of the City of Roanoke include an allocation based on $0.20 per capita
for the Fifth Planning District Commission in order that the necessary state and
federal financial support may be generated, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to 1971-72 budget
study. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. J. Glenwood Strickler, Attorney,
represeuting Mr. Thoma~ M. Dale, et ax.. requesting that property near the inter-
! section of Cove Road and Hershberger Road. N. #., described as Official Tax Nos.
2480147. 2480117, 2460141, 24B0148, 2480138, 2480116 and the southerly portion
of 2480111, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RE-I,
General Residential District, and RG-2, General Residential District. was
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. ?homas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Harvey S. Latins, Attorney, represent-
In9 Mr. Morton Rosenberg, et al., requesting that property located in the 3100 bloc
of Melrose Avenue, N. [.. described ns the westerly parts of Lots I and 2. and the
southerly part of Lot 2. Section 1, Map of R, H. Angell Addition, Official Tax No.
2530101, be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District, and RD, Duplex
Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, was berate Council. -
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. ?he motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Alex A. [aldrop, Jr., Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. Charles Bane, et ax., requestingthat property located at 1732
Eleventh Street, N. E., described as Lots 10, 11 ned 12, Dlock 42, Rap of Liuwocd
Land Company, Official Tax No. 3060811, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to LM. Light Manufacturing District, was before Council.
I
/
Hr. Trout moved that the request for reaoning be referred to the City
Planning ComBlssion for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Hr. Lish and unanimously adopted.
ZONING-COURCIL: A petition from Mr. John H. Thornton, Jr** Attorney,
representing Hr. E. Claude Paoe,.Jr** et ux** requesting that a 15,68 acre parcel of
land located on Persinger Road and Rrambleton Avenue, S. M** described as Acreage,
Official Tax No. 1260214, be rezoned from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District,
to C-2, General Commercial District. was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Flanning Couission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. List and unanimously adopted.
It appearing that five of the seven members of Council are al~o members
of the Elks Lodge, Rro Thomas moved that the City Attorney be directed to render
a legal opinion as to whether it would be a Conflict of Interest for the five
members of Council who are also members of the Elks Lodge to vote on this request
for rezonlng. The motion was seconded by M~. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following report of
the City Manager trapsmitting a number of accounts in the Ir?O-TI budget which need
additional appropriations:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 21, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Auditor's office, in an effort to balance year-end
accounts has forwarded the following list of over expended accounts
that City Council night be requested to appropriate funds to balance
the accounts. They are as follows:
Dept, Obj. Approp.
No. Dept. Name Code Object Name Needed
I Council 251 Public Ceremonies $ 43.96
13 Retirements 104 State Supple. Ret. 1DS.D3
19 Juvenile Dom. Eel.
Court 2gO Automobile Allowance 700,00
45 Police Dept. 325 Motor Fuel &Lub. 3,600.00
47 Fire Dept. 300 Printing & Off. Sup. 25.00
48 Dept, of Buildin9s 300 Printing 6 Off. Sup. 125.00
50 Armory 114 Overtime 31.OB
54 Highway Safety Com. 300 Printing ~ Off. Sup. 50.00
56 Public Moths 220 Communications 250.00
57 Traffic Eng. ~ Com. 330 Materials ~ Sup. 23.75
58 Street Repair 325 Motor Fuel &Lub. l,DO0,O0
59 Street Signs ~ Mark-
ings 260 Maintenance of Much.
~ Equipment 2.21
62 Snow & Ice Removal 320 Oper. Sup. ~ Mat. 1,500.00
64 Maintenance of City
property 260 Maintenance of Much.
& Equipment. 20.00
300 Printing & Off. Sup. 10.01
68 Street Cleaning 220 Communications 40,00
71 Garage 260 Maint. of Much. ~
Equipment 5,000.00
325 Motor Fuel &Lub. 250.00
75 Recreation 325 Motor Fuel &Lub, 400.00
77 Civic Center 300 Printing & Off. Sup. 500.00
60 Libraries 300 Printing ~ Off. Sup, 100.00
320 Operating Sup. C Mat. 150.00
·362
The Clerk has been requested to prepare a budget ordinance for
City Council's consideration in appropriating these funds.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, HirEr
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager end
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19731) AN ORDINANCE to amend and veordalu certain sections of the
1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance nook ~o. 35. page 335.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and odopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7
NAYS: ~one .............. O.
AUDiTORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having previously deferred action on the
passage of an Ordinance establishing the position of Sentor Mechanical Eogineer
at the Roanoke Civic Center as requested by the City Manager, the Assistant City
Manager submitted the followlfl~ report of the City Manager recommending that the
position be designated as Maintenance Specialist and that it be authorized at Range
22 Mith a minimum salary or entrance salary of $6?4,00 per month and a maximum or
Step 6 salary of $860.00 per month and requesting authorization for the position
to be effective retroactive to June 15, 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 21, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Three meeks ago the City Council had before it an ordinance
to provide for the establishment of a position of Senior Maintenance
Engineer at .the Civic Center. I withdrew this portion of the ordinance
as would designate and appropriate for this position at the City
Council meeting in order to review the title and to adjust two steps
downward the salary classification for the.position.
.The matter is now returned with the recommendation that a posi-
tion be designated on the personnel assigned positions for the
Civic Center of Maimtecance Specialist and that this position be
authorized at Range 22 with a minimum salary or entrance salary
of $674 per month and a maximum or Step 6 salary of $860 per month.
Me are in need of a person in this position and although this is
relatively close to the end of the year, your authorization of this
position effective retroactive to June IS, 1971, would enable us
to proceed with interviewing applications which are already on hand
and be in a position perhaps to appoint an occupant at a very early
date.and to carry the position on into the new budget.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
:363
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure. The motion mas seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted~
BUDGET-HEALTH GEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a urltten
report of the City Manager transmitting the folloming communication from the Roanoke
Valley Mental Health-Hental Retardation Services Board in connection with the pro-
;osed decrease in their 1971-72 fiscal year budget:
"June 10. 1971
Mr. Julian Birsto City Manager
Municipal Building
City of Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Dear Mr. Hirsh:
The Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services Board
has submitted to the City of Roanoke a budget request of $35.968 for
the fiscal year of 1972. It has come to my attention that you have
recommended to the City Council a budget mhich carries math it
proposed support to the Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental
Retardation Services Board of $20,009.54 during fiscal 1972. This
would represent a continuation of support of the services provided
under the auspices of the Board at exactly the same level as pre-
vailed for fiscal 1971. I feel compelled to make it knoun to you
uhat the implications would be for comuunity mental health and mental
retardation services in the Roanoke Valley should our support be
reduced from the requested $35,966 to the $20,009.54.
Our program is one that serves the entire Roanoke Volley, including
Roanoke County and the City of Salem as well as Roanoke City. In
fiscal 1971 the City of Salem and the County met the request of the
Services Board whereas the City of Roanoke cut the original request
from $26,679.36 to $20.009.54 for this past year. It is because the
City of Roanoke made this cut last year that the increased budget
request for this year appears to be relatively large, but in actuality
this request would only put the City of Roanoke back in parity with
uhat has already been approved by the County of Roanoke and the City
of Salem for fiscal 1972. In other words, should the City of Roanoke
fail to approve the amount requested it will be the second year in
succession in which the City of Roanoke has granted funds less than
the City of Salem and the County of Roanoke based on a population
formula.
Should the City of Roanoke cut our budget request by the amount pro-
posed by you, it would have more far-reaching implications than
readily meet the eye. Adequate funding during these first few years
of our existence is crucial in developing flexible and viable
mental health amd mental retardation services at the community
level. Should the City of Roanoke decide to pare our request for funds
by approximately $15,000 as suggested by this budget proposal, the
County of Roanoke and the City of Salem would be very justified in
taking similar action in order to remain approximately equal in
sharing costs based on relative population. This would mean that,
in essence, the $15,000 reduction could mall become a reduction of
between $25,000 and $30,000 at the local level. Since the State of
Virginia matches local funds on n dollar for dollar basis, this
$25.000 to $30.000 figure automatically become~ a reduction in our
budget of from $50.000 to $60,000. Even if the City of Salem and
the County of Roanoke do not exercise their option to reduce our
budget, accordingly, the $15,000 reduction that you suggest would still
automatically mean a ~otal reduction of $30,000 based on the matching
ratio from the State of Virginia. Inasmuch as funds that we receive
from the local municipalities can also be used in meeting the matching
requirements for federal grants, it is conceivable that a reduction
of $15.000 from the City of Roanoke could reduce substantially the
potential for securing of federal funds to embellish the services
programs in the field of mental health and mental retardation for
the Roanoke Valley area.
Since the total budget, including all sources of revenue for the
Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services Board as
364
presented to you, la of the order of $279,174 the percent of redaction
that your $15,000 cut would wean to our overall budget (with this
resulting ia total reduced revenue for fiscal 1972 frow all sources
of fret at minimum $30,000 to $60,000 or even worel could indeed be
substantial to the point of, being crippling. We are ua~ing, every
effort to explore and to utilize the alternative sources of funding
at the state, federal, and local levels in order to keep local tax
contributions within bounds, but ik will require at least a wininuu
level of local tax support to bring effective and substantial wental
health amd mental retardation services to the Roanoke Valley in a way
comwensurate with the need. We definitely do not believe that
increased wagnitude of support in the order that Is suggested from
an increase of $20,009.54 to $35,968 will prevail Jn the future..It
Is our expectation and intention that future requested increases will
be much wore wodest than the requested increase for this year. How-
ever, the increase as requested for this year is necessary to com-
pensate for the budget reductions sustained last year and to make It
feasible to develop the programs the Roanoke Valley Mental Health -
Mental Retardation Services Board feels are necessary to provide
reasonably adequate services Jn the Roanoke Valley.
Very sincerely yours,
S/ Thomas R. Stage (hr)
Thomas B. Stage, a. O.
Chairman"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report and communication be referred to 1971-72
badget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Council having previously deferred action on a Resolution
providing for the installation of a telephone reservation hoard in the Terminal
Building at Raanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport pending clarification from the City
Manager as to the amount to be charged per number of spaces used, the Assistant
City Manager submitted the following report of the City Manager in clarification
of the matter:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 21, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virqinla
Mhen there was submitted to the City Council several meetings
ago a proposal for the installation of an accommodations board
within the Airport terminal, several questions were raised which were
referred for reply. This Js the board which would contain.spaces
within which hotels and motels could insert advertisements and which
wSold ~ontain two telephones keyed for direct call to the advertisers.
The principle and system of this arrangement Js that those firms
that would qualify as providers of accommodations would pay $50 per
month for the insertion of a control sized picture sign on the board.
This would entitle also the establishment to be keyed in on the
telephone circuit.
The hotel or motel information card would contain a telephone
number. The individual desirin9 to call the location would dial this
number on either omc of the two telephones. The telephones would be
so keyed that no other numbers could be called.
The intended arrangment is that each information card on the
hoard would contain a single telephone number which would entftle to
a single keyed number on the telephone itself. If the firm wished
to enter two telephone numbers on a single card, this would require
the keying of two numbers on the telephone and as a result two charges
of $50 each. If the firm operated, for instance, two hotels and had
· a center switchboard such that the receiving switchboard handled the
telephones or reservations for both of the hotels, then the firm would
keyed number on the telephone resulting in just the single monthly
unit charge.
365
It is hoped that this explains the questions that were submitted
and it is sgaJn recommended that authorization be given for the
construction, establishment and acceptance of applicants for such a
board.
Respectfully submitted.
S! Julian F. HJrst
Julian F. Blrst
City Manager"
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following Resolution:
(n19732) A RESOLUTION providing for the installation of a telephone
reservation board in the Terminal Building at the Roanoke Municipal Airport.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35, page 336.)
Mr. Link moved tze adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adapted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None ............. O.
CITY RARKET: The Assistant City Manager submitted the follomiog report
of the City Manager in connection with plans to close down the city owned and
maintained refrigeration plant at the City Rarket, advising that affected tenants
are about to coutract for their own cooling systems, that several of these tensors
are concerned with respect to the possibility of their expending as mush as
$10,000.00 with no assurance of any continued tenure and recommendicg that he be
authorized to negotiate a two year lease with those tenants who do not presently
have a lease with the city for said purpose:
"Roanoke, Virginia
June 21, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
As members of City Council are aware, the plans to close down
the City omned and maintained refrigeration plant at the City Market
are progressing and the affected tenants are about to contract for
their own cooling systems. Several of these tenants are concerned
with respect to the possibility of their expending as much as
$10~000 (for three stalls) with no assurance of any continued
tenure. As a result several of these tenants have approached the
City Market Manager with a request for a lease. Several tenants
have asked for a two year lease with a one year 'Notice of Termina-
tion' clause.
These tenants are hesitant to order their equipment until City
Council provides some assurance of tenure and they have asked that
the City Ranager*s office obtain such assurances.
At the present time it'is'anticipated that nine of the ten
southern meat stalls will be occupied. Ihs minimum capital
expenditure by any of these tenants will approximate $2500 with
the maximum approaching the $I0,000 figure.
It would seem reasonable to provide these tenants with some
guarantee that they will be permitted time in which to amort~e their
costs of performing these improvements.
366
The changes proposed to City Council in March and the resulting
Increase in rentals appear to huve placed the City Market on u
better thai *break even* status with respect to revenue and general
operating costs. There still remains capital luprovements'to be
removal of the city owned refrigeration system greatly reduces the
cost of this capital lmproveuent.
Predicated upon the above. Jt would be recommended that City
Council by resolution authorize the City Manager to negotiate u tma
year lease with those tenants mbo do not presently have u lease
uJth the City Market.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hiram
Julian F. Birst
City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur Jn the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas and unanimously adopted~
SEM£RS AND S~ORH DRAINS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the follow-
ing report of the City Ranager transmitting information in connection with a hearifl9
before the State Mater Control Board on June 1S~ lg?l. to determine whether that
which is known as Requirement No. 1Qf the State Mater Control Board should be
invoked against the City of Roanoke:
~Roanoke, Virginia
June 21. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Dy virtue of the nature and effect of this matter, It is con-
sidered report should be made to the City Council at this time
although complete information is not yet available.
On June IS, 1971. in response to notification, copy of
which has been previously filed with the Council, representatives
of the City Council, its administrative and operational personnel
and its consulting engineers attended and appeared before a hearing
of the State Mater Control Board in Richmond. The purpose of this
hearing, as the notification stated, nas for the Board to determin~
whether that which is Rnown us Requirement No. I of the Board should
be invoked against the City.
The City, at the hearing, submitted: (1) A program for process
facilities; (2) a time schedule far the program; (3) a financial
method for the program; and (4) evidence of commitment to the program.
Description of the program, schedule and financing mere contained
in n letter dated'Jane 15, 1971, with attached exhibits, from the
City Manager, and interim report, dated June 10, 1971,~epared by
Alvord, Burdick and Dawson, copies filed with the City Clerk, and
the evidence of commitment mas the resolution adopted by the City
Council on June 14, 1971.
At the con~lnsion of the hearing, the Board announced its
decision to invoke Requirement No. 1. The intended effect by the
Board of this action, as is best understood at this point, is to
prohibit connections or additions to any of the semage collection
systems in ~e City, Roanoke County, Salem or Vinton as is ultimately
connected to the Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant for waste treatment.
A reading uf Requirement No. lindicated the Board nay grant
exceptions to the prohibition upon application to the Board.
367'
There is, howerer, at this mritlng confusion us to the specifics
and the particulars of the methods of applying and functioning under
this requirement. This uncertainty mas evident by the discussion of
the Board during its announcement of the decision.
To clarlfy end enable better deteriinatioa of pos*itlon,.the City
has requested of the Board, verbally and by lettero a uritten statement
of the decision and order,
In the meantime0 I have directed, on Jun~ 16, 1971, that within
the City there be uo issuances of building permits requiring sewer
connections and no extensions of semer lines. Also, I have advised
the other governmental JUriSdictions served by this system of this
action. My action is taken solely to avoid any possibility of the
City's being in contempt for failure to take action and is not done
to prejudice any position of the City in the overall matter and is
don~ in the absence of clear information as to the specifics of what
should be done.
The Board and its staff during the he~ring and in our confer-
ences uith the staff prior to the hearing sade extensive references
to Fairfax County. Recognizing the apparent association and use of
· the rairfax County situation, personnel of the City, with a repre-
sentative of our consulting engineers, spent an entire day approxi-
mately two weeks ego touring, mith a representative of the Mater
Control Board and Fairfax County personnel, those facilities in the
interest of determining the relevance of that situation and its
handling to our mork in Roanoke.
Our information as to the reasoning of the Board in its action
and as to the intent of its current request of the City is uncertain.
It is, at this writing, limited to consents sade at the time the
decision mas stated wherein they generally commented that Roanoke
was not acting or proposing to perform the same as Fairfax County.
For theinformatio~ of the Council, in the interest of better
understanding, and without any intent whatsoever to reflect upon
Fairfax C~onty. may I cite the following brief matters.
Fairfax County has mithin its governmental system 6 waste
water systems. Each of these are relatively small in comparison
to the Roanoke plant. Four plants are 250,000 gallons per day.
An additional plant is under constructioo and mas in 1970. The
County is predominately residential with very little industrial
waste, a factor in treatment pro~esses and quality.
When the County was before the Water Control Board in mid-1970,
the attention was as to three of its plants. These are the three
larger rated plants of the system. My reference is to the Report
of the County, as accepted by the Board, dated June 23, lg?O.
Plant Hated Actual Excess of
MGD M~as~red MCD Capacity
Westgate 6.0 ' ll.g 50~
Dogue Creek 2.0 2.9 40~
Little Hu~ting Creek 2.5 3.4 36~
By comparison Roanoke has a rated capacity of 22 MCD (zillion
gallons per day). The average measured MGD is 25, This is an
average excess of
Plant Rated Measured
BOD Actual
Remove] (%) HOD Remoya~
Westgate 55 46
Dogue Creek B4 75
Little Hunting Creek 92.5 69
In their June 23. 1970 Report. they proposed at Westgate 'to get.
by their program, .75-80~ BOD removal, at Dogue Crqek to get 80-85%
removal and at Little Hunting Creek to get 85~ removal.
By comparison at oar Roanoke plant the design rating is to rezove
90~ HOD. The plant is now removing g~ HOD.
368
It Jo noted in the Report of the intent of the program at
Fairfax County that thin statement is made: 'Further, it is
understood that any iumedJate improvements rot these three
semage treatment plants are to be of an interim'nature, and are
to provide maximum practicable efficiencies until the plants
ore totem out or service**
A further significant observation fs that in the total 58
pages of the County Report to the Board, os accepted by the Board,
there is no reference by nord er inference to °phosphatet or
*phosphate removal.'
I am and hove been of the opinion, from all information nvoilsble
to ne. that the Fairfax situation was and Is much different from
Roanoke and that to try to interpret fully procedures and processes
they might be wisely using into the Roanoke operation is impractical,
contrary to conditions end good engineering and uneconomical. The
Roanoke plant must be evaluated on its cnn with relationship to
facilities of comparable size, capacities, streom'requirements end
waste characteristics.
In the meantime, we are continuing the programs already in
effect, continuing testing and procedure changes and improvements.
The City's consultants are continuing mlth their studies sod pro-
ceedin9 with preliminary design mark. We necessarily are slightly
restricted in certain definite decisions due to the delay imposed
by the Board.
Me will try to obtain as much necessary information from the
Board as soon as available and. accordiegly, advise the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Br. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a written report of the
City Attorney advising that the Thacker v. City of Roanoke suit. brought against the
city as o result of certain property rezoning effected by Ordinance ~o. 15&40 of
Council and as a result of the city's subsequent revocation of a certain building
permit issued during the period of the rezoning procedures, was. after rather pro-
tracted litigation, dismissed by final decree entered in the Court of Law and
Chancery of the City of Roanoke on June 16. 1971.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
Seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a written report of the
City Attorney requesting the opportunity of meeting with the Mayor and Members of
Council, the~City Manager and the City Auditor in Executive Session during or after
the meeting for the purpose of discussing certain legal matters within the jurisdic-
tion of Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
for on Executive Session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:' NONE,
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
369
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF OgOINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Ordinance No. 19724, providing
for the sale and conveyance to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Aathorlty of certain properties on the east side of 1st Street, S. E** designated aa
Official Tax Nos. 4013304,.4013305 and 401330&, for the consideration of
cash, needed for the Downtown East Urban Renewal Project, VA. R042, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the
body, Mr. Lisk offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(a19724) AN ORDINANCE providing.for the sale and conveyance to the City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority of certain properties on the east
side of 1st Street, S. E., designated as Official Nos..4013304, 4013305 and 4013305,
for consideration of $9~,O00.O0.cash, needed for said Authorityts Downtemo East
Urban Renewal Project VA. R042.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 333.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ................... 7.
NAYS: None .O.
ACTS OF ACKNONLEDGERENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure recording the deepest regret of the Council of the City
of Roanoke at the passing of J. Sargeaut Reynolds. and extending to his wife, his
children and the other members of his family in the time of their loss the sympathy
of each member of Council, the Assistant City Attorney presented same; whereupon.
Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(u19733) A RESOLUTION relating to the late LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR J. SARGEA~
REYNOLDS.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 337.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AyEs: Messrso Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
~ebber ............... 7.
NAYS: None. .0.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure urging enactment by the General Assembly of Virginia
of legislation which would regulate the sale or use of phosphate detergents within
the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Assistant City Attorney presented same; mhereupon,
Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
370,
(~19734) A RESOLUTION urging enactment by the General Assembly of Virginia
of legislation ~hicb would regulate the sale or use of phosphate detergents within
IRe Commonwealth of Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35. page 336.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Trout end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Link, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Hayor
~ebber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None, ,0.
~O~IO~S A~D MI~ELLANEO~S BUSINESS:
BUDGET~OUNCIL: Mr,.Lisk raised the question as ~o the schedule of Counc:
for budget study sessions for the week of June 21, 1971,
It ~as unanimously decided that the next budget study session of Council
~ould be held ~uesday. June 22, 19~1, at 7:00 p.m** in the ~xecutive Session
Conference Room of the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building.
There being no further business, Mayor lebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
Ap PRO. YE D
City Clerk Mayor
371
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, June 29, 1971,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council Chambe~
in the Municipal Ruilding, Monday, June 20, 1971, et 2 p,m,, the regular meeting
hour, uith Mayor Webber presiding.
P~ESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David N. Llsh. Noel C. Taylor, Hampton
W. Thomas, Janes O..Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Jabber ........ 7.
ABSENT: NONE ........................................................ O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager; Hr. James N. RJncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened uith a prayer by DF. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday. June 14.
1971, and the special meeting held on Monday,.June 14, 1971. having been furnished
each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Garland, seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes approved
as recorded.
HEARING OF. CITIZENS UPDN EUBL1C MATYERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: .
CITY TREASURER:. A communication from Mr. J. H. Johnson, City Treasurer,
advising, that Council failed to respond to several written requests which he made
for new city Ordinances for the purpose of protecting him against any possible
personal liable relating to the handling of city funds, that he had no alternative
other than to call upon the Attorney General of Virginia for a legal ruling end
that the Attorney General has ruled that it is the duty of the Roanoke City
Treasurer to collect and receive all city monies, except such as Council shall by
Ordinance make it the duty of some. other officer or person to collect, that no one
can act for Council in selecting other officers or persons to receive city funds
and urging that Council act immediately in order to protect the taxpayers against
uny possible losses in addition to protecting him against liable, was before Council
Mr. Wheeler moved that the communication be referred to the City Attorney for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Council of the
City of Salem at its meeting on June 14, 1971, authorizing the City Manager of the
City of Salem to immediately prepare a program for the progressive repair and/or
replacement of sanitary sewer lines within the City of Salem in order that infiltra-
tion of storm water may be substantially reduced and pledging the support of the
372'
Council of the City of Salem of such u program within the fluuucfui ability of the
City of Salem end assuring the Council of the City o£ Roanoke of its intention to
cooperate by reducing the storm mater infiltration into the City of Salem sewers,
was before the body.
Hr. Thomas expressed.the opinion that the City or salem should be comwended
for their action in connection with this matter und moved that the Resolution be
received and filed. The motion nas seconded by Mr. lheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-EASEMENTS: A communication from Mr.. Donald W.
Rhinehart, Vice President, Frulin ~ Maldron, Incorporated, for Ferncliff Apartments,
requesting that a portion of the existing sewer easement located at 3533 Yerneliff
Avenue, N. W., be vacated, and further that approval be given to create a new
sewer easement on the property as shown on Plan No. L-41SSD prepared by Clements
Draper, Certified Land Surveyors, was before Council;
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter bereferved to.the City Manager and the City
Attorney for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
LICENSES-DOGS:. Communications from Mrs. lrvin S. Agnew and Mrs. John D. Moran
su~gestin5 that instead of increasing the license fee charged for dogs, that an
Ordinance be adopted requirlug that a cat also be licensed, were before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the communications be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-MUnICIPAL COURT: A communication from Mr. Joseph S. James, Auditor
of Public Accounts. transmitting an audit of the accounts uud records of Mr. Beverly
T. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge of the Municipal Court, for the calender years lghg
and 1970, advising that the audit disclosed that full accounting had been made for
all fends of record coming into the custody of the Court and tim t the recnrds had
been prepared in good order, was before Council.
Or. Taylor moved that the report and audit be received and filed, The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER-GARAGE: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $1,hb5.00 be transferred from Insurance under Section ~?1,
"Garage," to Insurance under Section #64, "Maintenance of City Property," of. the
lg?O-?l budget, to provide sufficient funds to cover the total fire insurance policy,
Mr. Nheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Ranage~
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19735) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordeiu Section ~71. "Garage," add Section
#b4. "Maintenance of City Property." of the 1970-71 Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 345.)
373.
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uts seconded by
Mr~ Trout and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ....... 7,
NAYS: None .0.
EASEMENTS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-PARMS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council havieg
referred to the City Manager for study, report and ~ecommendation a request of the
Roanoke County Hoard of Supervisors that Council grant a 20-foot wide perpetual
easement through proposed public park and recreation area linds owned by the City
of Roanoke and located north of Shenandoah Avenue and west of Peters Creek in
Roanoke County, fo~ the construction, operation and maintenance of a 27 inch
sanitary namer line and manholes*and the City Manager having recommended that the
request be granted with the stipulation that any disturbed areas be seeded and
restored to as near original condition as possible, the City Manager submitted a
mritten report advising that in order to avoid delay to their construction and to
their contractor, he has given verbal approval to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to proceed with the construction of the interceptor semer and
ipointing out that Council previously authorized the City Attorney to prepare the
appropriate agreements.
Mr~ Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Manager to confer
with the Norfolk and Western Railway Company in connection with Lick Run Channel
improvement, the City Manager submitted tho following report in connection with
detouring trains from the eastbound tracks for a period not to exceed ten days in
order to proceed with improvements to the Lick Run Channel, advising that the
City Engineer has contacted the Norfolk and Western Railway Company Engineering
Department and has been informed that the cost of detouring the trains during the
construction phase will be approximately $500.00 per day for additional personnel
or $5,000.00 fur the ten days and recommending that Council approve this expenditure
and authorize the execution of the letter agreement~
~Roanoke. Virginia
June 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Geotlemen:
On Monday, June 7. 1971, City Council received a report from the
City Manager regarding the necessity of detouring trains from the
eastbound trachs for a period not to exceed 10 days. There was
submitted to City Council for your approval a letter which the City
Manager Would submit to the Norfolk and Western Railway Company and
the City Attorney was asked to prepare an ordinance authorizing t~e
City Manager*s execution of that letter.
37;4:
Prior to concurring in this action City Council asked that. the
City ioncger determine the'coats to be loc,fred by o.od paid to the
,orfolk and Western Railuny Compnny os e result of this detouring
activity.
The City Engineer's office has been in contact with the'Ncrfolh
and Western Engineering Deportment tod have beeu informed thom the
cost for detouring these trains during the conttruction phase mould
be approximately $$00 per day for additional personnel. This would
mean an expenditure of $S.000 for ten days. '
There are adequate funds mJthin this construction account
(CIP 27) to pay these costs.
It uould be recommended that City Council approve this expenditure
and authorize the execution of this letter of agreement. ~e apparently
have no alternative.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. HiFSt
Julian F. Hirst
City Homager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Homager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19736) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City's execution of an agreement with
Norfolk mud Western Railway Company incidental to the construction of the City's
Lick Run Storm Drain Channel Project; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, pag~ 345°)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The mot£on was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None. O.
GARRAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
with utilizin9 an area of land owned by the Norfolk and Western Railmay Company for
landfill purposes, advising that the area contains a ~orfolk and Western communica-
tions pole which will have to be removed prior to the city using this land for
landfill purposes, the removal of said pole to be approximately $5,450.00; and
requesting that tho City of Roanoke be granted permission to borrow fill material
irom railway property on the west side of the Norfolk amd ~estern Vinton connector,
that this fill material is to be used to improve the landfill area around the Wells
Furniture Company, said area having previously been used for landfill purposesl
*Roanoke, Var§iaaa June aR, 19~1
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
In our continuing effort to utilize the Tinker Creek Landfill area
formerly obtained from the Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company, Mr.
William P. Clark, Director of Public Marks, has been in contact with
Mr. Charles O. Hammond, Jr,, Assistant Vice President for Engineering
for Norfolk and Western, regarding two items. Mr. Clark has been
endeavoring to obtain clearance to utilize the area located between
375
the previously obtained property ·nd the Horfolk and Western right o(
way. There exists an ·re· ·t tbislocatJon approximately 50 feet wide
and 1700 feet in length. This ·re· is in essence · 15-foot gully between
these two properties ·nd it cant·ins a Norfolh and Western commauicatio·
pole on it which would of necessity hsve to be removed prior to our use
of this area rot landfill purposes, The Norfolk and Western has submitted
to the City · letter of agreement oF permit stating the estimated cost
rot removal of the pole line to be $5,450. Such cost to be borno by
the City of Ronnoke,
The Norfolh and Western Railway Compnny is willing to grant permis-
sion for the City of Roanoke to enter on this railway property subject
to the standard conditions attached in their permit all or which
conditioqs.appear to be satisfactory to the City. Paragrnph ? of this
permit, a copy of which I shall include, states that the City shall
indemnify and save harmless Norfolk and Western Railway from and against
all losses and all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions and Judg-
ments of every nature and description made, brought or recovered against
the Railroad by reason or in cqnseqnence of the exercise of the permission
herein granted.
The $5,450 necessary to cover the cost of relocating the pole line
is available within budgeted accounts.
The second item concerns a request that the City of Roanoke be
granted permission to borrow fill material from railway property on the
mast side of the Norfolk and Nestern Vinton connector as shown tn the
attached drawing. This fill material is to be used to improve the land-
fill area around the Wells Furniture Company, an area previously used
by the City for landfill p~rposes. The Norfolk and Western Railway
Company is willing to grant t~is permission and no charge subject to
the condition that all work shall be accomplished at the City*s
expense and certain other coqdJtions as contained in their letter.
A copy of their letter or permit containing these stipulations is
attached for City Council's review and consideration. Both of these
letters or permits appear to be acceptable to this office and are being
forwarded to the City Attorney*s.office with the request that he pre-
pare the necessary resolutions for City Council to authorize the City
Manager to enter into such agreements.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and that
the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measures.
The motion was seconded by Mr~ Garland and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHRAY$: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting copy
of a list of allocations for urban construction 'funds for the fiscal year 1971-72
as approved by 'the State Highway Commission on June 17, 1971, advising that this
listing is that section applicabie to the City of Roanoke.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report and list he received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SIREET LXGHTS: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting a
petition signed by 168 residents of northwes~ Roanoke requesting traffic signals at
the intersection of llth Street and Moorman Road, N. M.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred back to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation to Council. The m~tion was seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted.
MATEff DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a ~ritten report con~urrin9 in
the following report of a committee recommending that the low bid of Lynchburg
Foundry Company for supplying certain ductile-iron water pipe necessary for the
376
uornal daily operutJon of the Mater Depertsen~ for the period beginning July 1,
lg?lo end ending June 30, 1972. in the nnount or $116.601.00. be accepted:
"Rcenohe, Virginia
· June 20, 1971
Nonoruble #syor and City CouncJl-
aoanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After due nnd proper advertisement, bids were recefred in the office
Of the Purchasing Agent and publicly opened and read at 11:00 ri.m** Tues-
day, June 15. 1971.' for supplying certain ductile-iron water pipe necessary
for the normal daily operation of the City's Water Department. for the
period beginning July, 1971. and ending June 30. 1912, Five bids were
received with the low bid submitted by Lynchbur9 Foundry Company, the
current supplier, in the amount of $116,601.
It is the commJttee*s recommendation that the bid of Lynchburg
Foundry CoMpany be accepted for supplying We ductile-iron water pipe, at
the unit prices listed in their bid. For the twelve month period begin-
niag July 1. 1971. It is further recommeuded that all other bids be
rejected.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Byron E. Namer
Byron E. Darter
S/ Kit D. KAset
Kit B. KAset
S/ B, B, Thompson
B, Bo Thompson~
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Hanager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=19T37) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Lynchburg Foundry Company,
Division of Moodward Iron Company. Division of The Mead Corporation for furnishing
and supplying certain ductile-iron water pipe to be used by the City's Mater Depart-
ment for the period beginning July l, lg?l, and ending June 30. 1972; authorizing
the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract; rejecting all other
bids; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Boob No. 35, page 346.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was secondedby
Mr. Tront and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. 6arland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Tront, Mheeler and Mayor
Webbe~ 7.
NAYS: None
MATER DEPARTMENT-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a writteM
report concurring in the following report of u committee recomneuding that the low
bid of Jones Chemicals, Incorporated. for furnishing and delivering chlorine to the
Mater Department and the Sewage Treatment Plant for a twelve month period beginning
July 1o 1971, for the sum of $.0937 per pound in 150 pound cylinders and $.0463 per
pound in 2,000 pound cylinders, be accepted:
'Roanoke, Virginia
June 28, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mosnohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After due End proper advertisement, bids were received ia
the orr,ce of the Purchasing Agent and publicly opened and read
et 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, June IS, 1971. rot furnishing and delivering
chlorine to the Water and Sewage Departments of the City of Roanoke
for the next fiscal year. Ten bids were received with the lom bid
submitted by Jones Chemicals. Inc., Charlotte, Horth Carolina. mt
$.093T per pound in 150 lb. cylinders and $.O463 per pound in 2,000
pound cylinders. :
At this point it must be pointed out that modifications are
programmed to revise the chlorine system at the Mater Department's
Csrvins Cove Filter Plant so as to utilize the 2,000 pound cylinders
sometime daring the next twelve month period. Therefore. the bid
documents indicated that the *successful bidder then would be
required to furnish the 2,O00 pound cylinders in truckload lots,
f.o.b. Carvins Cove Filter Plant at the same unit price as quoted
for delivery to the Sewage Treatment Plant.'
Therefore, it is the committee's recommendation that the low
bid of Jones Chemicals, Incorporated be accepted for supplying
chloriae to the eater and Sewage Departments for the taelve month
period beginning July 1, 1971. It is further recommended that all
other bids be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Hamer
Byron E. Hamer
S/ Kit Bo Kiser
Kit B. Miser
S/ B. B. Thompson
B. B. Thompson"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Manugel
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19738) Ali ORDINANCE authorizing the purchase of supplies of liquid chlorine
to the City's Water Department and to the Sewage Treatment Plant for the period
beginning July 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972, upon certain terms and provisions
by accepting a certain bid made to the City; rejecting certain other bids; and
~roviding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance nook No. 3§, page 340.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
NAYS: Bone ................ ~ ...... O.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET: Council acting asa Committee of the Whole submitted the folloming
report in connectinnwith the adoption of the 1971-72 fiscal year budget, advising
that the Committee recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to appoint a commis-
sion to study the city revenue structure and make recommendations in connection
378 .
theremith~ presenting for the consideration of Council the question or npproprloto
lng $77,000.00 rot the Jefferson High School Field House. $33,000.00 for the
Jefferson High School Parking Lot tad $5,000.00 for rnziag the London Elementary
School~ and trnosmJttlng 17 Ordinances in connection mith the proposed 1971-72
fiscal year budget: 'June 28, 1971
Honorable Mayor nnd City Council
Roanoke. Virginia -
Gentlemen:
· The Council as u Committee ~ the Fnole presents herewith the
Budget for the year 1971-72, along with related ordinances as listed herein
for your consideration.
The Committee recommends that the Council authorize the Rayor to
appoint a commission to study the City Revenue Structure and make
recommendations in connection therewith.
The committee further presents for your consideration n question
of ~ppropriating the following not included in the Budget sub, it*ed
herewith.
A-Jefferson High.(Hlghland Park) Field House $77,000.00
B-Jefferson High Parking Lot $33,000.00
C-Razing London School $5,000.00
The following ordinances ere submitted herewith in connection
with the proposed Budget.
1. Decreases in the 1971-72 Budget by $1,540,500.00
2. Amending Chapter 1, Current Taxes, Title VI, Taxation, relating
to taxable tangible personal property tax
3. Amend end Reordain Sec. 5. Iflten Annual Tanqlble Pets, anal Property
Taxes Due and Payabl,~
4. Amend and Reordain Sec. 6. Penalties for Failure to Pay Current
Taxes
S. Amen"-"-~Jng and ReordainJng Sec. 9. Interest on Taxes
6. Amend and Reordaln Sen. 13. Assessment of Hew Buildinqs
Substantielly Completed, Etc.
7. Amending and Reordulning Sec. 10. Taxation of Public Service
Corporations .
B. Amend and Reordein Sec. 2. Amount of Tax? to be Paid by Purchaser
9o Amend and Reordain Sec. 6; Bottled Gas, Chapter 3, Utility
Service Tax
10. Amend end Reordain Sec~ 2. Amount of Assessment, Chapter 4, Local
Assessments
11. Amending Chapter 2; Doqs, of Title XXI,,Anlmals
12. Amending and Reordoining Subsection (B) of Rule 39, Section 5,
Relating to Rates and Charges for Surplus Water
13. Adopt and Provide a new System of Pay Rates and Ranges
14. Fixing the Annual Compensation of Certain Unclassified.Officials
and Employees of the City.
.14;a. Certificate of the City-Anditor,Certifying~funds~
15. General Fund Appropriations - listed as Ha on agenda
16. Water Fund Appropriations - listed as Ha on agenda
17. Sewage Treatment Appropriations - listed us Ha on agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Roy L. Webber
Roy L. Webber
Chairman" .
Hr. Trout moved that Council appropriate $77,000.O0-for the Jefferson. High
School Field House to be located in Highland Park. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lisk and ~nanlmously adopted.
Later during the meeting, Mr. Rex T. Mitchell, Jr** Director of the Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation, appeared before Council and advised that the
restrooms in Highland Park which some time ago had been destroyed by fire have
been restored to good condition and that. any money which is p. lanned to be included
in the Jefferson High School Field Rouse Project for res*room facilities can now
be deleted.
379
Dr, Taylor moved that Council Ippropriste $30,000.00 for the Jefferson High
School pinking lot. Thc motion seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted,
Mr, Thomas moved that $5.000.00 be appropriated for the purpose of razing the
London Elementary School mhich uss destroyed by fire. The motion uss seconded by
Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the three Items be referred to the City Attorney
for preparation of the-proper measure by the regular meeting of Council on Monday,
July'13. 1971. The motion was'seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution amending and reordalning certain
sections of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance by decreases in the amount of
$1,540.500.00 in accordance uith an attached breakdomn:
(n19739) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1971-72
Appropriation Ordinance'as per the attached breakdown; and providing for an
emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Oook No. 3S. page 349.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor. Thomas~ Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Chapter 1,
Current Taxes, Title VI, Taxation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1056, as
amended, by the addition of a new section to be numbered Section $.1. requiring
every person owning taxable tangible personal property in the City of Roanoke to
file a tangible personal property tax return with the Commissioner of Revenue on
or before March I of each year, prescribing the penalties for the failure to file
timely return and for the effective date of the Ordinance:
(n19740) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 1, Current Taxes, Title VI, Taxation.
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, by the addition of a new
section to be numbered Section 5.1, requiring every person owning taxable tangible
personal property in the City of Roanoke to file a tangible personal property tax
return with the Commissioner of Revenue on or before March I of each year; pres-
cribing penalties for the failure to file timely return; providing for the
effective date of this ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 352~
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded by
Mr. Garland'and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, #heeler, and Mayor
Jebber 7.
NAYS: None O.
380
Mr. Link offered th~ fo~louing emergency Ordinance emending and reordain-
lng Section 5, When annual tangible p~rsonal property taxes due and pnynble, Chapter
1, Current Taxes, Title V~, Taxation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, ns
emended, relating to ~he date u~on uhicb annual taxes on tangible personal property
to be imposed rot the 1972 tax year and thereafter shell become due nnd payable
and providing for the effective date of the Ordinance:
(u19741) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaiu Sec. 5. When annual tanolble
p~Vsonal ovooertv taxe~ due ~d oavabl~, of Chapter 1. Current Taxes,.Tltle VI~
Taxation. of the Code of the City of Roanoke. ]9§&. ns amended, relating to the
date upon which annual taxes on tangible personal property to be imposed for the
1972 tax year and thereafter shall become due and payable; providing tar the
effective date of this ordinance~ and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 353.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by.the follgwlng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Rheeler and M~yor
Webber ................
NAYS: None *0.
Mr. Thomas offered the £ollowin9 emergency Ordinance amending and reordain,
in9 Section 6, Penalties for failure to pay current taxes. Chapter 1, Current Taxes.
Title VI, Taxation. of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating
to the penalties and rate of interest to be assessed and collected upon nonpayment
in time of the ci~y*s taxes on real and tangible personal property and providing
for the effective date of the Ordinance:
(ulg?42) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 5. Penalties for failure
Code of the City of Roanoke, lgs~, as amended, relating to the penalties and rate
of interest to be assessed and collected upon nonpayment in time o£ the City*s taxes
on real and tangible personal property; providing for the effective date of this
ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~o, 35. page 354.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber 7.
NAYS: None* O.
Dr. Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordaiu*
lng Section ~, Interest~a taxes, Chapter 1. Current Taxes, Title VI. Taxation, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, ig$5, as amend~d, relating to the rate of interest
to be borne on delinquent taxes assessed by the. city and providing for the effective
date of the Ordinance:
38:
(s19743) AN ORDINANCE amending nnd reordnlning Sec. 9. ]~erest on taxes,
of Chapter l. Current Taxes, Title VI. Taxatios~ of the Code'of the City of Roanoke,
1956, aa amended, relating to the rate of lnte~est to be borne on delinquent taxes
assessed by the City; providing for the effective date of this ordinance; and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 355.)
Or. Taylor moyed the a.doptio~ of the 0rdinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................. 7.
NAYS:
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordain-
lng Section 13. Assessment of new buildings substantially completed, etc., Chapter 1.
Current Taxes, Title VI, Taxation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956,
as amended:
(~19744) AN ORDINANCE to amend ~nd reordaln Sec. 13. Assessment of new
buildinas'substantiallv 'completed. etc.. of Chapter I. Cgrrent Taxes, Title VI.
Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended; and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No~ 35, page 356.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote~
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, ~heeler ~nd Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None .......... O.
Mr. Rheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordaiz
ing Section IO, Taxation of public service corporations, Chapter 1, Current Taxes,
Title VI. Taxation, of Th~ Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating
to the assessment and payment of the city's ~nnual taxes on the real estat~ and
tangible personal property of public service corporations and providing for the
effective date of the Ordinance:
(~19745) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining'Sec. 10. Taxation of
uublic service cornorati~ns, o~ Chapter 1, ~prrent Taxes, Title VI. Taxation, of
the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, os amended, relating to the asses'sment and
payment of the City*s annual taxes on the real estate and tangible personal pr~per~
of public service corporations; providing for the ~fective da'tn of this ordinance;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 357.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion w'as seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
'382
AYES: Messrs. Gnrland, LIsh, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webbe~ ...... 7,
NAYS= None .0.
Mr~ Garland offered the folloming emergency Ordinance aueedin9 and reordaiz
lng Section 2. Amonnt of tax; to be paid by purcbaser, Chapter 3, Utility Service
Tax, Title VI. Taxation. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended,
iuposlng and fixing the rate of tax to be paid by purchasers of certain utility
services furnished in the City of Roanoke on and after July 1. 1971. and providing
for the effective date of the Ordinance:
(~19746) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 2,. Amount of t~x~ t9
be paid bv ~urchaser, Of Chapter 3., Utility Service Tax, of Title VI. Taxation,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as heretofore amended; imposing and
fixing the rate of tax to be paid by purchasers of certain utility services furnish-
ed in the City on and after July 1, Ir?l; providing an effective date for this
ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 358.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by gr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ............. O.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordain-
Jag Section G, Bottled gas, Chapter 3, Utility Service Tax, Title VI, Taxation, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, imposing and fixing the rate of tax to be
paid by purchasers of bottled gas furnished in the city on and after July 1, 1971,
and providing for the effective date of the Ordinance:
(m19747) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 8. Bottled oas, of
Chapter 3. Utility Seryice TaM, Title VI. Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roonok
1956, imposing and fixing the rate of tax to be paid by purchasers of bottled gas
furnished in the City on and after July 1, 1971; providing an effective date for
this Ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 359.)
Mr. Trout moved the ~option of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None. -0.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordain-
lng Section 2, Amount of Assessment, Chapter 4, Local Assessments, Title l¥lI,
Streets, Sidewalks and Sewers, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
providing for the interest rate on the cost of semer and sideualk improvements:
383
(#19740) AN ORDIRANCE to amend and reordnin Sec. 2. Amount of Assessment,
of Chapter 40 Local Assessments, Title X¥1I, Streets, Sidewalks and Sewers, Of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, providing rot the interest rate on
the cost of sewer and sidewalk improvements; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 360,)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............. 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
Mr. Mheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Chapter 2,
Dogs, Title XXI, Animals. of The Cede of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by
amending and reordaining Section 3, prohibiting the running at large of dogs within
the city and prohibiting the entry of dogs into certain places in the city; and
further anendin9 said chapter and title by the addition of a nam section, to he
numbered Section 3.1 with subsections, providing for an annual city license tax on
all dogs in the city over the age of six months and providing regulations for the
issuance of such licenses and the display thereof and providing for the effective
date of the Ordinance:
· (m1974g) AN ORDZNANCE amending Chapter 2, Doqs, of Title XXI, Animals,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, by amending and reordainin9
Sec. 3.. prohibiting the running at large of dogs within the City and prohibiting
the entry of dogs into certain places in the City; and fur~er amending said chapter
and title by the addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 3.1, with sub-
sections, providing for an annual City license tax on all dogs in the City over
the age of six months, and providing regulations for the issuance of such licenses
and the display thereof; providing for the effective date of this ordinance; and
,roviding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 361.)
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~y Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber-- 7.
NAYS: None O.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and reordain-
ling subsection (b) of Rule 39. Section 5, Chapter 1, Title XII, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to the rates and charges for surplus
water furnished to other incorporated municipalities by fixing a new rate therefor:
(~19750) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining subsection (B) of Rule
39. Section 5, Chapter 1, Title XII, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to t~o ~ates and charges for surplus water furnished to other
incorporated municipalities by fixing a new rnte therefor; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dooh No. 35. page 364.)
.Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas end adopted by .the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
WAYS: None O.
At this point, Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that ia voting for these
Ordinances to increase certain taxes and penalties, it should be stated .that at best
this is only a stop gap measure for other tax Increases and that he is hopeful the
Tax Study Co.mlttee will recommend to Council some obyious sources of tax revenue.
Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance adopting and provid-
ing a new system of Pay Rates and Ranges for the employees of the City of Roanoke
effective July 1, 1971:
(~19751) AN ORDINANCE to adopt and provide a new System of Pay Rates
and Ranges for the employees of tbe~ty of Roanoke effective July l, 1971; and
proriding for an emergency.
(For fell text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book Wo. 35. page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebbar ......... ~ ........... -T.
NAYS: None ............ O.
Mr. Thomas offered the followin9 emergency Ordinance fixing the annual
compensation of certain unclassified officials and employees of the City of Roanoke,
the salaries of the employees in the Office of the Clerk of the Courts.
Commisslo~er of the Revenue, thc City Treasurer, the Commouweulth~ Attorney, and
the Clt! Sergeant being subject to the approval of the State Compensati~n Board:
(~19752) AN ORDINANCE fixing the annual compensation of certain un-.
classif~d officials and employees of the City; and providing.for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35, page 3?0.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the.Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ~- 7,
NAYS: None *0.
The City Auditor submitted a certificate in accordance with paragraphs
(b) and (t) of Section 25 of the Charter of the City of Roanoke, 1956, certifying
that funds required for the 1971-72 General Fund, Mater Fund and Sewage Treatment
Fund budgets are or will be available for appropriation.
385
Mr. Trout moved that the certificate be received nnd filed. The motion
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance making appropria-
tions from the General Fund of the City of Roanoke rot the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972:
(n19753) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations from the General Fund of the
City of Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July 1. lg?l, nnd ending June 30.
1972; and declaring the existence of an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 372.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ........... ?.
NAYS: None .0.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance making appropriations
from the Water General Fund and the Mater Replacement Reserve Fund for the City of
Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July 1. 1971, and ending June $0, 1972:
(~19754) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations from the Mater General Fund
and the Mater Replacement Reserve Fund for the City of Roanoke for the fiscal
year beginning July 1, ~71. and ending June 30° lg?2; and declaring the existence
of an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. pa9e 394.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler .and Mayor
Webber ............... 7.
NAYS: None· .0.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance making appropriations
fram the Sewage Treatment General Fund and the Sewage Treatment Replacement Reserve
Fund for the City of Roanoke forthe fiscal year beginning July 1, lgYl, and ending
June 30, 1972:
(~lg?s5) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations from the Sewage Treatment
General Fund and the Sewage Treatment Replacement Reserve Fund for the City of
Roanoke for ~e fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971. and ending June 30. 1972;
and declaring the existence of an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. ~he motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............ ?.
NAYS: None .0.
386 :
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report
advising that the budget which la being submitted for the sewage treatment fund is
planned on the basis of reflecting ~e temporary borrowing of approximately
$200,000.00 during the coming year and that to provide for this. the expenditures
iwJll reflect $6,000.00 in interest on this temporary borroming:
'Roanoke, Virginia
June 28, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Ci'ty Council
Roanoke, Virginia
.Gentlemen:
The budget that is being submitted for the sewage treatment
fund for adoption on July 1. 1971, is planned on the basis of
reflectin9 the temporary borrowing of approximately $200,000 during .
the coming year. To provide for this the expenditures will reflect
$6,000 in inter est on this temporary bottoming.
Me are handling this in this manner because of the requirement
which the Water Control 8onrd presently has on the City and
because of the difficulty in determining reasonably close revenues
end expenditures at this immediate time. It is expected that within
the next two weeks while me are putting together in final for~ the
plant improvement program, including detailing the interim plan,
that ue sill be in a much better position to project capital and
operating costs that would be incurred in the coming year. Combine~
with this will be a much better determination of required new semer
rates--County and City.
It mould be expected that we mould then come back to the Conncil
for a revision to the budget for this fund, anticipating that the
temporary borromin9 will not be needed to balance the operating
budget but if any temporary borrowing is necessary E would be as a
part of the total capital improvement program.
Respectfully submitted.
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian P. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion sas
seconded by Mr~ Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEYERS AND STORM DRAINS: The Seser Committee submitted a written report
noting appeal of the State Mater Control Board~ decision to invoke Requirement No. !
of the Board upon the City of Roanoke, emphasizing that the appeal of the State
Mater Control Board*s decision of June 15, 1971, is procedural in nature and is done
in an effort to afford the governments of the Roanoke Valley area relief from the
extreme consequences of the effect of the sewer ban pending compliance with the
requirements of the State Mater Control Board, that the city will continue to meet
and work mith the staff of the Board; however, the city does not feel that it is
:legal, just, or equitable to summarily ban connections to the sewage treatment plant
,during the interim and that it is this question shicb the Court is being asked to
determine through the subject appeal.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
387
PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. M. Carl Andremso Member of the Mill Mountain
Zoo Committee, and Chairman of the Mill Mountain Development Committee, appeared be-
fore Council and presented the following report of the Mill Mountain Zoo Committee
recommending that Council accept donations from private sources for the construction
of quarters to house a'hippopotauua at the Mill Mountain Zoo, that the City Manager
be authorized to proceed with the necessary construction, that the hippopotamus be
accepted as a gift from a private citizen and transported to Roanoke as soon as
practical and that there be continued development and improvement of the Mill
Mountain Zoo pursuant to plans previously prepared by architects and submitted to
Council as funds become a~ailable either by Council appropriations or through
private sources:
"REPORT OF THE ZOO SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE MILL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE TO CITY COUNCIL, MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1971
After receiving certain matters referred to the Zoo
Subcommittee of the Hill Mountain Development'Committee by
the City Council of Roanoke by letter dated June 23, 1971, from
the Office of the City Clerk, a special meetin~ of the entire'
committee was called for 12:30 p.m.,Friday. June 25. All members
were notified by Mr. James O. Trout, chairman of the subcommittee,
Thursday, June 24.
All members of the subcommittee were present at the meeting
excepting Mrs. Lela Spitz.
The Committee considered and thoroughly discussed all matters
recently referred to it by City Council, and in particular the
matters referred to it originating from Mrs. Lela Spitz.
The subcommittee further received reports concerning pledges
from interested citizens and groups toward the construction of
facilities to house a hippopotamus at the Zoo, said pledges being
in the approximate amount of $15,000 to date.
The subcommittee, by unanimous vote, passed the following
resolution and requested Mr. M. Carl Andrems to present the same
to City Council at the earliest possible time, also authorizin~
him to make request for certain change in committee personnel:
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoo Subcommittee of the Mill Mountain
Development Committee make the followin~ recommendations to Roanoke
City Council:
(1) That the City Council accept the donations from private
sources for the construction of quarters to house a hippopotamus
at the zoo and that the City Manager be authorized to proceed'with the
necessary construction.
(2) That the hippopotamus be accepted as the gift from a private
citizen and transported to Roanoke as soon as practical.
(3) That there be continued development and improvement of
the Zoo pursuant to plans previously prepared by architects and
submitted to Council as funds become available either by Council
appropriations or through private sources."
In this connection, communications from Mrs. Dawn Malls. Friends of Aninal~
Roanoke Representative; Mrs. E. R, France; and Mr. Saunders Guerrant in opposition
to bringin~ a hippopotamus to Roanoke. mere before Council.
Mr. Guy L. Cart, President of the CivJtan Club. and Member of the Hill
Mountain Zoo Committee, appeared before the body and urged that Council adopt the
report of the Mill Mountain Zoo Committee and proceed with expansion of the Milt
Mountain Zoo.
388
· Mrs. Lela Spitz, Director of the Humane Education Services, and Member of
the Mill Mountain Zoo Committee also appeared before Council and read n prepared
statement in opposition to bringing u hippopotamus to Roanoke.
In n discussion of the matter. Mr. Link expressed the opinion that Council
is at a very Important time mhen it is forced with making a decision on the
development of Hill Mountain, that he is concerned with procedural matters which
have been followed, that it is good Mr. Trout has been able to secure donations
toward a house for the hippopotamus but that he thinks Mrs. Spitz has raised some
Important questions mhlch must be nnsmered before the hippopotamus is brought to
Roanoke, that the concept is a good one if the city can afford it and that Council
weds to take a total look at the program and proceed in an orderly manner tomard
development of Mill Mountain.
Mr. Thomas ndrised that he concurs with the thinking of Mr. Lisk on the
subject that first things must come first; that to bring the hippopotamus to
Roano~ at this time is premature and not grounded on good business judgment and that
he does not think there is a member of Council who would not vote for improvements
to the Mill Mountain Zoo but he does not want the matter of improvements to the
mountain and the addition of the hippopotamus to get confused.
Mr. Trout advised that over the years many projects have been accomplished
in accordance with civic organizations, that the business people in the area hove
given the indication they would like to see Mill Mountain developed, that it is a
small investment for the children of the City ~f Roanoke and that if Council knew .
it was not going to expand the zoo it should never have referred the matter to budget
study or employed a zoo manager.
Dr. Taylor expressed the opinion that the question is not if the zoo is
9alu9 to be developed but how and when it is gain9 to be developed.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that when Council refers a matter such
as this to o committee for study and recommendation'they should know that it will
require the expenditure of funds, that it is not fair to give o committee au
assignment if Council knows it is not 9oing to vote on it. that the committee knows
more about this subject~and for this reason he will vote for the recommendations of
the committee.
Mr. Wheeler expressed the opinion that to vote against various requests
which have come to Council from the Roanoke City School Board and to grant the
request for the hippopotamus does not make good sense to him.
Mayor Webber expressed the opinion that o hippopotamus, on Mill Mountain
will bring an additional revenue to the City of Roanoke.
389
Wt. W. Corl Audrems, Wember of the Will Mountain Zoo Committee, expressed
the opinion that this is a serious problem, that if Council is unmllllng to go
along with the recommendations of its committees, he does not know bow Council mill
be able to get people to serve on these committees in the future,
After a very lengthy discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved thot the
communications from Wrs. SPitz, WFS, lells. WFS, France and Wt. Guerrunt be
received and filed. The motion was seconded by Wt. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Wt. Lisk then moved that action on the report of the Will Mountain Zoo
Committee be deferred until Council has met with the Committee to consider and
discuss future plans for the Mill Wountain Zoo. The motion was seconded by
Thomas.
Wt. Trout offered a substitute motion that Council adopt the report of
the Mill Wountain Zoo Committee and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney
for preparation of the proper measure accordingly. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Garland and lost by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Trout and Mayor Webber .................... 3.
NAYS: Messrs. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas and Wheeler ..................... 4.
The original motion mas then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Wessrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and ~heeler
NAYS: Mayor Mebber ............................ T .................
MAth further reference to the matter, Mr. Andrews requested that Council
rescind its previous action in appointing Wrs. Lela Spitz as a member of the Mill
Mountain Zoo Committee, pointing out that Mrs. Spitz is not a resident of the City
of Roanoke, she does not conduct a business in the City of Roanoke and she is not a
taxpayer in the City of Roanoke and that several of the members of the Committee
have advised him that they will not continue to serve on this Committee if Mrs.
Spitz continues to serve on said Committee.
Mr. Garland advised that in view of the fact he made the original motion
for Mrs. Spitz to become a member of the Mill Mountain Zoo Committee, it is his
responsibility to rescind the motion and moved that Mrs. Spitz be deleted from the
Committee.
Mr. Zhomas offered a substitute motion that the matter be taken under
advisement until certain criteria can be estoblished in connection with qualificatio
for persons serving on city committees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
adopted, Mr. Wheeler rotan9 no.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: The Reverend Calvin B. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens*
Advisory Committee, appeared before Council and requested permission for a Sub-
committee of the Citizens' Advisory Committee to appear before the body in connection
with a recommendation that Council apply the proceeds received from the fire at the
Riverdale Elementary School toward the constr~ctiou of the Jefferson Sigh School
Field House ~nd that the field house be included in the 1971-72 budget.
390
fir. J. Robert Thomaa. City Anditor. udviaed Reverend Folte~ t~zt the fnads
derived'from the fire at the Riverdnle Elementary School were renppropriated into
the school capital account within a year after they were received by the City of
Ronnoke.
GARBAGE REHOVA~-CITIZENS* ADVISORY COR#ITTEE-WATER DEPARTHENT-BEALTfl
DEPARTMENT: The Reverend Calvin B. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens* Advisory
Comnittee, appeared before Council with reference to the pending Ordinance pertaining
to cleaning the banks of the Roanoke River. advising that the Committee realizes
the matter has been deferred for two weeks, but respectfully requesting that
!Council consider the matter at its present meeting.
Rt. Yheeler moved that action on the request of the Citizens' Advisory
Committee be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Rondayo J~ly 12. 1971.
The notion was seconded by ar. Trout and anaeinously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIRS: NONE.
IN?ReDUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19726. rezoning property lo~ated on the westerly
side of ~estside Boulevard, No H,, described as official Tax Nos. ~?$1201 and
275090~. fro~ RD. Daplex Residential District, to RC-2, General Residential District
having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was
again before the body. Dr. Taylor'offering the folloming for its second readin9
and final adoption:
(#19726) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 2?5, Sectional 196~
Zone Hap, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance 8ook No. 35. page 338.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Hheeler and ~ayor
Hebber ?.
NAYS: None O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19727. rezontng property located on Riverland Road,
S. E., described aS' Lot 2-A on a plat showing 43-subdivision of property of James O.
Kasey. being all of Lots 11-Z2, inclusive, and Lots 22-A and A-l, Section No. 1
and all of Lots 1-8, inclusive, Section No. 2. Lap of Walnut ~ill, Offici'al Ta~ ~os.
4041106, 4041107, 4041109. 4041110. 4041~12. 4041113 and 4041115. from~ RS-3, Single-
Famil~ Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
the body, ar. Trout offering the following for its second reading and final
adoption: "
391
(nlg?2T) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, aa amended, and Sheet No. 404, Sectional
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in reJntion to Zoning.
(Fsr f~ll text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 340.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by ihe following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Nebbez ......... Y,
NAYS:* None ............ O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19726, rezoning property described as the easterly
half of Lot 3, Block 1, Map of Upson Addition, the masterly half of Lot'4, Block 1,
Map of Upson Addition and the westerly half of Lot 3, Block 1, Map of Hpson Addition
Official Tax Nos. 3160207, 3160226, and 3160208, from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-I, General Residential District, having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr.
Trout offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19128) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 316. Sectional
1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 342.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Was seconded
by Mr~ Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................. 7.
NAYS: None* O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19729. rezoning property located in the
block of Loodon Avenue. N. M** described as Lots 3 and 4, Block 31, Hyde Park Laud
Map. Official Tax NOS. 2323511 and 2323512. from RG-I. General Residential District,
to LM, Light Manufacturing District, having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid war. nas again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19729) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, ~956, os amended, and Sheet No. 232, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text 'of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 344.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........
NAYS: None, '~.
392
CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having directed the
City Attorney to prepare the proper measure amending Ordinance No, 19236, providing
a System of Pay Rates end Ranges and a new Pay Plan. by adding to said Pay Plan Code
Position 3174, Maintenance Specialist, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Lish
offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~19756) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No, 19236, heretofore adopted on
June 22, 1970, providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan, by
adding to said Pay Plan Code Position 3174, Maintenance Specialist; providing for
the effective date of this ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35, page 3go.)
Mr, Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None ...................O.
MARKET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City A~torney
Ilo prepare the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to negotiate leases for
of two years with the present tenants of certain stalls in the City Market,
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(u19757) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to negotiate leases
for terms of two years with the present, tenants of certain stalls in the City Market,
upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported to the Council under date of June 21
1971, that, due to the impending closing of the City-owned refrigeration plat in the
City Market, certain tenants affected thereby, who presently occupy the City Market
stalls under month-to-month tenancies, are contemplating installation of individual
cooling apparatus at their own expense, and certain of such tenants, desiring some
that they will be permitted future occupancy in the City Market for
periods of time sufficient within which to amortize their investment in refrigeration
equipment, have requested that the City lease, for periods up to two years, certain
stalls in said Market now being rented on a month-to-month basis, in which requests
the City Manager has recommended Council*s concurrence.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Managerl.be and is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute on behalf of the
City, leases with certain individual month-to-month tenants of certain stalls in the
City Market who will be affected by the City*s proposed closing of its refrigeration
plant, such leases to be for terms not exceeding two years; to contain provision for
termination by either party at any time upon the giving of one year*s advance uritten
notice of such party's intent to so terminate; and to be upon such rentals as are
393
provided for in Chapter 2 of Title IX of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. us
emended; such leases, to be. otherwise, upon such form os is approved by the City
Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler nnd Mayor
Webber- - ...............
NAYS: None O.
EASEMENTS-MATER DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure accepting the grant of a perpetual easement for a
right of way for an O-inch water main over. through and across the lands of Parkslde
Plaza, a partnership, lying and being in the City of Roanoke, and designated as
Official Tax Nos. 4311201 and 4311203 and authorizing and directing the acceptance
by the Mater Department of the City of Roanoke of title to the main laid therein
upon certain terms and conditions, he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Thomas offered
the following emergency Ordinance:
(zig?58) AN ORDINANCE accepting the grant of a perpetual easement for a
right Of way for an O-inch water main over, throw9h and across the lands of Park-
side Plaza, a partnership, lying and being in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and
designated as Official Zax Nos. 4311201 and 4311203; authorizing and directing the
acceptance by the ~ater Department of the City of Roanoke of title to the mainlaid
therein upon certain terms and conditions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by-the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler,.and Mayor
Webber ~7.
NAYS: None .0o
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Carlton Moses, appeared before Council and
read a prepared statemeflt requesting that Council accept his offer to construct
a bear*s den on Mill Mountain to house a bear which is presently in the possession
of the S. P. C. A., advising thathe hopes to get donations from various food chain
stores and building distributors to feed the bear and build the bear*s den and that
if he is unable.to get.these donations he will absorb the cost of feeding the animal
and-the cost of supplies to house the animal.
Mr. Lisk moved that the request be referred to the Mill Mountain Zoo
Committee and to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and nnanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that the terms
of Messrs. Richard H. Hahn and Barton #. Morris, Jr., as members of the Virginia
Western Community College Board will expire on June 30, 1971, that Mr. Barton
Morris, Jr.. has declined to serve another term and called for nominations to fill
the vacancies.
394
Mr. Thomas placed in nomlunklon the name o! Richard H. Hahn.
There being no further nominations, Hr. Richard H. Hahn mas reelected us
· me·her of the Virginia #astern Community College Doard for n term o! four.years
beginning July 1, 1971, by the follomiag vote:
FOR MR. HAHN: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler end
Mayor Webber .?.
Mr. Thomas then moved that action on the vacancy on the Virginia Western
iCommonity College Board be deferred one meek, The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
PLANING: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that the term
of Mr. John Do Copenhaver as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission
alii expire on June 30, 1971, and called for nominations to fill thq vacancy.
Mr. Wheeler placed in nomination the name of John D, Copenhaver.
There being no further nominations, Mr. John D. Copenbaver mas reelected
as a member of the Fifth Plannin9 District Commission for a term of twc years
beginning July 1, 1971, by the following vote:
FOR MR. COPENHAVER: MeSSrS. Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler
and Mayor Webber ....................... T.
LIBRARIES: Mayor Rebber called to the attention of Council that the terms
of Mr. C. Francis Cache, deceased, Rr. John O. Atkins and Mrs. Constance J. Hamlur
as members.of the Roanoke Public Library Board will expire on June 30, 1971, and
called for nominations to fill the vacancies.
Mr. Mheeler placed in nomination the name of Mrs. Lelia C. Bagbey to fill
the vacancy created by the death of Mr. C. Francis Cache.
Mr. Link placed in nomination the name of Mr..John O. hakims.
Dr. Taylor placed in nomination the name.of Mrs. Constance J. Bamlar.
There being ·o further nominations, MrS.rLelia C, Dagbey was elected and
Hr. John O. Atkins and Mrs. Constance J. Hamlar mere reelected as members of the
Roanoke Public Library Board for terms of three.years each beginning July 1, 1971,
by the following vote:
FOR MRS, BAGBE¥, MR. ATKINS AND MRS. UAMLAR: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylol
Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber 7 .....
COUNCIL: The City Manager submitted a written report requesting an informa
meeting math Council concerning a matter of legal and real estate involvement.
Mr. Trout moved that Council ~oncor in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor, Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE~:
395
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING,
Tuesday. July 6. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Tuesday, July 6, 1971, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Rabbet presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David E. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mehber-~-T.
ABSENT: None O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. fisher,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Eincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Arthur
H. Brown, Jr., Field Manager, Demonstration Mater Project. Incorporated.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday, June
21, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Lisk,
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed
with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
S~REET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power Company
transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
June, 1971, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication and list be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAIr~S: A communication from Mr. Roy L. Blankenship, complaining of
the condition of a lot which is owned by Roanoke Ice and Cold Storage Company
located between Bowbert Avenue and Museum Avenue, $. M.. mas before Council.
' Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to tl~City Manager for
iinvestigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: A communication from Mr. R. M. Garnett, tendering his resignatio!
a member of the Board of Trustees of the Employees* Retirement System of the City
of Roanoke. Virginia. was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the resignation be accepted with regret. The motion
seconded by Mr. LJsk and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: An application from Mr. Jack ¥. Place, Attorney,
representing Old Dominion Homes, Incorporated. requesting that an alley extending
south from East Gate Avenue to an alley, running parallel to East Gate Avenue, lying
between IDth Street and lgth Street. N. E., and another alley extending south from
396
Tempi.ton Avenue to Eeit. Gate Avenue, lying between 14th Street and 15th Street, N~
be vacated, discontinued and closed, mas before Council.
#r. Trout moved that the application be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Lisk then offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in
connection with closing the.alley:
(r19759) A RE~OLUTION providing for the appointment of five vJemers in
connection with the Application of Old Oominion Bom. s, Inc., to discontinue and
permanently rocor, tun unopened alleys leading into East Cate Avenue in the
northeastern section of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35, page 401.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Br. Nheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Trout, Mheeler and Nayor Nebberu6.
NAYS: None .................................................... O.
(Mr. Thomas not voting)
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Ceorge J. Jacobs. Attorney, representfng
Mr. Nicholas Nackley. requesting that property described as Lot 15 and the southerly
20 feet of Lot 14, Map of Coveland Court, Official Tax N~ ~460108.and 2480132, be
rezoued'from RS-3, Single-Family Residential Dtstrict~ to CJI, Office and Inltititla~
District, wis before Council,
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for reaoning be referred to the City
Planniog Commission fur study, report and recommendation to Council. The.motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS: .
BUDGET-PLANNInG-POLICE DRPARTBENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROYE-
MENTS PROGRAM: Council having.adopted a Hesolution signifying the intent of the City
of Roanoke to provide in the 1970-71 budget, the proportionate share of the City of
Roanoke toward the cost of a District Feasibility. Study Pertaining to Regional
Facilities for Justice and Crime Control Activities by the Fifth Planning District
Commission, the City Manager submitted awritten report recommending that $11,277.00
be appropriated to Jail under Section ~89, *Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund,"
of the 1971-72 budget, to provide fuods for.payment to the Fifth Planning District
to defray the.share of the City of Roanoke in connection with the study to be prepare*
by the Fifth Planning District for said Regional Corrections Requirements and
Facilities report.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
397
(nlgT60) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reorduin Section eog, 'Transfers to
Capital Improvemen~Fund,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For tull text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Soak Ho. SS, page 402.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the rollomfag vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, ThuBas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber-
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PAR£S AND PLAYGROUNDS: ~he City Manager
submitted the follomiug report requesting that $385.00 be appropriated to Operating
Supplies and Materials under Section n?5. *Recreation. Parks and Recreational Areas,
Of the 1971T72 budget, to provide roods to purchase trophies to be presented to
championship and runner-up teams participating in the baseball and softball programs
under the direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation:
*Roanoke, Virginia July 7. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As is customary at this time of ~ear Mr. Rex Mitchell,
Director of Parks and Recreation, has requested that this office
inform City Council that funds in the amount of $365 have been
deposited with the City Treasurer by the various baseball-softball
teams participating in the City recreational leagues. This $385
has been contributed by the baseball and softball teams partici-
pating in the league that the funds might be utilized to
procure trophies for the various championship and runner-up teams.
It would be asked that City Council by budget o~dinance appro-
priate $385 to Parks and Recreation, Oepartment 75. Object Code 39,
Operating Supplies and.Materials, that the Parks and Recreation
Department sight procure these trophies to be awarded at the
completion of the current season.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19761) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~?$, *Recreation.
Parks and Recreational Areas** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
~r an emergency.
(For full ~ext of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3~ page 402.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas secouded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7.
NAYS: None. O.
BRIDGES: The City Manager sobmJtted the following report recommending that
Council authorize the consummation of n maintenance agreement between the City of
Roanoke tad the Virginia Department of Hfgbmuys for the maintenance.of bridges nad
culverts which span the-city corporote limits, advising that the agreement ia to be
updated by the addition of four structures which have been constructed since the
1956 agreement Was entered Jute:
'Roanoke, Virginia
July b. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Rounohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
For a number of years the City of Roanoke and the Virginia
Department of Highways by agreement have shared in the coat of
maintenance of bridges and culverts which span the City
corporate limits. The original agreement, consummated on
February H. 1949, and rerised by City Council in Resolution Ho.
12871 on October 10, lgSb, is once again in need of updating
and revision.
The agreement is to be updated by the addition of four struc-
tures which have been constructed since the 1956 agreement uss
entered into. Three of these structures, the one on Preston Avenue
over Tinker Creek, the one on Peters Creeh Road over Peters Creek
and the one on Route IlS, Plantation Road, over Corrina Creek. are
replacement items, while the new structure bas been built on Edgewood
Street over Mod Lick Creek.
The agreement will be revised to include the annual inspection
of these City line bridges. The State Department of Highways will
perlorm the maintenance and inspection of all these bridges and box
culverts and shall bill the City of Roanoke for 50 percent of the
cost of performing this work.
The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance author/zing the
City Manager on the behalf of the City of Roanoke to enter into a
contract with the Commonwealth of Virginia for the inspection and
· maintenance of all of the City line bridges and culverts under the
above terms.
It would be recommended that City Council authorize the con-
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(m19762) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager, for and on behalf of
the City to enter into a contract with the. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Highways, for the inspection and maintenance of all of the City-Line bridges and
box culverts, t~e parties to share equally the costs thereof.
MRERRAS, the Department of Highways has proposed and the City Manager has
recommended that the City and the Department of Highways enter into a new, current
agreement relating to the inspection and maintenance of eight of the City-Line'
bridges and two box culverts at the corporate limits on certain State highways
399
entering the City, the locution of said bridges and box culverts being described and
set out in n certain proposed agreement dated the first day of July, 1971, on file
iu the Office of the City Clerk, said new agreement being Intended to replace and
supersede the written ngreement heretofore entered into between said psrties under
date of October 10, 195&, pursuant to pr?visions contained in Resolution No. 12871
of the Council end as amended pursuant to Resolution No. 12994 of said Council; and
MHEREAS. it would be proyJded that the Department of Highways agree to
properly and adequately maintain and inspect all such bridges and box culverts, to
keep accurate account of maintenance and inspections performed on the name and the
exact cost thereof and to bill the City semiannually for 50% of all such costs, or
to bill the City each time their share and portion of all maintenance and inspection
performed reaches $1,000.00 or more, whichever first occurs, ~nd that said parties
share equally in the cost of all such maintenance a~d'lnspect~ons performed on the
bridges and box culverts by said Department, either party to the agreement having
the tight to terminate the same upon thirty days written notice to the other; and
NHEREAS. the Council concurs in ail of the aforesaid proposal and has
appropriated a sum estimated to be sufficient for the cost to the City of the
fiscal year*s inspection and maintenance, aforesaid.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by tb~ Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager be, and Is hereby a~thorized aud directed to execute, for and on behalf
of the City of Roanoke, the written agreement prepared by the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of Highways under date of July 1, 1971, the form of which has
been approved by the City Attorney and a copy thereof placed on file In the Office
of the City Clerk. ~ercby it be agreed between said parties that th~ Commonwealth
of Virginia, Department of Highways mill properly and adequately inspect and maintais
those eight certain City-Line brld~es and two box cuirerts described and set out in
said written agreement, according to State standards; to keep accurate account of
inspections and maintenance performed on each of the same and the exact cost thereof
and to bill the City semiannually rot 50% of all such costs, or to bill the City
each time their share and portion of all maintenance and inspections performed
reaches $1,000.00 or mote. whichever first occurs, the parties to share equally in
the cost of all such maintenance and annual bridge inspections, and the City to pay
50% of all such aforesaid maintenance and inspection costs promptly after receiving
the bills aforementioned; each patty reserving the right to terminate said a~reement
op~u thirty days written notice to the other.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None. O,
PLANNING-POLICR DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted for the information of Council the following
memorandum from the Fifth Planning District Commission indicating the planned latent
of the Commission to submit an application to the Lam Enforcement Administration ~r
funds In'the approximate amount of $100,000.00 for a Courts Management Study us
described in the memorandum:'
*June 16, 1971
MEMO TO: Managers Administrators
Mr. M, A. Barnes, Clifton Forge
Mr. A. Terrell Baskerville, Botetourt County
Mr. Guy L, Gearhart, Vinton
Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City of Roanoke
Mr. Paul fl. Matthews, Roanoke County
Mr. Wayne J. Oliver, Craig County
Mr. William J. Paxton, Salem
Mr. John R. Pouell, Covington
Mr. Nelson E. Thomas, Alleghany County
SUBJECT: Application for Federal Assistance - Courts Management Study
The Fifth Planning District Coamfnslon at the meeting of June 27,
1971 approved the nuhmissJon of an application for a district
discretionary grant to LEAA for A Courts Management Study in the
approximate amount of $100.000.00.
The goaln of thin Study are to perform a system requirements analysis
and provide functional-specifications for a multJjurisdictional
syntem of Justice adminintration within the boundarien of the Fifth
Planning District Commission and includes the design of a courts
information and records management nystem. The study will focus
on the Roanoke Bustings Court an well an the Nineteenth and
Twentieth Circuit Courts. courtn of record in Virginia and the
highent level courta below the state Supreme Court of Appealn
in the Roanoke Valley area. The study will alno connider the
relationships between these courts and the lower courts in the
area. and mill develop the requirementn, including the need for
legislation, for management and operation of a regional court
syntem. The entire nequence of events in criminal case procesning,
from arrest or warrant innuance throw9h appellate review, will
be analyzed and evaluated. Functional arena to be studied will
include court organization, staffing, facilities, financing.
docketing, calendaring, and inter-court communications. The
product of the study would be a set of recommendationn and
specifications for improvements to the court syntemn of thin region,
and a net of guideltnen for extending the ftndingn of the ntudy
so as to make them useful to other regions of Virginia. although
thin will be a pilot project not bound to compatibility with other
regions. Within the broad objectives of reduction of processing
time in the courtn, better utilization of judicial and other ntaff
renources and general improvement of operating efficiency, a
number of topicn mill be addrenned in the study.
The Comminsion staff wiii participate by management of the ntudy.
gathering the bane data, evaluation of proposaln, and coordinating
the work of the courts management consultant with the special
Advinory Panel, the Criminal Juntice Advinory Committee. the courtn
and the Fifth Planning Oistrict Commission.
The local share of fundn required to obtain the Federal grant will
be provided by the 'in-kind* match, through time allocated for
participation by courtn, the local governments and the Commisnion
staff.
Sincerely,
$/ Robert M. Shannon
Robert M. Shannon
Executive Director~
4'0::1.
Vt. Lisk moved that the report of the City Nsnsger and the memorandum from
the Fifth Planning District Commission be received and filed. The motion mas'
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEVERS AND S'FORM DRAINS: The City R~nuger submitted the following report
transmitting a Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County
on June 3. 1971. requesting that a contract be entered into with the City of Roanoke
to treat and transport' sewage flow from the southern poktton of Hotetourt County,
suggesting that action on this be temporarily held In abeyance until the city can
resolve the matter nam before the State Vater Control Board, and that as soon
as the Hoard permits current matters to be cleared, Council mill be in a position
to constructively give further consideration to the proposal of Botetourt County:
'Roanoke. Virginia
July 6. 1971
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
F~warded hereMith~ as transmitted to me, is a resolution of
the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County as adopted on June 3,
1971. requesting to enter into a contract with the City of Roanoke
to treat and transport sewage flow from the southern portion of
Hotetourt County. I am further advised that the County anticipates
the possibility of contracting with Roanoke County for transportation
of s~wage fr~m the county line at Tinker Creek to the City of
Roanoke Tinker Creek interceptor.
This resolution is beneficial in giving an indication of the
firm interest on the part of Hotetourt County and thereby enabling
a better evaluation of the potential area to be served and the
potential volume requirements on the City of Roanoke treatment
plant. I would suggest that action on this be temporarily held in
abeyance until the City can resolve the matter now before the
State Water Control Board and as soon as the Vater Control Board
permits the current matters to be cleared, the City Council would
be in a position to constructively give further consideration to
this proposal by Botetourt County.
Respectfully submitted.
' S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be referred to the Semer Committee for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr, Garland
and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having referred to de City Manager for
consideration a report of the Hayor~ Committee on Employment of the Handicapped makin!
certain recommendations in connection with the Roanoke Civic Center. the City
Manager submitted u written report recommending that a chon9e order be entered into
between the City of Roanoke and Nello L. Tear Company in the amount of $246.00 for
the installation of two ramps from the drive up to the sidewalk on the must side
of the plaza at the Roanoke Civic Center to provide better ingress and egress for
handicapped persons using the Civic Center.
402
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager, The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: The City Manager submitted a written report requesting that he
be granted tine uith Council h Executive Session to discuss both a real estate matter
and n personnel matter.
Wt. Trout moved that Council concur in the ~equest of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: ?he City Attorney submitted a written report advising that on
June 28, 1971. Council reappointed Mr. Richard H. Hahn as a member of the Local Hoard
of Virginia Western Community College, that in the past Council has made such
appointments by Resolution and transmitting a Resolution by which Mr. Hahn mould be
reappointed by Council to the Local Hoard of Virginia Western Community College for
new four-year term, commencing July 1, 1971.
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution:
(z19763) A RESOLUTION reappointing Richard H. Hahn a member of the Local
Hoard of Virginia Western Community College for a four-year term of office on said
Local Roard, commencing July 1, 1971.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 35, page 403,)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Zaylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ......
NAYS: None ............ O.
WAVER DEPARTMENT: The City Attorney submitted the follomin9 report in
connection with amending Ordinance NO. 19737. adopted by Council at its meeting on
Monday, June 28° 1971, accepting the proposal of Lynchburg Foundry Company, for
furnishing and supplying to tl~ ~ty certain quantities of ductile-iron pipe and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite contract therefor, advising
that the demand for such pipe occurs at various times through the year and recommend.
tug that purchase orders be authorized to be issued by the Purchasing Agent, with
the approval of the City Manager. as the need for such pipe a~ises:
"June 6, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
'On June 26, 1971, Council adopted Ordinance Ho. 19737, accepting
the proposal of Lynchburg Foundry Company, Division of Woodward
Iron Company, Division of The Mead Corporation, for furnishing
and supplying to the City certain quantities of ductile-iron pipe
and authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite contract.
As the demand for such pipe occurs at various times throughout
the year, and as has been the City's custom in past years so to do,
it is recommended that purchase orders be authorized to be
issued by the City's Purchasing Agent, with the approval of the
City Manager, as the need for such pipe arises.
Accordingly, there is transmitted for the Council's consideration
and action, a measure, prepared as au emergeocy ordinance, ameodJ~
Ordinance No. 19737 so as to provide an alternative method of
ordering the aforesaid pipe.
403
Respectfully,
S/ Edward A. Natt
Edward A. NaiF.
Assistant City Attorney*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney*and offered the following,emergency Ordinance:
(u19764) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19737, adopted June 260
1971, accepting the proposal Of Lynchbnrg Foundry Company, Division of Moodunrd
Iron Company, Division The Mead Corporation for furnishing and Supplying certain
ductile-iron water pipe to be used by the City*s Mater Department for the period
beginning July 1, 1971. and ending June 30, 1972; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Naa 35, page 403.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The mation was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
· ebber ..........
NAYS: None ............O.
COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted a written report requesting the
opportunity of meeting with the Mayor and Members of Council, the City Manager and
the City Auditor in Executive Session during or after the Council meeting for the
purpose of dJscussin~certain legal matters within the jurisdiction of Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of t~ City Attorney
for an Executive Session at the conclusion of the Council meeting. The motion mas
seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMXI~EES:
CITY ENGINEER-STREETS AND ALLEYS: A committee composed of Messrs. Byron
Hamer, Chairman, Mllliam F. Clark and B. D. Thompson submitted the following report
recommending that the contract with Adams Construction Company and Virginia Asphalt
Paving Company, Incorporated, for paving of various streets throughout the City of
Roanoke be extended in the amount of $150.000.00:
"July 6, 1971
TO the City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
By Ordinance No. 19629, adopted April 19, 1971, a contract was
awarded to Adams Construction Company and Virginia Asphalt Paving
Company, Inc., as a joint venture for paving of various streets
throughout the City. The contract, in the amount of
provided for moth to be completed by June 30. 1971, and such
amount of resurfacing has been accomplished.
The specifications also reserved to the City the right to extend
this contract after July 1, 1971, up to an additional $150,000.
This was done in anticipation of the normal annual resurfacing program
of approximately ~250.000. Funds are now available in the
recently adopted budget to accomplish this additional work.
404
It In recommended that the contract with Adams Construction Company
and Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc.. be extended fn the
amount of $150,000,. The time limit for tbls additional work mill
be 50 marking days with liquidated damages provisions In the amount
of $$0.00 per day. This mill provide for completion of resurfocing
on all streets submitted on the list to City Council ubich mas
approved April 19. 1971.
~...Bvron E. Honer
Byron E. Hamer
S! William F. Clark
#illiaw F. Clark
S! Bt B. Thonnson
B. B. Thompson'
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the committee
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
.(n19765) AN OROINANCE exercising the City's right to extend or enlarge
upon the amount and quantity of street paving to be done by the City's contract with
Virginia Asphalt Pavia9 Company, Inc., and Adams Construction Company, made pursuant
to the provisions of Ordinance No. 19629 adopted April 19, 1971; limiting the cost
of such additional work to the sum of $150,O00.OO; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35° page 404.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Br. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Link. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
~ebber. .7.
NAYS: None ~.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
MARKET: Ordinance No. 19757. authorizing the City Manager to negotiate
leases for terms of two years uith the present tenants of certain stalls in the
City Market. upon certain terms and conditions, having previously been before Council
for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Dr. Taylor
offering the follouing for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19757) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to negotiate leases fo:
terms of two years with the present tenants of certain stalls in the City Market,
upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Rook No. 35. page 400.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. ~he motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Link. TayLor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYs: None O.
405
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Norfolk
and Western Railmay Company permitting the City of Roanoke to enter onto certain
Railway property for the purpose of borrowing fill material for use at the Tinker
Creek Landfill, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following
emergency Ordinance:
(m19766) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Mauuger*s execution of an
agreement with Norfolk ~ Western Railway Company permitting the City to enter onto
certain Railway property for the purpose of borrowing fill material for use at the
CJty*s Tinker Creek Landfill; end providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 406.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................ 7.
NAys: None ............. O.
In this connection. Council having also directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with
the Borfolk and Western Railmay Company permitting the City of Roanoke to enter onto
certain Railway property for the purpose of utilizing eld property as a fill in
connection with the Tinker Creek Landfill and committing the city to reimburse the
~Railway Company for the cost of relocatin9 certain power line facilities, est/mated
amount to $5,450.O0, he presented same; mhereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the
folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~19767) AN ORDINANCE authoriain9 the City Manager*s execution of au
agreement mith Norfolk ~ Western Railway Company permitting the City to enter onto
certain Railway property for the purpose of utilizing said property as a fill in
connection with the Cityts Tinker Creek Landfill; and committing the City to reimbur
said Railway for the cost of relocating certain power line facilities, estimated
amount to $5,450.00; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 107.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7,
NAYS: None O.
Mith reference to the matter, Mr. Lisk requested that the City Manager
furnish Council with a progress report as to the position of the City of Roanoke in
connection with the original request to use the Brushy Mountain site for landfill
purposes and the position the city plans to take in the future.
.406
The City Manager advised that a report will be forthcoming to Council st
its next regular meeting on Monday, July 12, 1971, in connection with this matte~*
BUDGET-TAXES: Mr, Thomas offered the following Resolution appointing a
commission to study sources of revenue available to the City of Roanoke through
local taxes, llcenseSo service charges, fees and assessments, and thereafter, to
recommend to the Council the means for obtaining sufficient of such revenue for the
purposes of the city and means pursuant to uhich all taxeso fees, licenses, service
charges and assessments imposed by tho city for revenue purposes he distributed
fairly and equitably as possible:
(~19768) A RESOLUTION appointing a commission to study sources of revenue
aJlable ~o the City of' Roanoke through local taxes, licenses, service charges,
fees and assessments, and thereafter, to recommend to the Council the me'ann for
obtaining sufficient of such revenue for the purposes of the City and means
pursuant to uhich all taxes, licenses, fees, service charges 'and assessments Imposed
by be distributed fairly and equitably as possible.
the
City
for
purposes
(For full text of Resolution. see Resol'ution Rook No. 35, page 408.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber '7.
NAYS: None-. .O.
ROTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: NONE.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTESt:
APPROVED
M3yor
40'7
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, July 12. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met In regular meeting fa the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building. Monday, July 12, 1971, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour. with' Mayor Rubber presiding.
PRESENT: CouncilMen Robert A. Garland, David M. Link, Noel C. Taylor.
Hampton #. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber-~-?~
ABSENT: None O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Byron g. Bauer,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Eincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Aoditor.
1N¥OCATION: The meeting mas opened mith a prayer by Mr~ James Hardin,
Business Secretary, ¥. M. C. A.
ALCOHOL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: A request from Mr. Nilliam H. Mood, III,
President, Help. Incorporated, that the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Office be moved
from its present location at 317 Campbell Avenue, S. M., into an empty office space
in the Municipal Building, was before Council.
'Mr. Link moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by RF. ~heeler and
unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: Mr. B. A. Grubbs, Secretary of the Electoral
Board, and Mr. James H. Evans, Member of the Electoral Board, appeared before Council
and requested that the pay of the officera of election be increased from $20.00 per
day to $25.00 per day; that the salary of the Secretary oft~Elec~ral Board be increased
from $1,320.00 to $2,000.00, or an annual increase of $6G0.00; and that the salaries
of the two other members of the Electoral Board be increased from an annual rate of
$792.00 to $1.200.00, which is an increase of $409.00 each, making a total increase
of $1,496.00.
Mr. Tront moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure setting forth'the requested increases. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Mr. Arthur B. Crush. Attorney, representing the Roanoke Valley
General Aviation Association, appeared before Council and verbally presented a
complaint by owners'of private airplanes in connection with automobile parking
arrangements at Roanoke Mnnicipal (Moodrum) Airport.
After a discussion of the matter. Hr. Thomas moved that the parking
arrangement be referred to the Airport ddrlsory Commission ia conjnnction with the
City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council within two weeks. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
408
Nr. Llsk expressed 'the opinion that the airport is the number one public
relation in the City of Roanoke and moved that the matter of providing an area where
the public can park in order to view airplanes coning Into and leaving the airport
be referred to the ~ity Manager and the Airport Advisory Commission for study, report
and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
PETITIONS AND CORHUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $47.329.43 be appropriated to Section a?3OOO,"Schools - lark
Incentive Program." of the 1971~72 budget, advising that the School Board mill be roi
bursed for 100 per cent al actual expenditures by the Virginia Employment Commission.
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19769) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #?3000. "Sohools -
Mork Incentive ProgrnmF of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. nnd providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Ho. 3S. page 410.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk..Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None O.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from the City of Roanoke
iRedevelopment and Housing Authority, requesting approval of the Council of the City
of Roanoke for the Authority to purchase from the Federal Housing Administration
certain property known as 834 Levelton Avenue, N. H., and described os Lots 14A nnd
14H. Block 3, Draudview Addition, Official Tax Nos. 2060525 and 2060526, said pro-
perty to be used as a playground in connection with and as a part of the Hunt Manor
Housing Project, was before the body.
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted the fol~ouing report
transmitting a Resolution by which Council may express approval of the property
acquisition:
"July 12, 1971.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
This. and its enclosure, is ia connection with the communication
of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority dated
July 1. 1971, addressed to the Mayor and Members of the City Council,
requesting the Council's approval of the Authority*s acquisition of
tmo unimproved lots on Levelton Avenue. N. M., adjoining the Hunt
Manor Housing Project.
It is stated in the Authority's letter that the acquisition is
intended to provide a recreational area, and facility ~or children
living In the proJect and that no improvements, other than play-
ground equipment, are intended to be made on the tun lots.
I have discussed the matter, in general, with counsel for the
Authority nnd agree that · broad lnterpretallon or the law wight
not require the approval of n local governing body in such
instance. However, the Authorityts attorney, as evidenced by the
July Isa letter of the Authority, considers it best~ nnd appropriate
that the City Councllfs express approval of this relatively minor
acquisition of property be obtained so that no question wight
arise, now or in the future, affecting the title to the property or
its right of ownership end operation b7 the Authority.
In order that Council may be in position to act upon the request
sought by the Authority at its meeting mhen the same is considered,
I have prepared and transmit herewith a resolution by which the
Council's express approval may be given to the property acquisition,
should the Council be so advised.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. H. Kincanon~
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the request of the City of Roanoke
IRedevelopeent and Housing Authority and offered the following Resolution:
(#lgY?O) A RE$OL~FION approving the acquisition of certain property by
the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to he used as a playground
in connection with and as a part of the Hunt Manor Housing Project.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 411.)
Mr. Link moved thc adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
Iby Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler, Mayor
Webber ................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
5~FREETS AND ALLEYS-SALE OF PROPERTY: A communication from Mr. Jenning~
T. Rfrd, Attorney, representing Afltrim Motors, Incorporated. transmitting a
cation from Antrim Motors, Incorporated. advising that by Ordinance Ho. lg46fl, the
City of Roanoke vacated, discontinued and closed that portion of Stephenson
Avenue, S. W,. between New Street and Franklin Road. S. M., that Antrim Rotors.
Incorporated, the owner of the adjoining property on the southeasterly side of the
closed portion of Stepheoson Avenue thereby became vested with title to the South-
easterly half thereof and the City of Roanoke, as the omner of Franklin Road, the
property adjoiuing the northwesterly side, became vested with title to the north-
westerly half and offering to purchase for the sum of $50.00, cash, the interest
of the City of Roanoke in that portion of Stepbensoo Avenue which was vacated by
Ordinance No. lg46H, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the offer, be referred to the Real Estate Committee
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The. motion was secondedby Mr.
:Garland and unanimously adopted,
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. Lawrence L. Tapscott. Attorney,
representing Roanoke Coca-Cola Bottling Marks, Incorporated~ and Radio Comwunlcntl(
Co** Incorporated, requesting that n certain portion of an alley running In an east
erly direction from 4th Street, N. ¥** between Shenandoah Avenue and Center Avenue
for a distance of 265.9 feet be vacated, discontinued and closed, was before Cannel
#r. Trout moved that the petition be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion wes seconde
I by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Bheeler then offered the following Resolution appointing viewers Jn
connection with closing thc alley:
(alg??l) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five freeholders,
any three of whom nay act, as viewers in connection ulth the Petition of Roanoke
Coca-Cola Bottling Works. Inc., Radio Communications Company, IBC** and Herbert
Kurshan and Gertrude J. EuFshan, Louis Turk and Ann Turk, Harold H. Hoffnon and
LatVia Boffman. Lester Kimmel and Normo Kimmel and Robert #. Adler and Deanna Adler
to permanently vacate, discontinue and close that portion of an alley running in
an easterly direction from 4th Street, N. W. between Shenandoah Avenue. N. B.. and
Center Avenue, N. W., for a distance of 265.9 feet.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 411,}
Br. Wheeler moved, the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Rt. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ~---7.
NAYS: None. .0.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, Attorney.
representing Mr. Fred P. Bullington. et ax., and Mr, William J. Gausman, et ax** .
requesting that a portion of 25th Street. S. M., lying between the westerly side of
Carolina Ateone. S. #** and the easterly side of a 12 foot alley running through
the center of Blocks 29 and 2q, Map of Crystal Springs, be vacated, discontinued
Mr. Trout noted that the petition be referred to the City Planning Commis.
sion for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then offered the following Resolution providing for the appoint,
meat of viewers in connection with closing the street:
(u19772) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five. viewers in
connection with the application of Fred P. Bullington, Adrienne G. Bullington,
William J. Gausman and Anna H. 6ausman to permanently vacate, discontinue and close
that portion o! 25th Street, S. W,, lying betmeen the westerly side of Caroline
Avenue, S~ W., and the easterly side of · 12 fi, alley ronofug through the center
of Blocks 28 and 29, according to Mtp of Crystal Springs. in the City or Roanoke,
Virginia.
(For rail text of Resolution', see Resolution Book No. 35. page 413.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption Of the Res'olut~ion, The 1orion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ................ O.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranwell. Attorney, repre-
senting Greenbrier Associates, a partnerihip c~mprised of Messrs. William J. Moody
and Fred P. Bullington, transmitting a revised request that property described as
Lots lB, 19 and 20, Section 2, R~p of #est Park, and Lots I and 2. Block 20, Map
of Washington Heights, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial Bistrict. to RG-2.
General Residential Blstrict, and further requesting that the previous request of
Mr. Milliam J. Moody as presented to Council at its meeting on Tuesday, June
1971, to rezone Lots 16. 19 and 20. Section 2. Mop of Mesa Park, from C-2, General
Commercial District, to C-1. Office and Institutional Oistrict, be withdramn and
the above described request be substituted in its place, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the rerised request be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS BF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER-JUVENILE AND DOMES'TlC RELATIONS COURT-MUNICIPAL
COURT: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection with three
employees within the city government for whom it is considered that adjustments in
pay scales are appropriate in the interest of consistency in the Pay Plan and to
place these employees in the same position as persohs newly hired to comparable
positions and recommending that these revisions be made by amendment to the 1971=72
departmental personnel Ordinances:'
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 12. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The following relates tothree employees witbi~ the City
government for whom It is considered that adjustments in pay scales
are appropriate in the interest of consistency in the Pay Plan and
to place these employees in the same position as persons newly
hired to comparable positions. The three employees listed below
ate regular permanent employees who were promoted with the budget
of 1970-71. on July 1, 1970; bat because of restrictions were
advanced to step 1 of a higher range. Due to limitations that
were imposed, they were not permitted to move forward to step 2
after the.usual 6 months period which applies to step 1 under the
i412
Personnel Rules.and Regulations, The fqllouing revision mould correct
for these three indlvidual~ as of the present time and mould adjust
them properly into .the Pay Plan system,
It is recommended by omendment to the 1971-72 depertmentol
personnel ordinances these revisions be mode with the ioted increased
costs being.as indicated in the rollomiog:
A. W. 8, Beverly, Laborer I1, Street Repair-promoted to pre-
sent position, Step 1, November 16, 1970, not raised*to
Step 2, Hay 16, 1971. Recommend adjustment to Step
effective July 1, 1971.
B. Judy Harris - Clerk Typist II, Juvenile Detention Homo
promoted to present position. Clerk Typist II, Step I on
July 1, 1970, not raised to Step 2, January 1. 1971,'
Recommend adjustment to Step 3. effective July 1, ~971.
C. Judy Mebb. Clerk Typist II, Municipal Court. promoted to
present position. Step'l on July 16, 1970, not raised to
Step 2, January 16, 1971. Recommend adjustment to Step 3,
September 16, 1971.
Additional cost to departments affected mould be'as follows:
A. Absorbed in present accounts, fl. $2H8 C. $2S2
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst.
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(;19773) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~19, "Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court," and Section #20, "Municipal Court,' of tho 1971-72
Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 414.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Tho motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: MesSrSo Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Malor
Mebbez ,?.
HAYS: None ..... O.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report a communication from Mrs. C. M. Atkinson, President of the
Mildmood Civic League, advising that the City of Roanoke installed a storm drain
~rom Mecca Street to Glade Creek, that when the storm drain was completed it sas
found that the catch basin inlets were left higher than the street in some cases
causing water to run down the middle of the street instead of running into the
storm drain and requesting that some temporary work be accomplished to improve the
condition,'the City Manager submitted the following report advising that the Street
Division of the Public Works Department performed certain work along the street
in order to influence the drainage along the shoulders of King Street into the
recently installed catch basin and that it is felt a more complete and lasting sole.
tion mill involve the installation of curb and gutter in this area:
413
"Roanoke, Virginia
Joly 12, 1971
Honorable ~ayor and City Council
Ro·nokeo Vlrgini·
Gentlemen:
City Council on April 19, 1971o received · letter from Mrs.
C. W. Atkinsoo, President of the ~fldwood Civic League, requesting
some temporary repairs to the situation of the storm drain which
extends from Heccn Street to Glade Creek. You referred this matter
to we for investigation ·nd report.
Mr. Clark, Director of Public ~orks, advised me that he visited
the area on Friday, May ?, during a period of fairly hard rainfall.
He reports that there was some ·ccemul·tion or runoff along the
shoulders of King Street but th·t there was not observed any water
running down the Riddle of the street. However, this could occur
under other situations of he·vy rain storm when the street might
flo~ with water from side to side. The street division of the -
Public Marks Department has carried out certain work along the street
in order to influence the drainage along the shoulders of King
Street into the recently installed catch basin.
It is felt that a more complete and lasting solution would
necessarily inrolve the installation of curb and gutter in this
area. King Street has · particularly flat gradient and it is
very difficult to obtain good drainage along paved shoulders under
such conditions. Concrete curb and gutter is highly desirable in
such a situation. Engineering Department has already invited
persons in the area to circulate and submit a petition for this
type of improvements and if this should be forthcoming it mould
considerably benefit the problem. In the meantime we will continue
to obserre this location from tine to tine doing whatever improve-
merits would appear to be necessary in order to regulate and better
control the flow of storm water.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
S~REKTS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting an Ordinance which would prescribe a fee of $50.00 for the processing
by the City of Roanoke of an application for the closing or vacating of any street
alley and recommending the adoption of said Ordinance.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lgTT4) AN ORO1NANCK to amend Title XVI1, Chapter 1, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, by the addition of · new section, to be numbered Section 13,
prescribing and charging · fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the processing of an
application pursuant to J 15.1-364, Code of Virginia. 1910, as amended, flor the clos-
ing or vacating of any street or alley; and.providing for an emergency.'
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35,.page 415.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Mebber --7.
NAYS: None O.
4:L4
In a discussion of the matter, Mr, Garland expressed the opinion that a
fee of $100,00 uould be a more realistic figure for this service,
The City Attorney pointed out that the state statute limits this fee to
$~o~oo.
Hr, Lisk moved that thc question of adopting a measure requesting the
General Assembly of Virginia to Increase this fee from $50,00 to $100,~0 ~e referred
to the Legislative Advisory Committee of. Council for study, report and recommendation
to Council. The motion sas seconded by NFo Garland and unanimously, adopted,
Hr, Llsk then moved that the Gity Attorney be directed to establish a list
of uaxluum fees mhich the city can charge for processing various other matters of
this nature. The motion was seconded by #r. Garland and unanfuoasly adopted.
INSURANCE-PLANNING: The City Manager submitted a written report transmittll
copy of a memorandum from th~ Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic
Development with reference to the National Flood Insurance Program and also transmit-
ting copy of n memorandum to him from the City Planning Deportment in response to
his inquiry for their reviem of the program, advising that. if Council wishes, he will
study the program further.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and memorandums be received and filed and
that the City Manager continue his study of the program. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS-EASEMENTS: Council having referred to the City
Manager and the City Attorney for study, report and recommendation a communication
from Mr. Donald M. Rhinehart, Vice President, Fralin and Waldron, Incorporated, for
Ferncliff Apartments~ requesting that a portion of the existing sewer easement
located at 3533 Ferncliff Avenue, N. M~, be vacated, and that approval'be given to
create a new sewer easement on the property as shown on Plan No. L-4155D prepared by
Clements Draper, Certifi~d Land Surveyors, the City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that the city agree to vacate the portion of the existing ease-
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
At your meeting o~ June 26, 1971. you referred to me a letter
from Mr. Donald M. Rhinehart, Vice-President,.Fralin and Maldron,
lac., requesting that a portion of the existing sewer easement loca-
ted ~t 3533 Ferncliff Avenue, N. M., be vacated and approval be given
~ngineers.
This sanitary.sewer easement is in the vicinity of Million
Fleming High School. The proposed relocation of the sanitary sewer
is necessitated by storm drain improvements being required for the
Ferncliff Apartment developuent. The entire development plan has been
revieued by the engineering department through the planning stages
considered to be detrimental to~e City.
415
fie mould recommend'~hnt ihe City agree in ~ncnie lhe porllnn o~
the existing easement and accept the reviewed easement all. gnment.
n7 a copy o! this letter to Hr. Rhinehart, I am sog~esting to
him that hfs attorneys prepare the necessary legal papers nad submit
them to the City Attorney for his review and further hn~dllng.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Hr. Garland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that ~e following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#19775) AN OROINANCE authorizing end providing for the City's acquisition
of a certain perpetual easement in land needed for the proposed construction of a
sanitary sewer line through property located at 3533 Ferncliff Avenue. N. Hoe in the
tit! of Roanoke. upon certain terms and conditions; and, in consideration of the
grant of said easement, providing for the City*s release, quitclaim and abandonment
of all right, title and interest in and to a portion of an adjacent sanitary sewer
easement located at 3533 Ferncliff Avenue. N. U.
WHEREAS. Horace G. Fralin, Elbert H. Waldron, G. Wayne Fralin, W. Heymood
Fralin end W. H. Fralin and M. Coldwell Butler, Trustees for Raren #aldron, Partners
trading as Ferncliff Apartments. have petitioned the Council to abandon certain
portions of an existing sanitary sewer easement running through portions of ~533
Ferncliff Avenue, N. M** and have offered, in return for the release, quitclaim
property; and have tendered to the City the requisite deed of easement which is on
rile in the Office of the City Clerk.
MHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the Council that all the expenses
of the relocation of the sanitary sewer line presently existing in 3533 Ferncliff
Avenue. N. M., to its proposed adjacent location will be borne by the owners of the
such release and relocation being shown in detail on a certain plat attached to the
deed of easement tendered to the City as aforesaid; in which recommendation the Coun-
THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. That the City doth hereby accept the offer of Horace G. Fraltn. Elbert
H. Neldron, G. Wayne FFalin, W. Heywood Fralin and W. H. Frulin end M. Coldwell
end convey to the City a certain perpetual easement through property in the City of
Roanoke within a right-of-way bounded and described as follows:'
416
BEING u 20-foot aide seuitary sewer easewent messured 10
feet equidistant rron and on bomb sides of a eenterline, the
beginning point of mhich is located as follows: Beginning
at a point in the Centerlfae of Ferncliff Avenue. thence.
S. 390 0.4* W. 358.0 feet to a point; thence, N. 48o
31.2 feet to the ACTHAL BEGINNING POINT of the 20-foot wide
sanitary sewer easement herein granted; thence,' along the
centerline of said new sanitary semer easement N. 26° 05'
· 166.0 feet to e point on the southerly line of nn existing
sanltury sewer easement 20 feet wide and being shown
detail on a plat prepared by Clements and Draper, Certified
Land Surveyors, Christiansburg, Virginia, prepared under
date of May 27, 1971, and entitled "Plat Prepared for the
Vacation and Conveyance o! Various Sanitary Sewer Ensewents on
the Propert~ of Horace G. FFOIIu ~ Elbert H. Maldron."
for u nominal consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1o00)o cash. and that prope~ City
Officials be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to accept for the City the
deed of easement in the premises, approved as to form by the City Attorney.
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be, and they are hereby authorized and
directed for and on behalf of the City tn execute, seal and attest respectively,
a deed of release and quitclaim pursuant to mhich deed the City would release,
quitclaim and convey unto the fee simple omner all of the City*s right, title and
interest in and to a portion of that certain sanitary sewer main and easement there-
for, located at 3533 Perncliff Avenue, N. M.. in the City as shomn on a plat prepared
by Clements and Draper, Certified Land Surveyors, Christiansburg, Virginia, under
date of May ~7, 1971, and entitled "Plat Prepared for the Vacation and Conveyance
of Various Sanitary Sewer Easements on the Property of Horace G. Fralin ~ Elbert
H. Maldron", said deed of release and quitclaim to be prepared and approved as to
form by the City Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Jebber ................. 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report in
counection with the Board of Health, recommending that Council favorably consider
the discontinuance of the Board of Health and submit the matter to the Git~ Attorney
for a rewriting of Chapter 1, Title 13 of The Code of the City d Roanoke, 1956, and
any other applicable provisions of the Code to omit reference to this Board:
*Roanoke, Virginia
July 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemee:
Title 13 of the City Code, which is that title applicable to
public health, protide's in Chapter 1 thereof for a Board Of Health.
Section 4 of Chapter I describes the duties of the Hoard as *except
as otherwise provided, the powers and duties of the Board of Health
shall be the same as those uaw conferred, or which may hereafter
be conferred, upon local boards of health by the General Assembly
of ¥frginia.* The Hoard is designated to consist of five members,
all to be appointed by the City Manager, two of whom are to be
practicing physicians. This is the extent of the definition of
specific responsibilities of the Board except that in Section 11
of the Code the Commissioner of Health, among other duties, has the
responsibility of enforcing 'the rules and regulations of the Board
of Health**
417
The City or Ham·she bud or b·t hsd · Board of Health for
apparently · number of ye·rs. The most recent Code doting on the
provisions that I hove sighted ·bore wis 1939,
During the time th·t the City operated the Health Dep·rtmenl,
there was un appointed Board and this group met tram time to time
with the Commissioner of Health to review generally ~he activities
tahlng place within the department, The Code provides that the ·
Board meet ut !east qu·rterly and to the best of my recollection
the Board during the last several years of City direction of the
department mis not meeting any more frequently than that. The Hoard
mas made up of very capable citizens ·ad these commeots ·re not
in uny v·y intended us I reflection upon them indivldu·lly or collec-
tively but rather us a commentary upon the limited scope of ·ctivlties
to which the Board could direct itself. Since the ·frill·tiaa by
the City Council of the Health Department With the Virglni· St·re
Department of Health, the Board's functions have become even less
and I believe that I am reasonably correct in observing that it
perhaps met not more th·n once or twice offer that affiliation.
There is little that such u local Bo·rd can do under the
affiliation arrangement as policies, procedures, rules and regulations
are determined by the State Health Department and generally appli-
cable on a Stutemide basis and a local board is Or mould be completely
subject to those conditions and would find itself without u great
deal of room for service. I have not made recent appointments to
vacancies that have occurred on this Board because of these circum~
stances, feeling some question as to what cam be advised to citizens
~ho wight be requested to serve as to what their duties and functions
might be. Hhen the local Board mas last in its full membership,
it itself raised question as to the need of its continuance and at
least two of the members requested to be excused. #e invited of
the State Health Department comments on this situation mod the
functioning of a local Board of Health. I quote as folloms from
a letter from Dr. S. A. Graham, Director of the Division of Local
Health Services, mbo lututn quotes Doctor Sbunholtz, State Director
of Health:
'This matter has been discussed with Dr. Shanholtz and
recorded belom are his comments concerning this subject.*
· In 1872 the State Board of Health was established, and
at that time no State Health Department existed. This State
Hoard of Health acted in lien of a State Health Department
until 1908, when the State Health Department came into being.
· During this same interval, 1B72=IgOB, counterparts of the
State Board Of Health, that is, local boards of health, were
created to wnrk In conjunction with the State Board Of Health.
After the State Health Department came Into being; some local
health departments began to spring up over the State in the
cities and counties, taking on the original functions of the
old local boards of health.
· In 1954 the local health departments mere given legal
status when the counties and cities were given the pomer to
enter into contractual arrangements with the State Health Depart=
meat, separately or in combination, for the operation of local
health departments (32-40.! end 32-40.2, Code of Virginia). At
the present time all of the counties and cities In the State are
covered by local health departments, which carry out all of the
responsibilities defined for the old local boards of health,
plus many new additional ones**
· It is our feeling that where an organized full tine local
health department exists, a local board of health would be
obsolete and would have quite limited responsibility. The
boards of health in Norfolk and Alexandria serve in on advis&ry
capacity only. However, old sections of the code have never
been deleted, and if the city desires to continue appointing a
local board of health, there is ua legal limitation to them
doing So.*
Within these circumstances, I do not feel that the City can
Justifiably continue to retaln such a body and correspondingly invite
the services of citizens with such u limited scope of assignment and
opportunity of participation. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
City Council favorably consider the discontinuance of the Board of
Health and submit the matter to the City Attorney for a remrlting
of Chapter I o'f Title 13 of the City Code and any other applicable
provisions of the City Code to omit reference to this Board.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation or the City
#nnnger amd taut the matte~ be referred to the City Attorney rot preparation of
adopted,
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City #ansger submitted a mrltten report
requesting that'he be allowed to present and display to Council the material which
mill be submitted to the staff or the State Water Control Board with regard to the
Sewage Treatment Plant.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted n ten page report prepnre~
as a summarization of an Interim Sanitary Semerage System Program having ns its
objectives the continuation of the City of Roanoke to provide full. adequate and
safe sanitary sewage waste treatuent and transportation and to meet the directions
of the State Mater Control Board, said report prepared specifically in accordance
mith the Minutes of the State Rater Control Board meetings of June 14 end IS. 1971,
and that with the report is the proposal for the expansion of the City of Roanoke
Mater Pollution Control Plant as an essential part of the purpose of the report.
The City Manager then p~esented a lengthy verbal summarization of the
The City Engineer verbally explained certain charts in connection with th
mutter and ~ited various facts end figures relating thereto, t
In this connection, Delegate Ray L. Garland appeared before the body and
vend a pvepnved statemen~ ndvislng that the so-called long range solution as pro- 1
the present, but would give a margin of growth for at least the rest of the century.
In a discussion of the matter. Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that he
does not think the city is meeting the s~andards as set forth by the State Rater
Control Board.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that the plan is too little, too late.
' After a further dis~usslon of t~e matter, Mr. Thomas offered the
following Resolution proposing and committing the City of Roanoke to a Revised
Intevim Plan for Sewage Treatment and ~ Long-Range Program for the Roanohe
Sewevage System, based upon State and Fedeval pavticipation therein, and divecttng
that said Revised Interim Plan and Long-Range Pvogvam be filed with the State mate!
Control Boavd. with vequest that the same be' appvoved By said Board:
(~19776) A RESOLUTION proposiog andcommfttfng the City to a Revised
Interim Plan for Sewage Treatment and a Long-Range Program for the Roanoke Sewerage
System. based upon State and Federal participation therein; directing that said
Revised Interim Plan and Long-Range Program be filed with the State ~ater Control
Board. with r~qnest that the same be approved by said Board.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35. page 416.)
419
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion mos seconded
by Mr. Trout sad odopted by the folloming vote:
AYES:~ Messrs, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler sad Mayor lebber ......5~
NAYS:-Messrs,.Gurlund end Limb. 2.
GARRAGE REMOVAL: Council having previously requested a report from the
City Manager in connection with proposed landfill aress, the City Manager submitted
a written report advising that due to a short weeh end other complications, it is
requested to defer until the next meeting of Council the report regarding sanitary
landfills,
Mr, Trout moyed that Council concur Jn the request of the City Manager,
The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and nnanJmously adopted,
BUILDINGS: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting for
the information Of Council copy of the accumulative report of the Department of
Ruildings as to permits issued and inspections made by the Oepartment for the period
beginning January 1, 1971o and ending June, 1971,
Hr, Trout moved that the reports be received and filed, The motion Mas
seconded by Mr, Thomas and unanimously adopted,
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report in connectl~
uith the Annual Report for 1970 for the Roanoke Fire Department and commending the
activities of the Fire Department.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the follow-
lng report in connection with the status of personnel in the Police Department and
the Fire Department as of May 31, 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 12, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Listed below is the status of the police and the fire departmentas
of May 31, 1971:
*Police Department
No changes,
As of May 31, 1971, 26 vacancies.
Fire Department
Firefighter Carl D. Gibson - retired - May 1, 1971.
There is one vacancy in the department at this time,*
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Htrst
City Manager"
42O
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed, The mo~ion mas
seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted,
ZONING-COUNCIL: Council having referred u petition, from Mr, John H,
Thornton, Jr** Attorney, representing Mr, E, Claude Pace, Jr., et ux,o requesting
that a 15,68 acre parcel of land located on eersinger Road and Brombleton Avenue,
S~ N,, described as Acreage, Official Tax No. 1260214, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-
Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, to the City
Attorney for the purpose of rendering a legal opinion as to whether it mould be a
Conflict of Interest for the four members of Council who are also members of the
Elks Lodge to vote on this request for rezoniug, the City Attorney submitted the
following report advising that he has studied the State Conflict of Interest Lam, the
City Charter, the Elks Lodge No. 197 Charter and has been given access to portions
of the Statutes of the Elks* Grand Lodge, that from his study, it appears that the
Councilmen who are local Elks Club members do not have such an interest as to
disqualify them from officially acting in this situation, that this conclusion is
based on the understanding that the affected Councilmen have no material, financial
interest which would prohibit then from acting on the petition for rezoning in such
manner as their discretion, as members of Council, might dictate and that his office
stands ready to assist the Councilmen in seeking an advisory opinion from the
Commonwealth*s Attorney*s Office, should they or any of them so desire:
~July 12, lgYl
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of June 21, lgYl, you referred the petition of
Mr. and Mrs. E. Claude Pace, Jr., for a rezoning to this office.
The petitioners own approximately 15 acres of land located at
the intersection of Persinger Road and Brambleton Avenue in the
City of Roanoke. The petitioners, by contract, have granted to
the Roanoke Lodge No. lg7 of the Benevolent and Protective Order
of Elks of the United States of America, au option to purchase
the property. The Elks Lodge wishes to erect a private club to-
gether with extensive recreational facilities on this property.
At the present time, the property is zoned R$-3 Single Family
Residential District. The petitioners mish o change to
General Commercial District so that the use contemplated by the
Elks Lodge would be permissible.
Four members of Council are members of this Elks Lodge. The
question on which you sought the opinion of this office is whether
a conflict of interest exists as to those Council members who ore
also members of the local Elks Lodge.
This office has considered this question, has studied the State
Conflict of Interest Law. the City Charter, the Elks Lodge No.
197 Charter and has been given access to portions of the Statutes
of the Elk~ Grand Lodge. From this study, it appears that the
Councilmen who are local Elks Club members do not have such an
interest as to disqualify them from officially acting in this
situation. This conclusion is based on the understanding that
the affected Councilmen have no *material financial interest*
which mould prohibit them from acting on the petition for re-
zoning in such manner as their discretion, os members of the
Council, night dictate.
The recently enacted Virginia Conflict of Interest Low (Sections
2,1-347 to 2.1-358, Yfrginio Code) provides in itself 8 statutory
means for obtaining advisory opinion where some question of
applicability may exist. Sec. 2,1-356 designates the local
Commouwealth°s Attorney ns the enforcement officer for this
at the local level of government° and requires him to render
advisory opinions to uny officer mbo seehs advice as to whether
the facts of a particular case mould come within or constitute
a violation.of the provisions of the state lan. The utilization
of this statutory procedure appears to provide a speedy means of
determining the question In z uny which would furnish to the
affected Council members more formal guidance, ir not assurance,
than can be afforded by the undersigned.
This office stands ready to assist the Councilmen in seehJng an
advisory opinion from the Commonwealth*s Attorney*s Office, should
they or any of them so desire.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Klncancn
J. N. Kincanon"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in t~ report of the City Attorney and
that the matter be referred to the Commonmealth°s Attorney for a legal opinion as
to whether this would be a Conflict of Interest. The motion was seconded by Mr,
Lash and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Attorney submitted a written report advisin9
that on June 2g, 1971. a Motion for Judgment was filed in the Court of Law and
Chancery of the City of Roanoke by Michael Co Culbreath against M. E. Richardson,
a member of the Police Department. for personal injuries allegedly sustained by
Culbreath from certain actions taken by Officer Richardson in the course of his
police duties, that the amount of compensatory damages bean9 sought by the plaintiff
is $100,O00.00 and transmitting a Resolution by which Council would authorize the
City Attorney to represent Officer Richardson and would lend official sanction to
such representation.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offere~ the following Resolution:
(zlg777) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Attorney to represent a member
of the City's Police Department in certain civil proceedings brought against said
police officer, upon the said police officer*s request for such representation.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 416.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of th~ Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AyEs: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
#abbot 7.
NAYS: None --0.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITy EMPLOYEES: The City Attorney submitted a written
report in connection with Floyd P. Brown. Jr** a dismissed city employee v. Joliaa F
HOrst, individually and as City Manager, advising that by letter dated July 6, 1971,
from the Legal Aid Society of Roanoke Valley, Attorney for Mr~ Brown. addressed to
422
the Clerk of the District Court, he has been Informed of the intent of #r, Braun to
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States the opinion and Judgment rendered
adversely to'' him In the District Court and affirmed,, on his appeal, by the Circuit
Court of Appeals,
NV, Llsk moved that the report be received and filed, The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted·
SCHOOLS: Council baying.referred a report of the Real Estate Committee
to the City Planning Commission recommending that Council give authorization to
removing the building on the former Loudon Elementary School property and refer the
use of the property to the City Planning Commission for a recommendation or recommen~
tions as to the studies they.would give to said property, the City Planning Commis-
sion submitted the following report recommending that after careful study and
analysis of all future reuse potentials therefor that a park use would constitute t~
highest and best use for this site, specifically one intended to serve the Galnsboro
Neighborhood:
'July 8,1971
The Honorable Roy k. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On May 26 the City Council referred to the Planning Commission
a request to study the future disposition and use of the London
Elementary School site. This report addresses itself to this issue.
It is the considered recommendation of the Planning Commission
after careful study and analysis of all future reuse potentials for
the London Elementary School site that a park use constitutes the
highest and best use for this specific site. This report deals
with the basis for this recommendation, and in addition, presents
plans delineating the proposed park and its environs.
A principal objective of Roanoke's park development program
has been to provide a full range of public playgrounds and park
facilities within ready access of all the residents of the City.
To this end, 36 separate parcels comprising almost two square miles
have been acquired and developed for park purposes throughout the
City. In general, these park areas fulfill separate, although to
some degree, overlapping recreation functions. The largest park,
Mill Mountain, serves the entire region. Community level paths pro-
vide active and passive recreation opportunities for multloneighbor-
hood areas to the City. Neighborhood parks are located in easy
walhing distance of the residents of each neighborhood and are of
tbe size and scope necessary to meet the more limited needs of
individual residential areas.
The facilities which comprise the City of Roanoke park system
are well distributed and go far toward meeting tbe existing and
anticipated future recreational needs of the City as a whole. At
tbe neighborhood level, however, deficiencies in park acreage and
facilities do exist and expanding and upgrading the park system Jn
these areas is a matter of highest priority for City government.
The Gainsboro Seighborhood has no centrally located neighbor-
hood parks, and is presently served by Mashinton Park, a community-
scale facility. This neighborhood, with a predominantly low income,
non-white population, has the highest population density in the City
· (8,041 persons per square mile). The proportion of the population
under 19 years of age (above 40 percent), which generates much of the
demand for playfields and other sport facilities is higher than the
City average. These factors suggest that many Gainsboro residents
have neither-the income nor the opportunity to utilize recreation
423~
fscilJkies elseuhere even tbongb their demted for such facilities
it greeter khan for khe Ciky as a whole. There is a clearly demon-
skrnked need for a centrally located pluyfield ko meet khe n~eds of
khe local residents for an active recreakion zreu.~
The need for expanding park facilikies wikhin the Gainsboro
neighborhood hum'been recognized for some kime, buk khe bullk up
character of khe area and khe absence ar any suitable vucunk kracks
has precluded khe possibility of developing n neighborhood perk
facility, The 1963 park plan prepared by the City Planning Oepartment
proposed thak the half-block behind the London School be'incorpora-
ted into au expanded school-park site. homever the cost of imple-
menting the proposal prevenked its being carried out. The proposal,
houever was sound, inasmuch as the school was centrally located
within the neighborhood, and the school grounds themselves were
partially developed and could be improved in conjunction with the
development of the remainder of the site.
Since 1963, fen improvements have been undertaken at ~he Loudon
site. The paved play area is utilized for a variety of court games
but is otherwise unimproved· The Loudon Elementary School site
affords the city an opportunity to develop a true neighborhood park
which would more fully accomuodate the needs of Gainsboro residents
than the present schooigroond.
U~ilization of the old Loudon School site as a neighborhood park-
playground offers the City the opportunity to provide for recreational
needs of the Loudon residents with minimum acquisition costs· The
mike itself, 1.2 ac~es in size. is too smell to provide a full range
of neighborhood park facilities, but a greater diversity of activities
could be provided for with the possibility of acquiring the remainder
of the block later on.
The plan presented in this report recommends a variety of recrea-
tional facilities located in a park-like setting. Development would
generally take place in three phaaes, with initial emphasis being
placed upon the city-owned school property. Redevelopment of this
area should begin as soon as possibl~. The second and khird
phases involve acquisition of the remainder of the block, thereby
doubling the siam of the park end making possible a wider range of
recreational activities. The ultimate cost of implementing the
second ~nd third phases should not be a deterent to carrying out the
initial, phase of Jmprorements since it will be possible to develop
a usefu.l neighborhood facility on the publically owned area.
Staged improvements are recommended for the London Elementary
School site once the /ire damaged etructore has been removed. Phase
one would generally consist of the following improvements:
Improved play appratus for toddlers and younger children.
Standard swings and a chute Should be supplemented by a
timber climbing device, all to be located on an extensive
send surface which would act as both a safety floor and
could be utilized by children as a sandbox. Sufficient
seating around the play area would provide spa~e for observin~
children at play.
A small grass covered area would accommodate limited
f~eld games..
A basketball court, utilizing existing pavement, would pro-
vide for some of the active recreational needs of older
children and adults.
A small portion of pavement adjacent to the basketball' court
should be retained to insure a hard surface for 9ames appro-
priate to this type of ground cover.
· A peripheral walkway, possibly paved with bricks salvaged
from the old school building shonld be developed with
adjacent benches providing space for walks and leisure
activities of older residents.
Seating developed along London Avenue could serve as both a
waiting area for bus riders and a resting place for people
who merely wish to sit and watch the activity on the street
and in the park.
'424
Implementation of the flail tug phases of development will
depend upon the Clty~s willingness to acquire additional land for the
park. Acquisition of the remaining half block mould substantially
increase the utility value of the site by creating a park or approxi-
mately two-and one-hair acres, o size sufficient to provide for a
much wider range of neighborhood park facilities. In phase tug,
acquisition of n vacant lot behind the school mould provide pedestrian
access to Gllmer Avenue, and in phase three, the seven houses on
Gilmer Avenue mould be acquired and removed to permit expansion of
the park.
Acquisition and development of the privately-onned portions of
the proposed park represents the largest cost Items in devel?piug
the new London Park.
As indicated belom inplemenatlon of phase one, hvolving the
development of City-onned property, would cost an estimated
$go650.00. about over-half of which would be utilized for planting
and paving. This figure could be reduced to the extent that city
trees and shrubs are utilized in place of plantings purchased from
private nurseries.
PHASE I (ESTIMATED COST)
Grading $ 1,500.O0
Pavement 2,500.00
Trees and Shrubs 3,000.00
Seeded Ground Cover 500.00
Playground - Apparatus, Sand, etc. 1,0OO.00
Mater Fountain 300.00
Basketball Court - Utilizing Existing
Pavement 250.00
Benches 600tO0
Sub Total $ 9,650.00
It is estimated that an additional $60,O00, nearly all of which
would be utilized for land acquisition and demolition, would be needed
to complete the project. Detailed cost breakdown are indicated belom.
PHASE I1~ III (ESTIMATED COST)
Land Acquisition $ 50,000.00
Demolition of Existing Structures ?,000.00
Regrading - Seeding 2.500.00
Benches 500.00
Sub Total 60,000.00
Grand Total $ 69,650.00
In summary, the proposed London Park is a badly needed facility
in an area of the City which bas a deficiency of parkland and a
greater than average need for outdoor recreational facilities.
Removing the school building and replacing it with a park intended
to serve the Gainsboro Neighborhood would mean fulfilling this
unmet need.
Sincerely,
S/ Jobc H.' PaFrott by LM
John B. Parrott
Chairman"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor expressed concern as to whether there are sufficient elementary
schools in the Gainsboro area and raised the question as to why the schools in the
black communities are allowed to depreciate to the point that they must be torn down.
In this connection. Council having also recommended that the matter of the
former Riverdale Elementary School property be referred to the City .Planning Commis-
sion for recommendation as to the disposition or use of that property, the City
425
Planning Commission submitted the follomlng report advising that no reason can be
found mhy this property should be retained Jn public omuership, recommending that a
residential use constituted the blgh~st and best use of this speci.flc parcel of land
and that In the event of sale, the existing RD, Duplex Residential District. zoning
classification should be retained:
'July 8, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. #ehber, Hayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, ¥irgfnfa
Gentlemen:
On May 26 the City Council referred to the Planning Commission
a request to study the future disposition and use of the Riverdale
Elementary School site. This report addresses itself to this issue.
The City Planning Commission has evaluated the Rlverdale
School Site, and based aport the present characteristics of the site,
anticipated future changes in the surruuading area, and present
and future needs for public facilities in the Harden City Neigh-
borhood, can find no reason why this property should be retained
in public ownership. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends
that a residential use constitutes the highest and best use for
this specific parcel of land.
The 3.9 acre site, located on the City fringe, is partially
wooded, slopes away from Riverdale Road to the northwest, and
contains a paved and fenced basketball court which appears to be
little used. The location of the site precludes its reuse as a
park, ~ince it is not centrally located in the community.
The property is presently zoned RD Duplex. which requires a
minimum lot area of 7000 square feet and 60 febt of frontage.
Theoretically, 24.3 duplexes containing 4H.6 residential units
could be developed on the site. although configuration of the land
is such that sonenhat fewer could, in actuality, be placed there.
In summary then the development of this specific property for
a residential use (duplexes), represents an entirely appropriate
reuse of the land, and in the event of sale the retention of the
existing zoning classification is recommended.
Sincerely,
S! John H. Parrokt by LM
John R. Purrott
Chairman#
Mr. Trout moved that the report be referred to the Real Estate Committee
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion Was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Commissic
for study, report and recommendation the request of Ernest H. Goad. Gertrude B. Goad
and Lillian B. Hogan, that a certain unopened and unused alley approximately 12 feet
in width and running in au easterly direction 120 feet. more or less. from the east
side of Fifth Street. S. E.. and lying between the north boundary of Lot 5. Map of
New York Building and Improvement Company. Official Tax No. 4021212 and the SOuth
boundary of Lot S. Section 7, Map of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company. Official
Tax Ho. 4021211, be vacated, discontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission
submitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
426
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the question of vacating, discon-
tinuing and closing the alley be held at 2 p.u** Mon~ y, August 9. lqYl. The motion
nas seconded by Hr. LJsk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred tn the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of #r. Melvin Fralln, Jr., et ux.. that pro-
party described as Lot 6. Section 37, Map of Hyde Park Land Company, Official Tax
No. 2210606. be rezoned from RG-I. General Residential District. to C-2, General
Commercial Oistrict, the City Planning Commission submitted the following report
recommending that*he request he denied:
*July 8, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered at its regular meetings
of May 19 and July 7, 1971.
Mr, George M. Harris, Jr., attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and noted that the petitioners plans
to construct an upholstery shop on the lot in question.
The Planning Director, noted that the frontages along Moornan
should be preserved in their present residential character. He
stated that the structures in this particular portion of Moorman
are basically sound and any commercial encroachment would result in
a blight Situation, The Planning Director noted that if the proposed
upholstery shop could be placed on the back side of ~he 1o~, fronting on
Gilmer, this would represent a more viable situation, since the
general area south of Moorman is of a nonresidential nature, and all
indications point to its future as an industrial and commercial area.
Mr, John Parrott, Chairman of the Planning Commission, questioned
if the proposed structure would be back far enough so it mould front
on Gilmer Avenue.
Mr. Lawrence, member of the Planning Commission, raised the
question of how much of the area could and should he rezoned for
manufacturing, He also questioned the feasibility of rezoning only
that portion of the lot which fronts on Gilmer Avenue.
Mr. Ooynton, member of the Planning Commission suggested
determining the exact location of the proposed structure and then
determining the feasibility and implications of access to it from
Gilmer Avenue.
At the July 7, 1971 meeting the Planning Director stated that
access to this lot mas possible from Gilmer Avenue. He. however,
noted that the area north of Gilmer Avenue should he preserved ~or
residential uses, Finally, in response to a question from Mr.
Lawrence, Commission member, he stated that the lot could not be
subdivided since it would not meet the 7.000 square foot area lot
requirement,
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrot* by LM
John H. Parrot*
Chairman"
In.this connection, a communication from Mr. George M. Harris, Jr,, AttornE
representing the petitioner, adrising that his client does not desire a public hear-
ing on the request for reaoning, Was before Council.
'427
Mr. Trout then moved that Council concur In the recommendation of the City
Ptnnning Commission. The motion Mum seconded by Mr. Thomas nod .unanimously adopted~
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for Study,
report and recommendation the request of Mr. C. A. RIrim and Mr. J. Lo Mendor that
property located on Fullon Avenue, $. E., described as Lots I - O. inclusive,
Section 5, Parkview Court. Official Tax Nos. 4311101 - 4311100. inclusive, be
rezoned from AG-l, General Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential
District. the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that
the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezonin9 be held
at 2 p.m.. Monday, August 9, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unani-
mously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of Mrs. Ethel M. Radford that 7.39 acres of
land, bounded on the northeast by Miller Street, N. ¥.. and on the west and south by
Peters Creek. described as Official Tax No. 2720105. be rezoned from R5-3. Single-
Family Residential District. to AG-2, General Residential District. the City
Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be
granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoaing be held
at 2 p.m., Monday. August 9. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of Mr. Morton Roseflberg. et al** that property
located in the 3100 block of Melrose Avenue, N. M., described as the westerly parts
of Lots I and 2. and the. southerly part of Lot 2. Section 1, Map of R. H. Angell
Addition, Official Tax No. 2530101, be rezoned from C-l. Office and Institutional
District. and RD. Duplex Residential District. to C-2, General Commercial District.
the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the
request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning he held
at 2 p.m., Monday. August 9. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council having previously requested that the proper
measures be prepared for the regular meeting of Council on July 12, 1971, to provide
sufficient funds for the Jefferson High School Field House. the Jefferson High
School Parking Lot and for razing the London Elementary School which mas destroyed
by fire. the matter was be£ore the body.
428
Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper
measures accordingly. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lash and unanimously adopted~
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITIZENS* ADVISORY COMMITTEE-MATER OEPART#ENT-BEALTfl
DEPARTMENT: The Mererend Calvin fl. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens* Advisory
Committee, appeared before Council and withdrew the request of the Committee under
date of March 29, 1971, in connection with the adoption or on Ordinance governing
the banks of the Roanoke River and requested that the original request as presented
by the Citizens* Advisory Committee to Council under date of December 14. 1970. be
considered and substituted in its place.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and the
City Attorney to reapprlse the situation taking into consideration the Denver,.
Colorado. Ordinance and report back to Council as soon as possible. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: hOhE.
IhTRODUCT10N AND CONSIDERATIOh OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STATE HIGHWAYS-BRIOCES: Ordinance No. 19762. authorizing the City Manager,
for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke, to enter into a contract with the Common-
wealth of Virginia. Department of Highwuys, for the inspection and maintenance of
all of the City-Line bridges and box culverts, the parties to share equally the
costs thereof, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
tlaid over, was again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the following for its
second reading and final adoption:
(s19762) AN OROINANCE authorizing the City Manager, for and on behalf of
the City to enter into a contract with the Commonwealth of ¥irginia, Department of
Highways. for the inspection and maintenance of all of the City-Line bridges and
box culvertS, the parties to share equally the costs thereof.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 409.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..........
NAYS: None: -0. -
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PLANNING: The City Clerk reported that Mr. John D. Copenhaver has qualifi~
az a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission for a term of two years endin~
June 30, 1973.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
iseconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
429
LIBRARIES: The City Clerk reported that Mrs. Lelia C. Bagbey, Hrs.
Constance~ J. Bamlar end the Reverend John O. Atkins have qualified as members or t~
Roanoke Public Librnry Board rot terms of three years each ending June 30, lg?4~
Br. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Dr, Taylor and nnanimously adopted.
There being no further business. ~ayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
43O
COt~ClL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, July 19, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Uullding, Monday, July 19, 1971, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour. mith Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David R. Link, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber .6.
ABSENT: Councilman James O. Trout 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon
City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened mitha prayer by the Reverend John O.
Atkins. Pastor, Belmont Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
June 28, 1971, and the regular meeting held on Monday, July 6. 1971. having been
furnished each member of Council, on motion of Or. Taylor. seconded by MF. Thomas
and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof man.spanned with and the minutes
approved as recorded.
Mayor Mebber welcomed Cadet Troop ~101 from the Huntington Court Methodist
Church.
REARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC. MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SPECIAL PERMITS-STATE RIGHRAYS: A communication from Mr. S. T. Combs,
requesting permission for four gas tanks to remain on his property in the Cardem
City area, adrisJn9 that the gas tanks are within the Major Arterial Highway set-
back line, mas before Council.
Mr. Rheeler moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded bF Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that Council reappropriate unexpended balances remainin9 in the various
federal programs as indicated by an attached schedule, was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(=19778) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 4IH.)
431
by Hr. Taylor and adopted by the follouin9 vote:
NAYS: None ................................ 0
(Hr. Trout absent)
HEALTH DEpARTHENT: A Joint communication from the Roanoke Valley Hental
Board. requesting that the local governing bodies o~ffcfally approve for their
terms of office and official status of their r~spective appointees and that
before Council.
Block 4, Mop of Connistone. Official Tax Nos. 2080815 mud 2080816. be rezoned from
before Council.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: The City Manager submitted the following report trans-
mitting a memo addressed to him from tbs Purchasing Agent in connection with bids
for the demolition and removal of the London Elementary School, recommending that the
leu bid of James E~ Fergason, Contractor, be accepted, that funds be appropriated
for the project and suggesting that an additional $5,000.00 be appropriated to
develop this land into a neighborhood park area:
*Roanoke, Virginia
July 19, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I attach heremlth a report from the Purchasing Agent of the
receipt of bids for the demolition and removal of the structure of
the London Elementary School. It is noted that low bid mas by
James E. Ferguson, Contractor, and it is considered this firm
is satisfactory for this removal.
*DATE: July 14. 1971
TO: Rt. Hirst
FROU: Mr. Thompson
SUBJECT: London Elementary School
After public advertisement, the folloming bids were received
in the Purchasing Department and publicly opened and read
at 11:00 a.m., July 13, 1971, for the demolition and
removal of the Loudon Elementary School Building.
James E'. Ferguson. Contractor ' $3,g95.00
Roanoke, Virginia
Branch ~ Associates. Inc. $4,750.00
Roanohe. Virginia
Consolidated Contractors. Inc. $7,990.00
Roanoke, Virginia
Campbell Brothers Wrecking Co. $9,250.00
Lynchbur9, Virginia
D. B. Griffin Mreckin~ Co.. Inc.
Greensborro. North Carolina
Attached is a copy of the specifications used in obtaining
these bids.
The Building' Commissioner, Mr. Lemis Leftuich, advises that
in his opinion the low bidder, James E. Ferguson, is
qualified to perform this work since he has performed
similar uork in razing unsafe buildings to the entire
satisfaction of the City. Mr. Ferguson has on file in
the Building Commissioner's Office the insurance and
contractor~ bond as required by the City before permits
can be issued for this type of work.
It is my understanding that an appropriation will be made
by the City Council at its meeting on July 19 for the
demolition of the London Elementary School Building.
S! D. B. Thompson
B. B. Thompson'
It would be in order, if the City Council wishes to proceed
with this, for an appropriation of funds for this period.
I would very much like to have and would certainly hope that
City Council might see its way to providing some additional
monies with which we could proceed to generally improve the
entire property of the school. The amount is open to whatever
4:38
mould be the City Council's milllugoeas to provide and If u
suggestion is in order I would propose $5,000. This would he
in addition to the demolition rands.
Our Intent would be to develop this Into a neighborhood
park area and I think that u very presentable and useful project
can be brought about.
Recognizing thai there is some interest or question in the
possibility of having this retained or anticipated In the future
as a school site, it is felt that whatever wight be done in the
may ofgeneral improvement to the plot mould not be detrimental
to thio purpose, would retain it in availability for any such
objective and I do not think that the funds mould be considered
unwisely spent should there be a change in approach as to
potential school use ut any reasonable time in the future. I
would very much hope that me would not leave this site in the
form that it is now in mithout the opportunity to make an
attractive neighborhood area.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ 'Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager~
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(nlgY?9) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section nBg, "Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund.' of.the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book N~. 35, page 419.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the follomiflg vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None. O. (Mr. Trout absent)
Mr. Lisk then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure accepting the proposal of James E. Pergamon, ~ontractor, for the
demolition and removal of the London Elementary School. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Ceuncil having adopted an Ordinance accepting
of£er of the Grand Piano & Furniture Company. Incorporated. to furnish and
decorate the room and spaces at the Roanoke Civic Center to be designated for the
use of representatives of the press and other news media, as a gift to the City of
Roanoke, the City Manager submitted the following report advising that the City of
Roanoke is in receipt of a check in the amonnt of $2,764.10 from the Cartledge
Charitable Foundation. Incorporated, to cover the cost of decorating the News Media
Room at the Roanoke Civic Center, that this check to the.city was accompanied by
invoices in the name Of the City of Roanoke for the furnishings in the amount of
$2,764.60, or $.50 more than the amount donated, and requesting that $2,764.60 be
appropriated to Office Furniture and Equipment under Section u?7, "Civic Center."
of the 1971-72 budget:
434
~Roanohe. Virginia
July 19, 1971
Bonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Several months ago upon report from Hr, John A. Kelley,
Chairman of the Civic Center Commission, City Council approved the
acceptance of a donation made by the Cartledge Charitable Founda-
tion, Inc., of furniture to be used to decorate a news media room
im the Roanohm Civic Cemtero This past meeh Mr. Johnny H. Johnson.
City Treasurer, has acknowledged receipt of a chee~ frow the
Cartledge Charitiable Foundation, Inc.. in the amount of $2,764.10
to cover the coat of decorating this room. At the request of
the City Treasurer, this check was made payable to the City of
This chech to the City was accompanied by invoices in the
name of the City rot the furniture in the total amount of $2.y64.6o.
These invoices from the Grand Piano Furniture Company total $.50
more than the amount donated,
Since the City Treasurer has acknowledged receipt of these
funds, it would be asked that City Council by budget ordinance
appropriate $2,764.60 to Civic Center, Department 77, Object
Code 380, Office Furniture and Equipment, that these invoices might
be paid,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hiram
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(glgYBo) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section g?7, "Civic Center,"
of the lg?l-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 420.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Trout absent)
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting certain information in connection with a bearing before the State
Mater Control Board on July 13, 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 19, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
For the information and the records of the City Council, I would
advise as follows.
On July 13, 1971, a group beaded by Councilman Wheeler and
including the City Manager and staff members met in the offices
. of the Virginia State Mater Control Board with Messrs. Paessler,
Budder, Robbins, Bowles and Roadcap Of the staff of the Board
and Mr. Bullies, Assistant Attorney General. Also present were
435
Messrs. Shannon and Dice of the Fifth Planning District and Hr.
Overman of Langley, Rcponald and Overman, Consulting ~nglneers for
Roanoke County. Further present were #essrs. Eckmann.and Gerstein
of AIvord, Burdick and Homson,
We submitted to the staff the revised detailed Interim plan for
the handling and treatment of sewage waste. Me also discussed this
plan at considerable length with the Board's Staff with the
presentation paralleling the presentation that had been made to the
Roanoke City Council on July =12. This submission to the staff
was In accordance math one of the requirements of the Roard ns had
been announced at the hearing on June 15. 1971. My interpretation
of the observations and comments of the staff of the Board mas that
they found general favor in that material submitted. They indicated
u necessity to review the proposal wJtb the State Health Department
and there prevails the possibility of some details to be worked out
but they would appear to be relatively minor.
The City has been informally advised to appear before the Board
for a similar presentation plus the long range plan on July 26. 1971.
However,-two matters did develop in the last portion of the
meeting in Richmond that are of material significance to this over-
all matter:
1. The City mas advised that the State did not have funds by
which it could put up any share of the interim plan. It
mas indicated that such funds are dependent upon appropriatim
by Congress and them allocation by the State. The staff
indicated it would consider recommending to the Board that
Roanoke be given a higher priority in the next allocation
of funds that mould be made by the Board. Me were
informed that the significance of this mould be that if such
a program, as the interim plan, were proceeded with at this
time and in accordance mith the schedule the City has
submitted, that the total financing would have to be by
the City of Roanoke mith reimbursement of some share by
the State at a later and Indefinite date.
This bears careful scrutiny and I will not belabor the point
in this report; however, it has affect upon what the City's
position may be on July 26 and what the Board's reaction
may be to the City's program and to the Valley situation.
Near mhat would have been the conclusion of the meeting
an July 13, we were handed a letter by the staff which had
obriously only been prepared on that date. 1 attach a copy
of that letter and the one significant attachment thereto
bearing handwritten number entries.
At this point, and without opportunity for the City's engineers
and others of us to analyze with a degree of thoroughness, this is of
disturbance to us. As concisely as possible the significance of this
is to impose upon the City rather drastic criteria in the quality of
effluent from the treatment plant, both as to quantity and as to theory.
Nhile the staff indicated that these stnndards would not be required
for compliance until June 1, 1974, it is felt that they will have
considerable bearing on the Board*s reaction in the City*s presentation
on July 25. Re know of no comparable federal requirements, no
requirements in other states and no requirements in any other locality,
past or present, in Virginia.
I have searched our recollections as to any possible past
references which may have given any indication of such requirements.
At no time in the past bas either the staff or the Board indicated
such might exist or would be imposed. The only two instances that
I can best recall are: (1) The Chairman of the Hoard at the hearing
on June 13 alluded at a couple of points in his remarks to the general
theory of such standards and (2) Delegate Ray L. Garland. in his
distinguished presentation before City Council on July 12. the date
preceding our conference with the staff in Richmond, quoted certain
figures of which he stated he had been informed which coincided with
the figures within the said letter and attachment of the Board of
July 13.
He are proceeding as rapidly as possible to evaluate the technical
aspects of this matter. The City is already safely'performing within
a certain portion of these requirements; however, the implications of
436
these nam rules upon the long range plan and the interim ~lan at this
point with respect to the present Valley situation, the financing
situation, and the Board*s meeting on the 26th is .of concern,
Respectfully submitted,
· S! Julian Fo Hirst
Julian F. Rlrst
City M~nager'
The City Manager then presented the follculng report transmitting certain
notes relating to a communication from the State Mater Control Board:
*Motes Relating to State Mater Control Board
Letter of July 13, 1971
1, Sets January l, 1972 as date for compliance with effluent requir-
ed standards.
· The prerious directed date had been July 1, 1972. This moves the
compliance requirement bach six (6) months.
2, In their nem requirements there is a discrepancy between flgarms
of poundage and concentration. However taking the concentration
figures and backing them into the flom the following results:
If the poundage remains constant, as is apparently being required,
with a flow of 35,B00,000 gallons per day (the design of the
plants)
Present
Mem Requirement Nem Requirement Requirement
BOD 1,000 pounds 3,43 ppm 5 to 10 ppm
Suspended Solids 150 pounds 0.515 ppm 5 to 10 ppm
Phosphorus 40 pounds 0,137 ppm maximum
technically
possible
Mitrogen 2 pounds none
The above, for example, is new requirement of 2800~ redaction
suspended solids,
3. Effluent from Roanoke Plant Monday, July 12, 1971 6 ppm Suspended
Solids
from City water faucet, sewage treatment plant
Monday, July 12, 1971 3 ppm Suspended Solids
from City #ater faucet at sewage treatment plant
Monday, July 19, 1971 2 ppm Suspended Solids
/rom Bed. water faucet
Saturday. July 17, 1971 3 ppm Suspended Solids
from R.M. mater faucet
Saturday, July 17, 1971 1 ppm Suspended Solids
Mater Control Board requirements that City have 1/2 ppm.
OVERALL PROGRAM
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF ROANOKE
VIRGINIA
July 19, 1971
The following is the schedule outline of an Overall Program to
provide for the continuing development and expansion of the sewage
treatment facilities by the City of Roanoke. All of the units and
work in this Program will be permanent in projected processes and
facilities of handling and treatment of sanitary wastes.
Phase I
The first phase is more frequently referred to as th~ Interim
Program and is more fully set forth in a Report dated July 12, 1971.
It consists of:
1. Addition of waste pickle liquor process.
2. Full installation of fine bubble diffusers.
437
3~ Construction of rapid mix, flocculation and settling basins with
. chemical reed equipment,
4. Construction o£ sludge storage lagoons.
5.Installation or larger rings, or collars, in final seltling
basins,
6.Full utilization or ram sewage intake pumps and conversion to
natural game
7. Purchase and use or television equipment and interior pipe grouting
system on sewer lines.
Commencement: August 1, 1971
Completion or operational, all units: May 1, 1972
Estimated cost: State ond Federal $1.386,240
City
Total $1.789.800
This phase will be the physical expansion or enlargement or the
present treatment plant facilities from minimum rating point of 21
MGO to full plant rating of 35 MGO--mverage daily flow.
Commencement: August 1, 1971
Completion and Operational: February 1, 1974
Estimated cost: State and Federal $3.200.000
City 800.000
Total $4,000,000
· Phase III
Phase II is anticipated to safely provide treatment capacity,
based on projected volume, tm 1980-1985. Phase 11I is a two-fold
purpose:
1. To provide volume capability beyond the 1980-05 period.
2. TO provide farther quality of treatment capability to tbs
degree as may be subsequently determined necessary and
feasible.
This Phase envisions, at this point in time, a second, or dual,
full scale treatment facility adapted to joint sharin9 with the
present plant, as would be expanded, or third level treatment. The
staging of Phase III is such that additional third level treatment
could be provided or constructed in advance of the balance of
Phase III and in conjunction with the latter stage of Phase II.
Completion of Consultant*s study: August 1, 1972
Completion of review by appropriate agencies: November 1, 1972
Design period - 9 months: August 1, 1973
Approval of design by appropriate agencies: September 1, 1973
Project operational: February 1. 1975
S/ Julian F. Hirst
438
and voiced the opinion that the irate should commititself to particlpatelin the tutu
cost of the program of the City of Roanoke.
The City Rauager replied that he mould hate to se~ the ban not.lifted as
soon as possible because of getting tied up in technicalities as to the cost or the
program.
After a further discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the report
of the City Manager be received and filed and offered the following Resolution
adopting and committiug the City of Roanoke to an Overall Program for the Roanoke
Sewerage Syatem, based upon State and Federal participation therein:
(nlgT81) A RESOLUTION adopting and committing the City to an Overall
Program for the Roanoke Semerage System, based upon State and Federal participation
therein.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Rook No. 35. page 420,)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Rheeler and Rayor
Mebber ......................6.
NAYS: None ........ O. {Mr. Trout absent)
Nitb further reference to grants for semer projects in the City of Roanoke
the City Manager pointed out that the State Rater Control Hoard has held up appli-
cations for 9rants on the Lick Run Interceptor Semer Project and the Campbell Avenue
Interceptor Sewer Project,
Mr. Lisk moved that the City Manager and the City Attorney be directed
to check with the State Rater Control Hoard to clarify and justify why the Hoard has
held up applications for grants on the Lick Run Interceptor Sewer Project and the
Campbell Avenue Interceptor Sewer Project. The notion was seconded by Mr. #heeler
and unanimously adopted.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES-MUNICIPAL RUILDING: Council having referred a request
of Help, Incokporated, for the provision of space within the Runicipal Ruildin9 for
location of the offices of the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Program to the Citl Manager
for study, report mud recommendation, the City Manager submitted the folloming
report advising that he does not feel it would be appropriate at this ~oint to allot
and introduce into the Municipal Building other activities or functions, particular1
when such may at a later date murk a further difficulty on space allocations for
activities already mithin the Structure of city government:
"Roanoke, ¥irginia
July 19, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your last meeting you received from the Reverend Milliam R.
Rood. III, President of Help. Incorporated. a request for the consid-
439
· ration of the City Council at the provision of space within the
Municipal Building for the location of the offices of tbe Alcoholic
Rehabilitation program. You referred this to me for consideration
I recognize and certainly achnouledge, to the naxfmuu extent that
one can who is not iumediately affilialed with the program, the extent
and cowmunlW service that is represented by this program, It
constitutes a full time staff but more specifically an overlay of almost
Immeasurably dedication and time by people not on tbe paid staff,
Mith this Jn consideration, all reasonable encouragement to the pro-
gram can be supported.
I think, however, as to the imuediate proposal that other matters
arise which necessitate primary recognition. We have not yet resolved
the distribution of Space and the improvement program within the
courthouse building. As the City Council will recall, we begin to
find as time progressed in those studies that have taken place that
assignable space and needed space grew Jute larger problems. With
this as backgrou~ and in the absence of final decisions on the court-
house building, I do not feel that it would be appropriate at this
point to allot and introduce into the building other activities or
functions, particularly when such may at a later date work a fuFtheF
difficulty on space allocations for activities already within the
structure of City government.
On April 14. the Reverend Frank Vest who was then President of
Help, Inc.. and the Reverend Wood met with me and we discussed this
matter. I indicated to them some question on my part at the time and
suggested that if they wished to pursue the matter further that 1
was sure the City Council would be receptive to receiving for
consideration their proposal. It is this that has led to this point.
In the referral to me. 1 feel the circumstances continue as 1
observed to them at the tine.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Rlrst
City Manager"
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report transmittit
information prepared*by the City Health Bepartment on the concentrated housing code
enforcement during the calendar year 1970, advising that the report will give Councl]
a general idea as to the extent and nature of the housing code enforcement program
being handled under the direction of the Health Department.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting
the following memo addressed to him from thc Director of Public Works. advising
of procedures relating to cuttin9 weeds and high grass along roadway strip areas
and the promulgation of a program for this maintenance:
"DATE: July 6, 1971
TO: Mr. Hirst
FROM: Mr. Clark s/ William F. Clark
Subject: Grass and Weed Cutting
Me have been discussing among our staff the problems which seem
to occur every year at this time with maintenance of grassed
areas along public rights-of-way and City owned properties. We
are developing a schedule for cutting median strips, traffic
islands, alleys and City owned lotswherebywe hope to better
440
service .these arees. If eonplaints ore received, we uill have
readily available a record of the last time each urea was cut
und uhen it will most probably come ap ogqin on the schedule.
It is our opinion that we really do not bnve ~nough personnel
to keep up with this uorh as nell ns we would like to, but it
is possible a more effective prograw cnn be maintained with pro-
per scheduling.
OccasiOnally we receive coeplaiats concerning weeds or high grass
.along roadways in the strip between the sidewalk and curb. For
clarification, it is our policy that such areas adjacent to dev-
eloped properties should be waintained by ~he resident or tenant
aY ibnt property, Such is the case concerning soon removal on
adjacent sidewalks and we feel not too dissimilar a responsibil-
Ity. This should apply to School Board properties as well as
private onsets, Of ~ourse the Mater Department waintains a num-
ber of properties nhich they oma throughout the City. Another
arrangement nhich has worked generally satisfactorily is that
Par&s and Recreation maintains several traffic islands and grassed
areas mhere trees and/or shrubs also exist, You nay not have been
auare of that arrangement.
If you see any fault with our policy concerning grass cutting
along these utility strips, please advise.'
Mr, Thomas moved that the report and memo be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SE~ERS AND ~TORM DRAINS-CITY MANAGER: The City Manager submitted a nritte:
report requesting to be excused from the meeting of Council on July 26. 1971, in
order to appear before the State Mater Control Board on that date.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur {e the request of tbe City Manager.
The motion Was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
In this connection~ Mr. Mheeler advised that he and Councilman Thomas
will also be absent from the meeting of July 26. 1971. in order t o appear before the
State Mater Control Hoard at the public hearing in Richmond. Virginia.
ZONING-S~RE£TS AND ALLEyS-PLANNING: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare a report in connection with a proposed schedule of fees and
charges for the cost of making inspections, issuing permits, advertising of notices
and other expenses incident to the adminstration of the Zoning Ordinance or to the
filiog or processing of appeals or amendments thereto, the City Attorney submitted
the following report:
*July 19, 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members.
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Sec. ?3° Chapter 4.1. Zoaiug, of Title XV of the Code of the City
of Roanoke provides that City Council shall establish a schedule
of fees and charges and expenses and a collection procedure for
zoning permits, certificates of zoning compliance, appeals, amend-
ments, advertising notices and other matters pertaining to the
regulations. The following schedule of fees as recommended by the
Planning Department and, where applicable, by the Building
Commissioner are herewith submitted for Council's congideratioa:
Planning Building
Department Commissioner
Appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals ........................... $ 20.00 $ 10.00
Zoning Permit ..................... 5.00 none
Planning Building
Site Plan gevfem ................. $ 25,00 $ 5,00
Certificate of Zoning Compliance,, . 5,00 5,00
Amendments to the Zoning Hep
1, Rezonin9 to RS or RD District** $ 2S.00
2, Rezonlng to RB-I or RG-2 ....... ?S,O0 ~ S,O0/acre
3, Bezoning to any C- Cammercial
Distrtct ............ o .......... 150,00 ~ lO,O0/ucre
4, iezoulug to any IDB, LB, or
BM District ........ , ........... 100.00 ~ lO.O0/acre
It is proposed that the above fees be collected by:
1, Zoni~ Appeals-Secretary of the Board
2.Zoning Permit, Site Plan Review and Certificate of
Zoning Compliance - Building CommissionerOs Office
· 3,-Amendments - City Clerk*s Office
Sec. 41, Chapter 2.1, Land Subdivision Regulatims, of Title XVI
of the Code of the City of Roanoke provides that City Council
may establish u schedule of fees, including a collection procedure,
for the review and approval of all subdivision plats, The folloming
schedule of fees are recommended by the Planning Department
and are hereuith submitted for Council's consideration:
Subdivision Fees
Subdivision of S lots or less ......... $10.00
Subdivision of more than 5 lots ....... 10,00 ~ 5.00 per lot
It is proposed that these subdivision fees be collected by the
Planning Department,
As soon as Council deternines the appropriate fee schedule, this
office can then prepare the required ordinance,
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. £incanon
J. N. Kincanon
City Attorney*
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
using the recommendations for charges as set forth by the City Planning Department
and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure accordingly.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITIZENS* ADVISORY COMMITTEE-WATER DEPARTMENT-HEALTH
DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Manager and the City Attorney*to
reaprise a pending Ordinance governing cleaning of the banks of.the Roanoke River
taking into consideration an Ordinance which was adopted by Denver. Colorado, the
City Attorney submitted the folloming report in connection with the matter, advising
that he can add little, if anything, to what is set out in a previous communication
from him under date Of April 25, lgTl:
*July lg, lgTl
from the edge of the river, clear of debrJa, meeds and underbrush,
the s~tter.mas referred back to the .undersigned .and the City Manager
for further consideration. ..
Since, the City Nanager and the undersigned have met and discussed
ot length tho original proposal made to the Council, the certain
modifications of the proposal as suggested by the Planning
Department, provisions of an ordinance referred to as having b~en
recently adopted by the Council of the City and County of Denver,
other existing ordinances of the.City,of,Ronnoke.and.the proposed
ordinance which accompanied ny communication to the Council dated
April 26, 1971 .................
From all of the above, the undersigned can add little, If anything,
to what is set out in my communication of April 26° 1971, above-
mentioned, a copy of mhicho for the ready information of Council,
I enclose herewith. I u,mid note, however, that Council has already
acted upon the proposal set out on page two of the abovementioned
letter, which is mom contained in the Code of the City as Sec..13,
Chapter 1, of Title XXIII, thereof.
Respectfuliy.
S/ J. N. KJncanon
J. N. Kincanon*
Ur. Taylor moved that action on the matter be deferred two weeks amaiting
a report from the City Ranager with reference to the question. The motion was
iseconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council havin9 concurred in · report of tho City
Ranager recommending that a change order be entered into between the City of Roanoke
and Nell, L. Teer Company in connection with the constructlon of the Roanoke Cfyic
Center in the amount of $246.00 for the installation of two ramps from the drive
up to the sidewalk on the west side of the plaza at the Roanoke Civic Center to
provide better ingress and egress for handicapped persons using the Civic Center.
the City Attorney submitted a written report transmitting a Resolution~oviding
for said chanoe order.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the f,Il,sing Resolution:
(~19762) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager*s issuance of Change
Order No. 10 in connection with the City*s contract for tho construction of the
Roanoke Civic Center.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 421.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the f, Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None. O. (Mr. Trout absent)
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of June, 1971.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Llsk and unaoimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
AIRPORT: Council having referred to the Airport Advisory Commission in
conjunction with the City Manager a verbal presentation from Mr. Arthur B. Crush. Jr
448
Attorney, representing the Roanoke Valley Genernl Aviation Association. in connectloe
uJth automobile parking arrnngementa at Roanoke Municipal (#oodrum) Airport, the
Airport A~visory Commission submitted n mritten report recommending that parking
meters be Installed along the .roodmay by the terminal building and the General
Aviation hangars for the public to pork in order to vieu the airplanes and that this
mill be discussed uith the operators of the automobile parking lot at the airport
to ascertain if o mutual arrangement con be worked cut.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council conCuF in the report of the Airport Advisory
Commission and that the matter be referred to the City Manager for necessary action.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
L~qFINISHEB BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUFIONS:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS-EASEMENTS: Ordinance No. 19775, authorizing
and providing for the acquisition by the City of Roanoke of a certain perpetual
easement in land needed for the proposed construction of a sanitary sewer line throog
property located at 3533 Ferncliff Avenue. N. M.. in the City of Roanoke. upon
certain terms and conditions, and, in consideration of a grant of said easement,
providing for the city*s release, quitclaim and abandonment of all right, title
and interest in and to a portion of an adjacent sanitary sewer easement located
at 3533 Ferncliff Avenue. N. ~.. having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over. mas again before the body. Mr. Thomas offering
the follomiug for its second reading and final qdoption:
(~lg??5) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City,s acquisition
Of a certain1 perpetual easement in land needed for the proposed construction Of a
sanitary sewer line through property located at 3533 Ferncliff Avenue. N. M.. in
the City of Roanoke. upon certain terms and c~nditions; and. in consideration of
the grant of said easement, providing for the City's release, quitclaim and abandon-
ment of all right, title and interest in ned to a portion of an adjacent sanitary
sewer easement located at 3533 Fevncliff Avenue. N. M.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 417.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Link. Taylor. Thomas. lheelnr and Mayor
Webber-- .6.
NAYS: None .0. (#v. Trout absent)
BUDGET-ELECTIONS-REGISTRAE: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure appropriating $1.496.00 to Personal Services and
$4.440.00 to Fees for Professional and Special Services under Section c§5. *Electoral
Board.~ of the 1071-72 budget, to replace certain items which were deleted from the
budget of the Electoral Board. Mr. Link offered the following emergency Ordinance:
444
(u19783) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section a85, "Electoral
Board,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation 0~dlnince, and providing for au emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Oooh No. 35, page 421.)
Mr. Lish moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The adrian wan seconded by
DF. Taylor and adopted by the follomieg vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and #ayor
Robber .............. ~ .......6.
NAYS~ None ,0. (Mr. Trout absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SALE OF PROPERYV-HOUSING-SLU~ CLEARANCE: Council having directed the
City Attorney to prepare the pFoper measure accepting an offer of the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to purchase from the City of Roanoke
the City*s No. I Fire Station property, situate on the south aide of Church Avenue,
S, ko, between Jefferson Street and 1st Street, S. E.o and extending bach to the
north line of Luck Avenue, S. E.0 for a consideration of sgo0000.O0, as a part of
amid Aathority*s Domntown East Project VA. R-42, upon certain express terms and
conditions, Hr. Llsk transmitted a request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority to proceed with the purchase of the property with the under-
standing that the Authority will allen the City of Roanoke to continue their
utilization of the property for a period of 24 montha rent free.
Upon questioning from the members of Council as to mhether this 24 month
period would he agreeable, the City Manager replied that said period would be
agreeable insofar as he is concerned.
Nr. Lisk then moved that the 24 month rent free period for use of the
property be approved by Council and that the matter be referred to the City Manager
for necessary action, The motion was seconded by Mr. #heeler and nnanlmonsly
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Garland read the following prepared state-
ment proposing that the Mayor arrange a meeting with the political subdivisions of
Botetourt County, Roanoke County, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton and the
City of Roanoke for the purpose of discussing financial arrangements in connection
with improvements to and expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant, and, or, discussin
the possibility of the establishment of a Greater Roanoke Valley Sanitation Sewer
Authority:
"1345 Lakewood Drive S. ~.
Roanoke, Virginia
15 July 1971
Mayor Roy L. Webber'and
Membera of Roanoke City Council
Now that the City Council has gone on official record by resolution
as having approved the interim and long range plans for sewage
treatment as submitted bV our distinguished Manager on 12 JulI 1971
and even though the acceptability of these plans will not be known
445
to us, certainly not before 26 July 19?l end perhaps not even by
then, it would seem appropriate and timely that definite and explicit
understandings with the other Roanoke Valley 9nvernmentol quits be
ascertained before the City puts any additional monies into these
improvements, Although it now appears that no state funds mill be
available to us before 1973, there fa erery indication that they
will be, provided the City COBpIys with the State Mater Control
aoardts regulations and requirements,
Even through the City'~ share ia only tmenty per cent of the costs or
approximately 1.2 million dollars if these plans are approved, it is
still° nevertheless, a sizeable sum of money, Moreover, mith rising
costs and possible less federal aid, the City's share could run
considerably more than the 1.2 allison that Mister Blrst projected.
I think that we can safely predict that Jl will be no less than thai
amount. It is the Clty*s share that I want the Council to address
and concern itself with,
· Mister Thomas Jn voicing his.obJections to my flrotheF*s Lake Tahoe
type plan. cited costs as hfs main opposition to his plan. Mister
Thomas and this council should be equally concerned with the costs
of the City Manager's plan or any other plan, not only so far as
state.and federal aid ia concerned but with the City's 20~ share
as mall. Me should knom how the City is going to raise the money
but more important than all is how the costs Should be prorated among
the governuental units within the Valley that will enjoy the use of
this expanded and improved facility. To my recollection, no mention
has been made of this 1.2 million expected of the City or how we
are to come about this money.
There is an abundance of justification for such a position based on
past experience alone. Neither would it be fair or expected of the
City to go this project alone. Moreover, I believe that it could be
stated that no public official or fair minded resident of these
areas that would benefit mould expect the City to foot the bill.
I think that it would be accurate to state that the present over-
loading of the plant is not of the city's making but caused by
unfortunately the City has had a decrease in population in the
past ten years. The City already has a considerable investment in
mention the endless hours that the administration has put forth
on this question. It has caused all of us a great deal of anxiety.
Me have all developed and are Suffering from a B-O-D, Phosphorous,
Pollution syndrome.
The time to negotiate this contract is not after this facility bas
been started or completed but rather before it is commensed. Any
dea l.s that are to be made, let us make them now when the entire
valley is under the gun. Me therefore, should make ourselves per-
costs will be prorated among those political subdivisions that will
enjoy and share in the use of this expanded and improved facility.
I. for one, will be unwilling to subscribe another penny of the City*s
money until a fair and equitable agreement is reached on this
The City of Salem, the County of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton and the
County of Botetourt have been very generous in lending us their
moral support and giving us their blessings during these difficuit
times and which I am sure that this Council is very grateful. How-
financial aid that might be forthcoming. It is to this aspect that
I address myself to. It is to this that a conclusion must be reached
before the City undertakes such a broad, expensive and comprehensive
program. A determination of financial responsibility prorated on
a per capita basis must be established before we go uny further.
Mith this in mind. Mister Mayor and gentlemen of the Council, I
would propose that the Mayor of the City of Roanoke arrange a meetin9
with the political subdivisions of Botetourt County. Roanoke County,
City of Salem, Town of Vinton and the City ~ Roanoke, and that the
elected officials (Councils and/or Boards of Supervisors) along with
their administrative officials meet together in concert for the pur-
pose of discussing financial arrangements for this project and/or
discussion of the possibility for the establishment of a Greater
Roanoke Valley Sanitation Sewer Authority.
446
There is n preponderance of reasoning behind the idea for the formation
of such an Authority within this Valley, not the least of which is
the removal of this Juportant and essential service from the political
arena. For gentlemen of the Conucil, until Such questions as past,
present and future contracts, past and future expansions and
additions or improvements, control meters and a host of other factors,
ere resolved once and for a11. we con predict with absolute certainty,
that there will be constant bickering, misunderstandings and bitter-
ness auongst the Valley governments. This isunquestionably the
largest stumbling block that separates us. The County has reit for
sometime that tho City has used this weapon or seesge treatment os a
leverage or wedge in its annexation and consolidation efforts,
that this has been the City*s ,rasp card,
That be as it may, it is incumbent upon us elected officials to bring
this Valley together on this controversy without further adieu. To
do othermise can only bring further chaos resulting in a serious
detrimental effect upon the economics of .the entire Roanoke Valley.
Furthermore. it is our obligation to install a plant of such efficiency,
that our effluent will not be offensive to our friends down stream.
Not only must this be done. it can be done and we should undertake
to do it. I sincerely believe that me have reached such a critical
stage in this matter, that the formation of an Authority is the only
logical end proper alternative in solving this controversy.
Respectfully submitted for your careful consideration.
I am, most cordially yours, ·
S/ Robert A, Garland
ROBERT A GARLAND"
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland corrected a portion of his stat
neat in which he said that none or the surrounding governing bodies had offered any
financial aid in helping to resolve our problems and advised that Roanoke County prey
ously said they would be willing to pay an equitable share of the costs involved,
After a further discussion of the matter. Mr. Wheeler moved that the state-
ment be.referred to Council acting as a Committee of the Whole and taken under
advisement until after the Sewer Committee has met withstarf representatives of the
State Water Control Board on July 23, 1971, and representatives of the City of
Roanoke have appeared before the State Water Control Board at a public hearing in
Richmond, Virginia. on July
held as soon as is expedient after July 26. 1971, The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor #ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
447
COLqqCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, July 26, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Moudoy, July 26, 1971, ut 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David W. Llsk, Noel C. Taylor,
James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Mebber
ABSENT: Councilmen Hampton M. Thomas and ¥incent S. Wheeler ........2.
OFFICERS pRESENT: #r. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. H. Hen Jones,
Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor and Acting City
Manager.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
Mayor Hebber welcomed Mr. and Mrs. Jacques Albert from Clermont-Ferrond,
France, who are visiting the United States of America through the American Host
Program.
HEARING OF CITIZENS WON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND UORML~ICATIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A communication from Caru Realty Company and on adden-
dum to Paragraph No. 3 of their communication, requesting that Council approve the
midenin9 and improvement Of 35th Street. N. W.. to provide better access to their lan
which 116 1Gm income apartment units are under construction, in order to receive
from the Federal Housing Administration project mortgage insurance of $1.&37,000.00
to construct on adjacent land an additional IZO low income apartment units, was be-
fore the body.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke City School Board,
questing appropriation of additional funds in the sum total of $140.201.g0 representi!
the additional amount necessary for the purchase amd operation of 15 school buses, in
connection with the implementation of the elementary school attendance plan proposed
by the School Board and ordered approved by the District Court on July 21. lgYl, was
before Council.
Mr. Samuel P. McNeil, Chairman of the Roanoke City School Board, appeared
before the body and presented a tabulation in connection with au analysis of the
involved and urged approval for the acquisition of the IS school buses.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. J. MJatar Stowe0 President.
Safety Motor Transit Company, advising that the Company has purchas~ 12 buses as
ireplacements in their fleet, that other recent developments appear to make it possible
448
that five more buses can be assigned to school transportation needs this fall, that
these five buses will bring the number of buses committed to school work to 29 or
possibly 30 as compared with 24 used last year and that it is hoped that school hours
con be staggered to the extent that the multiple trips mhich can he made hy these
buses will handle the school transportation needs for the cooing school year, Wus als(
before Council.
After a discussion as to the timetable involved in securing these buses. Hr.
Lisk expressed the opinion that Council should attack the whole program now and move
ahead.to acquire the SO.school buses as originally requested by the Roanoke City
School Board.
Hr. Garland expressed the opinion that he realizes the first inclination of
Council is to refer this matter to the Transportation Committee but that thiswould be
a waste of time since matters Of this nature have been referred to this Committee on
two different occasions and the Committee has been split by a 3 - I vote, that it is
:obvious how be feels about the entire matter but that Council Js faced mJth a new
!situation nam than nas presented to them in the beginning and that the City of goanoh~
could be held in contempt of court if it does not purchase these 15 school buses.
Dr. Taylor expressed the opinion that to purchase the 15 school buses and
soy this is the solution to the problem will be a mistake and that the City of Roaaok~
should proceed as expeditiously as possible to get its oma school bus system.
After a further discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland moved that Council
appropriate $6%400.00 per bus for the 15 school buses. The motion was seconded by
Hr. Lisk.
Mayor Webber pointed out that Councilmen Thomas and ~heeler were absent fro]
the meeting and that before any official action is taken, these Councilmen should hav~
a voice in the matter and suggested that since the Transportation Committee is due to
have a meeting on the question on Tuesday, July 27, 1971. at 10 a.m., that the matter]
be carried over until Tuesday. July 27, lg71, at 12:00, noon. at which time Council
will held a special meeting to further discuss the matter.
Mr. Trout then moved that the matter he referred to the Trausportation
Committee for study, report and recommendation to Council mud that Council meet in
special meeting at 12:00. noon, Tuesday, July 27, 1971, for the purpose of considering
the appropriation of sufficient fonds to purchase the 15 school bases and that the
City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure accordingly. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garlaad and unanimously adopted.
LICENSES-DOGS: A petition from Mr. Sounders Guerrant, representing the dogs
who live on or near the 2800 block of Carolina Avenue, S. N., protesting the raising
of the dog license tax from $1.00 to $5.00, was before Council.
#r. Trout moved that the petition be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
449
Mr, Garland then moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the
proper messure providing that outs also be licensed in the sum or $3.00 per cat.
The motion died for luc~ ar n second.
MATER DEPARTMENT: Council having previously adopted an Ordinance increosin
the rates and charges for surplus mater furnished to other incorporated manioipnlitie
u communication from Mr. G. Mo Nichso Mayor of the Town of Vinton, requesting that
Council glre uerious conniderutioo ia revising doJflJmurd the oem water rule to Yiolou,
effective August 1, 1971, mas before the body.
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure advising the Town of Vfnton that it is the opinion
of the Council of the City of Roanoke that the new water rate which was established
by Ordinance No. 197S0 is fair and reasonable. The' motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
SEI~RS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Rom oke Coun~
Board of. Supervisors at its meeting on Mednesday, July 14, 1971, expressing the
desire of said Board Of Supervisors to reduce storm water entrance into sanitary
sewers and outlining a related program of action, mas before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney. representing
Mr. and Mrs. Jessee Eo Dodges, advising that their property designated as Lots 10,
11 and the westerly half of Lot 12, Oak View BeJghts,.Official Tax Nos. 2730226 and
2730227, was used for business for many years but was somehow reverted to residential
as a result of the Zoning Ordinance of 1966. that Jt is located between two
districts, that the owners have paid real estate taxes and business licenses with the
understanding that the zoning of their property had undergone no change, and request-
ing that the property be rezoned from the current RS-2, Single-Family Residential
District, to C-2. General Commercial District. without the necessity and expense of
advertising and referral to the City Plannin9 Commission. was before Council.
Mr, Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Attorney for
investigation and report to Council and to render a legal opinion as to ~hether the
City of Ro~oko should change this zoning classification without cost to the petition,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGeT-PAy PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-CITy ENGINEER: The Acting City Manager
submitted the following report of the City Manager recommending that four of ten
positions approved as Equipment Operator II'$ in the 1971-72 budget be returned to
Equipment Operator I's as provided for in the 1970-71 budget, retroactive to July 1.
45O
*Moan,he, ~irgfnie
July 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor und City Council
Roan,he, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In a listing of several personnel changes that uus made to the
City Council immediately prior to the Council's final adoption of the
budget for 1971-72, it mas recommended that Equipment Operator
under Street Cleaning, Department Code 66, be upgraded to Equipment
Operator fits. This recommendation was made on the basis that duties
assigned to motor broom ur smeeper operators were such that they
could be Justifiably assigned into Equipment Operator IlOs in relation=
ship to their responsibilities. The reasoning was that these drivers
were interchangeable and continuously operated equipment and that they
performed certain levels of maintenance on their ,mn equipment thereby
lifting these positions above Equipment Operator Xts mhd generally
are not interchangeable with equipment and mhd do not perform
maintenance on vehicles,
Resulting from this recommendation and its approval ten positions,
and the individuals occupying them, were advanced in the budget from
Equipment Operator ! to Equipment Operator II.
It has been realized, however, that these ten positions include
six who are sweeper operators and four who operate street flusherso
The duties of a flusher operator and those of a sweeper operator should
be separate and are not interchangeable. Further the flusher operators
level that smeeper operators do. This, plus a comparison of general
duties, indicates that a flasher operator position mould be consider-
ably overclassified as au Equipment Operator II. In fact it is felt
that this duty alone has a proper relationship to a Laborer II posi-
tion which is the truck driver classification.
In order to properly classify the personnel assigned, by the
nature of the work performed, it is considered necessary that four of
the positions approved as Equipment Operator II's with then em budget
should be returned to Equipment Operator I as they were provided for
in the 1970-71 budget. It is considered to be more appropriate that
these positions, in view of the individuals occupying them and their
service, be returned to the original Eqaipment Operator I rather than
taken back to Laborer II. Future hiring, though, will be done at the
Laborer II level.
It is recommended that City Council by budget ordinance amendment
provide for an adjustment in four of these positions in accordance with
the above by personnel ordinance amendment, retroactive to July 1,
lgTl, and the designation of the particular four positions mill be
sdvlsed to the City Auditor's office,
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
· Julian F. Nirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19784~ AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordai.n Section ~69, "Street Cleaning
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text.of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 422.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Hr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Nebbe~ -5.
NAYS: None
(Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
451
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-SCHOOLS: The Acting City Manager aubmftted
the folloming report of the City Manager In connection mith a field house in Highland
Park to be used by Jefferson Senior High School and transmitting a breakdomn of coat
eatimatea for the building:
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Attached herewith for the information of the Council
in the matter currently under consideration is a breakdown of
cost estimatea for the considered building in Highland Park.
These estimatea, as mill be noted, mere made as of February 12,
1971. As the Council was advised three weeks ago by the Director
of Parks and Recreation, repair mark to the building in the park
that has been for a number of years used by the department has
turned OUt ouch that it ia considered thin building can continue
to be used without the necessity of an addition onto the field
house. If .this route is followed in the current project then the
total cost of the building would be $59,000. The additional
$12,350 in the form of improvementa in the immediate area is
indicated in a breakdomn on the attached sheet.
Mr. Mitchell, Director of Porks and Recreation, mill be in
attendance at the Council meeting for further explanation as may
be necessary.
*Highland Park Building
(Estimates as were made Feb. 12, 1971)
School Field Parks
House Addition Total
Foundation $ 5.000 $ 2,000 $ 7,000
General Construction-
75' x 50' ·
3,750 sq. ft. 8 $13.50 51,000 51,000
25' x 50'
1.250 sq. ft. @ $12.00 15.000 15.000
Architect*s fee 3,000 1.000 . 4,000
Total School $ 59,000
Total Parks $ 16,000
Total Ail $ 77,000
Improvements
Parking area,
Sidewalks, lighting $ 8,350 $ 6,350
Lighting Tennis Courts 3,000 3,000
Lighting Basketball Court 1.000 1,000
Totals ~ 71,350 $ 89,350'
Respectfully submitted,
~/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. 8irst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that Ceuncil concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $71,350.00 to CIP 72-3
Jefferaon Senior High School Field Douse under Section ~Bg. 'Transfers to Capital
Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72 budget:
452
(s19765) AN ORDINANCE to emend end reordsin Section asg, 'Transfers To
Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 423.)
Mr. Llak moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the follouing vote:
AY£S: Messrs. Garlond, Llsh. Taylor, Trout and Nayor Uebber -5.
NAYS: None -0.
(Nessrs. Thomas and Iheeler absent)
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The Acting City Maauger submitted a written report
of the City #a~ager advising of the advertisement for bids for the construction of
football and baseball field in Jackson Park to be opened before Council on Monday,
August 2, 1971.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. Th~ motion mas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
HEALTH DEPARTMENT~D£PARTMENT OF PUBLIC IELFARE: The Acting City Manager
submitted a written report of the City Manager transmitting the final statistical
report for the State-Local Hospitalization Program during the 'fiscal year 19Y0~71.
Mr. Trout moved that the reports be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted. '
ZONING-SCHOOLS-SALE OF PROPERTY: The Acting City Manager submitted the
following report of the City Manager advising that it would be of merit to rezone
the block bounded on the north by Franklin Road, on the east by Second Street, on
the south by Day Avenue and on the west by Third ·Street,' fr~m the present C-4.
Central Business District Expansion Area, to C-2, Central Business District, said
property within this block having been assembled by the federal government with the
projected interest of the construction of a federal bu~ng, and recommending that
the matter be referred to the City Planning Commission for review and recommendation
to Council;
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Reference is made to the block bounded on the north by Franklin
Road, on the east by Second Street, on the south by Day Avenue and
on the west by Third Street. This block has been comprised of various
individually own~d lots plus the Lee Junior Higb School site owned
by the City. Property within this block has been assembled by the
Federal government t~rough its General Services Administration with
the projected interest of the construction of a Federal building.
This block and other adjacent blocks to the west and east and south
are within the C-4 zoning classification district. Immediately
across Franklin Road to the north the area is zoned C-3.
453
It is considered by this office to be of merit in the potential
ultimate of development of this block that the zonong classification
be changed from C-4 to C-3, The significant changes that Mould
result in the revision in zoning are us to a better adaptation of
parking requirements to the block and the removal of a structure
height limitation.
It is recommended that the City Conncil refer this m~tter to the
City Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
$! Julian F. DJrst
Julian F. Rirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the-City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and
unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTRENT-EASEREMT$: Council having referred to the City Manager
study, report and recommendation a communication from Hr. Lawrence L. Tapscott.
Attorney. representing Mr. Molan Jackson, et ux., and Mr. James H. Turner. et ux..
advising that bis clients are presently developing land on Milliamson Road north
of Florist Avenue in Roanoke for shopping center purposes, that it is the desire of
his clients that the water distribution system in the shopping center be omned, opernl
ed and maintained by the City of Roanoke and that his clients mould like to give the
city nil the property easements and lines necessary to enable the city to operate
the water system, the Acting City Manager submitted the folloming report of the
City Manager recommending that the general htent of the easement and the mater line
extension is satisfactory, that the owners confer with the City Attorney*s office
for preparation of such papers as are necessary for formal approval of Council with
acceptaoce Of the easement, and also, as a condition of this easement, that the
simultaneously construct an 8-inch water line along Clubhouse Drive to
Nilliamson Road with the necessary 8 x 12 x 12 Tee and install on either side of the
Tee 12-inch valves which are to be furnished by the City of Roanoke:
· Roanoke, Virginia
July 2§. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your City Council meeting on May 17. 1971, Mr. Lawrence L.
Tapscott, Attorney. representing Mr. Nolan Jackson, Mr. James B.
Turner and others; appeared before Council in the interest of water
service to the Brookside Shopping Center which is situated nt the
northeast corner of the intersection of Clubhouse Drive and Milliam-
son Road. This is outside of the*City and in R~aooke County.
The request is for water service from the City as there is not
an accessible mater system or service from Roanoke County.
Mr. Tnpscott submitted an easement proposing to provide a
fifteen-foot easement from Florist Avenue, N. N., along the rear
of the property to serve the buildings under construction and proposed.
The owners would construct an eight-inch water line within that
454
This matter uss referred to the undersigned for study, report
It is recommended to the City Council that the general intent
the petitioners confer with the City Attorney's'office rot the
formal approval or the City Council with acceptance of the easement,
and this matter has been discussed with the principals and Mr. Tap-
line along ClubhouSe Drive to Hllliamsoe Hood wJtb the necessary
O x 12 x 12 Tee and to install on either side of the Tee 12-inch
side of their developed land,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Nirst
City Manager"
Board at 2 p.m~. on July 26, 1971.
purpose:
"Roanoke, Virginia
July 26, 1971
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
A portion of the Norfolk Avenue sanitary sewer line actually
lies within the storm drain channel between Campbell Avenue and
'Ninth Street, S. E. This is within the area that the Corps o~
E~gineera 'is carryin9 out channel improvements. The section of
line is encased alan9 the southerly wall and although consideration
was originally given to removin9 it from the channel, it was decided
to attempt to leave it in place. A recent problem occurred near
6 ~ Street, S. E., wherein during a period of heavy rainfall a
section of the encased sewer broke away from the channel wail and
fell into Lick Run spilling the total flow of raw sewage. A corru-
gated mHtal by-pass line was installed by City forces promptly
after this occurrence to divert sewage flow around the break and to
keep it out of the channel. This occurred in early Jone~
455
It was then nod has' become more obvious that this condition most
be c~rrected beyond the temporary parallel line now in place. At the
least it is considered that the Norfolk Avenue sewer must be replaced
for approximately 100 feet in the area of the collapse. It would be
quite difficult to work in that area and maintain existing sewage flows
and even more difficult to find a good place to tie back into the old
line because of its condition. Xt nas initially considered that the
most appropriate corrective action would be to replace the complete
section between manholes with a new line in Norfolk Avenue. This would
co~t an estimated $5,000.
Since this failure, further detailed study has directed oar
attention to the condition of the entire Norfolk Avenue trunk line along
Lick Run. Ne find that we are experiencing rather extensive exfll-
tratlon from this line allowing raw semage to enter the channel. In
various places the line rests on rock and mud base and excavation for
the storm drain channel slab has undercut the rubble encasement. The
196S report on sanitary sewers by Hayes, Seal, Mattern and Mattern,
Consulting Engineers. indicated a future need to parallel tmo sections
of this trunk line but that basically the sewer has hldraulic capacity
for its design load. It is to be noted that the Orange Avenue Diversion
Interceptor, now under construction, will relieve much of the present
overloading of the Horfolk Avenue sewer. #bile this subject line may
be sufficiently large to carry future design flows, the question that
is~pparent is in the fact that the condition of the pipe raises serious
question as to its servicoability.
It is considered that the appropriate action to be taken is to
re,lace the entire portion of the Norfolk Avenue trunk sewer which
now lies within the Lick Run channel. OUr estimates of this COSt for
construction is $34,D00. Me feel that a decision on the matter is
needed at a very early date in order not to delay the Corps of
Engineers' project now underway.
Under these circumstances, it is recommended that an appropriation
of funds be made in the amount of $34.000 for this purpose as we do not
have funds budgeted for such a project.
Hr. Joe Brewer, Public Works Operations Manager, will be in attend-
ance at the City Council meeting for any further explanation OF
discussion requested.
Respectfully submitted.
S! Julian F. llirst
Julian F, flirst
City Manager*
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be referred back to the City Manager for
further study with r~gard to the amount to be appropriated for replacement of the
sewer line. The motion'was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
WATER DEPARTMENT: The Acting City Manager submitted a written report of
t~ City Manager concurring in the following report of a committee recommending that
the bids of Dadger Meter Manufacturing Company, Dersey Sparling-Meter Company,
Neptune Meter Company and Rockwell Manufacturing Company, for Supplying water meters
to the Mater Department for a twelve month period beginning August 1, 1971, and
ending July 31, 1972. be occepted:
· July lg, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After due and proper advertisement, bids were received in.the
office of the Purchasing Agent and publicly opened at 11:00 a.m.,
July 13, 1971 for sopplying water meters to the Mater Department for a
twelve month period begtnnln9 August 1, 1971 and ending July 31, 1972.
456
As shown by the attached tabulation, bids were received from four
firms with the low bids being as follows:
8adqer Meter Ufo. Co.. Milwaukee. Uisconsln
Approximate Unit
Quantity Price
1,000 5/8* Cold Mater Meters $ 30.07
Less trade allowance for 1,000 Scrap Meters 4.55
Net total after deducting trade allowance $ 25,52
500 5/8* Cold Mater Meters (no scrap meters
to be traded) $ 30,07
~?otune Meter Con.any. Saddle Brook· New Jersey
· IO 3/4# Cold Mater Meters $ 49.50
4 1~" Cold Mater Meters 136.13
4 2# Cold Mater Meters 204.50
Hersev Soarlino Meter Comoanv, Oedham. Mass.
25 1" Cold Mater Meters $ 71o73
4 3" Compound Mater Meters 567.75
4 4" Compound Mater Meters 993.00
2 6" Compound Mater Meters 1,g97.OO
4 6# Detector Type Meters 452.00
4 8" Detector Type Meters 564.00
I 10" Detector Type Meters 1,306.00
Rockwell Manufacturino Co.. Plttsburab. Pa.
1 Manifold Compound Unit. equivalent to 6"
Compound Mater Meter 2,653.50
In the reviewing of the bids by the undersigned committee, it
was noted that unit prices.are five to ten per cent below those
submitted last year and it was determined that the low bids conform
to all specifications and requirements of the. City of Roanoke.
The right is reserved by the City to make separate awards on
the water meters, and, therefore, it is the recommendation of the
committee that the low bids be accepted as outlined above.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ B. H. Thompson
Bueford B. Thompson
S/ Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.
Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.
S/ Kit B. Kiser
Kit B. Kiser"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Manag~
tnd offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19785) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of supplies of various
types of water meters for use by the City's Mater Department during the period of
time beginning August 1, lgTl, and ending July 31, 1972, upon certain terms and
provisions, by accepting certain bids made to the City; rejectin9 certain other bids;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 423.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout a~d 'adopted by the folloming vote:
457
AYES: Nessrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Mebber ...... 5:
NAYS: None O~
(Messrs. Thomas end Mheeler absent)
Mr. Llsk then moved that a committee be appointed by the Mayor to study
current Mater Department rates and report back to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Mebber appointed Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager; Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor; and Mr. Kit H. Kiser, Manager of the Mater Department as membez
of the Committee.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Acting City Manager submitted the following report
of the City Manager clarifying an error in the number of vacancies in the Police
Department and advising that as of July 14, 1971, there were 23 vacancies in said
Department:
*Roanoke, Virginia
July 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
During the course of the City Council*s budget studies. I
informally advised the Council that me had within the Police
Department at that time only 11 vacancies and that me mere ia the
proceedings of processing four or five applicants mbo would further
reduce that number of vacancies. Mhen I submitted to the City
Council on July 12 a report on police vacancies to the mod of May.
1971. the City Council quite properly raised a question as to possible
discrepancy between the number of vacancies stated for that date as
26 in possible contrast to the figure that I had given during the
budget discussions.
I was in error in my report during the budget discussions and
extend to the City Council my apologies for this. In the process
of information coming to me and my recollection of that information.
figures became reversed and the situation at the time of the budget
discussion was actually that we had employed 11 policemen at that
particular time over a certain period and that there were 4 or 5
applicants in the procedure 5f being processed. The error was in
how I defined the figure of 11.
Obviously there results a difference and I would advise that
as of July Id, there were 23 vacancies in the department. From May
31 to that date, 6 officers had been employed. Me also had lost 2
incumbents during that period.
Again, I express my apologies to the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: The City Attorney submitted the follow~ g report advising that
it mould seem appropriate for Council to request of the Roanoke County School Hoard
a proper deed of conveyance to six certain school sites devolved upon the city
pursuant to the Annexation Order of December 6, 1948, by which certain portions of
Roanoke County were annexed to the city as of midnight. December 31st of that year:
458
'July 26, 1971
The ~onorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The ownership of the Riverdale School site and five other school
sites -- #illium Fleming. Oakland, Garden City, Meshing.un Heights
and Tinker Creeh -- devolved upon the City of Roanohe pursuant
to the Annexation Order of December 6, 194H. pursuant to which
portions of Roanoke County me're annexed to the City as of midnight
on December 31st of that year. The order provided, in Paragraph (G),
that the City pay to the County before the decree became final,
compensation for all schools and other public buildings, Including
the land appurtenant thereto, each of which were assigned a value by
the decree. The City's Audlting Department records show that a sum
of approximately $593,000.00 mas thereafter paid to the County of
Roanoke, which amount included the value of each said school site,
Paragraph (9) of the Annexation Order provided that title In fee
simple to the property involved in the annexation proceedings.
upon payment of amounts required, would be transferred to and
absolutely vest in the City of Roanoke without further action or
deed. but further provided that the City would be entitled, if
it so desired, to require a deed from the County us to any OF
all of said properties, No such request appears ever to have been
formally made by the City.
Bearing in mind that public uses of real estate sometimes change
or, as may be in the case of the Riverdale School site, discon-
tinued, and that disposition of such property might be ordered or
directed by the City, it is natural that a purchaser would require
record evidence of the property's chain of title. It would,
therefore, seem appropriate for the Council, without further
passage of time, to request Of the Roanoke County School Board
a proper deed of conveyance to · e six (6) aforesaid school
sites, pursuant to the Annexatio~ Order. the title to County
' school properties, under Section 22-147 of the Code of Virginia,
being vested in the County School Board.
So that such request may be formally made, this office has prepared
for the Council's consideration and encloses ~erewJth a form
of resolution by which such request might be extended.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. gincanon"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur Jn the report Of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution:
(nlg?H?) A RESOLUTION requesting the Roanoke County School Board to
furnish proper deeds of conveyance to the City for six (6) school sites involved
in the 1948 Annexation Order.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Rook No. 35, page 426.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor ~ebber-=-~----~5.
NAYS: None O.
(Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
SIREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Attorney submitted the following report in
connection with the dedication Of a portion of 13th Street, N. E., between North
459
Avenue and Meson Mill Road for public street purposes, advising that the City
Planning Commission has reviemed the request and unanimously recommended approval
of this street dedication:
"July 26, 1971
The Honorable Hayer and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In accordance with Sec. 16, Chapter 1, of Title XVI of the
Code of the City of Roanohe, the Planning Commission of the
City has revlemed the request of the City Attorney that n
portion of 13th Htreet, N. E., between North Avenue, N.
and Mason Rill Read, N. E** be dedicated for public street
purposes. On July 21, 1971, the Commission unanimously
recommended the approval of this street dedication.
The request for this street dedication was initially made by
the City Engineer who noted that the proposed street is open
to and used by the general public.
An ordinance dedicating this area for public street purposes
is transmitted with this letter.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Nincanon
J. N. Kiucanon'
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Ordinance:
(a197f18) AN ORDINANCE dedicating for public street purposes and uses
c'ertain property owned by the City and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 427.)
Dr. Taylor move~ the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor. Trout and Mayor Webber ........5.
NAYS: None 0
(Messrs. Thomas and Hheeler absent)
BUDGET-PERSONNEL 'DEPARTMENT-PAT PLAN-CITT EMPLOYEES: Th~ Ci{y Auditor
submitted a written report advising that in preparing the 1971-72 budget, an error
iwas made in the salary Of the Assistant Personnel Director and transmitting an
Ordinance correcting the budget to comply with the Pay Plan.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(e19789) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~14, ~Personnel,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page 428~
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Trout and Mayor Nebber ........ 5.
NAYS: None O.
(Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
460
TALES: The City Auditor submitted n mritten report transmitting an Ordi-
providing for the payment of personal property tax on motor vehicles tar the
current year, prior to or concurrent uith the purchase of city automobiles licenses~
NF. Lish moved that Council concur in the report or the City Auditor and
moved that the tolloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#19790) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 29, City lfceos~ -
Jssuance of Dlate. ta~ or decal. Sec. 31o
or deca]~ m~Y ~e used, Sec. 35. City ticense - Expiration: renewal, of Chapter 1.
Traffic Code. Title XVIlI, #graf Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of the City of
Roanohe, 1956, as amended, providing for the payment of the personal property tax
prior to issuance of the City decal or license tag and providing for the expiration
date of such decal or license tag.
~HEREAS, the City Auditor has recommended to the Council that the City,
consistent uith the authorization contained in Section 46.1-65, of the 1950 Code
of ¥irginia, as amended, require the payment of annual personal property taxes
assessed on motor vehicles by the City prior to the issuance of the annual City
decal or license tag for such motor vehicles, and also recommended that the period
for mhich such decal ar license tag may be used and the expiration date of such
decal or license tag be changed to coincide mith the date required for the payment
Of tangible personal property taxes; and
WHEREAS, the Council concurs in these recommendations of the City Auditor.
THEREFORE', B£ 1T ORDAINED by the Council of the City otRoanoke t~at Sec.
2g. City license - Iss#ance of olate, taq or decal, Sec. 31. City license - Period
~aF be used,
section 29 of this chapter, for a succeeding license
i1
Every license issued under section 27 of this chapter,
shall expire on the thirtieth day of April of the
license Tear for mhich it mas issued,.und the same shull
be renewed annually bT tho owner bT paTment of the re-
quired license lux, such renemal to take effect on May
first of each year,
The motion was seconded by Hr, Trout and adopted bT the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lish, Taylor, Trout and NaTor Mebber ........... 5
NAYS: None ' 0
(Messrs, Thomas and #heeler absent)
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation the request of Mr, Charles Bane, et ux,, that property
located at 1732 Eleventh Street, N, E** described as Lots 10, 11 and 12, Blo~h 42,
Map of Linuood Land Company, Official Tax No. 3060011, be retorted from RD, Duplex
Residential District, to LM. Light Manufacturing District. the City Planning
Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearin9 on the request for rezonlng be held
at 2 p.m., Monday, August 23, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALL£YS: Council having referred to the City Plannin9 Commissio
for study, report and recommendation the request of Old Dominion Homes, Incorporated,
that an alley extending south from East Gate Avenue to an alley running parallel to
East Gate ivanna, lying between 16th Street and 19th Street. N. E., and another alley
extending south from Templeton Avenue, N. E., to East Gate Avenue. lying between
14th Street'and 15th Street, N. E., be vacated, discontinued and closed, the City
Planning'Commissio~ submitted a written repor~ recommending that the request be
granted with the understandi~9 that the petitioner will dedicate five feet for street
widening purposes on 14th Street, and 15th Street. N. E., south of Templeton Aven~e
and provided that the 45 foot right of way will be naintaind throughout the midth
of the alley betmeen loth Street and lgth Street, N. E.. south of East Gate Avenue.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for vacating, dis-
continuing and clsoing the alleys be held at 2 p.m., Monday. August 23, 1971. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously'adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERA~ON OF CLAINS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Council havin9 directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure amending Chapter 4.1, Zoning, Title XV, Construction. of The Code of the City
of Roanoke. lgS6, as amended, by the addition of a new section thereto to be numbered
Sec. 73.1, establishing certain fees, chargesand expenses and a collection procedure
for zoning permits, certificates of zoning compliance, appeals, amendments and site
*lan reviews, he presented same; mhereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following emergency
Ordinance:
461
462
(algTgl) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 4.1. Zonlag, Title 1¥, Constractlol
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new sec-
tion thereto to be numbered Sec. 73,1, establishing certain fees, charges and expeus,
and a collection procedure for zoning permits,certificates of zoning compliance,
appeals, amendments, and site plan reviews; and providing for an emergency.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 42g,)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follcmJng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Mebber 5o
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
PLANNING: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure amending Chapter 2.1, Land Subdivision Regulations, Title X¥f. Plannlng and
Subdivisions, Of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition
of a nam section thereto, to be numbered Sec. 41.1, establishing a schedule of fees
for the review and approval of all subdivision plats and a collection procedure for
such fees, he presented same; ~reupon, Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency
Ordinance:
(#19792) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 2.1, Land Subdivision Reoulations,
Title XVI, Planning and Subdivisions, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, by the addition of a new section thereto, to be numbered Sec. 41.1,
establishing a ached,la of fees for the revieN and approval of all subdivision plats
and a collection procedure for such fees; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 430.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Webber ............5
NAYS: None .............................................................O,
(Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
SCHOOLS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure accepting the bid of James E. Fezguson, Contractor, for the demolition and
removal of the structure of the Loudon Elementary School and authorizing the City
Manager*s development of said site into a neighborhood park and playground area, he
presented same; ~hereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(:19793) AN ORDINANCE accepting the hid of James E. Ferguson, Contractor
for the demolition and removal Of the structure Of the London Elementary School; re=
jecting certain other bids; and authorizing the City Manager*s development of said
site into a ~ighborhood park and playground area; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 431.)
Mr~ Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the f,Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Trout and Hayer Mebber 5~
HAYS: None .............................................. ~ ..... -0.
(Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-TRAFFIC: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure appropriatihg funds rot the Jefferson Senior High School
parhing lot. Dr. Taylor offered the f,Il,ming emergency Ordinance:
(ZlgYg4) AN ORBIHANCE to amend and reordain Section usg. "Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund." of the 1911-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and pr,riding
for an emergency.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance D,oh Ho. 35. page 432.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Nebber ........ 5,
NAYS: None ..........................................................O.
(Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SEWERS AND STORM UgAINS: Mr. Trout read the f,Il,ming prepared statement
~advising that it is his understanding the State Mater Control Board has made various
allocations of funds for the purpose of improvements to the Sewage Treatment Plant
iand moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure by the
Unext regular meeting of Council on Monday, August 2, lg11, providing for the issuing
ilof bonds to meet the share of the City Of Roanoke for improvements to the Sewage
Treatment Plant as proposed by the City of Roanoke and approved by t~ State #ater
IControl Board:
"Mr. Mayor and Members of Council
It is my understanding that today the State Mater Control
Board has made various allocations of funds for the purpose
of improvements to the City's Sewer Treatment Plant.
The present allocation being $2,400,000 on July 1, 1973
an allocation of $3,000,000, also July 1, 1913 an additional
allocation of $g04.000 and on July 10 1974 an allocation of
$1,600,000.
A total sum of $7,904,000.
After viewing this information--I would like to move that
Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate
papers for Council*s consideration at next Monday's meeting,
that is providing for the City*s issuing of bonds to meet the City's
share of improvements proposed by the City and approved by the
State Mater Control Board."
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for pre-
paration of the proper measure by the next regular meeting of Council on Monday,
August 2, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: The City Clerk reported that Messrs, J, C, Crotch-
field. Jonas 6. Eller, James R. Roe, Jr., MJlliam A. martin, Ralph K. Bowles and
Jimmie B. Layman have qualified as members of the Personnel Board ~or terms of
mud years each ending February 2R. 1973.
DF. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
seconded by Mr. LJsk and unanimously adopted.
There being no farther business. Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTEST:
~Clty Clerh '
APPROVED
Mayor
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING,
Tuesday, July 27, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Ronicipal Building, Tuesday, July 2T, 1971, at 12:20 p.m., #ith
Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David lC. Llsko Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas. James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler end Mayor Roy L.
#ebber ........................ 7.
ABSENT: Nose ........... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. James N.
Klncaoon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The mae,in9 was opened twith a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Mayor Webber advised that the special meeting of Council';
had been called for the purpose of consideriog the appropriation of sufficient funds
to purchase 15 school buses in connection mlth the implementation of the elementary
school attendance plan proposed by the Roanoke City School Board and ordered
approved by the District Court on July 21, 1971.
In this connection. Mr. J. listar Stoma, President of the Safety Motor
Transit Company, appeared beforethe body and advised that the Transit Company
could not meet the schedule of the Roanoke City School Board for busing of students
unless a fourth opening and closing time for school hours 'were added to the plan.
Council having referred the question to the Transportation Committee
for study, report and recommendation, Mr. Garland presented a verbal minority
report Of the Transportation Committee advising that he could not recommend that
Council purchase any less than the requested 15 school buses.
Mr. Mheeler then presented a verbal majority report of the Transportation
Committee recommending that Council purchase ten school buses aod use the odditiona~
five buses in which the Safety Motor Transit Company previously advised 'would be
available for school transportation purposes.
Mr. Garland moved that Council proceed v~ith the purchase of the IS
school buses at a cost of $140,201.90. The motion twos seconded by Mr. LiSko
Mr. Mheeler offered a substitute motion that Council purchase ten school
buses at $8,400.00 each and use the additional five buses which twill be available
for school purposes through the Safety Motor Transit Company. The motion twos
seconded by Mr. Thomas and lost by the follomin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Thomas, Mheeler and Mayor Webber 3.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. and Trout 4.
Mr. Gsrland then reiterated his original motion und offered the folloulag
emergency Ordinance appropriating $126,000.00 for the purchase of the 15 school
(nlgT95) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n89, 'Transfers to
Capital Imp~oYements Fund,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, sad providing
for an emergency.
(For full text bf Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 432.)
Nr.'Garland moved the adoptibn of the Ordinanc~. The motion wa~ seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:~
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor.'Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Mebber-~ ............................. -~-6.
NAYS: Mr~ Mbeeler .............. 1.
Mr. Lisk then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$41,201.90 for the operation and maintenance of the 15 school buses:
(~19796) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~500O, "Schools -
Pupil Transportation," and Section gO000, "Schools - Fixed Charges." of the 1971-721;
Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance flook No. 35, page 433.)
Mr. Lisk moved the udoptJbn of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:'
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebbet -6.
NAYS: Mr. Wheeler ............... 1.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
467
COUNCIL, REGULAR .MEETING,
Monday, August 2, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, August 20 1971, .at 2p,m,, the regular.
meeting hour, uith Mayor,Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David W. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ......
ABSENT: None ........ ~ ...................................................0
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
July 12, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed With
amd the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Pursuant to notice of adver-
tisement for bids on the construction of a football and baseball field in Jackson Parl
S. E., said proposals to be received by the City Clerk until 2 p.m** Monday, August
1971* and to be opened at that hour before Council, Mayor Webber asked if anyone had
any questions about the advertisement and a, representative present raising any ques-
tion, the Mayor instructed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids;
mhereupon, the City Clerk opened and read the foil,win§ bids:
~ ~ ~ Construction Company - $16,00g.25
Branch and Associates, Incorporated - 1§,712.60
Mr. Thomas moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appointed
by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure in accordance with the recommendation of the committee.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman, William F. Clark
and Rex T. Mitchell, Jr., as members Of the committee.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
COUNCIL-DONATIONS: Council haviag adopted au Ordiaance contributing
$1,842.30 toward restoration and replacement of the Botetourt County Courthouse, a
communication from Mr. As Terrell Baskerville, E~ecntive Secretary, Botetourt County
Board of Supervisors, expressing appreciation on behalf of the citizens of Ho,et,art
County for the contribution from the City of Roanoke, mas before the body.
468
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimouslT adopted,
AUDITS-CLERK OF THE COURTS: A communication from Hr. Joseph S. James.
Auditor of Public Accounts, transmitting au audit of the accounts and records of
Mr. ~alker R. Carter. Jr** Clerk of the Hustings Court, the Court of Lam and Cho~
and the Circuit Court, for the calendar lears 1969 and 1970, advising that the examina-
tion disclosed that full accounting had been made for all fnnds of record Coming fate
the custody of the Clerk during the periods under review and that the records hsd
been prepared in very 9ood order, mas before Council,
Or. Taylor moved that the audit be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REROVAL: A communication from Hr. A. Clyde Malleus. in connection
with pollution and expressing the opinion that there should be no more landfills.
before Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDUET-POLICE DEPARTMENT-AIRPORT: The City Ranager submitted the follow-
lng report recommending that three unfilled positions for police patrolmen under
the Police Department be deleted and instead that there be established under the
Airport Department three positions designated Os special police officers at Range
f t A I 1 7 t i
e fec ire ugust ,. g 1, a a start ng salary of $500.00 each and that an appropria.'
tiao be made for this purpose for the balance of the current fiscal year of
for each position:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 2, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council sometime ago authorized our consideration
of the establishment of policing personnel at the Airport on a
full time basis. Further, at the time that the City Council
appropriated funds for an additional 33 police officers it was
indicated to be the intention that three Of these positions were
being established to be available for Airport use. Since that
time, we have had considerable study of the best methods by
which to set up such an arrangement.
It is concluded that the recommendation mould be for the
establishment within the City*s Pay and classification plan
of positions designated as Airport Special Police and that
these be assigned to and under the direction of the CJty*s
Airport Department. The nature of the duties of these personnel
would be to some degree less than the circumstances relating to
regular police department officers and the qualifications would
not have to be as stringent. Accordingly, it would be recommended
that these positions be established at Pay Plan Range 15. By com-
parison, Pollce Patrolmen are In Range 17,; the differential in
salary being approximately ten percent,
Age standards and, qualifications should not be as critical
f~r this particular activity and the age bracket for entrance
would be set from 21 to 55 years. Additional qualiffcatinns are
a height of 5 feet H ln~es with appropriate weight; high school
469
graduate or a G.E.D. certificate; satisfactory background; must pass
· parable to those of u police officer. The upplicant most pass a
written examination by the Personnel Department; homerer, this mould
be a test different than thus given to n police patrolman and such
tests are being prepared.
The personnel within the special police mould attend those
courses given in law enforcement by the Police Deportment to the
extent that the courses are oppllcoble in this particulor mork.
We have considered the alternatives of these paaonnel being
assigned within the Police Department as against being assigned to
the Airport Department, In consideration of the full nautre of
the duties intended and the limitation of activity to a specific
area, namely the airport, it is felt that the most effective and
logical arrangement is this as proposed, the assignment to the
Airport Department. It is, however, intended, and has been dis-
cussed, that there would he close coordination with the Police
Department bath in certain training and in work function.
Reeiem of duty time requirements leads to the proposal
that is is considered that the needs at the Airport can be
reasonably met at the outset by the establishment of three
positions and the employment of personnel in these three. They
would be on 40-hour per week duty with O-hour shifts. Three
personnel would enable duty assignment during the periods of
heavy movement at the Airport with some overlap into late night
hours and allowance for vacations nnd sick leave.
These officers will be uniformed with a slight variance in
insignia from the regular police departmental personnel. Ne mill
need to return to City Council to adjust funds for clothing and
this will be done at n Inter date.
The City Attorney bas been asked and is proceeding to
establish the authority of these personoel.
Nhile these positions came about largely through concern
of supervision of parking, the duties of these personnel would
also include general patrolling Of the airport property and
activity and availability Within and around the terminal in
the public area during traffic movment periods. Nhile this
does not afford 2d-hour duty at the Airport, it is not our judge-
ment at this time that such full time seven day a week is
necessary. If after a period of time, it is observed that different
situations are developing then a review of the scheduling con be made.
We wish to proceed with advertisement for employment of
these positions as early as practical. I attach a copy of the job
specifications as prepared by the Personnel Department.
It is recommended that three unfilled positions for police
patrolmen under the Police Department be deleted and that there
be established under the Airport Department three positions
designated as special police officers at Range 15 effective
Augnst 1, lgYl, at a starting salary of $500 and that au appro-
priation be made to this purpose for the balance Of the current
fiscal year Of $5,630 for each position.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection, the City Manager verbally amended that portion of his
report recommending that the special police officers be placed under the jurisdiction
Of the Airport Department and advised that he would prefer that these officers be
placed under the direct jurisdiction of the Police Department.
After a discussion of the matter, several members of Council also being of
the opinion that the special police officers should be under the direction of the
Police Department, Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred back to the City
47O
Manager for further study and any suggestions he may have along the lines that laid
special police officers alii be under the direction of the Police Oepartwent. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lilk and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report recowmendin
that he be authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Roanoke and the United States Geological Survey to maintain an investigation of the
water resources of Catawba Creek and Tinker Creek and far operation of the gauging
stations thereon for the period from July 1, 1971, to Jane 30, 1972, and thereafter
from year tn year. subject to the availability of appropriations,
Mr. Garland moved that Council'concur fa the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19797) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into Ceoperatl~
Agreement between the City and the United States Geological Survey to maintain an
investigation of the water resources of Catawba Creek and Tinker Creek and for
operation of the gauging stations thereon far the period from July 1, 1971. to
Jane 30, 1972, and thereafter, from year to year, subject to availability of appro-
priations; and provl~ing for an emergency.
(For full text of Drdinance, see'Drdinance Book So. 35, page 435.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Drdinance. The motion was seconded
by gr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYl~c Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................ O.
TRAFFIC-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a ~rltten report ~nsmJttJng
and recommending the adoption of an Ordinance establishing regulations and the en-
forcement thereof for.parking at Roanoke Municipal (Wa,drum) Airport.
Dr. Tailor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the CitI
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19798) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 5, Airport, of Title VIII, Public
Baildinos and Property, of the Code qf the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the
addition of two new sections numbered Sec. 24. Vehicular ,~nd pedest, rian traffic;
parkinq, and Sec. 25. Same-Offenses; penalties, thereto providing for the regulation,
management and control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the Roanoke Municipal
Airport; providing penalties for violation of the provisions of this ordinance; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 436.)
Dr. Taylor moved theadoption of the Ordinance. The m,tiaa mas seconded by
Mr. LIsk and adopted by the following tote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mheeler .........6.
NAYS: Mayor Webber ......................................................1.
471
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following Joint
report of the City Manager nad the Sewer Committee transmitting certain information
in connection with · meeting before the State Mater Coetrol Board on July 26, 1971,
in furtherance of a matter of sewage treatment and related aspects of the public
sewerage system, suggesting tbat Council withhold any definite action at this
immediate time, particularly as to a financing program, until certain items can be
clarified:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 2, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
on July 26, 1971, representatives of the City appeared
before the State Mater Control Board in Richmond in furtherance
of a matter of sewage treatment and related aspects of the public
sewerage system. This letter is submitted by the City Manager
and is, at the request of the Council Sewer Committee, to serve
jointly as a report by that Committee whose members were in
attendance. The purpose of this writing is to provide a formal
report to the Council for the maintenance of the records of the
City Council on this subject. This shall be intentionally brief.
The meeting was at some length and Of extensive involvement on
a number of matters and to attempt to summariae all of them fully
helm would be a rather extensive undertakimD, Further, there
are ramifications to many poin~ and to initiate commentary o· any
one of these would lead to further detailed writing and background
review of which the Council is substantially familiar.
A further and significant reasoning for limiting these
comments is that at this writing on Thursday, the City has
not yet received a written communication from the Nater Control
Board, as is customary, which summariaes the findings, concl.-
slams, decisions and directions of the Board. The opportunity
is needed to closely study such a letter from the Board to com-
pletely analyze the significance of the Board*s conclusions
and to more fully and adequately interpret their decisions and
the affect which they may have upon the City and its programming.
As soon as this is received, it will be forwarded to the City
Council with an analysis. Thus, the following is listed on the
basis of verbal understanding of that which took place.
1. The Board appeared to generally accept the so-called
interim, or Phase I, p mgram subject to additional
details on two aspects.
2. The precise position of the Board in monetary parti-
cipation in the above interim progrnm although it Was
understood thattheir funding would be subject to
alternate approval of their total program.
3. The Board appeared to indicate concurrence in the
expansion of the present plant; however, raised
questions on the City*s proposal for expansion to
35 million gallons per day and indicated a possibility
of limiting this to perhaps 29 million gallons per day.
4.Approval was given to withdrawing Requirement I which
in effect is the lifting of the ban on connections.
5. The Board, with more commentary, indicated Its require-
ment of the City*s conforming to the effluent quality
figures which had been banded to the City representatives
on July 13, 1971.
They advised of their.allocation of $8 million over four years
to the City of Roanoke. There is question as to mhether this applies
solely to the treatment system or to the treatment plant and semer
lines and this question has much bearing on the City*$ program.
The City was directed to report to the Board bT September 1
of its conformance program in third level treatment to these
newest effluent quality figures.
7. The Board indicated a wish not to get into long range
programming and planning at this time. The significance
and relationship to this to the above matter and to pre-
vious requests from them opens an area of uncertain that
will have to be resolved.
472
Immediately following the Board meetimg~ our cousultants
requested to continue their study program and to proceed os
rapidly as possible to get to the City n tentative program and
recommendations on this third level treatment matter.
It is suggested that the City Council mithhold any definite
action at this immediate tlmeo pnrticnluFly as to a flnuncing
program, until we can calrify some of the above items and together
with the consulting engineers more fully report to the City Couicil.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. flirst '
Julian F. airst
City Manager~
Hr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request made by Council at its meeting on Monday,
July 26. 1971, for an Ordinance providing for the issuing of bonds to meet the share
of the City of Roanohe for improvements to the Sewage Treatment Plant be taken under
consideration. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-ACTS OF ACKNDMLEDCEMENT: The City Manager submitted the follomin9
report in connection math the school safety record, advising that the mith completion
of this past school year, there has been concluded within the City of Roanoke four
consecutive school years during which there has not been a recorded injury or
accident occurring to* a School student walking or moving to and from school within a
jgeneral school zone area or a designated school crossing area and that as the com-
ipliments for this go to a great many students and adults over that p~l~od Of time, it
is reasonable to say that this is an outstanding record for a city to be in a positioi
claim:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 2, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
With the complelion of this past school year, there has
been concluded within the City of Roan~ four consecutive
school years during which there has not been a recorded injury
or accident Occurring to a school student walking or moving to
and from school within a general school zone area or u design-
ated school crossing area,
AS the compliments for this go to a great many students
and adults over that period of time, it Is reasonable to soy
that this is an outstanding record for a City to be in a
position to claim. It reflects upon the students of all grades,
upon the faculty and me~bers of the school system and their
safety eodeavors, upon the Police Department, the departments
of Public Works and Engineering and Traffic and Communications
and upon the Roanoke Valley Safety Council and the many others
who take an active interest in safety.
The record is also complimentary to motorists who do
recognize the need fur caution in alertness during school
periods and to parents who direct their children off to
school.
473
There are so many factors that affect safety--the increasing
nuwber of vehicles and corresp~ding increases in speed and power,
the large number of students of oil ages that walk, the frequent
hazards of weather conditions end the increasing shifting or stu-
dents back and forth across the City. As with all records, as
tine progresses, the odds of maintaining such a record become
more and more susceptible to being broken. This. though, is a
record in an area of community life wherein maintenance of a
record is perhaps es importaot as anything could be;
Respectfully subwitted,
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having aeferred to the City Manager for Study,
report and recommendation a request of Cars Realty Company that Council approve the
wide,lng and improvement o f 35th Street, N. R** to provide better access to their land
ga which 116 low income apartment units are under construction, Jn order to receive
from the Federal Housing Administration project mortgage insurance of $1,637,000.00
to construct on adjacent land au additional 120 los incomeopartment units, the City
Manager submitted'the following report advising that to be consistent with handling
of somewhat comparable matters in the past, he does not feel that he can administra-
tively initiate any negotiations or procedures toward endeavoring to acquire the
additional 15 feet of land which is needed, but that if it is the wish and direction
of Council that the city proceed with seeking the acquisition of this additional righ
of way, adhering to the various sequence of procedures, he will do so:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 2. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on July lq, lqYl, received a request from
Cars Realty Company for the assistance of the City in acquiring
needed right of way for access to low rent apartment construction
now underway and additionally proposed. This matter was referred
to the City Manager for review and report.
This company has under construction a development approximately
600 feet south of Melrose Avenue and between extensions of SSth
Street and 36th Street, N. #. Some months ago we were extensively
involved in discussions with the principals of this firm as to
various customary matters relating to such a development. The
major item in these discussions, which item presented some problem
in resolution, was as to street access. We initially recommended
that the right of way md roadway widths Of 35th Streets and 36th
Street would not be sufficiently adeo~ate for access; however, the
discussions mere settled with our agreement to accept their using
35th Street and 36th Street as now layed out and designed.
The company had in mind at the time the acquisition of addi-
tional land to the east of 35th Street (in the direction of what
would be 34th Street) and has since acquired that property and it
is now the development of this second area with similar and further
apartment construction that has raised the matter now before the
City. The Federal Housing AdminstratJon has informed the company
that it is Of the opinion that 3Sth Street should be handled by
'widening and improvement* for access to the nam development area.
The principals of the company discussed this with us and I attach
a copy of a letter which I Wrote on July 20, 1971, summarizing the
administrative position that we felt we had to take.
4'74
Thirty-firth Street lesdlag from Nelrose Avenue to the
'south has a right of may width of 2S feet for a distance of
approximately'213 feet. It then widens to 40 feet for the
remainder or the distance Into the development property. It
is gathered, on the basis of advice by principals of the con-
puny, that FHA reels that the ~$-foot section should be
widened'to at least 40'feet to be comparable with the remainder
of the street. We feel that there is merit in this position.
To he consistent with our handling of soneubat comparable
matters in the past, we do not feel that ue aduinistratively
can initiate any negotiations or procedures toward endeavoring
to acquire or acquiring the additional IS feet.
If it is the wish and direction of the City Council that
the City proceed with seeking the acquisition of this additional
right of way, adhering to the various sequence of procedures,.
then we will so do.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Htrst
City Manager"
After a discussion of the matter, RF. Wheeler moved that the report be
referred back to the City Hanager for the purpose of negotiating with the property
owners for the additional 15 feet of land needed for the midening of 35th Street,
N.W. The motion was seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CIRCUSES, SHOWS, £TC,: The City Hanager submitted a written report trans-
mitting o request from Hr. ~. Co 6uchner, President, Roanoke Fair. Incorporated, for
permission to operate the Roanoke Fair on Sunday, September 26, Ir?l, from I p.m.,
to 10 p.m.
Hr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for.pre-
paration of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted,
Mr. Garland voting no.
SPECIAL PERMITS-STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having referred to the City Ranagt
for study, report and recommendation a request from Mr. S. T. Combs for permission
for four gas tanks to remain on his property in the Garden City area, pointing out
that the gas tanks are within the Major Arterial Highway setback line, the City
Wanager submitted the foIlowing report advising that the gas tanks were improperly
installed, that a Building Inspector from the Building Commissioner's Office advised
Mr. Combs of this, that the tanks were not moved and were filled with gasoline and
that under the circumstances of their having now been completely installed and
filled and in view of the fact that midening and improvement is not early scheduled
in this area. it would be agreeable for the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate
agreement for execution by XF. Combs whereby he would agree to remove these tanks
at any tine at the request of the City of Roanoke if that property is needed for
the widening and improvement of Garden City Boulevard:
'Roanoke, Virginia
August 2. 1971
Honorbale Mayor and City Council
-Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on*July 19, 197), received e request
from Mr. S, T. Combs, 3747 Garden City Boulevard, S.
requesting uuthorizat~gn ~or. four gas tanks to remain on his
property at the above address.
The background of this Situation is that on Friday,
June 25, 1971, Mr. Combs applied for and wis granted ·
permit to install four one thousand-gallon gas tanks at
the Garden City Grocery. This grocery and surrounding pro=
perty is leased from Mr. Combs by Mr. John Davis. On Sunday,
June 27, a Building Inspector from the Building Commissioner*s
office happened to be passing the location and sam that the
tanks mere being installed improperly as to location. Early
Monday, June 26, the inspector men* to the site and advised
the *mawr and installer of the tanks that the tanks mere
located in proposed arterial highway right of way and would
have to he relocated. The tanks were not moved and mere filled
m~th gasoline.
There is attached a drawing shoing the location of the
tanks and their extension by 12 feet into the additional
proposed width of 15 feet under the arterial highway plan
and their extension uithin three feet of the present right
of way'or property line. It would have been advisable for
these tanks to have been set back beyond the arterial right
of way line and further should have been relocated upon being
advised by the Inspector from the Buildin9 Comnissioner*s
office.
However, under the circumstances of their having now been
completely installed and filled and in viem of the fact that
tn* mid*ming improvement is not early scheduled in this area,
!t ~ou!d he agreeable for the recommendation to City Council
that the City Attorney*s office prepare the appropriate agree-
ment for Mr. Combs* execution mhereby the owner mould agree to
move these tombs at any time at the request of the City if that
property is needed for the mid*ming or improvement of Garden
City Boulevard.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hits*
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19799) AN ORDINANCE granting revocable, non-transferable authority to
S. T. Combs and Lucy Tobitha Combs to maintain four (4), underground gasoline tanks
on premises located at 3747 Garden City Boulevard. S. E** Official Ho. 4300706 en-
croaching on a planned major arterial highway right-*lawny and over an established
building setback line. upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, S. T. Combs and Lucy Tobitha Combs. owners Of the property or
premises hereinafter described, have requested that they be permitted to maintain fan
(4), certain underground gasoline tanks on said property which will encroach into the
right-of-may heretofore planned and approved for'Garden City Boulevard, S. £., as a
major arterial highuay on the City*s Major Arterial Highway Plan adopted February 15,
1965, by Resolution No. 16274. and mhich said gasoline tanks mould be permitted, unde
certain conditions, to encroach into the setback area established on the west side of
said planned major arterial hig~may; and upon consideration of the request and
to the authority vested in local governing bodies by Chapter 10, Title 15.1. of the
lgSO Code of Virginia. as amended, this Council is agreeable to said *mn*rs* proposal
and is willing to permit the encroachment over and in said areas upon the terms and
conditions herein contained.
475
476
THEREFORE, D£ IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City or Roanoke that per-
fission be and is hereby granted S. T, Combs and Lacy ~oblthn Combs, owners of the
mimes located at 3747 Garden City Doulevard, S. £., Official No. 4300706, to tem-
sorarily maintain as an encroachment four, (d), certain 1000 gallon underground casa-
.the tanks and rela~ed u~de~grouad piping located on said property, mblch said gasoli~
tanks shall be no closer than 3 feet from the present west right-of-way line of said
street but may temporarily be allowed to remain within the proposed arterial highway
right-of-way and within th~ 2S-foot mide building setback area established for said
major arterial highway; all such construction to be maintained with approved and
*ermitted materials and to be properly constructed and safely maintained at the ex-
of said occupant, in accordance with such of the City's building, fire and othe:
ulations and requirements as are ~pplicable thereto; the maintenance of the afar
said encroachment to he subject to the limitations ~cntained in § 15.1-376 of the 195,
Code of Virginia, abovementioned, and the permit herein granted to be non-transfe~abl,
and revocable at the will of the City Council, It to be agreed by said permittee as
evidenced by its execution of an attested copy of this ordinance, that said permittee
hereto and agree to indemnify and save harmless the City of Roanoke of and
from all claims for injuries ar damages to persons or property that may tn any
arise by reason of such encroachment; that, upon notice of revocation of the within
permit, mailed to said permittees or either of them or posted on the aforesaid premise
said permittees shall, within sixty (60) days from the date of mailing or posting of
such notice, remove all said encroaching underground gasoline tanks at no cost what
the City; and that said permittees agree that in the event of condemnation pro-
ceedings brought by the City Of Roanoke or other public agency to obtain right-of-may
necessary for constructing said Major Arterial Highway in accordance with the afore-
said Plan, the permJttees waive any and all tight they may have to claim reimbnrset
from the City or such other public agency for the cost of said gasoline tanks or
their removal.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the provisions of this ordinance shall not be-
fully effective until such time as a written permit shall have been issued by
the City*s Building Commissioner to the aforesaid omners or their duly authorized
or representative, permitting the aforesaid construction, and until an
copy of this ordinance shall have been duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowledged
said permittees and shall have been admitted to record, at the expense of said
in the deed books in the Clerk's Office of the Dustings Court of the City
of Roanoke.
ACCEPTED and EXECUTED by the undersigned this__day of ,1971
(SEAL)
$. T. Combs
(SEAL)
Lucy Tobitha Combs
477
STATE OF VIRGINIA 8
8 To-nit:
CITY OF ROANOKE 8
I, . the undersigned Notary Public in and for
the City of Roanoke, State of. Virginia, do hereby certify that S. T. COMBS and LUCY
TOBITBA COMBS, nh,se names are signed to the foregoing writing bearing date of
1971, havemch personally appeared before me in by City and State
aforesaid and achnowledged the same.
GIVEN under my hand this
My Commission expires:
day of , 1971.
Notary Public
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber ............................. 7.
NAYS: None .............. O.
PDLICE'DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the f, Il,wi
report on the status of personnel' in the Police Department and the Fire Department
as of June 30. 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 2. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Geutlemen:
Listed below is the status Of the police and the fire
department as of June 30, 1971:
'Fire Department
There were no changes in personnel in the Fire Department for
the month Of June 1971. On June 30th there was one (1) vacancy
in the Fire Department.
Police Department
Name
David A. Sublett, Patrolman
Michael T. Campbell, Patrolman
George D. Watts, Patrolman
Albert N. Childress, Patrolman
Eathleen A. Klare, Clerk-St,no.
Jach Nynn, Patrolman
Ramey A. Bower, Patrolmau
Thomas O. Hichman, Patrolman
Hired Resiqned
.June 1, 1971
June 7, 1971
April 26, 1971 June 11, 1971
June 14, 1971
July 1, 1970 June 10, 1971
June 21, 1971
· June 23, 1971
June 24, 1971
Ending June, 1971 (22 vacancies)'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian Fo Btrst.
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
478
BONDS*CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Auditor submitted the
following report transmitting o Resolution providing for the sole of $9,000,000 of
Public Improvement Bonds and a Resolution providing for n special meeting of Council
to be held on Mednesdoy,.Angust ISo 1971, at 12:00 noon, to receive bids for said
bonds, said Resolutions baying been prepared by the City Attorney, wbo hms filed ia
writing with the records of the Council his approval of the form of the bands and
coupons contained ia the first abovementioned Resolution:
*July 29, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and.
Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Attached hereto is a resolution providing for the sale of
$9,000,000.00 of Public Improvement Bonds; end, a resolution
providing fora special meeting of tbe Council to be held on
Wednesday, August IR, 1971 at 12:00 noon to receive bids for
said bonds.
This would be the final sale of bonds for Public Im-
provements authorized by the voters in a referendum in May,
1967.
Sale Of these bonds are necessary for the continuance Of
the CJty*s Capital Improvements Program.
Adoption of these resolutions is recommended.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor#
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in th~ report of the City Auditor
and offered the folloming Resolution providing for the sale, execution, form and
details, advertisement of sale, delivery and tax levy to pay $9,000,000 of bonds of
ithe City Of Roanoke. being a part of $16,900,000 of bonds authorized at an election
held ou the 2nd day of May, 1967, to provide funds to defray the cost of needed
permanent public improvements, to-mit: additions, betterments, extensions and im-
provements of and to its municipal airport, its public buildings, including its
;uniclpal building, fire stations, refuse disposal facilities and service center, its
.ublic streets, ~ghways and bridges, its system of atorm sewers and storm drains, its
~ublic schools and for projects authorized pursuant to Article 7, Chapter 1, Title 35.
f the Code of Virginia, as amended:
(~19800) A RESOLUTION providing for the sale, execution, form and details,
advertisement of sale, delivery and tax levy to pay $9,000,000 of bonds of the City
Roanoke, being u part of.$16,900,000 of bonds authorized at an election bold on the
2nd day Of May, 19~?, to provide funds to defray the cost of needed permanent public
improvements, to-wit: additions, betterments, extensions and improvements of and to
its municipal airport, its public buildings, including its municipal building, five
stations, refuse disposal facilities and service center, its public streets, highways
and bridges, its system Of storm sewers and storm drains, its public schools and for
479
~roJects. outborlzed pursuant to Article ?, Chapter 1, Title 36, of the Code of
Virginia, us amended.
(For full text of Resolution, see ResolutionBook No. 35~ page 43g,)
Mr. Nbeeler. moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follonlng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk, Taylor..Thonas, Trout. Nheeler end Mayor
Nebber ........................ ~ .......... T.
NAYS: None ....................O, .
Dr. Taylor then offered the follonin9 Resolution providing for a special
meeting of Council to be held on Mednesday, August 18, 1971, at 12:00 o'clock, noon:
(~19801) A RESOLUTION providing for a Special Meeting of the Council to
be held on Nednesday, August lO. 1971, at 12:00 o'clock, Noon.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Dook No. 35, page 443.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber ..... ~ .... ~ ................. 7.
NAYS: None .............O.
REPORTS DF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
TAXES-LICENSES: Ordinance No. 19790, amending and reordainln9 Sec. 29,
City license - Issuance of plate, tag or decal, Sec. 31. City license - Period for
which plates, tags or decals nay he used, and.Sec. 35. City license = Expiration,
newal, Chapter 1, Traffic Cqde, Title XVlll, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of The Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, providing for the payment Of the personal
property tax prior to issuance of the city decal or license tag and providing for
the expiration date of such decal or license tag, having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and lald over, was again before the body, Mr.
Thomas offering the following for its second readtng and final adoption:
(~19790) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 29, City license - Issuan
of plate, tag or decal, Sec. 31. City license - Period for which plates, tags, or
decals may be used, Sec. 35. City license - Expiration; reneual, of Chapter 1, Traffi(
Code, Title XVIII, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
as amended, providing for the payment of the personal property tax prior to issuance
Of the City decal or license tag and providin9 for the expiration date of such decal
or license tag.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 35, page 434.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
480
AYES: Wesseso Garland, Lisho Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Nebber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None~ .................0.,- ,
In tbJs connection. Mr. J. H. Johnson. City Treasurer~ appeared before
Council end presented certain mrittensuggestJons he has compiled over the years wit
regard to personal property taxation. ,
Ne. Llsk moved that the suggestions be referred to u committee composed of
Wessrs. Janes E. Care. Chairman, Lucy i. Hanson. V. Vernon Hicks, Percy T. Keeling,
James R. Sprinkle, J. Robert Thomas and J. S. Howard, Jr., for study, report and
recommendation to Council. The notion was seconded by Hr. Garland oud unanimously
adopted.
ZONING*SALE OF PRBP£RTY-SCROBLS-CITY GOVERNMENT: Council having directed
the City Attorneyto prepare the proper measure initiating a-proposal to amend and
reordain Title XV, Construction, Chapter 4.1, Zoning, of The Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the rezoning of all those certain lots and propertlea
located in Block 5, Sheet No. 2 S. W,, Map of.the City's official Survey, from C-3,
Central Husiness District, to C-4, Central Business District Expansion Area, and
referrtn9 said proposal to the City Plnooin9 Commission for reviem and recommendation
to Council, he presented same; whereupon, Mr, Trout offered the followiog Resolution:
(~19H02) A RESOLHTION initiating a proposal to amend and reordain Title
XV, Construction, Chapter 4,1, Zoning, of the Codeof the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, by the rezooing of certain property situate in the City of Roanoke, and
referring said proposal to the City Planning.Commission for review and recommendatio~
to the Council.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 35, page 444.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, List, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None .........~ ..... O.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure providing for the disestablishment of the Board of Health as a
separate board or agency of the City of Roanoke, he presented same; whereupon. Hr.
Trout moved that. the loll,win9 Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19803) AN ORDINANCE providing for the disestablishment of the Board of
Health as a separate board or agency of the City as heretofore provided in Chapter 1,
of Title lllI, of the Code of the City of R,an,he, 1956, as amended; amending and
r,ordaining Sec. 1, Chapter 1, Title Ifil, of said Code, relating to the City*s
H,par*men*of Health, Sec. 2, Chapter 1, Title IIII, of said Code, setting out the
composition of the City's Department of Health. and See. 11, Chapter l, Title IIII.
of said Code, settfog out the duties of the Commissioner of Health of said City;
emending said chapter end title by making p.rovlsions applicable upon. the operation
or the City's District Health Doper*went by the SU~ Doper*merit'of Health, pursusnt t
§ 32-40,2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; amending sold chapter and title
by the addition of new sections codifying into ~uid chapter the provisions of
Ordinance No. 17965 creating a District Health Department and providing for its
operation by the State Department of Health; and repealing Sections 4, T, fl, 9 sad
10, of Chapter 1, Title XIII, of the Code of ~he City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to the Hoard of Health os heretofore provided in said chapter and title.
· HEREAS, the City Manager, by written report of July 12~ 1971. to the
Council has recommended the disestablishment of the Hoard of Health as heretofore
provided for in Chapter 1, Title XIII, of the Code of the City of. RoaD*kO, 1956, us
amended, and the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, empowering the City to provide
a Department of Health, to have the powers of a local Board of Health under the
general law; and
~HEREAS, Council concurs in that recommendation and, in so doing, deems it
necessary and advisable to make provisions that when the health functions of the Cioi
discharged and administered by a District Health Department such as is authorize(
by § 32-40.2 (a) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, mhich is operated by the
State Department of Health as provided by § 32-d0.2 of said Code of Virginia,
said District Health Department and the Commissioner of Health in charge of the Same
shall be charged with all the duties and responsibilities and shall have all of the
power and authority imposed or conferred upon the City*s Department of Health and the
Clty*s Comn~sfoner Of Health, respectively, in Chapter 1, Title XIII, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended.
THEREFORE, DE 1T ORDAINED by the Council Of the City of Roan,Re that the
Hoard of Health heretofore provided for in Chapter 1, Title XIlI, of the Code Of the
City of Roanoke, 1956. us amended, he discontinued and disestablished as a separate
board or agency Of the City, and that 5e~. 1. Denerally, Sec. 2. Composition and
Sec. 11. Same - Powers and duties qeuerally, of Chapter 1, Department of Health, of
Title XIII. Health, of the Code of the City Of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, be and are
hereby amended and reordained, to read and provide us follows:
Sec. 1. Department of health
The department of health heretofore provided for in
section 1, Chapter 1. Title XIIX, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke. 1956, shall continue* to be composed as herein-
after set out in this'chapter, and invested with the powers
and duties ~f~ein enumerated and with. those conferred upon
said department and its officials by the general law of the
Commonwealth as from time to time amended, and said department
of health shall have all Of the powers of a local board of
health under the general law, os provided in subsection (26)
of Section I of the Roanoke Charter of 1952. Upon the creation
of a district health department for said city pursuant to the
provisions of 8 32-40.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
all of the duties and responsibilities h(~in or otherwise imposed
upon said department of health and all of the power and authority
herein or otherwise vested in or conferred upon said department
of health shall devolve upon and be discharged by said district
health department, which may be operated by the State Health
Department, as provided by general lam.
482
Sec. 2. C, Bp, sitS,no
The depsrtment of health of the City shall be composed of n
commissioner of health and such assistants amd employees as may,
frae time to time, be authorized by the Council or provided by
the State Health Department.
Sec. 11. Commissioner of health - Powers and duties qenerally~
it shall be the duty of the commissioner of health to
enforce al/ the health provisions of this Code. and other
health ordinances of the city, and the'health lams of the
Commonwealth and the rules and regulations of the State Hoard
of Health, and he shall make such reports to the State Board
be made by local departments of health or as may be required
by the Council. and to perform all and such other duties as
may. from time to time, be lawfully imposed upon said commissioner
of health. The commissioner of health shall hare charge of, super-
vise and control the employees of the department of health,
HAan the city shall bare created a district health department
which shall be operated by the State Health Hepartment pu~nnt to
the provisions of 8 32-40.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, all of the powers, duties and responsibilities herein or
othermlse imposed upon the commissioner of health shall devolve upon
and be discharged by the director or other person duly appointed
to ~uaoe and operate such district health department, ~ich persoo
shall have and possess all of the power and authority herein or
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the provisions of Ordinance No. 17965, adopted
January 22, 1968, be codified into Chapter 1. Department of Health, Title Xlll, of th
Code of the'~i~y of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, as Sec. 2.1, subsections (a) and (b),
Sec. 2.1. District health department; operation.
(a) There shall be a district health department within
the City of Roanoke, pursuant to section 32-40.2 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, the boundaries of such district
health department to cotncoide with the corporate limits Of
(b) The district health department herein provided shall
be operated by the State Department of Health of the Common-
wealth of Virginia pursuant to the lams and ordinances applicable
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Sec. 4. Powers and duties; compensation; etc.,
Sec. 7. Hoard of health - Composition. etc., Sec. B. Same - Term of office of ~enbers
of Health Title XIII. Health, of the Code of the City of Boanohe, 1956, as
amended, be and are hereby REPEALED.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
Webber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None ................. O.
MOTION5 AND BISCELLA~qEOUS HHSINESS: NONE.
There being no further'business, Rayor Webber declared the meeting adJourne~
APPROVED
Mayor
483
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, August g, 1971,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday~ August 9, 1971, at 2 pome, the regular
meeting houro math Mayor Mebb~r presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A, Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James Oe Trout, Vincent S. Nheeler and Mayor Roy Lo
Nebber
ABSENT: None
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F, Hirat, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened mith. a prayer by ~e Reverend B. L.
Nozingo, Baptist. Supply Pastor.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
~TREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having, set a public bearing for 2 p.m., Monda:
August 9, 1971, on the request of Ernest H, Goad, Gertrude B. Goad and Lillinn
Hogan, that a certain unopened and unused alley approximately 12 feet in width and
running in an easterly direction 120 feet, more or less, from the east side of Fifth
Street, 5. E~, and lyino between the north boundary of Lot 5, Map of New York
Building and Improvement Company, Official Tax No. 4021212 and the south boundary of
Lot 5, Section 7, Map of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company, Official Tax No.
4021211, b e vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"July H, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request Mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of July 7, 1971.
Mr. George I. Vogel, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planntno Commission and presented maps delineating the
alley the petitioners were requesting for closure. He noted that
the petitioners are owners of the abutting properties and that the
alley is a paper street.
The Planning Commission members expressed no opposition to
the alley closure.
The Planning Director noted that this alley closure would
have no adverse effects on the general area.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by
John H. Parr*ti
Chairman*
484
'The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the alley in question and the neighboring property
and are onanfwooaly of the opinion that no Inconvenience would result to any Jndi-
ridual or to the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing the alley.
Hr, George I. Vogel. II; Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
)efore Council in support of the request of'his clienta,
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing the
alley. Mr. Trout moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(SLOB04) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that unopened and unused alley approximately 12 feet in width end running in an
easterly direction 120 feet, more or less, from the east side Of Fifth Street. S. R..
and lying between the north boundary of Lot 5, Hap of New York Building and Improve-
Company, Official City Tax No. 4021212, and the south boundary of Lot 5, Section
7. Rap of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company, Official City Tax No. 4021211, all
shown on the Official Tax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and
being in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
WBEREAS, Ernest B. Goad, Gertrude B. Goad end Lillian B. Hogan. all of the
abutting property owners of said alley, have heretofore filed their petition before
the Council of tho City of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with law, requesting
the Council to permanently vacate, discontinue and close said alley above described,
of the filing of which petition due-notice was given to the public as required by
law; and
RHEREAS, in accordance with the prayers of said petition, viewers were
appointed by Council on the 5th day of April, 1971, to view the property and to
report in writing whether in their opinion any, and if any, what, inconvenience would
result from permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing said alley; and
RREREAS, it appears from the written report of the viewers, which was
filed with the City Clerk, that no inconvenience would result either to any lndividua
to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing end closing said alley; and
WBEREAS, Council at its meeting on April 5, 1971, referred the petition
the City Planning Commission, which Commission by its report filed with Council
July O, 1921, recommended that the petition to vacate, discontinue and close said
alley above described, be approved, subject to the retention by the City of any
utility easements; and
WBEREAS, a public hearing was held on the question before the Council
lis regular meeting on August 9, 1971, after due and timely notice thereof
published in The Roanoke World News, at which hearing all parties in interest
and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question; and
485
WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing. Council considers that no inconvenience
will result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontin-
uing and closing the said alley, us applied for by the petitioners, subject to the
retention by the City of any public utility easements. ~nd that, accordingly, said
alley should be permanently closed,
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAIHEO by the Council of the City of Roanoke that all
that unopened and unused ~lley approximately 12 feet in width and running in an
easterly direction 120 feet, more or less, from the east side of Fifth Street, S, £.,
and l~lng betmeen the north boundary of Lot $, Map of Hew York Building and Improve-
neat Company, Official City Tax No. 4021212,. and the sout~ boundary of Lot 5.
Section ?o Eap of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company, Official City Tax No.
4021211, all as shown on the Official Tax Appraisal Rap of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, be, and it hereby is, permanently vacated, discontinued and closed; and
that all right, title and interest of the City of Roanoke and of the public in and
the sane be, and they hereby are, released insofar as the Council of the City of
Roanoke is empowered so to do, except that a~y public utility easements located
therein are hereby reserved by the City.
DE 1T FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be. and he hereby
directed to mark "permanently vacated" on said alley 'on all maps and plats on file
in his office on which said alley is shown, referring to the hook and page of
Ordinances and Resolutions of 'the Council of the City of Roanoke wherein this Ordi-
shall he spread.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of the Council deliver to the Clerk
of the Hustings Court for th~ City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this
Ordinance in order that the Clerk of said Court may make proper notation on all
maps or plats recorded in his office upon which are shown said alley, as provided
by law, and that, if s~ requested by any party in interest, he may record the same
in the deed book in his office, indexing ~he same in the name of the City of
Roanoke as grantor and in the name Of any party in interest who may request it as
grantee.
The motion was seconded by Mr. #heeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Hebber 7.
NAYS: Hone,-- O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, August
g, 1971, on the request of Mr. C. Ao Kurim and Mr. J. L. Meador, that property
located on Fallon Avenue, S. £., described as Lots I - 0, inclusive, Section 5,
Parkview Court, Official Tax Nos. 4311101 - 4311108, inclusive, be rezoned from RG-I
General Residential District, .to RG-2, General Residential District, the matter was
before the body.
486
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the foil*ming
report recommending that the reqnest be granted:
#July 8, 1971
The Honorable Roy L, ~ebber, Mayor
and Members o! City Council
Roan*he, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request uss considLred by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of July 7, 1971.
Mr. Richard Cranwell, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Plnnnino Commission and stated that the petitioner plans
to construct un addftlonnl 4 apartment StructnFf~ mith 12 units each.
He noted that the combined total would be 96 apartment units for the
site in question. Finally. Hr. Cranmell ~ated that this parcel is
adjacent to the nam shopping center under construction opposite
Fallon Park.
Mr. Boynton. member cf the Planning Commission. questioned the
general problem of access in the area. The Planning Director n~ ed
that a portion of 21st Street and Montcloir Avenue are paper streets
and posed problems of access to the general area.
Mr. Lamrence. member of the Planning Commission. questioned the
size of the parcel in question and the numbers of units that could bo
constructed on it under the RG-2 designation. The Planning Director
noted that the site area is 2.37 acres and can accommodate 103 housing
units.
After due considoration of this request, u motion was made.
duly seconded and unanimously approved recommending to City Council
to grant this request.
Sincerely.
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
Hr. C. Richard Cranmell. Attorney. representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezontng. Dr. Taylor
moted that the foil*ming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(mlgflo$) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2. of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1936. as amended, and Sheet No. 431. Sectional 1966
Zone Hap. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
RflEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the C~ty of Roanoke
to have Lots I - 0. inclusive. Section 3. Parkviem Court. Official Tax Nos. 4311101
4311108. inclusive. Fez*ned from RG-I. General £esidential District. to RG-2.
General Residential District; and
WHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended ~hat the hereinafter
described land be Fez,ned from RG-I. General Residential District. to RG-2. General
Residential District; and
WHEREAS. the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1'. Title XV. of The Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1936. as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; amd
MIEREAS, the herring es provided for in said notice Was held on the 9th
duy of August, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Rounohe, at mhic!
hearing oil parties in interest and citizens mere given an opportunity to be heard
both for end ogoinst the proposed ~ezoniog~ and
WREREAS, this Council. niter considering the evidence os herein provided
is of the Opinion that t~e hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that TJtl
IV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of The Code of the City of goanohe. 1956. as amended,
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 431 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rep, City of
Roanoke. be amended in the following particular .and no other, viz.:
Property located on Fallon Avenue, S. E., described as Lots 1 - O,
inclusive. Section S. Parkviem Court. designated on Sheet 431 of the Sectional lg66
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 4311101 - 4311108, inclusive, be.
and is hereby changed from RG-I. General Residential HistFict, to RD-2. General
Residential District.. and that Sheet No. 431 of the aforesaid map be changed in
this respect.
The notion was seconded by IF. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
A¥£S: Messrs. Garland. LUsh, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ...................... Oo
ZONING: Council hav~ng set a public bearing for 2 p.m., Monday, August
9, 1971, On the request of Mrs.' Ethel* M. Radford, that 7.38 acres of land bounded
oo the northeast bY Miller Street. N. M.. and on the west and south by Peters
Creek, described as Official Tax No..2720105, be rezoned from RS-O, Single-Family
Residential District, tO RD-2o General Residential District, the matter mas
before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning CommisSion submitted the following
report reconmendJog that the request be granted:
'July 8, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission et its regular meeting of July 7. 1971.
HF. James H. Fulghum, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and spohe in favoF of rezoning the
7.38 acre site generally bounded by Miller Street and Peters Creek
from a RS£3 to a RD-2 designation in order to permit the construction
of apartments. In support of the petition, Mr. Fulghum noted that
an adjacent parcel of land had been rezoned io RD-2 and these apart-
ments were presently under construction. A.site plan of the pro-
posed apartments was introduced.
YF. Griffin, Assistant Planning DirectoF, refeFred to a study by
the D. S. Army Corps of Engineers which showed the area as lying within
the Intermediate Regional Floodline of Peters Creek and therefore
susceptible to flooding at least every 100 years. He further
suggested that the proposal be either tabled or denied and a com-
prehensive evaluation of floodlands within the City be undertaken with
an eye toward adopting flood plain regulations. After lengthy
discussion, the Commission stated it would favor a determination of
future policy mith respect to flood plain areas. It mas further noted
that the petitioner would experience undue hardship if bis rezoning
4-~7
requeat wss denied after e slmllsr request had been approved slightly
more then n~yeor earlier.
After due consideration of this request n motion was madee duly
seconded add approved with n vote of 4 ayes nnd 3 nays recommending
to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parfait by L.
John fl. Parfait
Chairmsn~
The Assistant Planning Director appeared before Council sad advised that
this property ia prone to flooding.
Mr. Janes H. Fulghum, Jr** Attorney. representing the petitioner, appears
before Council in support of the request of his client and advised that the
property has been built up to street level to prevent p~ssible flooding.
No one appearing in opposit!on to the request for rezoning. Mr. LisR
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n19806) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet ~o. 2?2. Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
lie WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
have
R£GINNING at a point on the west side of Miller Street. N. #..
at a point betmeen the property of Ethel a. Radford and Emmett
Lindsey; thence S. I1° 2S~' E. 112.0H ft. to a point; thence in
an arc With a radius of 496.26' 30D,82 ft. to a point; thence
4?° 05' 30" E. 460 fi, to a point mhere Millet Street crosses
Peters Creek; thence following Peters Creek as it meanders,
several courses and distances, a total distance of 1380.5 ft. to
a point; thence N. 70° 34' 30" E. alan9 the property line of
Emmett #, Lindsey. a distance of 326.39 ft. to the pLACE OF
BEGINNING, and containing 7.38 acres, more or less, and being as
shown on a map made by T. P. Parker, State Certified Engineer,
dated August 25. 1970. and bounded on the northeast by Miller
described as Official Tax No. 2720105,
rezoned from RS-3, Single=Family Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential
District; and
I~HEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinaftel
described land be resorted from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-2,
General Residential District; and
RHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, hare been published and
msted as required and for the time provided by said sectionl and
I~HEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 9th
lay of August, 1971, 'at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of ,Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
489
MHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence us herein
]provided. is of the opinion that the hereinufter described land should be rezoned~
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
that Title XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as
amended, rela~in9 to Zoning, aid Sheet No. 272 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap, City
of Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located REDINNINO at a point on the west side of. Miller
Street. N. M. at a point betmeen the property of Ethel M.
Rsdford and Emmett M. Lindsey; thence S. 11° 25~° E. 112,88 ft.
to a point; thence in an arc with a radius of 496,26' 30H.62 ft.
to a point; thence S. 47o 05' 30* E. 460 ft. to a point mhere
Miller Street crosses Peters Creek;.thence folloming Peters Creek
ns Jt meanders, several courses and distances, a total distance
of 1360.5 ft. to a point; thence N. 76o 34* 30* E. along the
property line of Emmett M. Liudsey, a distance of 326.39 it, to
thePLACE OF BEGINNING, and containing 7.39 acres, more or less,
and being as shown on a map made by T. P. Parker, State Certified
Engineer, dated August 25, 1970, and bounded on the northeast
by Hiller Street, N. M., and on the vest and south by Peters
Creek, designated on Sheet 272 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 2720105. be. and is hereby,
changed from RS-3 Single-
Family Residential District. to RD-2, General Residential District, and that Sheet
No. 272 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs~ Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
lebber ....................... 7.
NAYS: None .........O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, August
9, 1971, on the ~equest of Mr. Morton Rosenberg, et al., that property located in
the 3100 block of Melrose Avenue, N. W., described as the westerly parts of Lots
I and 2, and the southerly part of Lot 2, Section 1. Map of R. H. Angell ~ddition,
Official Tax No. 2530101, be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District,
and RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, the
was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the followin9
report recommending that the request be granted:
"July fl, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered before the Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of July ?, 1971.
Mr. Harvey S. Lutins, attorney for the petitioner, noted that
Mr. Darvin plans to purchase this parcel from the petitioners
(Morton Rosenberg) for use as a new repair shop to serve as an
accessory to the main operation.
Mrs. Baker, a local resident, noted that she was not opposed
to the rezoning but rather to the noise factor existing in the general
area. Mr. Lutins noted that the address system would be located at
the front center of the structure. Mr. Parrott, Chairman of the
Planning Commission, said that this problem of noise ~as not within
~490
the pnrvieu of the Plannleg Commission, and observed that. this
proposed addition mould, In fact, move the noise factor a
greater distance from her home.
Mr. Hoynton, member of the Planning Commission, Inquired ir
the proposed use in fact represented a proper C-2 zoning design-
ation. He noted that the Planning Comzlasion is much concerned
uith the no~se problem existing in this area.
The Planning Director noted that n C-2 use generally serves
as a viable buffer beta,em a major artery and a residential area,
Mr. Lawrence, member of the Planning Commission. stated that
he thought the lot was ideal for a commercial use.
After dna consideration Of this request a motion mas made,
duly seconded and unanimously, approved to recommend to City
Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Mr. Harvey S. Lutins. Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that the folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(nlgD07) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 253, Sectional 1965
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to bay. that property located in the 3100 block of Melrose Avenue, N. W.. described
as the westerly parts of Lots I and 2 and the southerly part of Lot 2, Section 1,
Map of R. D. AnD.Il Addition, Official Tax No. 2530101. rezoned from C-I, Office and
Institutional District, and RD. Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General Commer-
cial District; and
WHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be renamed from C-l. Office and Institutional District, and RD.
Duplex Residential District. to C-2. General Commercial District; and
WHEREAS. the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the
iCity of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and posted
us required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 9th
day of August, 1971, at 2p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke. at which
hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be beard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
491,
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of.the City of Roanoke that Title
IV, Chapter 4,1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, es amended.
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 253 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rep, City of Roanoke
be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located in the 3100 block of Melrose Avenue, No W** described us
the mesterly parts of Lots I and 2 nnd the southerly part of Lot 2, Section 1, Map of
R. H. Aug,Il Addition, designated on Sheet 253 or the Sectional 1966 Zone Hap, City
of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 2530101, be, and is hereby, changed from C-l, Office
and Institutional District, and RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General ·
Commercial District, and that Sheet No. 253 of the aforesaid map be changed in this
respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Rayor
Webber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None .................O.
TAXES: Mr. J. B. Johnson, City Treasurer, appeared before Council and read
prepared statement requesting that Council seriously consider amending Ordinance No~
19742 by changing thc penalty dates contained therein to conform with those listed on
the 1971 real estate tax bills which were mailed in March, that the dates listed on
the tax bills are April 5, June 5, September 5, and December 5, advising that Council
might like to consider postponing any penalty increase until January 1, 1972, in ordel
to conform with the new increased interest dates mbich cannot become effective until
January 1, 1972, and at the same time Council may also like to consider whether or no~
ilncreased interest revenue which they have added to the 6% interest which is now bean
computed on all delinquent taxes to 0~ beginning January 1, 1972, will produce a
sufficient amount of revenue to justify the extra time that will be involved in cos-
puting the interest at two different rates.
After a discussion Of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be
referred to the City Auditor for study, report and recommendation toCouncil by the
regular meeting Of the body on Monday, August 16, 1971. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of'a communication from the Appalachian Pomer Company,
transmitting a list Of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
July, 1971, mas before Council.
Hr. Wheeler Roved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTOJL~Ey: Copy of a communication from the State
Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. R. L. Lawrence, Commonwealthts Attorney, advising
that, subject to the concurrence of Council, the Compensation Board approved the
)romotton of Mr. Robert F. Rider at an annual rate of $10,400.00 and set the vacant
492
posJtloe left by him at $9,000.00, approved ua additional assistant ut $90000.00 and
approved $160,00 for the purchase of a desk and chairs, was before the .body,
Mr. Lick moved that Council concur in the communication from the State
Compensation Board fad offered the follo~in9 emergeaoy Ordinance:
(m198Og). A~i ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n22, 'Commoawemlth*s
Attorney,' of the .1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 448.)
Mr. Lick moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lick, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ..................................
NAYS: None ................... O.
AUDITORICM-COLISECM: A communication from Mr. Namer N. Dalhouse, Presidel
Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce, expressing appreciation for funds included in the
1971-72 fiscal year budget for expansion of the Metropolitan Roanoke Convention
Bureau, advising that it would be very helpful if the city support could be disbursed
fairly promptly, proposing a procedure for accounting to the city and welcoming
thoughts and suggestions thereon, was before Council.
In this connection, the City Manager submi~ed the following report with
regard to the establishment of a Convention Bureau within the Chamber of Commerce,
advising that since Council bas already provided for the appropriation of funds, it
appears to be in order that the city proceed with its indicated participation, that
special account will be set up within the funds of the Chamber of Commerce for the
maintenance and records of the Convention Bureau account and that the city make pay.
meat to this account not less than semi-annually and in advance of the period for
mhich payment is made:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 9, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council referred to me for discussion with the
appropriate interested parties the matter of the proposal by
the Roanoke Valley Chamber Of Commerce Of the establishment
of a Convention Bureau within the Chamber. The City Council
in the 1971-72 budget appropriated $19,650 for a participating
share in this oper~ ion which the committee of business
interests estimated would cost $27,6§0 for a full first year.
I have discussed the proposal with those persons involved
in formulating and submitting it to the City Couocil. Taking
note that the Council has already provided for the appropriation
of funds, ! would advise that it appears to me to be in order
that the Cityproceed mith it~ indicated participation.
A burean of this type cam be of considerable value to the
City and to the facilitating of tbe development and use of both
public and private facilities. Details.of costs, procedures
and methods of operation can become better refined only through
experience mbicb would be gained after some several moutba and
up to a year of initial operation.
493
I em advised that ut the outset 8 special account mill be
se~ up uithin the funds of the Chamber of Commerce for the
maintenance Bed records of the Convention Bureau account. It
mould be recommended that the City make payment to this account
mithlu the Chamber of Commerce not less than semi-annually and
in advance of the period for which payment is made.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Llsk moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager along with
the City Auditor and the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce for implementation. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: A Resolution adopted by the Kiwanis Club of Roanoke
at its meeting on July 21, 1971, urgln9 Council to provide increased parking facilitie
the Roanoke Civic Center by utilizin9 portions of land which is located nearby,
before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the Resolution be referred to the Roanoke Civic Center
Advisory Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY XN RO~qOKE VALLEY: Mrs. Elizabeth E.
Traylor, Director of Educatton/FYHS, Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley,
appeared before Council and read a prepared statement concerning the use Of the
Harrison Elementary School as the site for operation of an additional Day Care Center
as provided for in the 1971-72 budget of the Full Year Head Start Program under TAP.
In this connection, Mrs. Traylor also presented a petition signed by 214
citizens of the Lincoln Terrace community and day care parents in support of the re=
quest of TAP.
With reference to the matter, MFS. C. L. McCeorge appeared before the body
and read a prepared statement endorsing the request of TAP for a day care center at
the Harrison Elementary School.
After a discussion of the request, Hr. Wheeler moved that the matter be
farted to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council. The
seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
TAX£S-DOGS: A communication from the Roanoke Eennel Club, Incorporated,
conceroiug the oew Dog Ordinance, requesting that Council reconsider the section pro-
hibiting dogs in public halls, the market square, office buildings or stores--dogs
leashed, muzzled or otherwise controlled not accepted, and remove paragraph (b) Of
Section 3, Chapter 2, Dogs, Yitle XXI, Animals, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as amended, was before the' body.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. R. P. Dames, Jails Superintendent,
Department of Welfare and Institutions, addressed to Mr. Kermit E. Allman, Sheriff,
advising of an inspection of the Roanoke City Jail on June 16, lgYl, was before CouncJ
494
Ur, Thomas moved that the communication be received end filed. The motion
wis seconded by Mr. Trout Bed unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-DEPARTMeNT OF PUBLIC MELFAR£: The City Manager submitted the
following report recommending that $59,848.50 be appropriated to Personal Services
under Section sa?, "Poblic A~sistance,# of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds in
connection math state recommended changes in the personnel listing of the Department
of Public Melfare:badget:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 9, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
RoanoRe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Commonuealth of Virginia Department of Welfare and
Institutions, in its annual instructions to Directors of
Public Welfare with regard to preparation of their local
annual budget requests, recommended that the various localities
incorporate within their budget proposal adequate employees to
permit separation of the inactions of eligibility and services.
This separation would be accomplished primarily through the
establishmeot of positions for eligibility technicians and
clerical personnel to determine initial and continuing eligibility
for assistance. Hiring of these additional technicians would
eliminate.the necessitT of casenoskers having to perform time
consuming paperwork functions and would allow them more time for
evaluotiog clients* needs and social worker activities. The
State Department of'Welfare and Instltutiens, as an encouragment
to the localities to accomplish the above*mentioned change,
promised 80 percent reimbursement to those localities which
achieve complete separation of these activities. Localities
failing to provide complete separation will continue to be
reimbursed at the current rate of 60 percent.
The initial Relfare Department budget'proposal as submitted
to the City Auditor and the City Manager included 30 additional
employee positions to meet State criteria for this current fiscal
year. This budget as initially submitted totalled in excess of
$9 million although the City*s share of that $9 million was less
as n result Of the §0--20 reimbursement ratio rather thao the
60--40 ratio. In the budget review process, in an effort to
reduce the Public Assistance budget, the City Manoger*s office
revised the Public Assistance proposal so as to have the 30 nam
positions become effective as of January 1. 1972. at which time
as the State tares over funding Of the categorical assistance
programs. Th~ proposal, as approved by City Council for this
year's budget, was forwarded to the Department of Welfare and
Institutions as the City of Roanoke Public Assistance budget.
The State Department of Melrose and Institutions by letter
dated June 4. 1971. acknomledged having reviewed the City's
budget proposal for 1971-72 and submitted a counter proposal,
a copy of which I have included for Couucil*s review. The
State. recognizing that it would be impossible to employ and
train new washers in a 6-mouths period between January 1, 1972
and July 1, 1972, established a new policy whereby localities
which require more than lO nam positions to achieve separation
of eligibility and service functions could obtain 80 percent
reimbursement for administrative expenditures when there is an
approved plan to phase in the needed number of positions at a
reasonable rate of progression, thereby baying able personnel
trained and in place as of January 1, 1972.
After reviewing this proposal uith the Director of Welfare,
Riss Bernice Jones, it was my full intention to request City ·
Council to revise the fiscal year 1971-72 Public Assistance budget
so as to begin hiring of these technicians and their supervisory
personnel in July of this year. Unfortunately, due to the press
of the many activities chring late June of this year, this item
was overlooked and Council was not consulted.
495
The same letter of Budget instructions from the Department
of ~elfare and Institutions stated that the State Board could
approve the use of a local classification and compensation plan
only when the local specifications have qualifications at least
as high or higher than those comparable State classes and the
local salary ranges hare minimums at least ns high or higher
than the comparable State ranges. By letter dated July 26, 1971,
the State Department of Welfare and Institutions called to our
attention four instances where our local ranges do not meet the
requirement for having minimums as high as those in the State
plan. They are:
Local CJassificatio~ Rinfmum Hinimum
Social Service Superintendent $12,215 $9,360
Senior Caseworker Supervisor 10,275 9.060
Casework Supervisor 8,730 7.920
Casework Aide 4,190 4,080
By a second letter dated August 4, 1971. from Br. B. L.
Lukhard, Assistant Director, Department of lelfare and Insti- ·
tutions, abe Roanoke City Auditor was mottled that should we
not comply with the above-mentioned enumerated conditions.
not only would we not obtain BO percent reimbursement but
the City would lose its 60 percent reimbursement for adminis-
trative costs.
It would be proposed, should City Council concur, to revise
the 1971-72 Personnel Listing of the Public Assistance budget to
phase in the nam positions during the remainln9 five months of this
calendar year. We would propose that City Council approve the
advancement of these positions so as to hire 10 persons in
August 1971; 5 ~rsnns in September 1971; 5 persons in October 1971;
5 persons in November 1971, and the remaining 5 perso~ in December
1971. This would authorize all of the additional spaces prior to
the end Of the calendar year.
It would further be proposed that the City comply with the
State Departmelt of Welfare and Institutions' letter of July 26,
1971, by remoting the positions of the Social Service Superintendent
and the Senior Casework Supervisor from the Classified Pay scale
listing and adding them to the Council controlled Cnclassified Pay
listing. The Casework Supervisor would remain in the Classified
Plan but the plan revised by changing from an 'A* scale (existing)
to a *D* scale (proposed) as shown below. These positions would
be as follows:
Monthly Rate Annual hate
Social Service Superintendent $1,020.00 $12,240.00
Senior Casework Supervisor 858.00 10,296.00
A $660 $690 $720 $755 $790
Casework Supervisor B $730 $765 $805 $805 $885
It would be proposed to establish the positions of Casework
Aides at a training level and request permission from the State
Board to approve the filling of these positions at this entry level
for one year. It would further be proposed to pay these aides
$525 per month for Six months then increase them to a second
training level of $340 per month. We would propose to convert
and raise the positions to the State minimums for Casework Aides
after one year's training.
I nm attaching for City Councilts review and consideration
n tabulation of one month's (September 1971) anticipated expen-
ditures showing both the present program with 60 percent reim-
bursement and the revised program with BO percent reimbursement.
You will note that during the month shown the City's share will
be appreciably less under this proposed revision to the 1971-72
budget ordinance. City Council should be aware that by implement-
ing this program during the remainder of this calendar year the
overall personal services costs for the fiscal year will increase
by $59,649.80 while the City*s pro-rata share of the total budget
account should decrease by approximately $45,000.00 for the first
six months due to the State's increase in reimbursement to BO
percent.
A revised personnel recap listing showing these changes is
attached for City Council's review.
$030
$930
496 "'
The City Auditor has been tequested to prepare o budget
Ordinance increasing the Public Assfstsoce Department 37 budget
Object Code lO1, Personal Services by $$9,848.50 to accomplish
these changes.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Dirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
After · lengthy discussion of the proposal and requirements of the State
Department of Welfare and Institutions, the City Manager requested that action on the
matter be deferred one week in order Fur him to clarify certain aspects of the report
with the Director mr Public Welfare.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the CitT Manager
that the matter be deferred one meek. The motion was seconded by Hr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout called to the attention of Council that during a session of Urban
12 it was pointed out that $12 million bad been allocated for public welfare purposes
and raised the question as to what bas been done with this money.
Hr. LIsk moved that a communication be tranm~ted to the members of Urban
12 requesting information as to mhat has happened to the proportionate.share of the
City of Roanoke of the $12 million. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
DCDG£T-pOLIC£ DEPARTRENT-A1RPORT: Council having referred a report of the
City Manager in connection with estbblishing three positions deslguated as special
police officers to be used at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Aiport back to him fur
ifurther study and any suggestions he may have along the lines that said special
ipolice officers will be under the direction of the Police Department, the City
iManager submitted the following report recommending that these three positions be
designated within the Police Department budget in Pay Range 15 and that the title of
these positions be changed to Airport Police:
"Roanoke. Virginia
August 9, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your last meeting. August 2, I submitted a recommendation
as to the establishment of three positions to bear a new classifica-
tion title of Airport Special Police. As a result of the discussions.
the matter mas referred back to me for further consideration. I,
accordingly, report further.
Mhile continuing to feel that the more desirable arrangement
would be for the full assignment of these positions within the
Airport Department, I recognize certain practicalities at this time
and now would recommend that these three positions be designated
within the Police Department budget in Pay Range 15. All other
factors as to qualifications, uniform, duties and the such would
be judged to remain as described in the report to Council of last
week. The title of these positions would be proposed to be changed
from Airport Special Police to Airport Police. The duty hour and
the general coordination of coverage areas and certain specifics
of duty would be worhed out under the coordinated assistance o£ the
497
Airport Department. These personnel would be specifically
assigned to Airport duty nad W, aid be limited I, that terri-
tory end u, mid not be interchangeable for police assignment
elsewhere within the City.
It is recommended that u budget ordinance be authorized
for these three positions nnd me mould lime to proceed imme-
diatel! to seeh applications and make appointments as early
as practical.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. durst
Julian F. durst
City Manager?
Hr. Rheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the f, Il,ming emergency Ordinance amending Ordinance No, iq751,
prnvidin9 a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a hem Pay Plan, by adding to said Fay
Plan Code Position 7003.' Airport Police:
(~lgfl09)' A~ ORDINANC£ amending Ordinance No. 19TSI, heretofore adopted on
June 2fl, 1971. providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a nam Pay Plan. by
adding to said Pay Plan a new position of employment under the City Government; and
providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 449.l
Mr. Rheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, List. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................... 7.
NAYS: None ....................O.
Mr. Lisk then offered the f, Il,ming emergency Ordinance providing funds
for the establishment of the three positions design,ted as Airport Police:
(~lgfllO) ~ ORDIN~CE to amend and reordaio Section z45, 'P, lice,~ of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. 'and providin9 for an emergency.'
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 450.)
Mr. List moved the adoption of the Ordinance. ~he motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the f,Il,wing Vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Li~ Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
ARIMALS-DOGS-LICENS£S: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting a request from Mrs. Lela Spitz for the opportunity to appear before Council
concerning the licensing of cats, rabies control regarding cots and other susceptible
pet animals, improvements needed at the Roanoke City Dog Pound, arrangements for
handling citizen complaints, enforcement of Virgiuia*s antJcruelty laws and updating
the animal control Ordinances and enforcement procedures.
In this connection, Mrs. Lela Spitz.appeared before Council and read a pre-
pared statementrequesting that increased dog license fees be used to improve dog
pound facilities, that theCity of RoaaoMe make arrangements to handle citizen
498
complaints ·nd enforcement of the Virginia Anti-Cruelty.lams or pa7 the Humane Agent
for this purpose and thlt Council appoint · committee to update animal control
0rdfnances and enforcement,
Mr, Trout moved that the report of the City Manager and the statement read
by Mrs, Spitz be received and filed, The motion wes secondedby Mr, Link ·nd
unanimously adopted,
SE~£RS AND STROM DRAINS: Tbs City Manager aubmitted tbs following report
concerning an arrangement at the Sewage Treatment Plant whereby septic tank cleaning
tvuchs are pumped into the digesters at the Pleat, advising that the charge for this
service is 25 cents per 100 gallons and recommending that Council Indic·ts its con-
currence 'in · new schedule of fees at the rate of $6,00 per t~uck load up to 1,000
gallons per load and SO cents per 100 gallons above this ·mount per lo·d:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 9, 1971
Honorable #ayor and City Council
Ronnohe, Virginia
Centlemen:
The City for a number of ye·rs has had an arrangement at
.the Sewage Tree~ment Plant whereby septic tank cleaning trucks
are pumped into the digesters at the plant, In order to
accomplish thin an operator at the plant must quit pumping from
the primary tanks, switch over~ the outside connection, pump
out the tank truck, disconnect and then continue pumping from
the primary tanks.
The charge that has been rendered for this service is 25t
per 100 gallons. Since a charge is made, there is then the
procedure Of · cash or charge ticket which must be prepared in
duplicate.
· e are of the opinion that the present rate which was
established in 1954 is inconsistent with the cost to the City
to render this service considering the wear on the pumps,
hose, couplings and valves, the cost of invoicing and bookkeeping,
plus especially the operator*s time in hours and pounds that
are lost in pumping sludge from the tanks.
The fo~lowing Is same indication as to what is involved. Tank
trucks pumped since January 1, 1971 was 652. Twenty*four days of
June of this year there were 153 trucks pumped. The average pumpin9
time appears to be approximately 10 minutes. This means, based On
the above, that 20~ hours of sludge pumping time is lost from the
primary tanks during that period in the month of June. The time
used by the operator to accomplish all of this ia on the average of
25 minutes andin checkiog daily sheets atthe plant, it is noted
that on many days there are 5 to 7 tank trucks pumped in one shift.
This means that as much as three hours Of the operator*s time is
lost per day. This procedure is not beneficial to the plant
operation as it reflects back on sludge removal time and operations
in the plant. If ·11 of this sludge poundage is related to pounds
of volatile solids pumped and the number of cubic feet of digester
gas loss, this can result in some considerable sum of money over ·
period of a year.
It is recommended that the City Council indicate its con-
currence in a new schedule of fees which would be at the rate
of $6 per truck load up to 1,000 gallons per load and 50t per
100 gallons above this amount per load.
There Js no ordinance on the books covering the present rate,
as far as we can determine, but it is believed that it would he
appropriate for this to be established by the City Council and so
referred to the City Attorney.
Respectfully Submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
499
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager sod
offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(s19811) A~ ORDINANCE amending Chapter ?. Semers and Semsge RL~otal, of
Title XVII, Streets, Sidemalks nad Sewers, or the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
as amended, by the addition of a new section to be designated as Sec. 23, of said
chapter oud title, providing for certain charges to be paid for the pumping of sepal,
tnnh cleaning trnchs into the City*s Semoge Treatment Plant; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text, see Ordinance as recorded in Ordinance Rook No. 35,
page 450.)
MF. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. LJsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lid~, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ........... O.
CITY MANAG£R: The City Manager submitted the folloming report iuq~ing
as to mhether it is the wish of Council that each application for federal funds
either ~r new or assistin9 activities of materials be brought to Council when they
are in the preliminary application stage for specific concurrence:
'Roanoke, Virginia
August 9, 1971
Ronorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
We are from time to time, and whenever the opportunity
presents itself, making application for federal funds either
for new or assisting activities of materials, Some of these
are experimental because we do not knom whether or not we will
be successful in our efforts. The predominant activity along
this line recently has been as to funds under the Safe Streets
Act which are administered through the Law Enforcement Administra-
tion (LEA). I have been generally ia the habit of bringi~ almo~
all of these to the City Council to get an accompanying resolution.
I don*t believe that at the stage that we make the initial
application that a resolution is necessary insofar as the state
and federal authorities but rather this authority from Council
particularly comes later when we do find out whether or not we
get the ~zant. I try to consider each one of these On the question
of bringing them to the Council at the preliminary stage. Some Of
them, as I said, are experimental or we didn*t know whether or
not we can get all of the funds.
My inquiry is as to whether it is the wish of the Council
that each oneof these mhen. they are in the preliminary applica-
tion stage be brought to CoUncil for your specific concurrence.
For example, we now have one in application for equipment
for the police department which totals in federal monies $26,120,
with the CJty*s funds being $8,707 but which is in=kind match.
We have another one currently, in addition to the one already
on the Agenda, relating to the Juvenile Court and the setting
up Of intake procedures which involves federal funds and in-kind
match. I realize when there is a specific commitment of local
funds, especially if they are new funds, that this is a different
situation and is worthy.in most instances, Of being checked out
wi(h the Council.
Your advice on t~ matter of reporting each one to the Council
is invited and we will, of course, abide by the Council*s wishes.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
500
Mr, Thomas moved that the City Manager be authorized to make application
for federal funds either for new or assisting activities of materials without first
forwarding,them to Council for approval. The motion mas seconded by Dr. TayJor and
unanimously adopted,
JUVENILE A~D DOMESTIC R~LATIONS COURT: The City Manager submitted o
written report advising that an application has been prepared for a federal grant
under the Safe Streets Act for a continuation of the program fn connection with the
Juvenile Court for training and use in departmental work of college students iu the
area eh,se educational direction and Interest are in the field of Juvenile work.
Ur. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the f, Il,Ming Resolution authorizing and directing him to file said applica-
tion on behalf of the City of Roanoke:
(ulOfll2) A REsoLUTION approving the filing of an application for grant
under the Federal Crime Prevention Program.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolutim Rook No. 35, page 451.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted bi the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................ ?.
NAYS: None ......... O.
SE#~RS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report trawl
mitting copy of a communication from the Chairman of the Fifth Planning District
Commission, enclosing copy of tentative allocations of State end Federal funds for
sewerage system projects, with note of comments from the Commission Chairman, advisin
that this is the extent of information at this point and that according to last verba
advice from the State Mater Control Board these are subject to a public hearing at
some later date.
Mr. Thomas moved that the r~ oft and communication be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report trams
mitttng the following report regarding the request from the City of Roanoke of the
State Water Control Board for federal aid funds for the next five years, which was
informally transmitted to the members of Council on August 2, 1971:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 2, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
For your i~formatfon, I attach a copy of a letter prepared
by Mr. Sam R. McGhee, III, CityEngineer, and addressed to Mr.
Larry K. Owens, who is the area representative for the State
Water Control Roard, itemizing the pending program for the City
as to further improvements within the semerage system and lndi-
.cating to the Water Control Board those requirements which will
be necessary and for Federal-~State supplemental funding. This
mas prepared at the request of Mr. Owens mbo ~dvlsed tbat this
information uss needed In order for the Mater Ca~trol Board to
prepare its allocation listing which mas the matter that the
Board handled on July 26.
I pass this on partially for information b~t also to indi-
cate the derivation of particularly figures mith respect to the
semage treatment plant, Most, if not all, of this information
bas been furnished to tbs Mater Control Board at ynrJous stages
in the past. The $10 million figure rot sewage treatment plant
improveaents mas that figure that me developed daring the course
of the annexation studies. It Is to be noted that the Board has
indicated funding over a four year period of $8 million. It Is.
though, particularly noted that this estimate uss based on Phase I
and Phase II of the City*s program and did not anticipate the
newest requirements in third level treatment.
Respectfully subnitted,
SI Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. Tbs motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEI~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting the following communication and portion of the Minute of th~ proceedings
of the State Mater Control Board meetin9 on July 26. 1971. advising that be is pro-
ceeding to implement the instructions in this Minute to the best of his interpretation:
"July 30, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Nebbero Mayor
City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Dear Mayor Webber:
Encased please find a copy of Minute 9 from the appearance by
representatives of the City of Roanoke before the Stale Rater
Contlci Board on July 26, 1971. The directives of abe Board
should be self-explanatory, but if there should be questions,
please do not he,tats to contact the office.
'Following is tbs decision made by the Board:
1. The Board dtrected that a hearing shall be convened at
2:00 p.m. on September 20. 1971, whereupon the City of
Roanohe shall show cause why the Board should not issue
a special order requiring that the City meet within a
stated time the objectives set forth in the letter to
the City from the Executive Secretary dated July 13,
1971. Such hearing shall be continued if the City mb-
mits an acceptable schedule for compliance with said
objectives by September 1, 1971. A copy of such
schedule shall be sent to the staff and each member
of the Board.
2. The Board approved and dtrected that the City proceed
with its interim plan subject to several technical
reservations, for example, sludge handling procedures
and the chemical constituents of the pickle liquor to
be used in the phosphorus removal process. '
3. Approval of the interim plan is conditional upon the
submission of weehly reports and monthly summaries on
the status of the following:
a. the performance of the sewage treatment plant,
b. the progress of the interim program,
c. the infiltration abatement program undertahen by
all users of the sewage.collection system and
treatment facilities, including the'Cities of
Roanoke and Salem, the County of Roanoke. the
Town of Vistas, and the Roanoke County Public
Service Authority, and
d. the magnitude and duration of.all instooGe~ of, by- ,
palling of ultreoted or improperly treated nemoge
from any point.in the semage collection systat or
treatment facilities used by the Cities or Roongke
and Salem, the County of Roanoke. the Town of Via-
ton. and the Roanoke County Public Service ~uthority,'
4. The Board expressed its displeasure a~ the progress made
by the City. flomever, the Roard tell that the continued
imposition of Requirement I would result in hardship to
those people fo the area who ore unable to take any con-
structive action until the City of Roanoke complies with
the obJectives of the Board. The Roard. therefore, lifted
Requirement 1o but it directed that monthly reports be sub-
mitted by all users of the sewerage system, including the
Cities of Roanoke and Salem, the County of Roanoke, the
Town of ViaCom, and the Roanoke County Public Service
Authority. These monthly reports shall indicate the number
of connections granted during the previous month and the
reasons for grouting these connections.
S. The Board directed that no grant funds for use on either
the long-range or interim prog~m are to be made available
to the City of Roanoke until such time as an acceptable
long-range plan, meeting the objectives previously set
f~rth, is approved by the Board.'
The City is directed to proceed with implementation of all phases
of itc fnterJm plan except sludge ~ad:Jng procedures and use of
pickle liquor. It is necessary that representatives of the City
meet math the staff as soon as possible to discuss the details of
sludge hanc~ng procedures and the chemical composition of the
pickle liquor to be used so that delays in implementing those
phases of the plan can be avoided.
It should be noted that this letter and the enclosed minute
constitute due notice of the hearing to be held September 20,
1971, at 2:00 p.~. at the State Rater Control Board's Meeting
Room, 4010 West Broad Street, Ricbmondo Virginia, pursuant to
Section 62.1-44.13 (8)(bi of the State Mater Control Lam, as
directed in Minute g.
Please direct all correspondence to A. M. fladder, Director,
Enforcement Division, State Water Control Board, P. O. 8ox
11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230.
Very truly yours,
S/ A. H. Pnessler
Executive Secretary"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report, communication and Minute of the proceed*
logs of the 5tale Water Control Board meeting be received and fi]ed. The motion Was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
uith the Master Plan for Roanoke Municipal (Woodruml Airport, recommending that said
plan be adopted to provide a guide for f~rther development*and implementation end als*
plan for the continuing justification of federal fa=ds to the airport:
"Roanoke, Virginia August go 1971
Honorable Rayor and City Council ..
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Ne are now advised by the Federal Aviation Administration,
through Mr. Rillian A. P~hittle, Chief, RashJngton Airports
District Office, that the FAA has reviemed the Raster Plan for
the Roanoke Rnnicipal Airport and*concur, in general,.with the
items of development as proposed.* This plan was prepared for
the City by Talbert, Cox and Associates, Airport Consultants,
Rllmington and Charlotte, N. C. The document bears the date of
September. 1~?0. It was reviewed, prior to the final printing,
before the City Council in a presentation by representatives
of the consultants.
The plan kris been given approved by the State Division of
Aeronautics mbo participated la $0 percent of the cost of its
preparation,
The next step mould be for the City Council to ed*pt the
plan ns n pr*graB nnd guide for development at the Airport.
Foil*ming such action by the City Council, me xonld then for-
mnrd copies to the FAA for their formal end flnnl approval.
I .auld recommend to the City Council that you ed*pt this
Master Plea for the Municipal Airport. fa doing so, we mould
then be provided uith a guide for a further development and
implementation and also a plan for the continuing Justification
of federal funds to the field. The adoption would enable the
City to proceed mith sach matters of fixed base operation, fire
station location and the such as have been pending. The
adoption does not constitute a commitment on the part of the
City to the expenditure of funds over the long range period Of
time as mould be represented by major physlcal changes within
the fl*Id. It does, though, indicate a general intent, at this
time, of the City to proceed in those directions subject to any
alternatives or long range planning that may supplement this
master plan at a later date.
It is realized as to the consideration amd discussions that
have taken place mith respect to an airport facility involving
other cities in this area of the state. The adoption of this
plan does not preclude conthuing discussions along that subject
or any studies the Council may determine it might wish to mek~
with respect to such a completely hem facility. That factort
in relationship to the ultimate capabilities of this field,.would
and could be taken into account at that time and the City would
have at hand the future requirements and potentials of the Roanoke
Air~ort based on the data and material as contained in this Master
Plan.
It is believed that Council members have a copy of the Master
Plan as Was submitted ~ the time of the presentation by Talbert,
Cox and Associates~ however, should any members of Council not have
the document, me have a few additional copies uhich can be distri-
buted.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hlrst
C~ty Manager'
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manage£ end offered the foil,ming Resolution:
(#19813) A RESOLUTIO~ approving, in general, and adopting a Master Plan
for Roanoke Municipal Airport, (Wa*drum Field), dated September 1970.
(For full tezt of Resolution, see Resolution Book No.3§, page
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... ?.
NAYS: None ................ O.
Mr. Wheeler. Chairman of the Airport Advisory Commission, wes then re~
quested to establish a date for a ne.ting of Council acting as a Committee of the
Nh.l. to discuss The Master Plan for Roanoke Municipal iN**drum) Airport.
SEWERS, AND. STORR DRAINS: The City Manager Submitted the following report
in connection with inquiries from business interests, county interests and others as
to the City of Roanoke now proceeding with formal filing of an application for state
ned federal funds for the replsccaent or parallelJn9 of the Murray Run Interceptor
line within the city for connection with n proposed replacement and extension
within south county:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 9, 1971
Bonoreble Raver and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Several Inquiries hare come to me within the past week
from business, interests, County interests and others as to
the City's now proceeding with the formal filing of an appli-
cation for state and federal funds for the replacement or
paralleling of Murray Run interceptor sewer line within the
City for connection with a proposed replacement nad extension
within the South County. In each instance, I have given a
reaction to this matter that I believe would be appropriate
to advise City Council on should you.or your Sewer Committee
have any reaction to the contrary.
This lion replacement was brought to the attention of
the City and to the Sewer Committee Just a very few months
ago by the County because of a particularly situation that
they have in their County area and because of proposed develop-
ment within the County which Js dependent directly upon this
line. The State Mater Control Board in its listing of funding
allocations as proposed at their meeting on July 26 provided
funds for this particular line. The Board did not provide any
other monies for specific lines either within the City or
within the County.
As the Council is aware, the Board tentatively allocated
$8 million to Roanoke for its sewerage system. They did not
designate how this would be proposedto be expended except
that discussions at the Roard meeting On July 26 left the im-
pression that these monies were for sewage treatment facilities.
In response to a letter that 1 mrote this past weeh to the
staff of the Board, inqt~ring on this particular point. I received
a very brief letter mhich stated that this $8 million dollars was
not 'for sewage treatment only.' It further stated that the State
Division of Plannin9 would be informin9 the City 'later* as to the
assignment of this money. The letter did not elaborate further.
We have had before the Roard certain interceptor and outfall
sewer line improvements for some considerable period of time, 9oing
back into several years. As will be noted elsewhere on this Agenda,
Mr. RcGheeo City Engineer, advised the Roard in June, in response
to their request, as to a summary of funds needed for the City and
lines still pending.
Replacement or paralleling of the Murray Run'line is deemed
necessary insofar as that section within the City. It is not
currently funded by the City as to the City's share. There are.
however, other line replacements, including Trout Run, Campbell
Avenue, Norfolk Avenue, Rllliamson Road and Comptcn Road lines
which in our judgment carry a higher need and a higher priority
and which were funded in the 1967 Bond Referendum. Me have sene
question as to the ability of the $8 'iillion of federal and state
funds to carry the new requirements for sewage treatment as well us
meeting the needs of these particular sewer lines. It is at this
point to be noted that this allocation of $6 million spreads over
four years,
Our reaction la that because of the above factors, the City
should have a clearer conformation from the Board as to its
intent and allocations of funds for these preceding lines prior
to advaecln9 the Murray Run project ahead of those others and
the City shauld also have a clearer determination of the estate
of costs that ar~ going to be required at the Sewage Treatment
Plant to best judge bow far the monies can be stretched. Me,
or course, hope to have this treatment plant estimate very
shortly.
I ad~iae the Council and the Sewer Comaftlee o[ Ils above
made end will be made with respect to the ffurrey Run line; and,
again, if there are any wishes to the coetrary, me cea according-
. ly proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Dirut.
City #anager'
Hr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The notion nas
seconded by Hr. Taylor and ~eaeimously adopted.
STREET LIGBT$: Council having referred to the City Manager for study.
report andrecommendatioa a petition signed by 16R residents of northwest Roanoke
requesting traffic signals at the intersection of llth Street sad RoornauRoad.
N. ~.. the City ~aflager submitted the following report advising that he does not
con,der there is justification for a traffic light at this location:
#Roanoke, Virginia
August 9, 1971
Honorable #oyov and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The City Council on June 2§, ~971, received a peti tide
signed by a number of persons reguestieg the locution of a
traffic signal at the intersection of llth Street and Hoorman
Road, N. N. The Council referred the matter to this office
for study and report.
We have completed a detailed analysis. Rased ca normal
criteria for traffic signal installations as are accepted and
used by both the Federal and State governments and which we
attempt to adhere to, we do not consider that there is justi-
fication for a traffic light at this location.
I attach a more detailed report prepared by the City's
Traffic and Communications Division, along with a number of
attachments and data sheets that accompany that report. This
department report explains in more complete detail the nature
of the analysis and the reasons for the conclusions.
It may be possible as time goes on that increased traffic
volume or other changes in conditions would give reason for a
restudy of the location and reconsideration of signal needs;
however, for the present immediately forseeable time we do not
feel that the normal standards used would warrant an installation.
! am sending a copy 'of this report to ~r. James #. Chambers,
· President of Cosmopolitan Enterprise Agency. who handled the peti-
tion for the nanber of persons who signed it. In doia9 so, I
express.appreciation to him for his community interest as is
evidenced in his tine and consideration of this project.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City ~anager'
gr. ·Trout moved that Council concur ia the reconnendstion of the City
The motion mas .seconded by Mr. Nheeler and adopted, ~r. Lisk voting no.
ZONING-SALE OF PROPERTY-SCHOOLS-CITY GOVERNMENT: Conncil having adopted
a Resolution initiating a proposal to rezone property hounded De the north by Franklil
Road, on the east by Second Street, on the south by Day Avenue and on the west by
Third Street, S. W.f from C-30 Central Business District, to C-4, Central Business
District Expnnsiou Area, the City Attorney submitted a mrltten~port advising that
through un inndvertent clerical error in the preparation of the Res~lution, the
Resolution proposed to rezone the property from C-3, Central nusiness District, to
C-4, Central Dusiness District Expansion Area, nod transmitting o R,solution to
amend Resolution No. 19802 to provide that the property he fez,ned from C-4, to
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
offered the following Resolution amending Renolution No. lgfl02:
(ml9Hl4) A RESOLUTION amending Resolution No. 19802, adopted August
197~, initiating a proposal to ,mend and reordain Title XV, Construction, of
Chapter 4.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 19S6, as emended, by the
rezo~ie9 of certain property situate in the City of Roanoke, and referring said pro=
p,sol to the City Planning Commission for a review and recommendation to the Council
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Rook No. 35, page dSS.}
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the f, Il,ming vote:
AY£~: Messrs. Gar/and, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...............................
NAYS: None ................ O.
WATER DEPARTMENT: Council having adopted an Ordinance flxin9 nam rates
charges for surplus water furnished to other incorporated municipalities° the City
Attorney submitted a written r~port advising of a Motion for Declaratory Judgment
brought against the City of Roanoke by the Town of Vinton in the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County on August 3,'1971, prayin9 ~at the Court determine mhat is a reosooab~
rate of charge on surplus water furnished by the City of Roanoke to the Town of Vint,
to temporarily enjoin and restrain the city from chnrgi~ the rate fixed by Ordinonce
No. 19750; to require'the city to comply with the Court's later determination in
such matter; and to permanently enjoin the city from charging an unreasonable rate
for surplus water furnished said Town, and that notice has been given that applica-
tion will be made to the Court on August 6, 1971, for entry of an Order temporarily
enjoining the city'from cha~ging the rate fixed by the aforesaid Ordinance.
Mr. Wheeler moved ~hat the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. T~out and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having adopted an Ordi-
nance providin9 for th~ sale and cooveyance to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority of certain properties located on the east side of 1st Street, S. E.
between Rullitt Avenue and Elm Avenue, for a consideration of $99,000.00, cash,
need.ed for the Downtomn East Urban Renewal Project VA. R-42, the City Attorney sub-
mitted a written report advising that the sale and conveyance of the property to the
Authority has been completed and that the city is in receipt of a check from the
Housing Authority in the amount of $g9,o00.OO.
II
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received'and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout nnd unanimously adopted.
STREETS ANO ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Coemis-
sion for study, report and recommendation the request of Roanoke Coca-Cola Bottllig
~orks, Incorporated, and Radio Communications Company, Incorporated, that a certain
portion of an alley running in an easterly direction from 4th Street. N.
between Shenandoah Avenue and Centre Avenue for a distance of 265.9 feet be vacated
discontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission~bmitted a written report
recommending that the request be granted predicated on the city retaining all
utility easements located within this right of way.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the matter be held at 2 p.m.,
Tuesday, September ?, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr* E. Claude Pace. Jr., et ax..
that a 15.6B acre parcel of land located on Persinger Road and Brambleton Avenue,
S. M.. described as Acreage, Official Tax No. 1260214, he rezoned from RS-2.
~Single-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, the City
Planning Commission submitted a written report mahing certain recommendations
concerning specific additions to the Zoning Ordinance providing for the establish-
ment of private clubs and lodges as special exceptions in all residential districts
with appropriate definitions and criteria relating thereto.
Mr. Lash moved that a public hearing on the matter be held at 2 p.m.,
Tuesday, September 7, 1971. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Council having re-
ferred to a committee for tabulation, report and recommendation the bids received
on the construction of a football and baseball field in Jackson ParE, S. E., the
committee submitted the following report recommending that the proposal of H. ~ S.
Construction Company, in the amount of $16.009.25. be accepted:
#August 9, lgTI
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Rids were opened and read before City Council at its regular
meeting on Monday. August 2, concerning the proposed con-
struction of a combination football mhd baseball field in
Jackson Park. Attached herewith please find tabnlatJoo of
bids indicating the lam bid baring been received from H G S
Construction Company of Roanohe in the amount of
Your committee has reviewed the bids and found all prices
and extensions to be correct.
·hile the low bid is somewhat higher than the'original
preliminary estimate furnished earlier in the year, it is
considerably lower than the latest engineering estimates
based upon final detailed plans. The relative closeness
of the two prop,salt received did indicate competitive bidding
for the morko The low bidder bas previously performed work
for the City of Roanoke and is considered a capable contractor,
If City Council desires to proceed with this improvement, it mill
be necessary for the sum Of $3,025.16 to be appropriated to
supplement available funds to cover the low bid and advertising
S/ BFron E, Boner
Byron E. Honer, Chairman
Assistant City Manager
Sf Mlllinm F, Clark
William F. Clark
Blrector of Public Worts
S! Rex..T~ Mitchell, Jr,
Rex To Bit,hell, Jr,
Director of Paths ~ Recreation*
Mr. Thomas moved tbat C,u,cji concur in the recommendation of the
committee and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $3,025.16 to
Jackson Park Athletic Field under Section ~Bg, ~Transfers to Capital Improvements
Fund0* of the 1971-72 budget, in connection with the construction Of the football
and baseball field in Jachson Park:
(~19815) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaJn Section ~§9, 'Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 35, page 453.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................. 7.
NAYS: None ............. O.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure accepting the proposal of H. 6 S, Construction Company for the
construction of a football and baseball field in Jackson Park. The motion was
seconde~ by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
UNFINI~iED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SPECIAL PERMITS-STATE HIGHWAYS: Ordinance No. 19799, granting revocable,
non-transferable authority to S. T. Combs and Lucy Tobitha Combs to maintain four
underground gasoline tanks on premises located at 3747 Garden City Boulevard, S. E.
Official Tax No. 4300706, encroaching on a planned major arterial highway right of
way and over an established building setback line, upon certain terms and conditionk,
having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over,
again before the body, Mr. Trout offering the following for its second reading and
final adoption:
(n19799) AN ORDINANCE granting revocable, non-transferable authority to
S. T, Combs end Lucy Tobithn Combs to maintain four (4), underground gasoline tanks
on premises located at 3747 Garden City Boulevard, S, £** official No, 4300706
encroaching on u planned major arterial highway right-of-way and over un estnblishe
building setback line. upon certain terms and condJtio~ao
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No, 35, page 444.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption o[ the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, I~heeler and #ayov
Webber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Ordinance No. 19BO3. providing for the disestablish-
ment Of the Board of Health as a separate board or agency of the City of Roanoke as
heretofore provided in Chapter 1, Title XIII, of The Code Of the City of Roanoke,
1956. as amended, havieg previously been before Council for its first reading, reed!
and laid over. was again before the body. Mr. Lisk offering the following for its
second reading and final adoption:
(=19803) A~ ORDINANCE providing for the disestablishment Of the Hoard
of Health as a separate board or agency of the City as heretofore provided in
Chapter 1, of Title XIII, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended;
ameudin9 and reordainiug Sec. 1, Chapter I. Title XllI, of said Code, relating to
the City's Department of Health. Sec. 2, Chapter 1. Title XIII, Of said Code, sett-
ing
City's Department of Health. and Sec. 11. Chapter
out
the
compo$1t ion
of
the
Title X]ll, of said Code, setting o~t the duties of the Commissioner o£ Health of
said City; amending said chapter and title by making provisions applicable upon
the operation ot the Clty*s District Health Department by the State Department of
Health. pursuant to § 32-40.2. of the 19§0 Code Of Virginia. ns amended; amending
said chapter and title by the addition Of new sections codifying into said chapter
theprovisions of Ordinance Ho. 17965 creating a District Health Department and pro~
riding foe its operation by the State Department of Health; and repealing Sections
4, 7, B, 9 and 10. of Chapter 1, Title XIII, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as amended, relating to the Board of Health as heretofore provided in said
chapter and title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 446.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Council. having directed the City Attokeey, to prepare
the propermeesure approving the formation,of n Joint board or directors for the
RonnoRe Guidance Center end the Sonnoke Valley. Mental Renlth~- Mental Retardation
Services Board; approving certain changes in the terms of office nnd official
status of the City of Roanohe appointees on said Joint board; and designating
the Joint board of directors as the agency to administer funds appropriated by
the city and by other~blic agencies end bodies for mental health and mental
retardation serrJces, effective as of July 1, 1972. he presented same; whereupon.
Dr. Taylor offered the following Resolution:
(n19816) A RESOLUTION approving formation of a Joint board of directors
for the Roanohe Guidance Center and the Roanohe Valley Mental Health-Rental Retar-
dation Services Board; approving certain changes In the terms of office end offi-
cial status of the City of Roanohe appointees on said joint board; and designating
the jolnt board of directors as the agency to administer funds appropriated by the
City and by other public agencies and bodies for mental health and mental retarda-
tion services, effective as of July 1. 1972.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 454.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Rt. Thomas and adopted by the followJn9 vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Llsh, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... T.
NAYS: None ........... O.
CIRCUSES-CARNIVALS: Council baring directed the City Attorney to pre-
pare the proper measure granting the request of the Roanoke Fair0 Incorporated,
that it be allowed to operate the fair at Raher Field in the City of Roanoke co
Sunday, Septembor 26, 1971, botween the hours of I p.m., nad 10 p.E., be presented
same; whereupon, Rt. LJsh moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by #Fo Thomas and lost by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Link, Thomas and Trout ..............................3.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. ~heeler and Mayor Webber ...........4.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
BUILDINGS: Mr. Thomas called attention to the condition of a house
located on Edgerton Avenue at 18th Street, S, E.. and moved that the City manager
be directed to investigate the condition of the house, determine the necessary
action for removal of the dwelling and report back to Council. The motion was
seconded by Rt. Trout and unanimously adopted.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Hr. Trout read the followin9 prepared statement in
connection with manpower at the Fire Department, advising that it Is important
for the City Manager to develop a report for Council which will show the number
of days the fire stations have been undermaoned, recommending that the matter be
ireferred to the City Manager for a report on the manpower in the Fire Deportment
and that the City #anager study the possibility of the removal of fire alarm boxes
throughout the City of Roanoke:
'August $, 1971
Hr. Mayor .
Members of City Council
During nnr recent deliberations during budget study me
received information and comments on our present two-platoon,
Kelly-day system non being used by our Fire Department. How-
ever.-during budget study we meyer really bad time to
evaluate or discuss this program.
During the past few meehs I have spent considerable time
evaluating this system° and I da feel that the present system
leaves much to be desired in the area of giving good fire
protection to our citizens. In fact, going over the record
of men on duty. it is quite obvious that our engine and ladder
companies are andermanned and very close to being inadequately
staffed on certain occasions. Therefore, I feel that it is
most important for the City Manager to develop a report for
City Council ubich will show the number of days that our
stations have been uadermannedo
1 feel it is most important for us to give consideratiea
to the abandonment of the present Emily system and replacing
it uJth the three-platoon system.
Therefore. I mould recommend that City Council instruct
the City Manager to develop a report on nanpouer In our Fire
Department nad bring it back to us for our evaluation of
conditions.
S/ Jim ~rout
Janes OD Trout"
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for stud
and report to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously
adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
/City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, August 16, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
iChamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, August 16. 1971. at 2 p.n., the
~regular meeting hour. mith Mayor Mehber presiding.
PRESENT: Conncilmen Robert A. Garland, David N. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
:Hampton I~. Thomas. James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L,
! Mebber .............................. 7.
~ ABSENT: None .............Oo
;~ OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Haner, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James
N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. Robert P. GeRry, Assistant City Attorney; and
~Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
MINLr~ES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
~July 19, 19TI., havin9 been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Thomas. seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
i:dtspensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
UEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SCHOOLS: Council having appropriated funds for the purchase of land
{to provide a pnrking lot to be used by Jefferson Senior High School a Resolution
Jladopted by the Roan.tn City School Hoard at its meeting on AuguSt lO. 1971. relat-
~ing to a parhing lot for Jefferson Senior High School, requesting that Council
[authorize the necessary legal steps to implement the purchase of the property and a
i!further Resolution discontinuing the Harrison Elementary School Building as a
'~ipart of the Roanoke City Public School facilities, requesting that Council accept
t!the conveyance of the building and site to the City of Roanoke and that Council
iitake necessary legal action to transfer ownership and use of the property, were
before the body
~ Dr. Taylor moved that the Resolutions be referred to the City Attorney
I'ifor preparation of the proper measures. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
~ and unanimously'adopted.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having previously adopted an Ordinance
i increasing the rate for emptying septic tank cleaning trucks at the Sewage Treatment
IPlant, R. Hall, Jr., appeared before the body and requested that Council
Mr.
C.
lower the rote for emptying said septic tank cleaning trucks, advising that he
believes this to be an unreasonable rate at this tine due to the fact that no
improvements, no better facilities, no better operating service or move prompt
attention is being given at the present time than before and transmitting five
suggestions which mould improve overall plant operations.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
istudyo report and recommendation by the next regular meeting of Council on Monday.
August 23. 197J.' The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCIIoOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINS~ POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY: A communication
from Mr. Rrlstom Hardin. Jr** Executive DireCtor. Total Action Against Poverty
in Roanoke Valley. requesting that Council select a representative to serve on
the Eoacd of Directors of TAP for the 1971-72 term. was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be'referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure appointing Mr. By,on E. Hamer. Assistant City
Manager. as the representative of the City'of Roanoke on the Board of Directors
of TAP. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Mheeler ~nd unanimously adopted.
ZONING-PLANNING: A communication from Mr. Charles M. ltodges, requesting
that Council give him relief from a problem of a lot'division on Imlay'Avenue,
S. E., was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. Yhe notion
was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and'unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mrs. Adeline Delong. requestin9 that she
be granted a certificate to rent an apartment at 2707 Richelieu Avenue. S.
said apartment having been rented prior to 1965. ~as before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
Seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt. Attorney. represent-
ing Messrs. James C. Charlton and Herbert Davis. requesting that property located
in the 1700 block of Hanover Avenue. N. M.. described as Lots 5. 6. ? and
Block 58. Melrose Land Company. Official Tax Nos. 2220805. 2220606 and 2220607. be
resorted from RD. Duplex Residential District. to RG-2. General Residential
Histrict. sas before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report cud recommendation to Council. The motion
~as seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-DEPARYMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: Council atitn meeting on Monday.
August 90 lg71. having deferred action on a recommendation of the City'Manager that
$59,84§.50 be spproprioted to Personal Services under Section #3?, "Public
Assistance." of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds in connection with state
recommended changes in, the personnel listing of the Department of Public Melfare.
budget, the Assistant City Manager submitted the followin9 report of t~e City
Manager reiterating his original recommendation, advising that the State Department
of Melfare and Institutions will make the change only if the City of Roanoke
proceeds at this time with the authorization of the employment of additional
personnel and forthwith proceeds with said employment:
'Roanoke, Virginia
August 16, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It will be recalled in submitting to you. at your last
meeting, the matter of the additional personnel for the adminis-
tration of Public Assistance that I invited the Council to delay
the matter, after having had considerable discussion, because of
a question that had arisen. Zhe point had to do with when and
under nhat conditions the change would be concurred in by the
State Department of Melfare and Institutions from the 60~--40~
ratio of sharing of administrative expenses to the 60~--20~ ratio.
Me are mom advised, and our research of correspondence and con-
versations within the recent past seems to confirm, that the
State will not change from 60--40 to 80--20 if the City does
not commence adding the additional personnel until on or after
January 1 or at mid-point year. In other words, they make the
change only if the City were to proceed at this tine with the
authorization of the additional personnel and forthwith proceed
with the employment.
At the tine the budget sas prepured and submitted to the
Council on the basis of the January I commencement date, our
information and understanding was that the 60--20 system could
be effective then.
In view of the position that tho State nos advises us. if
me are to make the additions in personnel and the separation of
services, and this is a requirement, then it would appear that
the recommendation as Submitted to you at your last meeting would
be in order to go ahead now with the authorization.
I nm of the opinion that we were right in our budget recom-
mendation tn allow upproximately ~ months of the fiscal year to
build up to the enlarged staff because it would hare been very
difficult within the very short period of time between the Stute*s
advancement Of the separation Of services and the additional
personnel and the commencement of our fiscal year on July 1.
Apparently, the State recognized this problem, and I understand
other cities in Virginia have been and are up against the same
situation, and as n result the State modified its proposal to
permit staggered additions Of these new personnel through one
year; honever, in doing so, they added in stipulations that the
locality had to begin adding early in the fiscal year in order
to get current on the 60--20 ratio for any portion of the year.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that he sees no alternative other' than
to go along with the recommendation of the City Manager and' offered the following
~emergency Ordinance providing sufficie~t funds in connection with the matter:
(~19817) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section n3?. 'Public
Assistance,# and Section nl3. *Retirements,# of the 1971-72 Appropriation
Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35. page 462.)
NFo Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................... b,
NAYS: Mr. Thomas .............. 1.
Dr. Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance amending the Pay
Plan by adding a new position of employment designated as Casework Aide Trainee,
by deleting the positions of Senior Casework Supervisor and Social Services
Superintendent and by raising the monthly pay range of the Casework Aide and the
Casework Supervisor:
(n1981R) AR ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19751, heretofore, adopted
on June 28, 1971, providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan,
by adding to said Pay Plan a new position of employment under the City government;
~y deleting from said Pay Plan two (2) other positions of employment; by rai~ng the
pay range for tm, (2) existing positions of employment: and providing f,ran emer~ency~
(For full text of Ordinance, see, Ordinance Book No. 35, pag~ 463.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..................... ~ ............. ?*
NAYS: None .................... O.
Mr. Garland offered the f,Il,win9 emergency Ordinance amending Ordinance
No. 19752. fixing the annual compensation of certain unclassified officials and
employees of the City of Roanoke by adding the positions of Social Services
Superintendent and Senior Casework Supervisor as unclassified positions of employ-
ment in the City of Roanoke:
(ml~Olg) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance' No. 10752.-heretofore adopted
on June 28° 1971. fixing the annual compensation of certain unclassified officials
and employees of the City. hi adding certain positions of employment in the City
as unclassified; providing for the effective date of this ordinance; and providing
for an emergency..
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 464.)
Mr. Garlaod moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was sec,ad-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the f, Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Nayor
#ebber .............................. ?.
NAYS: None ....................O.
FIRE HEPARTRENT: Council having directed the City Manager to study the
manpouer in the Fire Departmont, develop a'report showing the number of days
:the fire stations have been undermanned and study the possibility of the removal
of fire alarm boxes throughout the City of Roanoke. the Assistant City Manager
submitted the following report of the City Manager transmitting certain comments
ge the matter:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The City Council on August 9, lgYl, referred to me for study
and report a proposal for the adoption of what is termed a '3rd
platoon' system, The matter of such a system had been mentioned
in the City Manager's Budget Message for 1971-72 as an item that
had been considered but had been dropped because of severe limita-
tion of funds within the budget,
In order to establish what might be termed an orderof con-
sideration of thin proposal, I would like to note to the Council
the fnllowing comments at this point.
1, There is no doubt but that the addition of some personnel
within the department is desirable in order to offset
the interchanging of individual firemen back and forth
betmeen stations in order to make up adequate station
complement on various days. This, to my observation, is
the major problem and it is created by the diverse and
rather complicated system of days off which applies to the
department. The 3rd platoon concept is one approach to
this, lhere are variations of the 3rd platoon system
which range from the B-hour on-duty assignments to the
24-hour on duty, 48-hour off-duty system as is believed
has been preliminarily suggested.
I should like Council*s indulgence in some reasonable
period of time to go into this to the extent of analyzing
in more depth this proposal as mull ts other systems pre-
va/ling With other departments through the country as well
as variations of various systems.
. The immediate difficulty is the limitations of time brought
about by commitments already included within the present
budget or in which the City is already involved and if
Council would so indulge we would like to ease a few of
the present matters to some solution before intensifying
our consideration of this particular matter.
2. The suggestion for consideration by the Council was as to
the possibility of applying funds included in the current
budget for a fire pumper toward this personnel plan. Your
budget this year includes two units of fire equipment; a
fire pumper for $30,000 and a tank truck for $24,000.
Both of these units are needed. The tank truck is a Supple-
ment to our existing equipment gith the intent that it
mould be of considerable benefit in service to areas and
under certain fire conditions it cannot he effectively
handled or responded to by pumpers, The inclusion of the
fire pumper is as a part of the replacement schedule. We
missed replacing one last year. If this one was not done
we would miss this year and, of course, there is always
a question mark as to the followin9 year, With our volume
of equipment and the potential and the expectation of
tmo new stations, I would not like to go beyond a year or
two years at the maximum without equipment replacement.
· Me can, however, unless Council would disagree, proceed
with the purchase of the tank truck and then hold off on
the fire pumper until sometime later you have the personnel
matter for consideration,
3. The Council suggested further the application of the ex-
pense of five fire dispatchers os being offsetting against
this personnel program. These po~ltions have already been
accommodated for within the current budget and the combin-
ation of attrition, new dispatchers and new stations, would,
I think, not make these f~ndr fully available at this time.
If the Council has any directions to the contrary of the above,
me would certainly be guided by them.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Lisk moved that the report be received and filed, The motion mas
seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted,
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted the follomlng
~report of the City Manager Jn connection mith o police cadet or trainee program,
advising that he is continuing to pursue ~he matter Jn the belief that this may
i!offer an excellent opportunity not only for the development of potential candidates
work but also offer to who
police
broad, educational
opportunities
persons
:might otherwise not have such entitlement, that further investigation will include
!idevelopment of 9est analysis with the hope of returning to Council and, based
~ion present considerations, encouraging, the endorsement of Council:
"Roanoke, VirRinia
August 16, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dentlenen:
For some time Chief of Police Hooper and Director of Personnel
Graham have been exploring programs and possibilities in the
direction of hoping to be able to develop something locally that
mould present an opportunity of study and development by young
persons mhd night be mstivated toward police work, who have not
yet reached the entrance age of 21 and mhd would be benefited in
many respects in additional educational opportunities. It is to
be recalled that a short time ago Total Action Against Poverty
submitted a preliminary proposal Of a program of this geoeral
nature and the Community Relations Committee expressed to the
City Council its recommendation that the potential for. a concept
of a police cadet program be searched.
Features of the TAP proposal have been given consid~ration.
Additionally and more recently consultations with Virginia Mestern
Community College have developed the potential of a program through
that institution which program contains certain features not
ot~ermlse available and ~hicb program In ge&erul offers con-
siderable appeal to us.
Basically, the foundation of the program through the college
is that which is called *Work-Study' grants mhich can be ~ade
available to certain' selected students who may be presently
em'rolled or who in the future may enroll in Police Science studies
at the college.
Suchstud~nts could upon acceptance, become *Police Cadets'
or an equivalent category, working on a limited schedule at
selected Police Department tasks during the school year and on a
full time schedule during the summer or vacation period, Eighty
(DO) percent of the funds necessary mould be supplied through a
grant from Department of Health, Education and [elfare to the
'college' for discretionary use in assisting students in need.
Twenty (20) percent of the fun~s would be reimbursed by the City.
Such a program would offer · selected group of young men, who
are motivated and originate from lomer income backgrounds, but who
desire education and u career in the field of lam enforcement.
to grow up in and learn police work while serving and securing
college level certification,
Certain points of interest are detailed us follows:
Beneficial Features
I. Program. if completed, assures student candidate of
every reasonable consideration for regular police employ-
ment.
R. Offers student candidate programmed opportunity some two
years prior to the 21 years of age requirement for a sworn
Police Officer.
3. Offers the Police Deportment un available cadre of young
people at varying stages of development for essential but
limited risk assignments, freeing regular officers from
these assignments.
4. Allows tmo or more years to observe and guide the develop-
ment of the prospective Police Officer.
S. Offers a further opportunity to upgrade the educational
level of the Police Department through the employment of
accepted graduates of this two year college and training
program.
6. Alloms for recruitin9 efforts ut the high school level.
?. Offers levels of education and requirements for attaining
educational level not present in other 'cadet programs.*
O, Offers Police Department observation over entrants into
Police Science curriculum and supervision over the specific
accepted entrants iuto the 'Xork-Study' Police Cadet program,
Limitin~ Featpres
1. Only 60% of necessary grants to permit $1.75 salary is
supplied from Department of Health, Education and Nelfare.
Other funding needs be provided by the City.
2. Grants are made with particular emphasis being placed on
low income families and their children. This particular
limitation has been broadly interpreted to help assure
participation.
3. Mithout additional funds only 'Mork-Study* grant recipients
could'participate in a proposed Police Cadet program.
Other students not receiving financial aid would be
restricted.
~ 4. Students in grant program who became capable of financing
their own education, or who attained a certain income level
would lose their 9rant.
5. Since the educational program and grants are based on a
two year schedule, students meeting certification require-
,merits before age 21 would need an additional work program
if they were to be retained for hiring by the Police Depart-
ment.
6. The Roanoke City Police Department may later be limited as
to the number of new officers that can be offered employ-
ment each year.
Me are coutlnuiug to pursue this in the belief that this may
offer an excellent opportunity not only for the development of
potential candidates for policework but also, in addition to.the
beneficial features itemized above, offer broad educational
opportunities to persons who might otherwise not have such entitle-
ment. Further investigation will include development of cost
analysis with ~he hope of returning to City Council and, based
on our present considerations, encouraging the City CounciYs
endorsement.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout end unanimously adopted,
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having previously requested a report from the
City Manager on future landfill operations and areas, the Assistant City Manager
submitted a mritten report of the City Manager on the status of landfill considera-
tions, advising that the delay is that there has been and is.continuing to be
explored uith the considerable intensity a new long range possibility, that as to
the Brushy Mountain situation, there is the development of a legal matter which he
iuould like to discuss uith the City Attorney and as soon as he has the benefit
iiof the City Attorney*s advice he mill include this infornation in a report to
Council, that there still is the immediate problem and he sill likely be in a
situation of having to return to Council very shortly with the request for Coancil*~
support for an intermediate and temporary location to take care of rapidly
expiring present land areas.
Dr, Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded bY Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BO~DS: The City Attorney submitted a written report in connection math
::a proposed amendment of Chapter 2, Accounts, warrants and interest, Title V, Financ~
of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, in connection with the
destruction of bonds and coupons after payment in full.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the matter be deferred until the next
regular meeting of Council on Monday, August 23. 1971, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: Council having referred to the City Auditor for study, report
and recommendation a communication from the City Treasurer concerning penalties,
Iiinterest andpenalty dates on certaie taxes covered by Ordinance ~o. 19742, the
iCity Auditor submitted a written report advising that despite the fact that the
ii1971-72 budget contains increased revenue estimates from taxes based upon the
!iprovisions of the Ordinance as adopted, and after consultation with the City
Treasurer, it is his opinion that although it may have some adverse effect on
collections, the Ordinance should be amended to delay its effective date to the ~%
current tax year ending December 31, 1971, that confusion will be eliminated by Bi
delaying the effective date until the beginning of the next tax year and tr ns-
matting a proposed Ordinance in connection therewith. ~:~ii~
Mr. Garland voiced the opinion that the penalty dates should be left on i ~'~
!penalty date. I
I After adi .....ion of the proposed Or dA ...... Mr. Th ........d that the ~ii
Ordinance be referred to the City Auditor and the City Attorney for further study ~i ~/i~;
to make certain that it cgmplies with the mishes of Council insofar as.the due
dates and the penalty dates are concerned. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler
[and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PURLIC WELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a monthly
statement of expenditures for public welfar? for the month ended July 31, 1971,
Mr, Trout moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion
lwas seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the Assistant City M~nager submitted a written report
ilmakin9 reference to the Aid to Dependent Children, MIN. item and the Day Care
!item. advising that these items are overexpeeded for the month of July.
~that this expenditure was anticipated t~ be of this magnitude during July and
can also be anticipated to occur in August. that these expenditures are n result
!of increased day care costs while young children are out of school during the
~summer. that it is anticipated these expenditures will drop to w~thin allotted
funds as soon as schools reopen and it is not felt that additional funds ~ill
need to be appropriated to these accounts.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed, T~e motion sas
seconded by Mr. Wheeler ~nd unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of July, 1971.
Mr. #heeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE-WATER DEPARTMENT-HEALTtl
DEPARTMENT: Council having deferred action on a proposed Ordinance which would
*require all property o.ners and occupants Of land to keep such land in clean and
sanitary condition pending a report from the City Manager with reference to the
iquestion, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Attorney called to the attention of Council
that this Ordinance applies to all bodies of water and not just to the Roanoke
Mr. Garland then offered the following Ordinance on second reading:
i=19640} AN ORDINANCE amending Title XIII. Ilealth, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended by the addition of a new chapter, designated as
iiChapter 15. requiring certain owners and occupants of land to keep such land in
{iclean and sanitary condition; containing certain definitions; providing procedures
ilfor the enforcement of this ordinance; prescribing penalties for the violation Of
!this ordinance or of certain orders of the Commissioner of Health made hereunder;
iland providing for certain publication of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 455.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Hr. Trout and adopted by the folloming-vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................ ?*
· NAYS: None ................. O.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that in voting for the adoption of the
Ordinance, Council should be awareof the fact that additional monies will have
to be appropriat~d to enforce it.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLtFflONS:
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 19604, vacating, discontinuing and
closing a certain unopened and unused alley approximately 12 feet in width and
running in an easterly direction 120 feet, more or less. from the east side Of
Fifth Street, S. E., and lying between the north boundary of Lot 5, Map Of New
York Building and Improvement Company, Official Tax No. 4021212 and the south
boundary of Lot 5, Section ?. Map of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company,
Official Tax No. 4021211. having previously been before Council for its first
reading, read and laid over, was aoain before the Oody, Mr. Thomas offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19804) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
!Ithat unopened andunused alley approximately 12 feet in width and running in an
lleasterly direction 120 feet. norm or less, from the east side of Fifth Street,
S. E.. and lying between the north boundary of Lot 5, Map of New York Building
i!and Improvement Company, Official City Tax No. 4021212. and the south boundary
iiof Lot 5, Section 7, Map of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company. Official City
Tax No. 4021211, all az shown on the Official Tax Appraisal Map of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, and being in the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 457.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
il Webber ..............................
I NAYS: None ...............O.
I ZONING: Ordinance No. 19805, rezoning property described as Lots 1 - O,
iinclusive, Section 5, Parkview Court. Official Tax Nos. 4311101 - 4311108, inclu-
sive, from RG-I, General Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential Dis-
trict, havin9 previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid
over, was again before the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following for its second
reading and final adoption:
(n19805) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4,1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. lBS6, as amended, and Sheet No, 431, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35. page 459.)
NFo Nheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Yeasts, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
~ebber ............................. ?.
NAYS: None ............. O,
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19806, tangoing ?.38 acres of Iaod hounded on
the northeast by Miller Street, N. M., and on the west and south by Peters Creek,
described as Official Tax No. 2720105, from RS-3, Single-Family Residential
District, to RG-2, General Residential District, having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body.
Dr. Taylor offerin9 the follomin9 for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19806) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2,
of Yhe Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 272, Sectional
1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No, 35', page 460.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!~ by Mr. Trout and adopted by tho following vote:
: ~YES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Bayor
Nebber ...............................7.
i NAYS: None ................O.
Ii ZONING: Ordinance No. 19807, rezoning property located in the 31OO block!
]iof Belrose Avenue. No N,. described as the westerly parts of Lots I nod 2 and the
; southerly part of Lot 2, Section 1. Map of R. I1~ Angell Addition, Official Tax No.
!!2530101, from C-l, Office and Institutional District, and R~, Duplex Residential
il District, to C-2. General Commercial District. having previously been before
!!Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body.
Mr. Trout offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(=19807) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title l¥. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 253, Sectional 1966
Zone Rap. CitI of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 461.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
#ebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ...............Oo
RATER DEPARTMENT-EASEMENTS: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper m~asure approving the supply of water to the Brookaide
Shopping Center, outside the corporate limits of the City of Roanoke, upon certain
terms sn~ provisions. ~e presented same; whereupon. Mr. Trout offered the f, Il,win9
emergency Ordinance:
¢=19B2o) AN ORDINANCE approving the City*s supply of water, from i~s
surplus supplies, to Brook*Ida Shopping Center, outside the'corporate limits, upon
certain terms and provisions; and providing fo~ an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No, 35, page
Mr, Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the f,Il,wing vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Llsk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Rebber ..............................
NAYS: None ............... O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Council having directed '
the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure accepting the proposal of R. ~ S.
!!Construction Company. for the construction of a football and baseball field in
Jackson Park. S. E., he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Lisk offered the following
e~ergency Ordinance:
(=19621) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of H. ~ S. Construction Company,
for the construction of a football and baseball field in Jackson Park, S.
authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract; rejecting
a certain other bid made for said improvements; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 466.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................
NAYS: None ..............-0,
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Mr, Thomas offered the following
Resolution approvin9, ratifyin9 and confirming the City Clerk's advertisement o~
the sale of certain c*ity bonds provided for in Resolution No. 19BO0 of Council:
(=1~822) A R~SOLUTION ratifyin9 and approving advertisement made for the
sale of certain City bonds.
(For full te~t of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page
Mr. Thomas moved ~he adoption of the Resolution. The motion' was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the f,II,sing vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
ii NAYS: None .............. O,
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
'~ONDS: Mr. Thomas moved that Council meet in Executive Session to
discuss a finance matter concerning the issuing of bonds. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that the term
of Mr. M. W. Garnett as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Employees'
Retirement System expired'on June 30. lgTl.' that Mr. 6arnett has declined to serve
another term and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Dr. Taylor placed in nomination the name of Bueford R. B,nell.
These being no further nominations. Mr. Bueford R. Howell mas elected as
a member of the Board of Trustees of the Employees*'Retirement System for a term
of four years ending June 30. lg?5. by the following vote:
FOR MR. flOMELL: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler
and Mayor Webber ...........................
SCIIOOLS: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that the terms
of Dr. Moffett H. Bowman and Mr. Samuel P. McNeil as members of the Roanoke City
School Board expired on June 30. lg?l. and called for nominations to fill the
vacancies.
~r. Garland placed in nomination the name of Dr. Moffatt H. Bowman.
Mr. Trout placed in nomination the name of Samuel P. McNeil.
There being no further nominations. Dr. Moffatt H. Bowman and Mr.
Samuel P. McNeil were reelected as members of the Roanoke City School Board for
terms of three years each ending June 30. 1974. by the following vote:
FOR DR. BOWMAN AND MR. MCNEIL: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas.
Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ............ ?..
IIOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council
that the four year'term of Mr. William S. Hubard as a member of the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority will expire on August 31. 1971. and
called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
· . Mr. Lisk placed in nomination the name of William S. Bubard.
There being no further nominations. Mr. William S. Hubard was reelected
* as a member of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and B,using Authority for a term
i! of four years beginning September 1. 1971. by the following vote:
FOR MR. HUBARD: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler
il and Mayor Webb .............................. T.
There bein~ no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned,
APP-ROYED'
~ ATTEST:
COt~CIL, REGULAR REETING,
Monday., August 23, 1971.
The Council or the City of ~oanoke met in regular meeting .in the Council
Chamber in the Hunicipal Building, Ronday, August 23. 1971. at 2 p,m.. the regular
meeting hour, mith Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen ~obert A. Garland, David K. Lish, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ..... ~ ....... ~ .............. ?*
ABSENT: Noae~ ..........
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F, Hlrst, City Manager, Mr. Byron E. Haner,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Klncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meetin9 was. opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Richard F. Bansemer, Pastor, St. John*s Lutheran Church.
MINUIES: The City Clerk presen}ed to each member of Council copy of the
minutes of its regular meeting held on Monday, July 26, 1971, and excerpts of the
;~minutes of its regular meeting held on Monday, August 2, 1971, its regula~ meeting
held on Monday, August 16., lgT1, and its special meeting held on Wedne.sday,
ilAugust 19, 1971, relating to the sale of $9,000,000.00 Public Improvement Bonds,
iSeries
Mr. Thomas moved that Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held on Monday. July 26, 1971, the excerpts of the minutes of the regular meetings
held on Monday, August 2 and Monday. August 15, 1971, and the special meeting
held on Wednesday, August lB. 1971. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC ~ATTERS:
AIRPORT: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids on operating
under lease the Terminal Building Restaurant and Gift Shop at Roanoke Municipal
(Moodrum) Air~ort, sa.id proposals to be received by the City Clerk not.il 2 p.m.,
Monday, August 23, 1971.. and to be. opened at that hour before Council, Mayor
Webber asked if anyone had any questions about the advertisement and no repre-
sentative present raising any question, the Mayor instructed the City Clerk to
iproceed with the opening of the bids; mhereupon, .the City Clerk opened and read
the following bids:
The Cleaves Pood Service Corporation .0858%
HFS Industries, Incorporated . 5
Ancorp National Services, Incorporated 11.25
Frantz Flying Service, Incorporated 11.65
M. L. Hagood, Sr., #. L. Hagood, Jr. 14
Upon being advised by the Uity Manager that the length of this contract
is for a five year period, Mr. Link expressed concern over this fact and asked if
the length of the contract could be for a shorter period of time taking into
consideration proposed improvements to the Terminal Building at Roanoke Municipal
(Moodrum) Airport and requested that this factor be taken into consideration by
th
ltMr. LiSktheebmovedrthatithetbidsabedreferredtteemhentheids'oebengabulte. ...... itteetobe
appointed by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council. The
~motton mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
! Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. Byron K. Boner, Chairman. Marshall L.
Harris and J. Robert Thomas as members of the committee.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday. August
23, lgT1. on the request of Mr. Charles Dane, et ux.. that property located at
1732 Eleventh Street, N. E., described as Lots 10. 11 and 12. Block 42, Map of
Linwood Land Company, Official Tax No. 3050B11. be rea.ned from RD, Duplex
Residential District. to LM. Light Manufacturing District. the matter was before
the body.
: In this connectioo, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommend/n9 that the request be granted:
"July 22. 1971
The Ban.robie Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City
Planning Commission at both its meetings of July 7 and July 21,
Mr. Alex A. Maldrop, Jr., attorney for the petitioners.
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that his
client recently purchased this property in question and wishes
to rezone it for a combined office and shop operation. He
noted that Mr. Charles Bane. the petitioner, wishes to use this
shop for a carpet and tile operation, Finally. Mr. Maldrop
stated that the property was presently zoned for a RD designation
and the property across the street ia presently zoned for LM.
The Planning Director, raised the question of the possibility
of moving this proposed manufacturing operation to the east into
the industrially-zoned areas. The petitioner noted that it was
not practical nor feasible to do this shifting of operations.
t Mr. J. O. Lawrence, member of the Planning Comnission, inquired
about the adjoining property owners. Mr. Waldrop replied that
there were no opposition to this request and he had presented
letters to City Council signed by adjoining property owners
supporting this petition.
At the July 21 meeting of the Planning Commission. the Plan=
ntng Director presented seven letters signed by the neighboring
property owners supporting this fez.ming petition.
Accordingly. motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L.M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
71.6
Mr. Alex Ao Wnldrop. Jr.. Attorney. representing the petitioners.
ed before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning. Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(m19824) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XY, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 306, Sectional
1956 Zone Map, City of Roanoke in relation to Zoning.
NHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have Lots 10. 11 and 12, Block 42, Rap of Ljnwood Land Company, also known as
1732 Eleventh Street, No E.., Official Yax No. 3060811, the record o~ners being
Charlie Bane and Phoebe J. Bane. husband and wife, who acquired said lots by deed
dated March 9o 1971. recorded March 11, 1971, in Deed Rook 1269, page 333. Clerh*s
Office, Hostings Court. Roaqoke, Virginia, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District. to LM. Light Manufacturing District; and
RHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RD, Ouplex Residential District, to LM,
Light Manufacturing District; and
RHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published
and posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
RBEREAS, the he.ring as provided for in said notice ~as held on the
23rd dayof August, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City ~ Roanoke, at
which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were 9ivan an opportunity to bo
heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
RHEREAS, this Council. after considering the evidence as herein provided,
llis of tho opinion t~at the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
litle XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of Yhe Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 306 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City
of Roanoke, ~e amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on 1732 Eleventh Street, N. E., described as Lots
11 and 12, Block 42, Map of Linw~od L~nd Company, designated on Sheet 306 of the
Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 3060811, be, and is
hereby, changed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District. and that Sheet No. 306 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber-----~ ............~ ........ -T ........
NAYS: None ...... L ............ O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Monday. August 23, 1971, on the request of Old Gominion Homes, Incorporated, that
an alley extending south from East Gate Avenue to an alley running parallel to
East Gate Avenue, lying between loth Street. N. E., and lgth Street, N. £o, and
another alley extending south from Templeton Avenue. N. E., to East Gate Avenue
lying between 14th Street mud 15th Street, N. E.. be vacated, discontinued and
closed, the matter nas before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the followln9
report recommending that the request be granted with the understandin9 that the
petitioner mill dedicate five feet for street midening purposes on 14th Street
and ISth Street. N. E.. south of Templeton Avenue and provided that the 4S foot
right of may will be maintained throughout the width of the alley between IHth
Street and 19th Street, H. E., south of East Gate Avenue:
"July 22, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of July 21, 1971.
Mr, Jock Y. Place, attorney for the petitioners, noted that
the alleys were unopened and his intent, specifically in regard
to the alley lying between 14th Street, N. E., and 15th Street
N. E., south of Templeton Avenue. is to resubdivide three lots
into two lots.
The Planning Director recommended approval for the closure
of the alley lying between 14th Street, N. E,, and 15th Street,
N. E.. south of Templeton Avenue, but predicated, homever, on the
property owner 9ranting the City 5-feet for street widenin9 on
both East Gate Avenue and on Templeton Avenue. Similarly, on the
alley between 16th Street, N. E., and 19th Street, N. E., south
of East Gate Avenue, the Planning Director recommended approval
of the alley closure predicated on the 45-foot right-of-way being
maintained throughout the width of the alley.
Accordingly, motiou was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommendin9 to City Council both alley closures mith the
understanding, however, that the petitioner will dedicate 5-feet
for street midenin9 purposes on 14th 5trent. N. E.. and 15th Street.
N, E,, south of Templeton Avenue. and provided that the 45-foot
right-of-way mill be maintained throughout the midth of the alley
between loth Street, N. E.. and 19th Street. N. E., south of
East Gate Avenue,
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L.M.
John Il. Parrott
Chairman"
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the alleys in question and the neighboring property
and are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience mould result to any
individual or to the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing the alleys.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuin9 and closing
the alleys, Mr, Trout moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(u19825) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating and d~scontinuing two (2)
unopened alleys in the northeastern section of the City of Roanoke pursuant to the
,revisions of §15,1-364 of the Co~e 9f Virginia of 1950 as amended..
WHEREAS, Old Do~inion Homes, Inc. has heretofore filed application before
;he Council of the City of Roanoke requesting Council to discontinue and vacate
tug (2) unopened alleys in said petition described; and,
WHEREAS, notices of the intended application mere posted in three (3)
public places in the City of Roanoke ten (10) days prior to Council*s consideratien
of said application; and,
WHEREAS. in accordance with the prayer containedin .said application.
Resolution No. 19759 was adopted by the said City Council on the 6th day of
July. 1971. pursuant to which viewers were appointed to ~iew the said property
and to report in writing what inconvenience, if any. would result from permanently
vacating and discontinuiog the two (2) alleys hereinafter described; and further.
the said City Council referred the issues raised by said applicant to the Planning
Commission of the City of Roanoke for the Commission's study of said request and a
report thereon; and,
WIIEREAS, it appears from the report in writing filed by the viewers mith
the City Clerk dated August 2, 1971, together with the Affidavit'of said viewers,
of even date theremith, fha{ n~ inconvenience uould result, either to any individual
or to the public, from tho permanent vacating and discontinuing of the said two
(2) alleys, and to which report no exceptions have been filed; and,
WHEREAS. the City Planning Commission. by letter, directed tO the Mayor
of the City of Roanoke and the members of City Council, dated July 22, 1971, recom-
mended to City Council that the request contained in the application aforesaid be
9ranted; subject to the applicant dedicating a five (5) foot strip of land for
street widening purposes; and,
HHEREAS, the applicant has, through its attorney, agreed to the dedtcatioh
of the five (5) foot wide strip of land for street widening purposel; and,
WHEREAS, after not{flcation to the llnd'proprietors along the alleys
hereinafter described and after newspaper publication as by statute provided,
a public hearing was held before Council on the 23rd day of August. 1971. at
which hearing all interested parties and citizens were afforded an opportunity
to be heard on the question of the proposed alley closings; and,
WHEREAS. upon consideration of the mdt'tar, the Council is of the opinion
that no inconvenience will result to any o,ner or to the public from permanently
.... ting and di .... tinuing the two (2) alleys hereinafter d .... ibed.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
that the following alleys located in the northeast section of the City of Roanoke
closed:
Alley =1 - extending south from East Gate Avenue to an alley
running parallel to East Gate Avenue. lying betmeen 10th Street,
N. E.. and 19th Street. N. E.. in the City of Roanoke. being
approximately 120 feet in length and 12 feet wide. bounded on the
west by official lot u3231603 and bounded on the east by official
lot =3231604;
Alley =2 - extending south from Temple,on Avenue. N. E.. to East
Gate Avenue. lying between 14th Street. N. £.. and ISth Street.
N. E** in the City of Roanoke. being approximately 136 feet in
length end 12 feet wide. bounded on the west by official lot
=3230601, n3230602 and #3230603, and bounded on the east by
official lot m3230604, #3230605 and u323060~.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke be,
and he hereby is, directed to mark "Permanently Abandoned, Vacated. Discontinued
!and Closed" those two (2) certain alleys hereJnabove described on all maps and
!iplats on file in the Office of the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
~!~°n .hich said maps and plats said alleys are shown, referring to the book and
ipage of Ordinances and Resolutions of Council wherein this Ordinance shall be spread;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that notmithstandin9 anything to the contrary
iiherein contained, the City reserves unto itself an easement for any mater or sewer
or other public utility line or lines, if any, nom existing in the two (2) alleys
ihereinabove described, along mith the right of ingress and egress for the mainte-
sauce and repair thereof.
ME IT FURTDER ORDAINED that the Clerk of this Council deliver to the
iiClerk of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke. Virginia, an attested copy
"iof this Ordinance in order that the said Clerk may make proper notations on all
:imaps or plats recorded in his said office upon ~hich are shown the said alleys
iiherein permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed.
The motion Nas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None .............O.
ANIMALS-DOGS-TAXES: Mrs. James E. Melton, representing the Roanoke
Valley S. P. C. A., appeared before Council and read a prepared statement advising
of the benefit the S. P. C. A. has rendered the City of Roanoke through its opera-
tion; its contribution to the health, safety and las enforcement regarding state
lass and city Ordinances pertaining to animals; figures reflecting financial savingS
to the City in performing acts which are more properly the duty of the City of
Roanoke; a comparison of the activities of the S. P. C. A. with those of the Animal
Control Officer and the costs of each; transmitting a motion that the S. P. C.
by its Humane Officer or a representative of the Society. be permitted to investi-
gate at any reasonable hour the condition of the City Pound with a viem toward its
sanitation, the manner in which dogs are disposed of and some suggestions toward
improving the pound; end requesting a perinniul appropriation to the S. P. C. A.
In this connection, Mrs. Melton also presented a petition signed by 50
citizens of the City of Roanoke opposing the increase in the dog license from
$1.00 to $5.00.
Mr. Romse! #. ArrJngton, Humane Office~ Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals. nppenred before Council in ~UPP~r~ or the revues? of the
S.P.C.A,
Mr. Raymond P. Barnes, Director of the S. P. C. A., also appeared before
the body and ~equested that Council appropriate certain funds toward the operation
i!of the S. P. C. A. and suggested several methods in mhich funds can be raised by
the City of Roanoke for this purpose.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that the S. P. C. A. performs a
morthmhile function within the City of Roanoke. that sufficient funds should be
provided by Council to then o~ moved that un appropriation of $6.ooo.oo per year
be donated to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
The motion died for lack of a second.
Rt. Thomas expressed the opinion that he does not disugree with the in-
tent of the notion offered by Hr. Garland but that he thinks tl~ matter should be
referred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation as to how the
operations of the City Dog Pound could be tied in with those of the S. P. C. A.
After a further discussion of the request. Mr. Thomas moved that the
matter be referred to the City Ranager for the purpose of studying the feasibility
of combining the City Dog Pound with the operations of the S. P. C. A. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS ANB COmmUNICATIOn!S:
CELEBRATIONS: A communication from Governor Linwood Holton. advising
that in the years 1976-03 Virginia will join the nation in observing the anniversary
of our national independence, that to this end. the Commonwealth has created the
Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission and empowered it to plan a Statewide
observance befitting Yirglnia's leadership in the Revolution and her importance
in American history, that to enlist the support of all ~itizens. the Commission
will hold a Storewide Bicentennial Conference on Friday, September 17, lg?l. at t~e
Hotel John Marshall in Richmond. ¥irginta. and requestin9 that the City of Roanoke
create a Bicentennial Planning Committee and send one or more representatives to
the September meeting, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Mayor Webber be requested to uppoint said committee.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Rayor Mebber advised that he would appoint said committee by the next
regular meeting of Council on Ronday. August 30. 1971.
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County and copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke
'County Public Service Authority. petitioning the Council of the City of Roanoke
to waive that certain stipulation of the city-county contract relative to the
County's installation of sewer lines within the City of Roanoke as applicable to
683** more or less, of the fourth phase of the Authority*s Peters Creek parallel
sanitary sewer interceptor project as shown on an attached map, which stipulation
would, encept for this express waiver,'canse and require the title to the sewer
line to be conveyed by Roanoke CountT to the City of Roanoke, were before Council,
Mr. Trout moved that the Resolutions be referred to the Sewer Committee
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SPECIAL PERMITS-SIGNS: A communication from the Roy C. Kinsey Sign
Company, requesting a permit to erect a marque type sign for the Security National
Bank of Roanoke at their downtown office at 24 West Church Avenue. was before
Council.
Mr. Llsk moved that the request be referred to the City Manager for
i s
tndy, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: A communication from the Department of the Army,
Rilmington District, Corps of Engineers, announcing a public meeting on flood
control Study for Peters Creek Basin, Roanoke County, Virginia, to be held at
7:30 p.m., September 14, 1971. at the Salem-Roanoke Yalley Civic Center, was
ilhefore Council,
Br. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
5EWERS AND S~ORM BRAINS: Council having referred back to the City Man-
agar a report in connection with the Norfolk Avenue sanitary sewer line. advising
that the appropriate action to be taken is to replace the entire portion of the
Norfolk Avenue trunk sewer which now lies within the Lick Run Channel ond recom-
mending that an appropriation be mode in the amount of $34,000.00 for this purpose,
the City Manager submitted the folloming report advising that further onolysis
of the conditions under which this new line would be placed indicate the possibilit
of encountering unknown quantities of rock which could conceivably run the cost of
the project considerably above the originally requested amount Of $34,0B0.00,
that because of the urgency of the situation, it is requested that Council authorize
the preparation of detailed plans and advertising of the project prior to the
appropriation of funds and that funds be appropriated for the completion of the
project at such time as construction of bids are received and a contract award is
made:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 23, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, July 26, 1971, the City Manager forwarded a
report to City Council recommending that City Council appro-
priate $34,000 to permit the replacement of the entire portion
22 '
of the Norfolk Avenue trunk sewer which lies within the Lick Run
cbnnael, At that time, the report indicated the estimated cost
of this construction to be $34,000 ~nd the report contained the
recommendation for nn approprlotion of that amount.
City Council at that time referred this report hack to the
City Mana2er requesting further study with regard to the amount
to be appropriated for replacement of the sewer line.
Further analysis of ~he con~itlons under which this new
line would be placed indicate the possibility of encountering
unknown quantities of fo:k, which could conceivably run the cost
of this project considerably above the abovementioned figure.
Because of the urgency of this situation, it would be requested
that City Council authorixe the preparation of detailed plans
and the advertising of this project prior to the appropriation
of funds and that funds be appropriated for the coapletion
of this project at such time as construction o£ bids are
received and a contract award is made. It is imperative that
me proceed as expeditiously as possible with this project to
red]ce the possibility of delays of the Corps of Engineers Lick
Run channel improvement project. It woold be requested that'
City Council authorize the completion of these plans an~ permis-
sion to request bids on this ~roject at the earliest possible
date. -
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian Fo Hirst
Julian F. Ilirst
City Manajer"
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
prcpa:ation af the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. ~isk and
unanimausl~ adopted.
SEMERS AND STOR~ DRAINS: Council having refer~ed to the City Manaaer
for stuJy, report and recommendation a communication from Mr. C. Ho Hall, Jr.,
requesting*that Council lower the rate for emptyin9 septic tank cleaning
trucks at the Sewage Treatment Plant, the City Manager submitted the following
Treatment Plant in the next several years:
~Roanoke, Virginia
August 23, 1971
Ilon~rable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, August 16, 1971, Mr. C. H. tlallo Jr., appeared
before City Council and requested that City Council lower the rate
for emptying septic tank cleaning trucks into the sewage treatment
plant~ He stated that he believed the recently in:teased rate to
be unreasonable and unjustified at this time due to the fact that
no improvements in operation or better facilities had been pro-
vided to warrant such aa in:reuse.
City Council referred this matter to the City Hoaoger and
requested n response by Monday, August 23, 1971. Prior to City
Councll*s passing the emergency ordinance on August 9, 19Yl, to
increase the charge for pnaping septic tank trucks into our
digesters, the City of Roanoke hsd been charging $.25 per 100
9aligns for this service.
This recommended in:reused in charges had been based upon
known costs to the City for the performance of services for the
consuaed by the operator and as a result of the known loss of 9as
production as a result of the performance of this function, it
has been ascertained that it cost the City approximately $490
during the month of July to perform this function while me
received only $1~$ in payment.
A meeting sos held on Thursday, August 19, with Mr. Churchill.
Mr. Hall and Mr. Crow, the principals of the three more activ~
companies concerned ~lth this problem andthe situation was dis-
cussed in detail. These gentlemen indicated that they have several
size trucks ant feel that the charge for the smaller trucks should
not be as high as that for the larger trucks. Additionally. they
feel thot improvemeuts could be mode to assist them in emptying
. their trucks by providing an incline so that the trucks sill drain
by gravity.
Additionally, as they did nat receive official notification
of the change in price until Monday. August 16, and this was after
the President hod implemented the price freeze, they feel such aa
increase could n~t be effected. Investigation of this claim
reveals that the chan~e in price as approved b~ City Council on
AuguSt 9, 1971, was not implemented until n copy of the implement-
ing ordinance was received by the senage treatment department on
August lb, 1971. On that date the in:reuse in rates was implemented.
Accordingly, this portion of the problem was referred to the City
Attorney's office; and we have been verbally informed, pending
further clarification from the Federal government with respect to
the guidelines controlling prices and wages, since the increose in
price was not implemented until August 16, 1971, it could quite
conceivably fall under the freeze in prices as established by the
Federal government.
Accordingly. it would be our recommendation that City Council
alloM the ordinance as passed on August 9. 1971, to stand subject
to the Presidential freeze on price incre3ses and to become
effective at such time as the price freeze is removed. In the
meantime, through the use of City forces, aa effort will be made to
improye the unloading site for these tank trucks and consideration
will be given to providing a more suitable site in the proposed
construction work to be accomplished to enlarge the sesame treatment
plant in the next several years.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council con:ur in the recommendation of the City
Manager. The motion sas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred to the City Manager and
the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation a communication
from Mr. and Mrs. Melvin M. Bentley, offerin9 to allow the City of Roanoke to use
a parcel of land osned by them located at 1001Fairfax Avenue, N. W., for the pur-
pose of establishing-a "Tot Lot" for scull children in the area, subject to
mutually agreed upon terms, the City Manager submitted the following report adris-
lng that a facility such as a *Tot Lot* should be situated some distance from
heavy traffic movement. ~hat the location carries some hazards especially in the
movement of very young children to and from the area and with this in mind, it is
felt that the city mould be in the best position to decline this offer bat at the
same time with the hope *hit there might be other owners of similar or slightly
larger lots in the area who would find Justification in making a similar proposal
to the city:
"Roanoke. Virginia
August 22. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on July 19 ~eferred to me an offer of Mr. and
Mrs. Melvin M. Bentley of free use to the City of a lot owned by
that fahlly at lOth Street and Fairfam Avenue, N- M.o for a
neighborhood "Tot Lot."
The offer of these citizens is certainly appreciated and it is
believed that if similar types of offers could be made available
to the City in areas of dense population that significant useful
development of the *Tot Lot* concept would be highly ~eneficial.
Yhe property, as the owner stated, has a 30-foo~ frontage
and a depth of 130 feet. The depth is reasonably good: however, it
would be generally desirable to have some more width in such a
small playground idea and in the absence of 75 to lDO feet of width,
the develops*mt is rather limited.
Our main concern though with this particular property is as to
its location at the intersection of 10th Street and Fairfax Avenue.
This is a heavily traveled intersection with the voluse and rate of
movement on loth Street being particularly of concern. Such a
facility as a "Tot Lot" should be situated Some distance from heavy
traf£ic movement. While the lot could and would have to be fenced,
the location does carry some hazards especially in the movement
of very young children to and from the area.
lith this in mind, it is felt that the City would be in the
best position to decline this offer but at t~e same time with the
hope that there might be other owners of similar or slightly
larger lots in the area Who would find justification in making a
similar propasal to the City. I would be glad to write the owners
if Council were to concur in this position.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. BJrst
Julian ¥. Hlrst
City Manager*
In this conlection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recomlending that the offer b~ declined sin:e the parcel of lant in question
does not represent a suitable location for a 'Tot Lot- because of its proximity
to 10th Street:
'August 19, 1971
The Bonorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members Of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting Of August I0, 1~71.
The Planning Director noted that this parcel Of improved land
did not represent a suitable location for a tot lot, noting its
proximity to 10th Street, a major arterial, which presented a
serious safety problem. Re noted that plans are being made to
convert the London School site, located in proximity to this parcel,
to a park site. In addition, it Was pointed out that property of
a more internal character, oriented away from heavily traveled
streets represented a more suitable an~ viable location for recre-
ation areas. In this respect the Planning Director noted that
attention should be given by the City to the development of inner
blo~k parks, Of an acre or less, to be located ia the interior
portion of designated blocks. This ~ould serve both as a catalyst
forproperty osners to rehabilitate their properties, and in
addition monldlprovide much needed park space.
· Accordingly, motion mas mode, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to decline this offer mith thanks extended to Mr. and Mrs.
Bentley for their thoughtfulness nod public concern.
.Sincerely,
S! John H. Parrott by L, M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
Mr. Mbeeler moved tbot the reports be received and filed. The motion
Mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
L£GISLATIO~-VIRG1NIA MUNICIPAL L£AGC£: The City Manager submitted a
written report transmittin) the proposed legislative program from the Virginia
Municipal League inviting*suggestions on th~ part of Virginia cities and towns.
Mr. Lisk moved thot the report be received and filed and that a copy be
tronsmitted to the members of the Legislative Advisory Committee o f Council for
their information. The motion sas seconded by Mr. Themes aa~ unanito~$1y adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Manager submitted the following
report suSaitting.tbe proposed State and Local ItospitalizatJon plan agreement
for provision for hospitalization and outpatient treatment for indigent or medical-i~
ly indigent persons for the period from July 1. 1971. to June 30. 1972. recommend-
lng that Council withhold the authority to sign these contracts until the City
Attorney can, predicated upon President Nixon*s price and ~ale freeze, determine
the legality of signing these post-dated contracts which increases the city*s
payment for these services and should the determination be made that this action
is legal, it ~ill then be requested that Council authorize him to sign these
contracts:
"Roanoke. Virginia
August 23. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
As is customary at this time each year, we submit to City
Council a report on the proposed State and Local Hospitalization
plan agreements for provision for hospitolization and outpatient
treatment for indigent or medically indigent persons for a period
of July 1, 1971, to June 3~. 1972.
These hospital rates are based on data reported by the
Virginia Council on Uniform Hospital Accounting and the rates
include depreciation on equipment, et cetera. ~he maximum
allo~able rate for the coming fiscal year as determined by the
State is $~6,4~ per day for inpatient services and SB.O0 per
visit for outpatient 'services. These are all in:losive rates.
addition to the rates sho~n belo~ for inpatient services, each
hospital has established SB.O0 per visit as the rate for out-
patient services. ~he listing of rates proposed are as follows
~ith the second column inHicatin9 the 1970-71 previously
authorized rates.
:26
1970-71 Rates
Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley $48.12 $43.81
Lewis-Gale Hospital .52.27 45.41
Medical College of Virginia 66.48 50.82
ROanoke Memorial Hospitals 51.43 14.04
Shenandoah H6spital 45.45' 39.62
Hill ReworJal Hospital S2.27 4?.88
University of Virginia 66.48 58.82
We are'attaching a copy of One of the contracts nnd would ad-
vise that all Other contracts are identical with the exception of
the variance in the rates. This report is submitted to City Council
with the recommendation that Council withhold the authority to sign
· these contracts'until the City Attorney cnn,predicated upon
President RJxom's price and wage freeze, determine the legality
of signing these post dated contracts which increases the City*s
payment for these services. Should the determination be made that
this action is legal, it would theo be asked that City Council
authorize the City Manager to sign these State and Local ~ospitaliza-
tJon contracts.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
'City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
clarification and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
SEW%GE TREATMENT. PLANT: The City Mann]er submitted a written report
!concurring in the following report of a committee recommenting that the proposal
~f Kappa Associates, Incorporated, for 1,000 diffuser tubes to be used Jn the
aeration tanks at the Sewage Treatment Plant, in the amount of $13,335.00, be
accepted:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 23, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Hentlemen:
After due and proper advertisement for bids on 1,000 Diffuser
Tubes, one bid was received in the office of the Purchasing Agent
and publicly opened and read on August 18, 1971. The bid was
submitted by Kappa Associates, Inc., Rockville, Maryland, at a
total net price of $13,335, f.o.b. Roanoke, Virginia.
The diffuser tubes sill be used in the Aeration Tanks at the
Sewage Treatment Plant.
It is the Committee's recommendation that the bid of Kappe
Associates be accepted for supplying 1.000 diffuser tubes. These
tubes will conform to the specifications and requirements of the
City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Rilliam F. Clark
Committee: William F. Calrk
$/ Sam H. HcGhee,' III
Sam H. McGhee, III
B. B. Thompson
Hueford B. Thompson"
In this connection, the Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
advising that on July If 1971. Kappe Associates, Incorporated, submitted an infor-
mal quotation to the City of Roanoke with the price of $11.895o00 for the purchase
of the diffuser tubes, that the City Attorney recommended that the city request
formal bids for these diffuser tubes rather than going sole source and that Kappa
Associates. Incorporated, was the only bidder with a total bid price of $13,335.00
that the Purchasing Agent contacted Kappe Associates, Incorporated. and reminded
them of their informal quotation of July 1, that ~appe Associates, Incorporated,
Indicated that they will honor the July 1, lg?l, quotatfefl Jn the amount of
$11,095.00 and recommending that the city accept the price as quoted in the infor-
mal quotation of July 1, 1971.
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
Assistant City Manager and offered the followin9 emorgeflcy Ordinance:
(~lg82b) AN ORDINANCE accepting a proposal for furnishin9 to the City
1,000 Chicago Pump Flexofusers for use at the City's Sewage Treatment Plant:
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 470.)
NAYS: None ...............O.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City RanageF submitted a written report concur-
ring in the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of
Consolidated Contractors, of Virginia, in the amount of $7,640.00, for the sale
of approximately 575.000 hoard feet of sawtimber located on the Beaver Dam and
Fulling Creek Watershed properties, be accepted:
"Roanoke. Virginia
August 23, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemefl:
A committee report recommending the acceptance of the bids
of Consolidated Contractors, Inc. of ¥lrgtoia ia the amount of
$7.640 for the sale of approximately STS.000 board feet of
sawtlmber located on the City*s Beaver Dam and galIing Creek
Matershed propertles is forwarded to the City Council for your
consideratioo.
As noted in Mr. Kiser's accompanying memo, prices proposed
are not particular good and for the reason he so stated. It
should be noted that on two p~rvious occasions mhen the City
has requested bids on this same timber no bids were received.
Although we are not particularly pleased with the bid amounts,
it would be recommended that City Council accept the high bid
of Consolidated Contractors, Inc. of Virginia in the amount
of $7.640 for the purchase, of this timber. In future sales, we
would hope that better prices would be received due to closer
proximity of sites to the mills of the respective bidders.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
*28
After a discussion of the matter, various members of Council being of
the opinion that the proposal of Consolidated Contractors, of Virginia is not a
sufficient sum of money for the samtimbec, #F. Trout moved thus the recommendation
of the City Hanager be taken under consideration. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure accepting the conveyance of the Harrison Elementary School Building
to the City of Roanoke, the City Attorney submitted a uritten report transmitting
an appropriate Ordinance by which the City of Roanoke mould accept from the
Roanoke City School Board the property formerly occupied as the Harrison
Elementary School.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~IgH2T) AN OXDINANCE accepting possession, ns well as ownership, of
the Ilarrison Elementary School property as of August 24, 1971, from the School
Board of the City of Roanoke; requesting said School Board to execute a deed
quitclaimin9 and conveying all its right, title and interest in said property
to the City of Roanoke; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 471.).
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None .................O.
TAXES-STATE CORPORATION COMMISSIOn: The City Auditor submitted a
written report forwardin9 a report of the Valuations and Levies for Taxation upon
the property of public utilities based upon the values as established by the
State Corporation Commission compared for the years 1970-71, advisin9 that there
is an increase in taxes of $90,290.63 which will result in an ~crease in expected
revenue for the year in the current budget.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report on an
examination of the Patrick Henry tligh School Activities Fund for the year ended
iJune 30, 1971, made by Andrews, Barker and Company, Certified Public Accountants,
under the direction of his office, advisin9 that the report states that it
~p ..... ts fairly the fi .... iai condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
..... ded by Mr. Th ...... d ....i .... ,y adopted.
ended June 30, 1971, made by And .....Ourket and Company, Certified Public
;p ..... ts fairly thc fi .... iai condition of the fund at the end Of the audit
Mr. Llsk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Thomas and unanJmousl! adopted, -
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a mritten report on an
examination of the Mllliam Fleming High School Activities Fund for the year ended
June 30, 197l, made by Keanett and Kennetto Certified Public ACcountant's, under
the direction of his office, advising that the report states that it presents
fairly the financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr. Llsk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
Seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report on an
examination of the Lucy Addison High School Activities Fund for the year ended
~June 30, 1971, made by Kennett and Kennett, Certified Public Accountants. under
:!the direction of his office, advising that the report states that it presents
fairly the financial condition of the fund at the end of the audit period.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Planning Commission submitted the following
i. report in connection uith adopting a measure requesting the General Assembly
of Virginia to increase tho fee of closing a street or alley from $50.00 to
$100.00, recommending that Council adopt such a measure and provide the mechanism
:for establishing equitable measures of assessing abuttin9 property owners in alley
or street closures:
"August 19. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of August IH, 1971.
The Planning Director noted that he generally supported the
measure requesting the General Assembly to increase the fee for
closing a street or alley f~om $50.00 to $100.00. since much admin-
istrative time is entailed in the street and alley closure process.
In addition, he recommended that the City should establish pro-
cedures for appraising the value of the land that is involved in
street closures, and providing for equitable payments by the adjoin-
ing property owners.
The Planning Commission me,bees generally noted that the
$100.00 fee for closing a street or alley was equitable, and
strongly recommended that measure be adopted by the City to provide
for equitable payments, based on fair market value, bY abutting
property owners in a street or alley closure situation.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council the adoption of a measure
requesting the General Assembly of Virginia to increase the fee
for closing a street or alley from $50.00 to $100.00. and to pro-
vide the mechanism for establishing equitable measures of assess-
Jag abutting property owners in alley or street closures.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman-
#r, Trout moved that the matter bo referred to the City Attorney for
preporatlou of the proper unaware carrying out the reconnendatioo of the City
Planning ConuiasJon. The nation nas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unaninous~y adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Connission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Fred P. Dullington. et ux**
land Hr. William J. Causman, et ux., that a portion of 2Sth Street, S. W.. lying
lbetneen the nesterly side of Carolina Avenue and the easterly side of a 12 foot
lalley running through the center of ~lochs 28 and 29. Map of Crystal.Springs. be
ivacated, discontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission submitted a written
!!report recommending that the request be granted, and, in addition, that a portion
:of 25th Street lying between the easterly side Of Wycliffe Avenue, S. M.. and the
~uesterly side of a 12-foot alley running through the centers of Blocks 28 and 29,
also be v~cat.ed, discontinued and closed.
Mr. Thomas.moved that a public hearing on the request be held at 2 p.a..
adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report .and recommendation the request of the City of Roanoke that the block
by Day Avenue and on the west by Third Street. S. N., be rezoned from C-4. Central
Business District Expansion Area, to C-3, Central Gusiness District. the City
Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be
Mr, Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request be held at 2 p.m**
Monday, September 20, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
!study. report and recommendation the request of Creenbrier Associates. a partner-
~ship comprised of Messrs. William J. Mo~dy and Fred P. Gnllington. that property
!idescribed as Lots 18, 19 and 20, Section 20 Map of West Park, and Lots I and
iBlock 20. Map of Washington Heights, be rezoned from C72, General Commercial
iDistrict, to RG-2. General Residential District, the City Planning Commission
submitted a written report recommending that Council grant a modification of this
request permitting the petitioner a C-I rezoning in lieu of the original
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request be held at
~Monday, September 20, 1971. The motion nas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
iadopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning CommiSsion for
study, report end recommendation the request of Mr, Nicholas Nachley that property
described us Lot 'IS end the southerly 20 feet of Lot 14, Map of Coveland Court.
Official Tax Nos. 2480108 and 2460132, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family
Residential District, to C-2, Office and Institutional District, the City Planning
Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be denied.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. George J, Jacobs, Attorney,
representing the petitioner, advising that his client desires a public hearing
on the request for rezoning, was before Council,
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request be held at 2 p.m.,
Monday, September 20, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troet and unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTE£S:
SERERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The Sewer Committee submitted a written report
in connection with the status of the sewer eontra~t presently being prepared by
the Sewer Committee for submission to the area governing bodies, advising that the
contract will be presented to Council for comment,' review and action on Tuesday,
September T, 19TI, and transmitting certain ReSolutions for tee purpose of setting
the consensus of Council insofar as the proposed i~plementation of the regional
sewage plan concept may be concerned as it may relate to the Fifth Planning
District Interim Sewerage Plan due on or before November 1, 19?l.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the Committee and
offered the following Resolution formally advising the Fifth Planning District
Commission that the City of Roanoke proposes that it continue to own and operate
its sewage treatment plant and facilities and its system of interceptor sewers
and that said city be the agency responsible, through fair and equitable agreements
and contracts entered into with other local governing bodies in the Roanoke Valley
area, £or the ownership and operation of treatment plant facilities and systems of
interceptor lines adequate for properly transmitting and treating sewage wastes
ioriginatiug in nil said areas:
(;19828) A RESOLUTION relating toprovision of long-range sewage treat-
~ment services in the Roanoke Valley area.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 4T2.)
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded~
by Mr, Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ......................... T.
NAYS: None ..........O.
.32
Hr. Thomas then offered the follouiug~Reso~lution ratifying and confirm-
ing the filing with the Board of SupervlSOFS of Roanoke County of on application
on behalf of the City of Roanoke for rezoning of approximately 33.25 acres of
certain property situate iu the County of Roanoke from 'Residential Estates - RE'
to "Industrial District - R-l', to allow for necessary expansion of the Roanoke
Seuage Treatment Plant:
(#19029) A BESOLUIION ratifying and ~onflrmJng the filing with the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County of application on behalf of the City for
rezoning of approximately 33.25 acres of certain property situate in the County
of Roanoke. to allow for necessary expansion Of the Roanoke 5ewag~ Treatment Plant.
IFor full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book Ho. 35. page 474.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
'ed by Rr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Yhomas. Trout. Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
In this connection. Mr. Rheeler offered the following Resolution assur-
ing the appreciation of Council to Mr. Edward H. Ould. Mr. Thomas P. Parsley and
Ur. Hamilton M. Redman for the dedicated services they have given the City of
Roanoke in advising the City Auditor and, at times, the Council, upon the program
'and as to the times and manner in ~hich the $29.b00.000 of City of Roanoke bonds
:flor financing the City's Capital Improvements Program be offered for sale. all
which such advice and counseling has resulted in advantageous sales by the city
of all said bonds:
(~19830) A RESOLUTION relating to the proorammin9 of sale of $29.600.000
bonds of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35. page
Mr. Rheeler moved the adoption, of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................ O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
i! BONDS: The City Attorney submitted the following report in connection
imith amending Chapter 2, Accounts, Warrants and Interest, Title V, Finance. of Yhe
!iCode of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, by the addition of a new section.
'to be numbered Sec. 9.1. entitled destruction of bonds and coupons after payment
in full; certification:
'August 16, lgT1
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
I
I
Gentlemen:
Ordinance No. 19300, adopted August IT, 19TO, made provision
for the employment of The First National Exchange Hunk of Virginia
and the Chemical Bank, of Nam York, as fiscal agents of the City
for the purpose of paying City bonds and interest coupons authorized
by Ordinance Nos. 16956. (civic center). 17413. (public Improvement),
17414, (water system), and 17415, (sewage treatment), and provided.
further, for periodical destruction of bonds and interest coupons
so paid and for certification of the facts of the payment and
destruction in form provided by 9eaeral law.
' Various portions of Chapter 2, Title V, of The City Code place
specific duties and obligations upon the City Treasurer and the
City Auditor respecting the payment, cancellation and filing of
bonds and interest coupons of the City, in general. These specific
duties and obligations will continue to apply to .those officers in
connection with payment, cancellation and filing of bonds and
Interest coupons issued by the City prior to those authorized by
the abovementJoned four ordinances.
In order that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V. of The City
Code be brought into harmony with the procedures authorized by
the Council in Ordinance No. 19300, abovementioned, and be made
to relieve the City Treasurer and the City Auditor of responsi-
bility extending to the payment and cancellation of bonds and
coupons made and duly certified by the City*s fiscal agent or
agents as provided in Ordinance No. ICAO0, I have prepared an
Ordinance which, bi the addition.of a new section, Chapter 2.
sworn, would accomplish such purpose. The proposed ordinance,
as prepared by the undersigned, bas been discussed with the
City Auditor and thc City Treasurer, both of mhom recognize
the necessity that the CityCode make provision for the
method now employed by the City in making payment of bonds
and interest coupons issued pursuant to four of the abovemen-
tioned ordinances; however, the City Auditor questions the
need that a copy of the paying agent's certification of payment
and des~uction be filed in the office of the City Clerk, in
addition to delivery of similar copies to those other officers.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
James N. Kincanon"
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(=19831) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 2o Accounts, warrants and
interest, of Title V. Finance, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, by the addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 9.1, entitled
Oestructiop of bonds and couoofls after oavmeflt in full: certification.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Chapter 2,
Accounts, ~arrants and interest, of Title V. Finance. of the Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, as amended, be and said chapter is hereby amended by the addition
of a new section numbered Section 9.1, to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 9.1. Destruction of bonds and coupons after payment in full: certification.
Mhen the council shall, (pursuant to the provisions of
§ 15.1-184ol of the 1950 Code of Viroinia, as amended),
designate a fiscal agent or agents of the city for the
purpose of payment of certain of the city's bonds and interest
coupons thereon, and when the council shall authorize any such
fiscal paying agent or agents, pursuant to the provisions of
§ 15,1-104,1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, to
periodically destroy certain of the aforesaid bonds and/or
interest coupons, and when such fiscal paying agent or agents
shall certify to the city treasurer and to the city auditor°
in form provided by law, as to payment and destruction of
bonds and/or interest coupons of the city, n copy of such
certification shall be filed with the city clerk by the
city auditor; and whenever any such certifica~lon shall
appear upon its face to hare been regularly executed and
acknomledged0 then the city auditor ~nd city treasurer
shall, In the absence of actual knouledge of any mis-
representation or irregularity as to such. certification,
he relieved of all further liability for all such bonds and
interest coupons represented in such certiflcntio~ to have
been so paid and destroyed. For accounting purposes,
every such certification which appears upon its face to hare
complied with the requirements of this section shall con-
stitute sufficient evidence of the facts set forth therein,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................................. ?*
NAYS: None .................. O.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
IN?RODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLIrflONS:
TAXES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure amending and reordnining Sec. 6, Penalties for failure to pay current
taxes, of Chapter 1. Current Taxes. Title VI. Taxation, of The Code of the City
of Roanoke. 1956. as amended by Ordinance No. 19742. relating to the penalties
and rate of interest to be assessed and collected upon nonpayment in time of the
city's taxes on real and tangible personal property and providing for the effective
date of c~rtain prouisions of the Ordinance, he presented same.
After a discussion of the proposed Ordinance, all members of Council
being of the opinion that all penalty dates both real estate and personal property
should be on the 5th day of the month involved, Mr. Lisk offered the folloming
emergency Ordinance as amended:
(nlgD32) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 6. Penalties for
failure to pay current ta~es. Of Chapter 1. Current Taxes, Title Vl. Taxation,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended by Ordinance No. 19742,
relating to the penalties and rate of interest to be assessed and collected upon
nonpayment io tine of the City's taxes on real and tangible personal property;
'providing for the effective date of certain provisions of this ordinance; and
providing for aa emergency.
(Forfull text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 475.)
Rr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote: . .
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thocas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................O,
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINSI POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEy: Council having
directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure designatin~ Byron E.
Hamer, Assistant City Manager, as a representative of the City of Roanoke on the
Board of Directors of Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley for the fiscaI'
l year 1971-72, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Wheeler offered the folloming
!i Resolution:
(~19833) A RESOLtrflON designating Byron E. Darter, Assistant City Manager
a representative of the City on the floard of Directors of Total Action Against
Poverty in Roanoke Valley for the 1971-1972 Fiscal Year,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No, 3~, page 477.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follouing vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Yrout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None ...................O.
MOTIONS ANO MISCELLANEOUS DUSI~ESS:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Thomas presented a communication from Rt.
John B. Lampros, Attorney, representing the Roanoke County Public Service Authority~
uhich is being sent to certain residents of the Edgehill section of the City of
Roanoke demandiug payment for semernge service, advising that the Roanoke County
,iPublic Service Authority has turned their accounts over to Mr. LamproS for
collection, and that before he proceeds and further, he is giving them an oppor-
tunity to make arrangements to pay these accounts within the next seven days.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that this type of communication should
not be sent to citizens of the City of Roanoke since this matter is presently
pending in the courts and moved that the communication from Mr. Lampros be referred
to the City Attorney to determine the necessary action, if any, to be taken by
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having requested a report from the City
Manager ga the feasibility of moving surplus lights in Nasenn Park to Preston Park
in connection ~]th providing sandlot football activities in the Mllliamson Road
area, Mr. Trout requested that the City Manager furnish Council with a status
report on the matter.
The City Manager advised the members of Council that a report will be
forthcoming on this matter by the next regular meeting of the body on Monday,
August 30, IT71.
COUNCIL-VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: Mr. Lisk called to the attention of
the body that there ~ill not be a meeting of Council on Monday, September 13,
1971, since a majority of the members of Council will be attending a Virginia
Municipal League Convention in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and raised the question
as to what action should be taken by Council in this respect.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for pre-
paration of the proper measure stating that there will not be a meeting of Council
on Monday, September 13, 1971. The motion ~as seconded by Mr. Nheeler and
unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: Mr. Thomas moved that Council meet in Executive Session on a
real estate matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
:36
There being no further business, #ayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVEO
ATY£~:
/City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
Monday, Aagast 30, lC71.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, August 30, 1971, at 2 p.m,, the regular
meeting hour, uith Mayor Webbe~ presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. David ii. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James Oo Trout. Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber .... 7.
ABSENT: None ..........................................................O
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F, Hirst, City Manager; Mt, Byron E, Haunt
Assistant City Manager; Mr, H. Hen Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney'; Mr, Edward
A, Natt, Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor,
INVOCATION: Tho meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Owen
G, Stultz, District Executive Director, Church of the Brethren.
MINtFIES: Copies of the special meeting held on Wednesday, July 27, 1971,!
and the reoular meeting held on Monday, August 2, 1971, having been furnished each
member of Council, on motion of Mr, Lisk, seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the ~minutes approved as
recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AWl] COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the. Ro{aoke City School Board,
requesting that $22,502.77 be appropriated to Section a74000, "Schools - Adult
Rasic Education," and that $2,506.90 be transferred from Section l~llO00, "Schools -:
Special Instruction," to Section #74000, "Schoo'ls - Adult Basic Education,- of the
1971-72 budget of the Roanoke City School Board. was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the followin9 emergency Ordinance:
(~19834) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the i:
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 481.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................7,
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $31,500.00 be appropriated to Section ~75000, "Schools - Dial
Instruction for Adult Learners," and that $3.500.00 be transferred from Section
=11000, "Schools - Special Instruction," to Section =75000, "Schools - Dial
Instruction for Adult Learners,* of the 1971-72 budget of the Roanoke City School
· 37
Hoard, to provide funds for a special program to field test and adapt u dial '
instructional program for adults, utilizing individualized instruction, for
disadvantaged persons and to serve persons who cannot attend regular adult classes
land who need special assistance, was before Council.
Mr, Garland moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
i~School Hoard and offered the follouing emergency Ordinance:
(u19835) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
lgTI-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 35, page 4HI,)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................. Oo
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the Sewer Committee
Supervisors that Section 2 of Hampden Ilills be included as an amended area under
James E. Lon9 Construction Company, Incorporated, requesting that his client be
Mr° Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
HEALTtl DEPARTMENT: Council havin9 adopted a Resolution approving the
Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services Hoard; approving cer-
tain changes in the terms of office and official status of the City of Roanoke
~appointees on said joint board; and designating the joint board of directors as
the agency to administer funds appropriated by the city and by other public agencies
iHealth - Mental Retardation Services Board, expressing appreciation for the cooper-~:
:Advisory Board with the Roanoke Valley Mental Health - Mental Retardation Services
Hoard into one unified Hoard and advising that since the approval made no specific
reference to the three at-large members, the Board is assum'ing that the endorsement
given by Council includes official recognition to these members as well as the four:!
from each of the three local governing bodies, was before Council.
Mr, Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
STREETS AND ALLEYS; An application from Mr, George #, Harris, Jr.,
Attorney, representing the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund, requestin~
~that two unopened alleys leading off of Cherry Avenue, N, W., be vacated, discon-
tinued and closed, mas before Council.
Mr, Lisk offered the following Resolution appointing viemers in connectio&
with vacating, discontinuing and closing the alleys:
(ZlgB36) A RESOLUTION proyJding for the appointment of five viemers
in connection with the Application of Southwest Virginia Community Development
Fund to discontinue and permanently vacate two unopened alleys leading off of Cherr
Avenue in the northwestern section of the City of Roanohe.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 4H2,i
Mr. Link moved, the adoption of the Resolution, The motion Has seconded
by Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Momars. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ..... ~ .......................
NAYS: None ..............O,
Mr. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the City PlanaiRg
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council, The motion was
seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF oFFIcERS:
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a ~ritten report
recommending that $19,631.52 be reappropriated to Training Law Enforcement under
Section ~d5, 'Police Department,* Of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to cover
certain training programs which were previously authorized during the 1970-71 fis-
cal year through Law Enforcement Grant No, 69-A6.
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19837) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section g45, "Police Depart-
mont," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 4B3.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by ~r. Thomas and adopted by the following vote;
AYES:' Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..............................
NAYS: None ...............O.
BUDGET-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report recom-
t[mending that $1,BO0,O0 be appropriated to Maintenance of Buildings and Property
under Section g64, ~Maintenance of City Property,# of the 1971-72 budget, to
irovide funds for general roof maintenance at Hoanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 300 1971
Honorable Mayor a~d City Council
Roanoke, yirginla .
Gentlemen:
In the Initial department budget for roar maintenance
(contract) for the Airport, Department Code 65 was $5,300 which
included various items of maintenance. This account uae cut to
$1,000 for general roof maintenance in the budget procedure and
then the entire $1,000 was taken out, leaving no appropriation.
The severe wind storms in the past months have caused roof leaks
in buildings Ho. I and 2. In addition, we have experienced damage
to the covered walkway roof from Jet blasts. It is felt that we
have no alternative but to repair this work.
It ia recommended that un appropriation be made of $1,000
for this corrective work and that an additional $000 be returned
or provided in the budget for general roof maintenance so that
future problems can be handled and We will not have to return
to Council for minor or routine matters.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. tlirst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19839) AN ORDINANCE to amend and ~eordain Section ~64, *Maintenance
of City Property** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance,'see Ordinance Book No. 35, p,ge 4B3.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion sas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, T~out, Wheeler and Mayor
Rebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... Oo
DEPARTRENT OF PUBLIC wELFARE: Council havin9 concurred in a report of
the City Manager proposing that a warehouse type building located in t~e 500
block of Salem Avenue, S. W., be rented and that the commodity food distribution
system be transferred to that location, the City Manager submitted the followin§
report in connection with the surplus commodity food program, advising that because
of a shortage of federal and state funds, the City of Roanoke will have to forego
t!the possibility of moving the Commodity Distribution Center from Campbell Avenue,
S. E., to the new location on Salem Avenue, S.
*Roanoke, virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It will be recalled by the City Council that bac~ in late winter
and early spring, we submitted before Council a proposal that we had
under consideration for relocating the Commodity Distribution Center
from the building now used on Campbell Avenue, S, E,, to a nam
considerably improved facilities and would be almost entirely
accomplished by Federal funds uhich uere then available through
the State both for the relocation as well as for rental and certain
operating expenses. When our consideration of this became public,
it mill be further recalled that a small group of melfare recipients
Including several receiving commodities came before the Council on
a number of occasions rnisfng questions regarding the commodities
distribution program, the relocation and other matters. A consid-
erable amount of tine nas consumed in responding to these various
matters to this group and in various discussions that took place.
The result mas that we reached near the end of the last fiscal
year. The State at that time advised us that because of the length
of time that had gone by such monies as they had had been expended
and they mould have to anait the new fiscal year commencing July 1.
Me have continued to follom up mith them on this and they
advised us that now the United States Department of Agriculture bas
gone on a national needy formula in the allocation of its monies and
that the State in its allocations is currently approximately $130,000
short in their needs for improvements and continuations of their
programs in the current year. The USDA has advised the State Depart-
ment of AgrJcoltnre and Commerce that there are no contingency funds
currently available and additional funding does not appear available
at this time,
Under these circumstances, we are in the situation of having to
forego the possibility of moving as much ns we would like to and
believe the strong merits in the idea, The State continues to
express its interest in the program here and in taking advantage
of any opportunity that appears to make a relocation possible,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
In this connection, Mrs. Lucille Marsh and Mrs. Retry Staten, Vice
Chairman.of the Southeast w~lfare Rights Organization, appeared before Council
available £orthe commodity food program.
the City Manager be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting copy of the food distribution participation record for the
month of July, 1971, within those localities in Virginia who participate in the
food distribution program,
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimous~ adopted,
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
in connection with the matter of sewage treatment and the State Mater Control
Board, advising that it is believed our engineers have developed a proposal or
plan that will meet the current requirements of the State Mater Control Board.
that there are several technical or operational questions pending and every
effort is being made to cooperatively resolve these questions s/th the staff of
the Board, tM t it is believed this plan is such that it can be submitted to the
staff of the State Water Control Board by September 1o 1971, anticipating that the
certain technical questions can be subsequently resolved without detriment to the
total program, that there is definite uncertainty as to whether the $8 million whic~
the Board tentatively allocated mill be sufficient to cover federal and state
funding sharing of mhat may eventually be the total co~t, that he has expressed
concern to the State Rater Control Board that the allocations of federal and
state funds which %he Board made in July are inadequate to cover state and federal
~funding ~n the cost of interceptor replacements within the city under the already
authorized Bond Issue of 1957 and that he would like to submit a statement to the
~State 'Water Control Board requesting reconsideration of its allocations to pro=
vide funds for this necessary work that has been programmed for years and which
~has been held up in its construction because of the inability over the past four
years of the Board to provide funding:
"Roanoke. Virginia
August 30. 1971
memorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
This is written to cover a couple of points as a matter of
information and record with regard to the highly involved matter
of sewage treatment, the 5tare ~atec Control Board, et cetera.
There has been u great deal of attention by City personnel.
its engineers and others to the last request from the Water
Control Board ut its eeeting on July 25 that the City submit a
new plan for plant expansion and development based on the then
most recent standards that the Board prescribed for quality
of effluent. It is believed that OUr engineers have developed
a proposal Or a plan that would meet these current requirements.
It should be advised that this has been reviewed in detail with
staff members of the Board. There are still several technical
or operational questions pending and every effort is being made
to cooperatively resolve these with the staff of the Board.
What weight these carry in the decision on the total plan is
indefinite at this point and particularly as we recognize that
decisions and opinions of the staff of the Board are not always
concurred in by the Board itself.. It is believed, at this
writing, that this plan is such that it Can be submitted to the
sta££ o£ the Board by September 1, anticipating that the certain
technical questions can he subsequently resolved without
detriment to the total program,
As has been previously noted, the Board itself meets on
September 20 for its own review at that time.
The newer effluent standards have had o material effect in
total cost c/ the plant. We hove definite uncertainty that the
SB million ,,,;:h the Board tentatively allocated will he
sufficient to cover Federal and State funding sharing of wh~t
may eventually be tho total cost.
The application for r~zoning of the 33 acres, east el the
plant site, as prepared by the City Attorney, was submitted to
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County at their meeting on
the evening of August 25. The Board, by procedure, referred it
to the Planning Commission. We would not anticipate any problem
with this rezonin9 unless the County, for reasons other than
land use. would raise question.
By several correspondence, I have expressed concern to the
State Water Control Board that the allocations of federal and
state funds which the Board made in July are inadequate to cover
federal and state loading on the cost of interceptor replacements
within the City under the already authorized by the City under
the Bond Issue of 1967. These replacements were not included
by the Board in any of their funding over the next four years
and it is understood that this work is far down on a list of
alternatives. As I understand it the Beard°s meeting on Sep-
tember 20 constitutes a hearing on the matter Of allocation Of
funds and unless the City Council has objection, I wish to
submit u statement to the State Water Control Board. ushing
reconsideration or its nil*anti*ns to provide funding for this
necessary work that has been programmed for some years and
whfch has been held up in its construction because of the
inability over the past four years of the Board to provide
funding.
We do not boom at tbls immediate p~int what the position
will be required of the City Council as to its endorsement of
the new plan for the expansion of the treatment plant. We would
beg yOUr indulgence in OUr having to cents'ct you as soon us we
are able to determine whether this requires formal approval by
the Council before we submit it to the staff at this particular
The neu plan brought about by the neu requirements of the
Board has necessitated some revisions in the nine month Interim
Plan as originally prepared and we are attemptino to secure the
Water Control Board's concurrence in these change's. Should
other matters be appropriate to report to you. I would like to
do so at your meetiog on August 30 or at such early time as may
be advisable.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. ilirst
Julian F. liirst
City ManaOer"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mos
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the following report in
that bulk container units be placed at apartments or multiple-family dwellin9
units with four or more apartments or dwellino units instead of using individual
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Public Works Department has had under study for sometime
proposals for new provisions as would be in ordinance form for
the collection, handling and disposal of solid waste or refuse.
lhe department has a preliminary draft of a proposal for a new
ordinance on this subject. Some of the provisions in it are
in the process of having additional checking_and final study,
There is one portion of this consideration, however, that we have
for a long time felt to be desirable to be established as an
ordinance requirement. This is to make it necessary that bulk
container units, which are frequently referred to as dumpster
units, would be at apartment or multiple-family dwelling units
instead of the individual cans.
There are a number of reasons for such a recommendation, The
cleanliness, odorless, control of refuse and sanitation in areas
of multiple-family units is immeasurably benefited by the bulb
contiiner system, Frequently, available space is limited to the
extent that there is much less area requirements for these bulk
containers than becomes necessary in the arrangement of many or
scattered strings of cans. To the City, there is direct benefit
in savings and collection in the time and personnel required
to empty and handle individual cans in contrast to the pick up
arrangement of the bulk or dumpster units.
With the continuing construction end opening 'for occupancy of
multiple-rnmll! units, it is felt desirable to p~oceed as enrly os
practical to establishing the requirement tbnt ~ould eliminate the
can system 'and go to the standardizing of bulk containers.
It is, therefore, recommended that~e city council authorize
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which would substantially
provide as follows:
After the effective date of this ordinance, any new
multiple residential units with four (4) or more apart-
ments or dwelling units shall provide one or more bulk
confainers for the disposal of solid waste refuse and
the solid waste refuse removed from the premises by the
City shall be that as disposed of in bulk container.
The term 'bulk container' shall be held to mean a natal
container of not less than one-half cubic yard nor larger
than eight cubic yards in capacity. Such container shall
be of tight construction with doors opening on both sides
and top and constructed so that it may be mechanically
lifted onto a standard City vehicle for that purpose.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Ill'st
Julian F. Birst
City Manager*
After a djscussioe of the proposal, Mr, Trout moved that the matter be
referred to the City Attorney for preparutiou of the proper measure accordingly.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The city Manager submitted the followin9 report recom-
mending that the 1971-72 budget be amended to provide for the purchase of three
20 cubic yard refuse packers in lieu of four 16 cubic yard refuse packers for the
Refuse Collection Division and stating that he Mould llke to wait a month or two
before returning to Council with specific position deletions in connection with an
overall reduction of approximately $100,000.00 in the Refuse Collection budget:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dentlemen:
The 1971-72 budget provides funds for the purchase, in the
Refuse Collection Division, of four 16 cubic yard refuse packers and
four 20 cubic yard refuse packers.
Since the original inclusion of these units in the department
recommended budget some number of months ago, studies and experience
have indicated it to be more advisabie that the City purchase the
l~rger units rather than the smaller. The load capacity indicates
less frequent trips for disposal and there is an increase, with
the larger unit, of effective collection .time per day.
It is recommended that the budget be amended to provide that in
lieu of purchase of the four 16 cubic yard units that three units be
provided for making a total of seven 20 cubic yard packers.
Budget estimates carry the 20 cubic yard units at $19,000 each
and the 16 cubic yard units at $15.000. Thus, the net is at a slight
percentage saving to the City.
There are attached herenith copies of new budget form 3 A for
three units for inclusion in the budget should Council concur in
this recommendation.
In connection with this general matter, the City during its
budget session on the 1971-72 budget directed review of the Refuse
Collection budget, Department Code 6g. with the intent that there be
provided an overall reduction of approximately $100,000. The Council
indicated an inital preference that this reduction be made in
personnel, I advised the City Council at the time that I mould
prefer that there not be an across-the-board reduction in personnel
appropriation at that immediate time but rather we have the opportunity
to further review our personnel program and requirements within
the division, I further suggested to the Council that us security
against the Council*s recommendation roe a reduction of $100.000
that me would reduce the equipment purchase account forthls amount
of money or Such portion as necessary should we he unable to
effectively present n reduction of the $100,000 in personnel.. From
studies and advice to me by Mr, Clark, Director of Public Murks,
he advises to be of the opinion that this amount of $100,000 will
be accrued aa unspent In peruonnel during the current fiscal yeor,
Certain revisions in collection procedures already established and
certain improved efficiencies in operation have reflected the
situation whereby primarily new personnel are not being added to the
division to replace turnovers that are occurring, Statistically
based on our present procedures it is indicated that this amount
of funds mill accrue as unspent in refuse collection personnel
totals, Me would like to malt a month or two before returning to
Council with specific position deletions which will begin to
confirm this situation.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. iii'est
Julian F, Dirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
the proper measure amending the 1971-72 budget. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having requested that the City Manager
furnish them with a status report with regard to the cost involved in relocating
liohts in Masena Park and the Transportation Museum area to the recreational area
at Preston Park Elementary School, the City Manager submitted the following report
advising that the one concern he has in the matter relates to the turf, that should
these lights be installed, with the resulting use of the area, it is his opinion
that it would be impossible to have turf there by the following season, that the
overall feeling is that lights are definitely needed in the overall area of the
city but that they should be at a location where the demand upon the soil by the
school during the day and by the public after school hours is not as great as it
is in this particular area and that the cost of lighting a combination baseball andii
football field is approximately $6,500.00:
~Roanoke, Virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council previously referred to me the question of
cost involved in relocating the lights in Masena Park and the
Transportation Museum area to the recreational area at Preston
Park Elementary School. This matter was reminded at your last
meetin9. I report as follows,
The location at Preston Park was graded 12 years ago by the
City's Department of Parks and Recreation at the request of citizens
in the ~illiamson Road area. It bas been used for school purposes
and for some limited football and baseball practices. The location
is situated to the west of the school building.
;46
No more than 15 light reflectors could be salvaged from the
present lights nt the Nasena site, The remaining bud deteriorated
through use and age, One tower of lights, on the extreme west,
should be left for the lighting of the Huseum. The remaining
towers@ steel poles, are not sufficient for the amount th~ uould
be. needed for a football field.
There are two approaches to'cost,
The first approach would be to light a field both for practice
and for team ploy. This would be as follows:
64 reflectors less IS=49 91,470,00
0 wooden poles 50 feet in length 400.00
Cost of wiring, switches, etc. 2,200.00
Total cost $4,070.00
If the field would be used only for' practice without team
and game play, then there could be less lighting requirements.
The total number ~ reflectors could be reduced from 64 to 49 with
eight poles of six reflectors each and IS, or possibly 16 under
these circumstances, reflectors from the Museum area. This
total cost uoold be:
6 wooden poles @ $50.00 $ 400.00
32 new reflectors @ $30.00 960.00
16 reflectors from Museum 000.00
Cost of wiring, switches, etc. 1,640-00
Total cost $3,000.00
The above amount of ~3,000.00 had been included in the initial
department budget recommendation for 1971-72; however, the proposal
was deleted as was eventually all of the playground or area improve-
ment funds.
A concern we have in this matter relates to the turf. The
Preston Park School uses this site for game play during the time
school is in session. Should light be installed with the resulting
use of the area, it is our opinion that after one season of league
play the turf would be damaged to such an extent that it would be
impossible to have turf there by the followtngseason. There is
no doubt but that the Williamson Road area needs another light-
lighted football field for league play. This situation has been
further brought about by the decisions being made in the public
school system to going to junior high football teams. This is the
situation that is causing the removal of much of the availability
of the Brechinridge football field. The decision for the junior
highs is creating some jams in available football areas ond is
being apparently done by the school people without a great deal
of projected study as to available areas.
We have had the turf ~xperience situation at Breckinridge.
This is largely the result of t~ nature of the soil in the area.
Another example of turf situation is adjacent to Noodrow Nilson
and this is perhaps one of t~main reasons that this field has
never been lighted along with perhaps the concern of the citizens
in the area, The turf at Preston ,Park on the field is not in good
condition and after one year of plat on the surface, it would be
anticipated that this would be all dirt and would not be suitable
for league play thereby making it good or useable only for practice
and with whatever affect this might have on school use.
Our overall feeling is that lights are definitely needed in
the overall area of the Citl but that they should be at a location
where the demand upon the soil by the school during the day and by
the public after school hours is not as great as it is in this
particular area. Ne feel reasonably sure that once this area
is night lighted that there would be a demand for the use of the
field for league games. The Huff Lane playground has lights but
this is designed only for baseball. As an incidental figure, it
would be noted that the cost of lightin~ a combination.baseball and
football field is approximately
The above information is submitted to the Council, It is again
noted that funds are not available in the current budget as playground
accounts were deleted.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
ill
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the r~port be
referred bach to the City Manager for the purpose of conferring with. Mr. Rex T.
Mitchell, Jr** Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, to ascertain a
tdefinite plan as to mhat it will cost to light the recreational area at Preston
Park. The motion was Seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
i POLICE DRPARTMENT-INTEGRATION-$ECRECATION: The City Manager submitted
~the following report in connection with establishing the position of Police
!Community Relations Officer for the City of Roanoke. advising that the matter has
not been overlooked and that it is continuing to receive c?nsideration:
*Roanoke, Virginia
August 30. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Amoog several recommendations that were made to tbs City
Con*cji by the Council*s Committee on Community Relations was
for the provision of a Police Community Relations Officer
for the City. I write this to advise that this matter has not
been overlooked and that it is continuing to receive consid-
eration, despite the length of time that obviously has gone
since the committee made its recommendation to Council, Me have
concentrated on the matter several times to determine the best
method by uhich this should be put into effect and that it has
seemed that other things have arisen to divert our attention.
Oar delay has not been through a lack of interest but rather
for the reasons stated.
I am dedicated to the idea that the establishment of such
a position should he on the basis that it will serve n distinct
purpose and will be thoroughly workable rather than simply
establishing such a position merely to say that one does exists.
In such other cities that positions Such as this or comparable
to it have been established, they have been done by various
methods and in some instances there has been success and in
other instances they have found their procedures were not the
best approach,
Members of the Community Relations Committee have urged
that this position should be established directly under the
City Manager rather than as a part of the Police Department.
This has caused reason for much of the attention how best to
develop it in order to make it cooperatively effective with
the Police Department mhile under other supervision.
Me are continuing this and 1 certainly hope that within
a very few weeks we can bring back a full report to the City
Council,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMES/lC RELATIONS COURT: The City Manager submitted a
:written report transmitting the annual review report dated August, 1971, of the
State Department of Welfare and Institutions, advising that it is believed that
this report may he considered commendable of the internal operations of the City
iof Roaooke Juvenile Detention Home.
Mr, Thomas moved that the report be received and filed, The motion mas
seconded by'Rt. Trout end unanimausly adopted.
STREETSAND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report in
connection with the request of Cnru Realty Company for assistance of the City of
Roanoke in connection with the widening of 35th Street, N, M., between Melrose'
iAvenue and property under development and proposed to be developed bY said Company,
that the City Attorney has noted to him that under the provisions of Tltle!i
!iXVI, Chapter 1, Section 16, of ~he City Code, it is provided that matters of
!!widening, extension, etc,, of streets as well as the acquisition by the city or
ithe public of land for public use or purposes shall be Submitted to the City.
:Planning Commission for its approval or disapproval, recommending that this
matter be referred to the City Planning Cammission for review and report back to
Council and that in the meantime he is administratively proceeding with the stage
of appraisals and negotiations consistent with the lnstructiens of Council.
Manager and that the mntter bo referred to the City Planning Commission for study.
report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unaoimously adopted.
BRIOGES: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
mtth the constructionof the Mud Lick Creek ~ridae on Crandin Road, advising that the
Highway Department has advised him that due to future alignment over the present
bridge location, it will be necessary to close Graodin Road briefly while the new
bridge span is being constructed, that it is recognized by the High#ay Department
that this would be an inconvenience to traffic but the matter is justified
economically since there are no suitable detour arrangements passible at the
immediate bridge site, that the current detour plan would route traffic over Mud
Lick Road and Oeyerle Road including Grandin Road Extension and recommending that
the proposal be approved by Council:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As the City Conecil is a~are, the Citf and the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways are jointly engaged in a pending new bridge on
Grundin Road at the City*s west corporate limits. The State
Highway Department is in the process of acquiring rights-of-way
and anticipates advertising this project for bids in the very
near future.
The City is in receipt of a letter from the Oepartment*s Resi-
dent Engineer's Office stating that due to future alignment being
over the present bridge location, it will be necessary to close this
road briefly while the new bridge span is being constructed. It is
recognized by the Highway Department that this would be an incon-
venience to traffic but that the matter is justified economically
since there are no suitable detour arrangements possible at the
immediate bridge site, The current detour plan mould route
traffic over Hud Lick and Deyerle Roads including Grnndin
Road Extension.
The men bridge cnn only be Installed after remorfag the
existing structure and the ability for the ~ontractor to maintain
traffic would be extremely difficult as mell as considerably
increasing the bids for the construction. The Clty*s share in
this project is approximately one-half of the cost,
The Highway Depaetnent has. submitted this to the City invit-
ing concurrence by the City in this detouring and has requested an
appropriate resolution by the City Council confirming this position.
This is so recommended to the City Council,
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparatinn of the proper measure approving the request. The motion w~s seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
C1ZY EMPLOYERS-PAY PLAN: The City Manager submitted tbe fol~oming
report in connection mith the City of Roanoke participating in the Emergency
Public Employment Act, advising that favorable consideration of Council is recom-
mende'd and that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare the necessary papers
which would indicate the concurrence and authorization of the appropriation of
sufficient funds:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Under the recent Federal Emergency Employment Act of 1971,
it has been found that the City of Roanoke can be eligible for
certain of these funds for public employment. Because of tbe
immediacy of the situation and the possible opportunity of learn-
lng its details, Mr. Graham, Director of Personnel, attended a
special briefing by the Department of Labor in Philadelphia on
August 13. For better explanation of the situation, I attach a
copy of Mr, Graham*s memo to me of August IH and would respect-
fully refer you to this for background. We have discussed this
since his return and believe that there would be advantage to
the City to participate in .this program. At the present time,
we are preparing preliminary paperwork as would be necessary,
all of which would be, of course, subject to any conclusions
set up by the City Council and subject to confirmation by Council
of application for these funds.
On a point or two, not included in Mr. Graham's memorandum
but covered in much other material available, it is designated
that these positions Set up for employment in the public sector ~-~'-
be such that there is development opportunity available to
persons who are employed in the position. There should be a
fairly reasonable range of the governmental position coverage
and it is not permitted that positions be concentrated in the
higher pay skills, medium pay skills or definitely no~ in the
lower pay ranges, It is to be noted that the City would be
required to match the $B2,500 by 10 percent or $8,250, ~his
matching can be in cash or in-kind. There is still some
clarification necessary on the matter of in-kind and I have
some doubt that we can cover any more than a small portion of
this by in-kind payment or contribution. Thus, it would appear
at this point that our initial approach in order to indicate
whether or not the City wishes to proceed under this program
would be to invite the consideration of City Council to agree-
ment to the appropriation of $8,250 by cash. As time proceeds,
se mill attempt to translate as much of this as we can into iu-
kind as we learn the rules of the procedure and as they are
determined a little better.
'5O
The Department of Labor has advised us thut.20 percent of
the allocation is lmmediutely available to proceed with the initial
uork nnd to commence the employment of unemployed persons fa
public service Jobs,
The alternative to this should the City not wish to proceed
under this program is that the Department of Labor mould select
another government unit to serve this area or to serve the City
in combination mfth other areas,
The favorable consideration of the Council of this is recom-
mended and it Hould be recommended that the City Attorney be
authorized to prepare the necessary resolution mhJch uould indi-
cute the concurrence and uuthorizution of the appropriation.
Respectfully sabmitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Link moved that ~e matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion w~s seconded by Or. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
COI~CIL-VIRGINIA ~UNICIFAL LEAGCE: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure advisln9 the public that there mill not be
a meeting of Council on Monday, September 13, 1971. since certain members of
Conncil will be attending the annual meeting of the Virginia Municipal League
to be held September 12 - 14. 1971, the Assistant City Attorney submitted the
fellahin9 report of the City Attorney transmitting tho methods ~f the City Attor-
ney transmittin9 tHO methods~of handling the Council meeting scheduled for Monday,
September 13, 1971:
"AuguSt 30, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia-
Centlemen:
At the meeting of the Council held August 23rd, attention
mas called to the fact of the annual meeting of the .members of
the Virginia Municipal League Hhich is to he held September 12th
through Septemberl4th and of the scheduled attendance of mem-
bers of the Council at that meetin9. September 13th, under the
present ordinances of the Council, mould be a day for a Regular
Meetin9 of the Council, the Charter providing for a council
meeting to be held at least once each week, except in the
months of July and August.
Understanding that the members of the Council feel it im-
portant and beneficial to the City, as does the undersigned,
that the meeting with the councilmen and officials of other
Virginia municipalities should be attended, the Council should
determine upon one or .the other of the folloming alternatives,
a. Make no formal change of the Council meeting date
mhich, otherwise, would be scheduled for ,September 13th.
understanding and with notice given to the public, that
it is understood that more than a quorum of the Council
members will be in attendance at the larger meeting and,
hence, no formal Council meeting will be held; or
b. By resolution adopted at the August 30th meeting
change the meeting which is now scheduled for September
13th to some later day in the same seek. after the
meeting of the Virginia Municipal League shall have
been concluded.
which, mith a date in the meek of September 13th tn be supplied,
mould change tbs date of tbs meekly regular meeting for that
Respectfully,
S/ J, N, Kincanon
westerly half of Lot 12, Oak Viem Heights° Official. Tax Hos, 2730225, 27~o226 and
273o227, from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Comuercial
ilAttorney for clarification and report/of the City Manager in connection with the
ilpredicated upon President Nixon*s price and wage,freeze, 'determine the legality
i!of signing these post dated contracts which increases the city's payment for these
July 1, 1971, with rates increased over ~hose in last yHar*s contracts, and, in
each case, in the amounts reported to Couocil on August 23, 1971, by the City
Manager:
*August 30, 1971
The Honorable Mayor ~nd'Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of August 23, 1971, you referred to this office
the question as to what effect, if uny, the PresJdent*s Executive
Order of August 15, 1971, would have on contracts proposed to be
entered into between the City of Roanohe and various hospitals in
the area relating to payment by the City to the ho3pitals fur
indigent and medically indigent persons treated at said hospitals,
for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1971.
Chapter 7 of Title 63,1 of the Code of Virginia, 19§0, as amended,
deals with the hospltalination and treatment of indigent persons.
Section 63,1-136 authorizes cities and counties to contract with
approved hospitals. The contract may include the costs of
services rendered by the hospitals. Section 63.1-135 provides
that the State Board of Welfare and Institutions shall allocate
to the cities and couoties funds to pay one-half of the cost to
such localities for hospitalination and treatment of eligible
persons. This section also provides that the Hoard shall set the
maximum rate for which one-half reimbursement mill be allowed.
The Department of Welfare and Institutions allocated to the City
of Roanoke $11,HgO,O0 for Inpatient IIospitalization and
for Outpatient and Emergency Room Service on June 1, 1971, for
the six-month period endin9 December 31, 1971. The Department,
by letter of July 7, 1971, notified the cities and counties,
including the City of Roanoke, of the new maximum per diem rates
for State reimbursement on State-Local Hospitalination contracts
with hospitals. The Roanoke Region maximum rate was set at
$52,27. 7he Outpatient and Emergency Room rate was set at twenty
per cent of a hospital*s per diem operating costs, or a maximum
Of $9,00 per day on a Statewide basis, these new rates to be
effective July 1,.1971.
The City of Roanoke has not as yet entered into State-Local
Hospitalization contracts with local hospitals, On August 15,
1971, the President of the United States issued an Executive
Order which, among other things, set a 90-day freeze on prices.
The question is whether the Executive Order precludes the City.
of Roanoke from now entering into contracts mith local hospitals
under an increased rate. The Executive Order established that
prices shall be sta~lized for a period of 90 days from August
15, 1971, at levels not greater than the highest of those
pertaining to a substantial volume of actual transactions by
each entity of any kind during the 30-day period ending August
14, 1971, for like or similar services.
While the maximum rates which will be ~ne[half reimbursed by
the State have been set by the Department of Welfare and
Institutions. the rate to be agreed on between the City of
Roanoke and the local hospitals for payment by the City to the
hospitals for services performed under the contract will be a
price or charge by the hospitals. Therefore, under the terms
of the Executive Order. the hospitals may charge u price at the
highest level of those pertaining to a substantial volume of
actual transactions during the 30-day period ending August 14,
1971, for like or similar services.
This office has been advised that the County of Roanoke and the
City of Salem have entered into contracts with local hospitals
prior to August 15, lgTl, These governments have been billed
under the new and higher rates by the hospitals for services
rendered after July 1, 1971. According to information this office
has received from the City Health Department, some, if not all,
of the local hospitals have submitted prior to the date of the
Executive Order, their bills to the City of Roanoke at the new
and higher rate for services rendered after July 1, 1971. It
would, therefore, appear that the higher rate has been charged
by the hospitals for a substantial number of actual transactions
during the 30-day period ending August 14, 1971,
Additionally, in .the absence of written contract, the City would
be liable to.each hospital on the bssls~of nuantummeruito The
City would he obligated rot the reasonabln value of the services
rendered. In all liknlihoode the reasonable value would be such
as that established at the new contract rates agreed to by the
hospitals and other local area governments.
It is our conclusion, for the reasons stated herein, that the
President*s Executive Order would not prohibit the City of
Boanohe from entering Jato formal contracts with local hospi-
tals, retroactive to July 1, 19710 with rates increased over
those in last year*s contracts and, in each case, in the
amounts reported on August 23rd by the City Manager, An ordinance
so providing has been prepared and is transmitted herewith for
the Councilts consideration.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Elncanon
Mr. Thomas moved that Coancil concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(UlgOag) AN ORDINANCE authorizing certain contracts to be entered into
with certain hospitals to provide hospitalization and treatment of indigent or
~edically indigent patients; fixing the rates to he paid each such hospital for
such services during Fiscal Year 1971-1972; and providing for'an emorgenc~.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 35, page 484.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .......5.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland and Lisk ......................................
ZONING: The Assistant City Attorn~ Submitted the following report of
the City Attorney in co~ne~tion with Section 39, Discontinuance of Open-Air Uses,
Chapter 4.1, Zoning, Title XV, Construction, of ~he Code of 'th~ C~ty of Roanoke,
1956, as amended:
'August 30, .1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Zoning Ordinance enacted by the Council on August 29,
1966, provided,, in Sec. 39, for the discontinuance within 5 years
of 'all nonconforming uses not carried on within a building,
except those which, are incidental and necessary to activities
within the building,t The five-year period established by the
aforesaid section exp.ired August 29,1971.
It has recently come to the attention of this office that
such provision calling for the discontinuance of one type of
nonconforming use while allowing the continued operation of other
nonconformin9 uses may be invalid and unenforceable. Section
15.1-492 of th~ Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provided
that there be no impairment of any vested right by the Zoning
Ordinance of any locality. A nonconforming use permit is tm be
regarded as a vested right and is' not to be impaired unless it
is discontinued for a period of more than two years. Hence, it
would seem that Section ag, Discontinuance of ODe~-A{F Uses,
Chapter 4.1. Zoning of Title XV, Construction. of the City Code
is an invalid and unenforceable provision.
X have informed the Building Commissioner of this matter and
requested that he take no further action to enforce this ordinance
until the question is resolved.
It is the opinion of this office that this matter affects the
validity and not the subject matter of that single provision of
the Cltyts Zoning Ordinance. If it is the Councilts desire to
repeal this section of the City Code, it will, therefore, not be
necessary to hold n public hearing on this matter.
The Council way, however, wish to defer action until such
time as the Planning Commission shall have had time to study
the matter and make .a recommendation to the Council. I aw
forwarding a copy of this letter to the Planning Commission so
as to advise them of the situation.
Respectfully,
S/ Edward A. Nat*
for J, ~. KJncanon"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be referred to the City Planning Commis-
sion for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
AIRPORT: Council having referred to a committee for tabulation, report
and recommendation the bids received for operating under lease the Terminal *mild-
lng Restaurant and 6irt Shop at Roanoke Municipal (No*drum) Airport, the committee
submitted the following report recommending that the high bid of M. L. liaR*od, Sr.,
and M. L. Hag.od, Jr** in the amount Of 14 per cent of gross revenue derived, be
accepted:
"Roanoke, Virginia
August 30, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, August 23, 1971, City Council received and
opened bids for the operation under lease of the terminal building
restaurant and gift shop at Roanoke Municipal (Mo*drum) Airport.
Five bids were received with the bid of Mr. W. L. Hag*od,
and Mr. Mo L. Hag*od, Jr** in the amount of 14 percent of the gross
revenue derived, exclusive of any taxes collected from the cust. omers,
bein9 the high bid.
Your committee has tabulated and reviewed the bids and
specifications. · After completing this review and having established
the qualifications of the high bidder, it is the recommendation of
your committee that City Council accept the high bid of W. Lo Hagood,
Sr., and M. L. Hagood, Jr., in the amount of 14 percent of the gross
revenue to be derived from the operation of the airport restaurant,
kitchen and gift shop.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Haner
Byron· E. Haner
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S/ Marshall L. Harris
Marshall L. Harris"
Mr. Lisk expressed concern over extending the contract for the restaurant'
iand gift shop for a f~ve year period until further disposition of the airport is
After a discussion as to mhat is contained in the specifications mlth
regard to expansion at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport. Mr. Trout moved that
the report of the committee be referred to the Airport Advisory Commission for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomu~
and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19824, rezoning property located at 1732 Eleventh
Street, N. E., described, as Lots 10, Il an~ 12, Block 42, Map of Linwood Land
Company, Official Tax No. 3060611, from RD, Duplex Residential District, to LM,
Light Manufacturing District, having previously been before Council for its first
reading, read and laid over, was again before the body. Mr. Thomas offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
(x19624) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of 7he
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955. as amended, and Sheet No. 306. Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 477.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by tho following vote:
AYES: MessrSo Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................7.
NAYS: None .............. O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 19025, vacating, discontinuing and
closin9 an alley extending south from East Cate Avenue to an alley running parallel
to East Gate Avenue, lying between 10th Street and 19th Street, N. E., and another
alley extending south from Temple*on Avenue, N. E., to East Gate Avenue, lying
between 14th Street and 15th Street, N. E., having previously been before Council
for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. hheeler
offering the following for its second readlug and final adoption:.
(=19825) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating and discontinuing two (2)
unopened alleys in the northeastern section of the City of Roanoke pursuant to the
provisions of ~ 15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 478.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout. yheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mr. Thomas not voting.)
In this connection, Mr. Mheeler offered the followin9 emergency Ordi-
nance authorizing and providing for the acquisition of two certain 5-foot strips
of land abutting the present East Gate Avenue. N. E., upon certain terms and
conditions:
(n19840) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the acquisition of
tun certain S-foot s.trips of lurid abutting the present East Gate Avenue, N.
upon certain terms and conditions, for street purposes; and providing for an emer-
gency..
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 485.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded!
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Trout Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................b.
NAYS: None ...... ...... O. (Mr. Thomas not voting.) :
BONDS: Ordinance No. 19831, amending Chapter 2, Accounts, warrants and
interest, of Title ¥., Finance, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956o as amend-
ed, by the addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 9.1, entitled Destruction
of bonds and coupons after payment in full; certification, having previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mas again before the
body, Mr. Thomas off. Fin9 the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(=19831) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 2, Accounts. warrants and interest.
of Titl~ ¥. Finance, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, bI the
addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 9.1, entitled Destruction of bonds
and coupons after oavment in full: certifJcation~.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 480.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of th~ Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ...................7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
SEhERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure staying the application and implementation of Ordinance
Non 19611,. enacted August g, 1971. amending Chapter ?. Sewers and Sewage Disposal,
of Title I¥II, Streets, Sidewalks and Sewers, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as amended, by the addition of a new section to be designated as Sec. 23.
of said chapter and title, providing for certain charges to be paid for the pumping
i!of septic tank ~leaning trucks into the Sewage Treatment Plant. he presented same;
whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(#19841) A RESOLUTION staying the application and implementation of
Ordinance No. 19811, enacted August 9, 1971. amending Chapter ?. Sewers and Sewaoe
i Disoosal. of Title IYII, Streets. Sidewalks and Sewers, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, by the addition of a new section to be designated as
Sec. 23, of said chapter and title, providing for certain charges to be paid for
!the pumping of septic tank cleaning trucks into th~ City's Semage Treatment Plant.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 406.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by MF~ Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsh. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................
i NAYS: None ............. O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
~ SCHOOLS: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that the term
~ of Mr. Barton W. MOrris, Jr** as a member of the Local Board of Virginia Western
i Community College expired on June 30. 1971, that Mr. HoFFis has declined to serve
another term and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Wheeler placed in nomination the name of Miss Dorothy L. Gibboney.
There being no further nominations, Miss Dorothy Lo Glbboney was
elected as a member of the Local Board of Virginia Mestern Community College for a
term of four years ending June 30, 1975, by the follouin9 vote:
FOR MISS GIBBONEY: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler)
and Mayor Webber ......................
SCHOOLS: The City Clerk reported that Dr. Moffett H. Bowman and Mr.
Samuel P. McNeil have qualified as members of the Roanoke City School Board for
terms of three years each endin9 June 30, 1974.
Mr, Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted.
adjourned.
ATTE ~T:
ity Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
'58
CO[~CIL. REGULAR ME~TING.
Tuesday. September ?. 1971~
The Council of the City of Roanoke mat in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Tuesday, September 7. 1971. at 2 p,m,, uith
Mayor Webber presiding.
VRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. Darid K. kJsk. Hampton M, Thomas
James O. Trout.*~Vincent S~ Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber ........ ~ ..... 6.
ABSENT: Or. Noel Co'Taylor ...................................1.
OFFICERS PRE~ENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. James N.
Ki~canono City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION:' The meeting was opened with a prayer bI the Reverend John O,
Atkins, Pastor, Belmont Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
August 9, 1971. and the regular meeting held ~n Monday, August 16, 1971, having
been furnished each member of Council. on motion of Mr. Llsk, seconded by Mr.
Trou~ and unanimously adopted,'the reading thereof sas dispensed with and the
minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
STREETS A~H ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Tuesday, September 7, 1971, on the r~quest of Roanoke Coca Cola Bottling Mcrks,
Incorporated. and Radio Communications Company, Incorporated, to vacate, discon-
tinue and close a certain portion of an alley running in an easterly direction
from 4th Street, N. Mo. between Shenandoah Avenue and Centre Avenue for a distance
of 265.9 feet, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the CitI Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be 9ranted predicated on the City of Roanoke
retaining all utility easements located within this right of way:
*August 5, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of August 4. 1971.
Mr. Noneyman, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission and noted that a portion of the alley
in question was closed in 1966. In addition, he noted that the
petitioners sere requesting the alley closure to improve their
property in the future.
The Planning Director noted that a sewer line presently
extends through the entire portion of the alley.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council that this request be granted,
predicated on the City retaining all utility easements located
sithin this right-of-way.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parr,it by L. M.
John H. Parr,ti
Chairman*
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the alley In question and the neighboring property
and are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience would 'res'ult to any
individual or to the public from vacatln5 discontinuing and closing the alley.
Mr. Morton M. Honeyman, Attorney. representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the alley, Mr, Trout moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(u19842) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closin9
~that certain 26§,9 foot long portion of the 12 foot wide alley which runs in an
easterly direction from the easterly terminus of a portion of the same alley,
which was closed by Ordinance No. 16992 on March 14, 1966, the said ~lley original-!
ly running in an easterly direction from t~e 4th Street, N. W. between Shenandoah
Avenue, N. W. and Centre Avenue, N.
MHEREAS. Roanoke Coca-Cola Bottling Morks, Inc., Radio Communications
Co.. Inc.. and Herbert Kurshan, et als, hav~ heretofore filed a Petition before
Council in accordance with Section 15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia of 1950.
requesting Council to permanently vacate, discontinue and close the above described
alley; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the prayers of said Petition, viewers were
appointed by Council on the 12th day of Juiy, 1971. to vie~ the property and to
report in writing ~hether or not in their opinion any, and if any, ~hat incon-
venience ~ould result from permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing said
alley; and
MHEREAS, it appears from the duly verified report from three (3) of said
vieuers filed with the City Clerk on the loth day of August, 1971, that no incon-
venience would result from either to any individual or to the public from perman-
ently vacating, discontinuing and closing the said alley; and
MREREAS, it further appears that Petitioner agrees to bear all expenses
of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, it further appearin9 from a communication filed ~itb the Clerk
of the Council on the 5th day of August, 1971, that the City Planning Commission
recommends the granting Of the petition~ the City retaining all utility easements;!
and,
MHEREAS, on the 7th day of September, 1971, a public hearing to consider
the closing of the said alley herein requested was held before City Council and no
objection was heard from any citizen to the petition for closing.
THEREFORE, BElT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virgin~
ia that the 265.9 foot long portion of the 12 foot wide alley, ~hich runs in an
easterly direction from the eas{erly terminus of a portion of the same alley, uhichi
was closed by Ordinance No. 16692 on March 14, 1966, the said alley originally
:6O
running in un enaterly direction from 4th Street betmeen Shenandon~,,Avenue nnd
Centre Avenue, N. Woo be, end it hereby is, permanently vacated, discontinued and
l closed and that all right, title und interest of the City of Roanoke and the public
therein is hereby released insofar ns the Council is so empomered to do, reserving,
honey,r, unto the City of Roa nohe, Virginia an easement for any and nil public
utilities as may non be located across said property, together with the right of
ingress and egress for the maintenance of such lines.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of this Council do forthwith
certify to the Clerk of the Dustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a
copy of this ordinance for recordation in the deed book of his office and a like
copy of the City Engineer so that he may show on all maps in his office the closing
of said alley.
The motion was seconded by Mr. ~heeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Rayor
Mebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ..........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p,m., Tuesday,
September 7, 1971. in connection with specific additions to the Zoning Ordinance
providing for the establishment oi private clubs and lodges aa special exceptions
in all residential districts, with appropriate definitions and criteria relating
thereto, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follomin9
report recommending that Council incorporate the club and lodge categories into
the Zonin9 Ordinance, specifically in the residential zones as a special exception
with definitions and standards delineated as noted in their report:
~August 5, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor .
and Rembers of City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of August 4, 1971 as a direct
result of a petition presented to the City Planning Commission
on July ?, 1971 to rezone a 16 acreparcel of land located on
Persinger Road and Brambleton Avenue from a RS-R. Single-Family
Residential Distric~ to a C-2, General Commercial District in
order to ~ermit the petitioners the opportunity to cogstruct a new
Elks Club facility on this sitel On the recommendation of the
Planning Director and the citizen concern expressed at the July 7,
1971 Planning Commission meeting, about this rezouing petition.
the Planning Commtssiondirected the Planning Director to present
recommendations to the Planning Commission at the next scheduled
Commission meeting that mould incorporate the clubs and lodge
category into the Zoning Ordinance, specifically in the residential
zones as a special exception mith definition and criteria delineated.
At'the August 4 Planning Commission meeting the Planning
Director presented his recommendations to the Planning Commission.
After same discussion the Plannino Commission members agreed to
the following zoning text changes, essentially following the
recommendations of the Planning Director.
The folloming definition for clubs and lodges is recommended
by the Planning Commission to be lnc6rporated into the Zoning
Ordinance Text.
Amend Article XVI. Definitions by the addition, under Sec.
79.i interpretation of Certain Terms and Words, Of the follow-
ing:
lO,a. Clubs and Lodges - Private: Buildings and facilities
owned or operated by u corporation or association for
· · social, educational or recreational purposes but not
primarily for profit or to render service which is
customarily carried on as a business.
Thc following criteria pertain~ng to clubs and lodges are
recommended by the Planning Commission to be incorporated into the
Zoning Ordinance Text as conditions for the grunting of a special
exception. These criteria ur, essential to the protection of the
residential areas, and in providing for a use that enhances the
quality of the surrounding area.
Amend Article IV. qlstrict Reaulations by the addition, under
Sec. 5, Special Excentions After Public Notice and Hearings
by the Board of Zonin~ A~neals of the following:
Private clubs and lodges, provided the followin9 criteria
are met or established:.
(a) No parcel of land to be used for the above des-
cribed purposes shall be less than 5 acres in area.
(b) Any building whether principal or accessory shall
not be less than 150 feet from the lot line of any
adjacent residential zone district, and no part of
any parking area shall be less than 100 feet from
any such property line, and provided further that the
ex,,riot appearance of the building shall be in
appropriate harmony with the residential character
of the area.
(c) No more than,twenty (20) percent of the site area
may be covered by buildings, including accessory
buildingso
(d) There shall be at least one off-street parking apace
for each employee and one for every five members.
(e) There shall be no unshaded light sources, and light
shall be so located that their beams are not direct-
ed into'residential areas, nor shall there be any
flushing lights.
(f) There shall be no facilities for overnight accom-
modations except for mauageres and watchmen*s quarters.
(g) Swimming pools shall be constructed and erected in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinance
of the City of Roanoke.
(h) No mechanical device for the reproduction or ampli-
fication of sounds used in connection with this
facility shall create a nuisance to adjacent pro-
perties throngh the emissibn of noises, voices, or
music which is loud enough to cause complaints from
adjacent residential property owners.
(i) The Zoning Board of Appeals may impose any other
reasonable conditions with regard to this operation
including limitation on hours of operation.
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
¸61
'62
No oneappearing In opposition to the proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, Mr, ~heeler moved that the following 0rdinance~be placed upon its
first re~ding:
(n19043) AN ORDINANCE amending paragraph entitled SpeCial excentlons
~(~er oublic notice and hearings by the board of zoning anoeals qf Sec. 5.1o
RS-1. RS-2 and RS-3 Si~ale-familv residential districts, of Chapter 4.1. Zoning
of Title XV. Construction. Alteration and Use of Land· 8uildinas and Other
Structures, of the Code of toe City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, by the addition
of a new subparagraph, to be designated Subparagraph fl. Private clubs and lodges.
providing criteria for allomance of private clubs and lodges i~ said districts
as an additional special exception; and Emending Sec. ?q.l. Interoretation of
certain terms and words, of said chapter and title 'by~e additiqn of a new
subsection, to be designated 10.1 Clubs and Lodges - Private, providing a defini-
tion Of such term.
WIIEREAS, the City Planning Commission by report dated August 5, 1971,
bas recommended that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke be
amended by making provision for private clubs and lodges in residential districts,
as a special exception and with certain criteria and standards to be met before
such special exception be granted by the Hoard of Zoning Appeals. and has further
recommended that a definition of such private clubs and lodges be provided in
said Zoning Ordinance; and the Council concurs in such recommendation; and
WItEREAS, a public hearing on said proposals was held before the Council
at its meeting on September ?, 1971, after due and timely notice, at which
hearing all citizens and parties were afforded an opportunity to ~e heard on the
proposals.
THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED by the ~ouncll of the City of Roanoke that that
paragraph entitled Special exceptions after oublic notice and hearinos bv the board
of zsnin~ aooeals of Sec. 5.1 RS-l, RS-2, and RS-3 Si~ole-familv residential
districts, of Chapter 4.1. Zoning, Title XV. Coqstruction. Alteration and Use of
'~and. BuildinGs and Other Structures~ be amended by the addition Of a hem sub-
paragraph, to be designated Subparagraph 9. Private clubs and lodges, to read
'and provide as folloss:
6. Private clubs and lodges, provided the folloming criteria are
met or established:
a. ~o parcel of land to be used for the abovedescribed pur-
poses shall be less than five acres in area.
b. Any building mhether principal or accessory shall not be
less than 150 feet from the lot line of any adjacent~residential
property, and no part of any parking area shall be less than 100
feet fromany such property line; and, provided further, that the
exterior appearance of any such building ~hall, be in appropriate
harmony with the residential character of the area,
c. No more than 20 percent of the site area may be covered
· b~ buildings, i~cludin9 accessory buildings.
l!
d, There shall be ut least one off-street parhing space for
each employee and one such space for every five members of such
club or lodge.
'e. There shall be no unshaded light sonrces, smd lights' shell
be so located that their beams ore not directed into residential
areas, nor shall there bb any flashing lights.
f. There shall be no facilities for overnight accommodations
except for the club or lodge msnager*s or watchmen's quarters,
g. All buildings and appurtenances,including swimming pools.
shall be constructed and erected in accordance with all applicable
codes and ordinances of the City of Roanohe.
h. No mechanical device for the reproduction or amplification
of sounds used In connection with the club or lodge facility shall
create a nuisance to adjacent properties through the emmission
of noise, voices or music mhich are ~ud enough, in volume, to cause
complaints from nearby or adjacent property owners.
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Sec. 7g.I. lnteroretation of certain terms
and ~ords. of said chapter and title be amended by the addition of a new subsection
to be numbered lO,l, to read and provide as follows:
10.1 C]gb~ ~d Lodaes - Private.
Buildings and facilities owned or operated by a charitable,
non-profit corporation, fraternal organization or civic
service association primarily for social, educational or
recreational purposes and which may not be operated primarily
for profit.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................
NAYS: None .............-0. (Dr. Taylor absent)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors on Mednesday, August 25. 1971, authorizing the Board
Chairman to discuss institutional arrangements for sewage treatment with other
representatives of the Roanoke Valley governments and expressing the desire of the
Board for such long-term arrangements to be based upon an area-wide organization,
was before Council.
In this connection, a Resolution adopted by the Botetourt County Board
of Supervisors at a special meeting held on September 2, 1971. appointing a three
man committee to discuss a regional sewerage treatment facility with the other
representatives of the Roanoke Valley governments and expressing the desire of
the Board pertaining to the ownership of said facility, was also before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolutions he received and filed. The motion
!wa~ seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Council
ii of the City of Salem at a special meeting held on August 31, 1971,~ndorsing smd approving
ilthe positions taken by the Board of Supervisors ~'f Botetourt County and the Board
~;of Supervisors of Roanoke County, expressing their preference for a regional owner-
ship of a sewerage plant and calling upon the City of Roanoke to modify its present
stand and join ~ith the other governmental units in the Roanoke Valley in a con-
certed effort to bring into being an established and overall unified sewerage
ildisposal plant and collector system jointly owned by all the participating parties.~
was before Council,
63
i'$4
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Communications from Mr. Edward C, Muumuu and Mr,
Robert S, Cashden, in connection with the proposal of the City Ranager to require
apartment omners to provide bulk trash containers, requesting that' Council consideri
applying the proposed Ordinance only to apartment buildings with sufficient units
to insure a volume of trash making the use of a dumpster economically feasible and
that anything less would be extremely unfair and impractical, was before Council.
In a discussion of the matter, the City Manager advised that be is
contemplatin9 revising this request'tn provide that these dumpsters be placed at
!dwellings where there are ten or more apartments and that this recommendation will
be forwarded to Council for its consideration at a later date.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communications he referred to the City Manager
for his information in connection with his study of the matter. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Mhcoler and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELRVISION: A communication from Communications Consultants, in
connection with the establishment of a municipally owned CATV franchise, advising
that they would be willing to discuss the matter mith the members of Council if
they feel the proposal has merit, was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to Mr. Vincent S.
Rheeler, Chairman of the CATV Committee, for his information in connection with
his study of the question of permitting the construction of a community antenna
television system in the City of Roanoke. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A communication from Mr.
Joseph S. James, Auditor of Public Accounts,~in connection with an audit of the
accounts and records of Lawrence L. Eoontz, Judge 5f the Juvenile and Domestic
~ Relations Court, for the calendar years lV69 and 19?O,adv~sin9 that th~ accounts
, and records of the Court bad not been maintained in a satsifactory manner causing
the examination to be difficult and time consuming and transmitting certain defl-
:ciencies in the accounts and records of the Court which were discussed with the
Judge and tho Clerk, was before Council.
Mr.'Trout moved that thc communication be received ~nd filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Benton O. Dillard, Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. George Il. Ashuell, et~dX;, requestihg that property located in the
1000 block of Chapman Avenue. S. W.. described as Lots 13 - lb. inclusive, Clock
27, Map of Riverview Land and Manufacturing Company, Official Tax Nos. 1313b09 -
1313612, inclusive, be rezoned from RG-2, General Residential District, to C-I,
0ffice and Institutional District, Has before Council.
Mr. ~heeler moved that the request for rez~nln9 be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council, The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Jack V. Place, Attorney, reprnsenting
Roanoke Smift Homes, Incorporated, requesting that 14,33 acres of land, more or
less, described as Official Tax Nos. 4210501 - 421~$06,' inclusive, 4210401 -
4210418, inclusive, 4210307 '- 421032?, inclusive. 4210330. 4210331 and portions of
421032fl and 4210329. be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District. to RG-I,
General Residential District. was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that t~e request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. .The motion
was Secooded by Hr, Mheeler nod unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUD6ET-MUN1CIPAL HUILDINO: The City Manager submitted the folloming
report in connection with the drilling of telephone end electricol outleks in the
Municipal Building, r~commending thot $900.00 be appropriated to provide funds
for the purchase of an appropriate machine and associated equipment for this
purpose:
"Roanoke, Vir.ginia
September 7, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Mhen the new Municipal Building was built, the electrical
contractor, G. J, Hopkins, used a special machine to drill the
telephon~ nod electrical outlet, This special tool was not left
with the City and ali outlet changes made since the original
design specifications hare been contracted to the low bidder.
This work has been done nith a drill and bit plus some hammer and
chisel work, Just recently in the new communication center this
type of special drilling was required. Some have been accomplished
by the hammer, chisel and drill method, But the result of this
method has created a problem. Fine concrete dust has accumulated
over the equipment and on the contacts and relays associated with
the new consoles, A ~econd and more expensive problem is with
our Centrex communication center',
Concrete dust of fine quality, due to floor boles placed in
that room, has been found all through the C ~ P relay and terminal
equipment. Damag'e to this equipment is of an unknown nature and
such that no holes can be placed in the telephone area without the
special machine which eliminates the dust problem. Possible
damage also exists in areas with electrical typewriters and machines
where the holes are drilled with the existing methods..
The operations room that is to be opened shortly will require
approximately twenty-five telephone and electrical outlets to be
drilled. The estimated cost based upon our present low bid of
$15.00 per hole would be $3?5. When occupied and for whatever
purpose, the School Board area on the 4th floor will undoubtedly
require drillin9. There further are a number ~f locations in the
new building that have improper hole locations for pedestrian
traffic and as time progresses we would hope to iesituate these.
By the City having its omn machine on hand. it would be
possible to accomplish work faster and more in line with the needs
of the C~y, We would project that over a period of a year or two
that the'cost Of contracting the work mould match up with the cost
~f purchasing the equipment. It is now necessary that whenever
a purchase order is written fey the drilling of a hole, it must
'65
:66
specify that the holes be drilled with u Vet-U-Rig or equal to
provide adequate concrete dust control and to prevent further
damage to equipment, This is the reason for the high unit ~ost.
'Kneeing that the placewent or relocation of telephone and
electrical outlets is a continuing process, it is submitted us a
recommendation that the City Council appropriate the eecessary
funds for the purpose of tee appropriate machine and associated
equipuent mhich carries an est'imated cost of $900.
Should the Council not deem it wise to purchase this equip-
ment ut this time, we would then continue with the handling of each
location individually, A copy of a purchase order is attached to
indicate the breakdown of the equipment cost.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19844) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section a64. *Maintenance
of City Property,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 487.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Nebher ..................................
NAYS: None ...................O, (Dr. Taylor absent)
BUDGET-MARKET: The City Manager submitted the following report in con-
nection with Central Business District development, recommending that
be appropriated for this purpose and that he be granted authorization to enter into
a contract with the firm of National Garages, Incorporated, for a detailed study
of the feasibility and increments associated Hath a public parking facility in
the City of Roanoke. advising that it is intended that theinitial engagement be as
to Phase One in the amount of $8,600.00 and that following the completion of this
phase, there Hill be qn evaluation of the matter before proceeding to Phase Two:
*Roanoke, Virginia
September 7., 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In May 1959 there Was received in Roanoke the presentation
visually andthrough comprehensive reports the presentation of that
which Has entitled *downtown Roanoke development plan and program**
This work Has the result of the year-long study by the consulting
planning firm of Marcou. O'Leary and Associates, together Htth
associated firms, who had been jointly employed by City of Roanoke
and central business district business interests working through
~i . Downtown Roanoke. Incorporated, with theobjective of making an
i in-depth study of the downtown area of Roanoke City and the projec-
tion of short and long range plans and programs. ..
Various aspects of this plan and program have been pursued b~
interested parties, including the City government,~since 1969. Some
phases have begun to materialize. The report additfonal~y has
served as a basis of projection of certain other ideas and planning.
An integral part of the total plan and'program as presented
by the consultants to mbich there has been continaing con-
sideration and interest has be~n the recommendation* for additional
public parking facilites and the recommendation that such facilities
provide · key to much of the potential development~ As a review of
the plan end program in this particular regard, there is quoted
as follows several extracts from the printed report document:
'The major recommendations for off-street parking are
closely related to proposed development projects and circu-
lation Improvements. They consist of two major public
parking garages (Franklin Number One nnd the second com-
ponent of the Elrk Mall West project} which mould provide
approximately 1.600 parking spaces. These would be in
addition to the 5SO-car facility to be provided in the
Downtown East Urban Renexal project.' In addition, approxi-
mately 560 spaces are proposed as an integral part of new
developments presented in the plan.'
'The third public action required in relation to the
Kirk Mall East project is the construction of a major
public parking facility close enough to support the project.
Pro forms analysis Of a parking Structure or underground
parking facilities indicates a projected cash flow that
would be unacceptable to private developers, if the facility
is conveniently located and a controlled fee system is
provided. Only through the provision of a municipal parking
program to actively suppor.t private development can the
proper financial incentives be offered to private investors
to carry forxard the suggested development program. The
Franklin Number One parking garage project could, in part,
satisfy the parking requirements of the Kirk Mall East pro-
ject. It is recommended that the necessary public action be
initiated immediately to organize a municipal parking program
and to construct this initial parking facility.'
'As shown by the accompanying pro forna analysis, the
southern component of the Eirk Mall Nest project can be
feasibly developed by private ieterests. A return of nearly
11 percent is indicated on an equity position of approxi-
mately $2,0§5,225. To give impetus to the project and to
insure overall economic feasibility, the second component,
comprising principally the GOO=car parking garage and the de-
partment store, would have to be developed publicly. The
lower interest which can be obtained by a municipal parking
agency--with the. powers of eminent domain and bonding--and
the lack of a minimum return to equity requirement would
make the component feasible. By leasing the department store
and other retail space under a joint-use provision, the
could be utilized for reta}loperations and for publicaccess
'Without a forceful new public parking program to assist
private investment, the long-term competitiveness of Donnioun
mill be negatively affected, Anevoluatloa'or tko current
supply indicates mn immediate requirement for 400 additional
parking, spaces appropriately located to satisfy existing demand,
The improvement of traffic circulation mill require the elimin-
ation of most on-street parking on principal Domntomn streets, an
additional loss of approximately 90 spaces, Also. the existing
off-street parking facilities located on land indentlfled for
specific redevelopment mould displace about 630 parking spaces.
On balance, thc plans anticipate that in coming years approxi-
mately 2,350 new parking spaces will be required to meet
short-term needs. To meet this parking requirement, six major
parking facilities are recommended in the Downtown Plan to
supplement the existing supply. Three 'public parking structures
are suggested*mhich would provide approximately 2,150 parking
spaces. Additionally, three major off-street parking facilities,
containing approximately 560 spaces, are recommended as an
integral p3rt of multi-use development packages to handle mostly
specialized long-term parking requirements. The unallocated
demand for approximately 200 additional short-term spaces is
expected to be handled in the Downtown fringe or on Downtown
sites not scheduled for specific action under the Downtown
Development Plan.*~
As stated this aspect of the report and its relationship to
dowtown development has received continuing attention along mith other
portions of the recommendations. The Board of Trustees of Central
Roanoke Development Foundation, Incorporated, which is made up of
representatives gl the City and of downtown Roanoke business interests,
and which is a body for the purpose of serving in a continuing capacity
in the coordination of the implementation of the plan. has noted with
particular interest the proposals for parking and their relationship
to other programs of ~e projections of the consultuntin9 planners.
Approximately a month ago. it was determined that there mere many
specifics which should be studied in order that all concerned would
be in a much better position to evaluate directions that should be
taken in the matter of the prevision of au additional parking
facility or facilities especially as to the possibility of public
ownership. It was felt that there should be the benefit of study
and information as could be provided by persons or firms who specialized
in the field of parking.
As a result five nationally recognized firms of the experience in
plannin9 of parking facilities were contacted. These firms were based
in New York. Detroit. Houston and Atlanta. Each of th~se firms sent
a representative to Roanoke and individual interviews were conducted
by a group comprised of representatives of Downtown Roanoke. Incor-
porated, and department heads of the City who would have direct
association with 'such a project. These firms then sent proposals
to the City for their services.
It has been the conclusion of the committee comprised of repre-
sentation of the City through its Council and staff and of Downtown
Roanoke, Incorporated. that there should be undertaken a detailed
study of the feasibility and increments associated mith a public
parking facility in Roanoke. I carry, for all concerned, to the City
Council the recommendation that National Garages. Incorporated, De-
troit, Michigan. be engaged to make such a study.
For the purpose of providing some geographical determinations
to minimize the coverage of the study the initial approach has been
as to the block bounded by First and Second Streets and Kirk and
Church Avenue; however, variations from this would be recognized if
the study should so indicate. I attach herewith a copy of the
proposal of August 17, 1971, from National Garages, Incorporated,
which defines this scope of the study and more adequately than I
could relate, indicates the nature and objective of this study
project.
National Garages has been associated with major parking facility
development in Dayton, Ohio; St. Louis; Minneapolis; Miami; Richmond,
Virginia; Canton, Ohio; Phoenix, Arizona; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; San
Diego; Salt Lake City; Atlanta and others.
The recommendation to the City Council is that there be provided
the appropriation of,$12,900 and the authorization for the entering
into with this firm of a contract consistent with the proposal. It
would be intended that the initial engagement be as to Phase One in
the o.aunt of $6.600and that following the completion of this.
there would be an evaluation of the matter before proceeding to Phase
TWO.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian Fo Hirst
Julia~ F~ Hirst
City Manager'
(!
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur ia the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $12,9oo.oo
to Central Business District under Section mag, *Transfers to Capital Improvements!
Fund." of the 1971o72 budget:
(#1984§) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #89. "Transfers to '
Cnpltel Improvements Fund." of the 1971o72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 468.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lash, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ..........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
Mr. Trout then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract mith National
Garages. Incorporated, for the purpose of making u detailed study of the feasibil=
ity and increments associated with a public parking facility in the City of Roa-
noke. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: Council having taken under consideration a recommenda-
tion of t~e City Manager that the proposal of Consolidated Contractors, Incorpor-
ated, of Virginia. for the sale of approximately 575,ooo board feet of saw,amber
located on the Beaver Dam and Falling Creek Watershed properties, be accepted,
the City Manager submitted the following report advising that while he would like
to proceed with cutting of this timber and get the total program underway, it is
not imperative that this particular area be done at this time and recommending
that the bids be rejected, that York Forestry and Land Company, Incorporated, has
advised him that they mill tree mark the timber which will better define the cut
and enable closer estimates and that he would propose to roadvertise for bids on
this matter in November:
*Roanoke, Virginia
September 7. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
~entlemen:
The City Council two weeks ago referred back to me the bids
the. had been received for the sale of certain timber in the
City property in the Falling Creek=-Beaver Dam reservoir area.
The area as proposed to be cut consists actually of two tracts
totaling approximately 140 acres situated east generally of the
Beaver Dam Lake abutting on both sides of State Route 635 which
extends from Virginia Route 24 to the Jo.ers Chapel area. One
tract includes the roadway from 635 into Beaver Dam and the
second tract is in the vicinity of Jeters Chapel.
As the Council has been advised this was the third bidding with
no bids having been received the first two times. The primary
objective of starting in these areas Js that the poplar stand needs
to be cut for regrowth. The areas had been cruised for timber
estimates.
The effect on the amount of the bids is the current market,
another is the present concern which some major timber firms have
in cutting around watersheds and another is that the insurance and
7o
bond requirements and length of contrast document ncr somewhat os
deterrents to smaller tiwber contractors.
#hale me would like to proceed with this cutting'end get the
total program undermny, as I indlcoted to Council verbally, it is
not imperative that this particular urea be done right at this time.
Therefore, It Is recommended that these bids be rejected, Mr'.
York advises that he will then proceed to go hack in end tree mark
the timber which will better define the cut end enable closer
estimates, Math this and a hope for better market coordiootions,
we would propose to readvertise in about November.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hiram
Julian F, NiFSt
City Manager"
Mr, Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure rejecting nil bids received for the sale of the
sawtimbero The motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted~
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting a proposed Ordinance with regard to police residency requirements providing
that all commissioned police personnel employed on a permanent Status in the Police
Department shall reside within a radius distance Of six miles measured from the
Municipal Building.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n19846) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 1. Police Forces, of Title XI,
Pg]ice Force and Courts. of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by
the addition of a new section to be designated as Sec. 1.1, Resldencv reouirement
to provide that all commissim ed police personnel employed on a permanent status
in the Police Department shall reside within a radius distance of six (6) miles
measured from the Municipal Building of the City.
MHEREAS, Section 31 of the Charter Of the City of Roanoke provides that
Council may, by ordinance, prescribe rules and regulations governing the residency
or non-residency of any or all members of the Police Department; and
MHEREAS, the City Manager, by report dated September 7, lgTl. has recom-
mended the establishment of a residency requirement for all commissioned police
personnel employed on a permanent status in the Police Department; and the Council
concurs in this recommendation.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City ~f Roanoke that
Chapter 1, Police Forces, of Title XI, pgllc~ Forc~ ~d Courts, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, be amended by the addition of a new section to
be designated as Sec. 1.1, R~sidencv reauirement, to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 1.1. R~sidencv reouirement.
The superintendent of police shall reside within the City of
Roanoke.
All other commissioned police personnel employed on a permanent
status in the police department shall reside within a radius
distance of six (6) miles measured from the municipal building
of the city. Any such employee of tbe department who, during his
or her employment, moves residency beyond the six-mile radius shall be
terminated in employment nt the end or the calendar month nearest
following, the.change of residency. Any commissioned employee
newly employed by the police department mhosb residence i, beyond
the six-mile radius shall move nnd establish full time residence
mithin the prescribed irea not later than ninety days after date of
employment. ....
Nothing contained in this section shall affect any commissioned police
personnel who, on September 27, 1971. resided outside a radius distance
of six (6) miles measured from the municipal building of the city.
but in no such case shall any such COmmissioned police personnel reside
outside a radius distance of sixteen (16) miles measured'from the
municipal building of the city.
The motion seconded by Mr, Llsk a~d adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Thomas. Trout. Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................................ 6.
NAYS: None .................O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTIO~ AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY: Council having
ireferred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation the request of
Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley concerning use of the Harrison
Elementary School building as a site for the operation of au additional Day Care
Center as provided for in the '1971-T2 budget of the Full Year Head Start Program
of TAP. the City Manager submitted the.f, Il,ming report recommending that the
building be made available for a day care center operation, requesting that TAP
survey the space within the structure to determine the portions of the building
that will be usable for the day care center and that the remainder of the building
be securely locked or closed off and that the City Attorney be authorized to
proceed with the draftin9 of a lease or rental agreement for said purpose:
~Roanoke. Virginia
September 7. 1971
il,n,robie Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Total Action Against Poverty, in behalf of its Day Care
Center Operation, has requested use of Harrison School to accom-
modate two of its day care center programs, one bain9 the unit
just required to vacate the Lincoln Terrace School. The City
Council has referred the request to this office for report. The
building has been authorized for conveyance from the School Board
to the City as to ownership and request has been made for transfer
of the insurance on the structure.
Inspection by our personnel indicates the building to be in
generally good condition. It is a spacious old building and has a
great deal of usable space. Inspection at this point indicates that
the heating system appears to be in good order and consists of two
parallel coal fired boilers. The mechanical and electrical facilities
seem in good condition based on visual inspection, although in a
number of instances the equipment appears to be of older design
and make.
It is the judgment of the Public Marks Department that the
structure ia in bad need of painting, quite seriously on the exterior
and there is some evidence qf rotting on the roof overhang. The
ceilings in nearly all of the rooms ne the upper floor indicate that
some leakage has occurred and it is quite possible that more
detailed inspection may indicate the need of a new roof.
The school system would logically' wish to retrieve the lock
cores from the doors and any new tenant or occupant, other than the
City, should install their own door locks.
Our advice on last year*s operation of Barriso~ School was that
expenditures were $3,O70.49 for utilities and $33,756.34 for custodial
services and supplies,
It mould be recommended ihSt ~his b~lldihg~be m~de'uvuiluble
for. the duy care centnr operatibn. We mould'ash that TAP survey
the space within the structure to determine thn portions.or the
building thut would be usable for this center and the remainder
of the building should then be secuvmly locked or clhsed off. It
has already been internally requested that the City Attorney*s office
and the appFepriute persons at TAP confer on the drafting or un
adequate lease er rental agreement and it would be recummended that
the City Council authorize the City'Attorney to proceed in this
regard. .
It is uncertain as to what the term of an occupancy agreement
should consist of and it is felt that either party should have
the privilege of termination upon approximately 60 days n6tice.
Mhether or not the facility Mould be returned for neighborhood
school purposes at some later date might be one aspect that should
be taken into account for lease OF rental term allomances with TAP
OF any other occupant.
~e are continuing to M~rk ou't details with TAP on this and if
Council concurs in this report, then the authorization at this
point Mould be for the preparation of an agreement to be returned
for your revieM.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. fiirst
City Manager~
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation
of toe proper measures. The motion Mas seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously
adopted.
In this connection, Hr. [heeler moved that the City Manager be requested
to ascertain if there are any unexpended funds Within the budget of the Roanoke
City School Hoard that Mereallocated to the former Harrison Elementary School
which can be used toMard improvements in connection mith using said building
for a day care center by Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley. The
motion was seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
SPECIAL pERMITS-SIGNS: Council having referredto the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation a communication from the Roy C. Kinsey Sign
Company, requesting a permit to erect a marque type sign for the Security National
Hank of Roanoke at their downtown office at 24 Mast Church Avenue. the City Manager
submitted a written report advising that pursuant to Title 15, Chapter 7, Section '
12 of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955. th~ request should have been directed
to the City Plann{ng Commission, that he referred the matter to the Planning
Commission by letter of August 17, 19T1, for study, report and recommendation to
Council and that the Assistant Planning Director has advised him that the City
Planning Commission recommends approval"of said request.
Mr.'Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion Mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
The City Manager pointed out that the time element in this matter is
very important, th'at since Council will not conduct a regular meeting on Monday,
September 13, 1971, he would like to request authorization tn transmit a communi-
cation to the Roy C, Kinsey Sign Company permitting them to proceed uith the
~erection of this sign pending adoption of the appropriate measure by Council grant-~
!lng said request.
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
iThe motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND b'IORM bRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following re-
ilport transmitting copy of a communication written by him to the State Water Control
Board in connection with a plan and program for the further upgrading of the
Semage Treatment Plant for the purpose of conformance with the effluent standards
as prescribed by the Board on July 26, 1971:
'Roanoke, Virginia
September 7, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
For your continuin9 record and information, I enclose a copy
of a letter of September 1, 1971, to the State Rater Control Hoard.
The reason of this letter is as stated therein. A copy of the
report is not here with attached as it is felt that in the present
status of the matter, general dissemination of contents is not
advisable as there are still design and program points under dis-
cussion mith the staff of the Board and we would like to resolve
these before coming before you and the public with the full pre-
sentation.
'September 1, 1971
Mr. A. M..Hadder
Director, Enforcement Division
State Motet Control Hoard
P. O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Dear Mr. Hadder:
Pursuant to the direction of the State Water Control
Board in its meetin9 on duly 26, 1971, I herewith transmit
on this date a Report by the City of Roanoke of a plan and
program for the further upgrading of the Roanoke Sewage
Treatment Plant for the purpose of conformance with the
effluent standards as prescribed by the Board on July 26, 1971.
This Report is in the form of a document, dated September 1,
1971, prepared by our consulting engineers, Alvord, Burdick and
Howson, and addressed to the City,
It is our hope that this submission satisfactorily.meets
the Board's stated requirement that such a plan and program
be forwarded to Board staff on September 1, 1971.
' It is appropriate that the following comments on the.part
of the City accompany this transmittal:
1. Discussions between Board staff and!staff of our
consultants and of the City are an on~joing activity
as to design and program aa set forth lo this report.
These include, most recently, a meeting of all con-
cerned approximately two weeks ago in Hlacksburg; au
inspection on August 31, which included a represen-
tative of the State Health Department, of the St. Louis
treatment plant; a meeting scheduled in Richmond in
the coming week; and, various correspondence and
telephone conversations. There are certain details
in the design nnd program which your staff still has
under consideration. Ne recognize these to he not
fully resolved but in this transmittsl had. the
objective of the Hoard September I deudllne,
2, 'This transmittal does'not include the customary extensive
chart and other visual displays. The form of. this
formarding precludes such, much has alresdy been presented
and tho preparation uould appear to be more practical
following resolution of some of the points still under
discussion, .
a, In the opening comments of the Report, Alvord, Burdich
and Hanson relate further substantiation to the need
of plant design to 35 HGD. ~e here additionally have
discussed the situation with Hayes, Sway, Hattern
and Hattern, consulting engineers, who prepared the
Fifth Planning District Regional Interim Plan and we
are meeting with them tomorrow, September 2, as to the
Roanoke River basin flow projections and treatment
capacity requirements.
Again, it is hoped this submission is consistent with
the stated direction and if we can advise further we would
endeavor to so do.
Very truly yours,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
When worked out all of this will be fully developed with and
before City Council and it is recognized that Council does not carry
an obligation until that tine.
My purpose is to let you know that things are still moving, are
still extensively time consuming and we are continuing to meet deadlines.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F,.Hirst.
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager~
Hr, Thomas moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
!seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
imitting copy of a communication from Dr. James Ho Fagan, Commissioner of Health,
las to. the quarterly billing to the City of Roanoke for its portion of the State
:iHealth Department budget,
Mr, Trout moved that the report be received and filed, The moti on mas
'iseconded by Mr, hheeler and unanimously adopted,
POLICE DEpARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the
following report in connection with the status of personnel in the Police Department
and the Fire Department as of July 31, 1971:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 7, 1971
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire
Department as of July 31, 1971:
'Police
Hired Resianed
Mrs, Debrn S, Arthur
(Clerk-Stenographer) September 16, 1970 July 9. 1971
Miss Nancy A. Milmer July 16. 1971
Officer John M. Hughes May 1, 1966 July 15, 1971
Ending July, 1971 (23 vacancies)*
'Fire
'One employee hired - Milliam R. Chattin - Jull 16, 1971,
'Ending July. 1971, there were no vacancies,'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN-DEPAR7MENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Attorney
submitted a written report in connection with amending Ordinance No. 19H!8, adopted
on August lb, 1971. in connection with certain changes in the Pay Plan, advising
that it has come to his attention that Ordinance No. 19810 contained certain minor
clerical errors in reference to t~e classification of the Casework Supervisor, that
in Ordinance No. 19016, the Casework Supervisor position had a Range No. 24, that
the salary in Step I was $720.00 and the salary in Step 2 was $76B.00, that the
correct figures and changes reflected in the new Ordinance is that Range No. 24
is eliminated, the salary in Step I is $730.00 and the salary in Step 2 is $765.00.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance providing for said changes:
(n19847) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19816, heretofore adopted
on August 16, 1971, which provided a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay
Plan, by adding to said Pay Plan a.new position of employment under the City
government; by deleting from said Pay Plan two (2) other positions of employment;
by raising the pay range for two (2) existing positions of employment; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. 7he motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .................. ~---b.
NAYS: None .......O, (Dr. Taylor absent)
· REPORTS OF.COMMITTEES:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council havin9 directed the Sewer Committee to
study the possibility of upgrading the present rates and charges contained in the
sewage treatment contracts with local governing bodies in the Roanoke Valley area,
'76
the Semer Committee submitted the follomiag report transmitting n proposed contract
reqaeatlng that Council reyJew and act upon the proposed contract ns ~oon us
feasible mith such additions and deletions us it shall deem essential to accomplish
the intent of Council insofar as the preparation and submission of a nam fair and
equitable long-range contract may be concerned and requesting the permission of
Council for the Sewer Committee to discuss the terms and conditions oF the contract~
with the Roanoke Valley governments ut a joint meeting to be held on September 9,
or subsequent meetings should said g~vernin9 bodies so desire:
'September 7, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to direction of City Council, your Sewer Committee has
Studied, researched and prepared the attached agreement as u suggested
format for new sewage contracts between the City of Roanoke and vari-
ous governmental bodies in the Roanoke Valley area. The enclosed
fact sheet outlines various points pertinent to the suggested new
contract which is the Committee*s work product of approximately four
months, including many conferences and work sessions with the staff
members of the City of Roanoke and varioos consultants for the
Sewage Treatment Plant.
The Committee requests that Council review and act upon the
contract as soon as feasible with such additions and deletions as it
shall deem essential to accomplish the intent of Council insofar
as the preparation and submission of a new fair and equitable long-
range contract may be concerned.
Additionally, the Committee requests permission of Council to
discuss the terms and conditions of the attached contract with the
Roanohe Valley governments at a joint meeting to be held on September
9, 1971, or subsequent meetings should said governing bodies so
desire.
Respectfully submitted,
ROANOK£ CITY SEMER COMMITTEE"
Mr, Thomas moved that the report and format be taken under advisement
at this time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then moved that Mayor Roy L. Mebber be authorized to transmit
copies of the proposed contract to the area governing bodies for their reviem.
The motion sas seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas further moved that the Semer Committee be authorized to dis-
~icuss the. proposed contract with the area governing bodies at a joint meeting to be
i:held on September 9. 1971,.with the understanding that the Committee will not
;icommit Council to anything contained in the proposed contract until the members of
the Council of the City of Roanoke have officiallyacted upon said contract, The
ilmotion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The Airport Advisory Commission submitted the following report
in connection with the proposal of M. L. Hagood, Sr., and M. L. Hagoed, Jr.. for
the operation of the Restaurant and Gift Shop at Roanohe Municipal (Moodrum) Air-
port; a recommendation in connection with traffic and auto parking problems, a
recommendation in connection with the fixed base operations, a recommendation in
connection with the aviation fuels concession and a recommendation in connection
with expansion of the Terminal Building at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 2, 1971
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
During a called meeting of Councilts Airport Advisory Com-
mission, Mednesday September lo 1971 a number of matters were
considered by the members including the referral items of Airport
Restaurant bids and auto parking as it relates to hiring Airport
Police.
Your Commission voted unanimously to recommend the following
items to Council:
1. That the high bid of 14~ of gross income for the Restaurant
Con~esklon, submitted by M. L. Bagood and M. L. Hagood, Jr**
be accepted subject to the approval of their financial state-
neat by the City Auditor.
2. That Contract Police be employed immediately to handle traffic
and auto parking problems at the Airport until the City can
accomplish the employment and training of the three (3) Airport
Police approved by Council.
3. That the City Manager cause to be advertised bids to the aviation
industry and the general public those areas designated un tbe
recently approved Airport Master Plan as being available for
developing FIXED BASE OPERATIONS and facilities for general
aviation.
4. That tbe present aviation fuels concessionaire, whose contract
with the City expired August 31, 1971, be allowed to continue
in this same capacity and with the same compensation to the City,
on a month to month basis by letter agreement, until more
'conclusive information is available concernln9 the developme~
of hem Fixed Base Operations as provided on the Master Plan.
5. That early consideration be given toward moving ahead with plans
to expand the existing terminal building using the available
funds and include in the construction us many of the following
specific items as possible: additional toilets, larger
restaurant and kitchen, new and adequate baggage handling,
F.A.A. space for new and expanded facilities and greater lobby
and public handling areas.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Vincent* St W~c~er
VINCENT S. MBEELER, CHAIRMAN
AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE"
In a discussion of the Ratter, Mr. Lisk advised that there are new
members of Council who did not have an opportunity to be briefed on where we
stand insofar as improvements and expansion at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport
is concerned and that before any official action is takem on the matter, these
members of Council should be brought up to date on the status Of proposed improve-
meats and expansion at the airport,
After a further discussion in connection with the recommendations of
the Airport Advisory Commission, Mr. Thomas moved that action on the report be
deferred until Council can meet with the Airport Advisory Commission and other
interested parties to discuss the recommendations of the Airport Advisory Commis-
sion and review certain plans for improvements and expansion of Roanoke Municipal
(Moodrum) Airport. The motion was seconded by Mr. List and unanimously adopted.
'Mayor Mebber then called a meeting of Council acting as a Committee Of
the lhole mith the ~irpprt Advisory Commission, the City Manager and his staff
and other interested parties for Thursday, September 23, 1971, at 7:30 p.m** in
~he Council Chamber, for the purpose o! discussing the recommendations of the
Airport Advisory Commission and reviewing certain plans for improvements and
expansion of Rosnohe Municipal (~oodrum) Airport,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
CITY TREASURER-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having deferred action on
a report of the City Attorney transmitting proposed Ordinances amending the City
Code relating to the method and manner of collecting, accounting for and deposit-
lng the city*s funds, the matter mas again before the body.
In this connection, the City Attorney advised that Mr. J. D. Johnson,
City Treasurer. has requested that action on this matter be deferred for two meeks.I
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Treasurer
that action on the matter be deferred for two weeks. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INYRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to direct the City Engineer~
;lng Department to prepare plans for the replacement of the Norfolk Avenue trunk
i!se#er and further authorizing the City Manager to advertise for bids for this
i!project, he presented same; whereupon, Mr, Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(nlgR48) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to direct the City
!Engineering Department to prepare plans for the replacement of the Norfolh Avenue
itrunk sewer and further authorizing the City. Manager to advertise for bids for this,i
: project,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 4U9.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was secondedi!
by Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:' Messrs. Garland, Lisk; Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...........................
NAYS: Noue ............O. (Or. Taylor absent)
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure agreeiag to appropriate $9.167.00, cash or ia-kind
contributions, representing ten per cent matchieg funds, should the City of
Roanoke receive a grant of $82.500.00 for employment of certain persons under the
Federal Emergemcy Employment Act of 1971. be presented same; wherenpon, Mr. Lisk
offered the following Resolution:
(~19849) A RESOLUTION agreeing to appropriate $g,167,00, cash or in-kind
contributions, representing ten per cent matching funds, should the City receive
a 9rnnt of $82,500.00 for employment of certain persons under the Federal Emergency
Employment Act of 1971.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 490.)
I
#r. Lish moved the adoption o! the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the follouing vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland. Lisko Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Waver
Webber ...................... 6, ~ ,
t NAVS: None .......O. (Or, Taylor absent)
i BRIDGES: Council having directed' the City Attorney to prepare the proper~
~measure concurring in the request of the Virginia Department of Highways that
Grandin Road at the city's west corporate limits be closed to traffic for a brief
i!period to facilitate the construction of a new bridge across Mud Lick Creek, be
!presented same; whereupon, Mr. LJsk offered the following Resolution:
(nlgflsO) A RESOLUTION concurring in the request of the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways that Grandin Road at the Cityts west corporate limits be closed
to traffic for a brief period to facilitate the construction of u nam bridge across
Mud Lick Creek.
{For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35. page 490.)
Mr, Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Ihomas, Trout, Wheeler and ~ayor
NAYS: None ............ O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
SCBOOLS: Council having appointed Miss Dorothy L. Gibboney as a member
of the Local Board Of Virginia Western Community College for a four year term,
commencing July 1. 1971, Mr. Wheeler offered the following Resolution providing
for said appointment:
(~19851) A RESOLUTION appointing Dorothy L. Gibbofley a member of the
Local Board of Virginia Mestern Community College for a four-year term of office
on said Local Board, commencing July 1, 1971.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 491.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None ........... O. (Br. Taylor absent)
~ BUDGET-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council hating directed the City Attorney to
iprepare the proper measure amendin9 and reordaining Sectio~ =69, "Refuse Collection!
and Disposal,* of the 1971-72 budget, in connection with the purchase of three 20
icubic yard refuse packers in lieu of four 16 cubic yard refuse packers for the
~Refuse Collection Division, Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance:
({19852) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n69. "Refuse
:Collection ~ Disposal," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and. providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 491.)
¸BO
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essra. Garland, Llsk, Thomas° Trout., Mheeler and ~aTor
Webber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dro Taylor absent)
ROTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: A communication from Br. Robert A. Garland requesting the
concurrence of Council for an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing
a real estate matter, mas before the body.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in his request for an Executive
Session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BRIDGES-PARKS A~B PLAYGROUnDS-TRAFFIC-SALE OF PEOPERTY-S~EEETS AND
ALLEYS: Mr. Trout read the folloming prepared statement requesting ~ progress
report, from the City Manager on the new Jefferson Street Bridge to span Roanoke
River. a progress report on traffic congestion between Melrose Avenue and Shaffers
Crossing and a progress report on the acquisition of the last parcel of land to
improve Garden City Boulevard:
~September 2, lg?l
Status Report on Various Projects. Refer~ed to the City Manager
for Study -
Some timb back the proposal to replace the present antiquated
two-lane bridge on Jefferson Street mas referred to the City
Manager for study and ever the past several years there have been
many inquiries from the citizens in the Southwest area for infor-
mation on progress. Therefore, I think it is'important that a
report be made public as soon as possible.
People in the Northwest section and many others using the
24th Street underpa~s would like to be advised of 'our progress
to correct the traffic problem between Melrose Avenue and Shaffer's
Crossing.
About the first of tho ~ear we were advised that only one
parcel of land was needed to make the much needed improvements
to Garden City Boulevard. I feel it is very important for the
City to 9o ahead with this project because we all realize that the
longer we wait'the greater the cost for this. Therefore, I think
it is very important for us to eliminate the one problem of land
acquisition that is holding up this project.
It is my recommendation that we receive reports on these three
projects so the citizens can be made aware that we are working and
hope to have these projects under way in the near future.
S! Ji~ Trout
James O. Trout~
Mr. Lisk moved that the City Manager be requested to furnish Council
with a progress report on the abovementioned items and that the City Manager also
furnish Council with a status report on all matters referred to him every ninety
days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL COURT: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that
the terms of Mr. James E. Buchholtz and Mr. Charles P. Alexander, Jr., ns addition-
al Substitute Municipal Court Judges expire on September 30, 1971.
Hr. Thomas moved that this item be deleted from the agenda, The motion
~uas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
HOU$ING-$L~M CLEARA~CC: The City Clerh reported that Mr, Millfem $.
Hubard has qualified us a Commissioner of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
~Rousing Authority for a term of four years ending August 31, 1975,
Mr, Llsk moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: The City Clerk reported that Mr. fluford R. Howell has
qualified as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Employees* Retirement
System for a term of four years ending June 30, 1975.
Mr. LIsh moyed that the report be received and filed. The motion Was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mayor
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, September 2~, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met In regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal 13uildiugo Monday, September 20, 1971, at 2 p.m., the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT: ~ouncilmen Robert A. Garland, David lC. Lisk, Noel ~. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy ~.
J Webber .............. ' ......... - .......... 7.
ABSENT: None .................. O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager; Mr, James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. ~. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend David
!Dinkley, Pastor, St. Paul*$ Lutheran Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
August' 23, 1971, and the regular meeting held on Monday, August 30, 1971, having
ibeen furnished each member of Council on motion of Mr. Lisk, seconded by Mr.
:Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the
minutes approved as recorded.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-CITY GOVERNMENT: Mr. Mite Simpson. 3635 Sunrise
'iAvenue, N. W., appeared before Council and advised that during the time he mas a
iForeign Exchange Student living with a family in the City of LaCateau, France, the
~Mayor of LaCateau presented him with a medallion to be given to the Mayor of the
~ICity of Roanoke, Mr. Simpson pointing out that it gives him a great deal of plea-
!!sure to present the medallion to Mayor Webber on behalf Of the Mayor of the City
iai LaCateau, France.
Mayor Webber expressed his appreciation for the medallion and advised
that he would like for Mr. Simpson to become a member of the Sister City Committee
!of the City of Roanohe, Virginia.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 Monday.
iSeptember 20. 1971, on the request of the City of Roagoke to rezone the block
bounded on the north by Franklin Road. on the east by Second Street. on the south
by Day Avenue and on the west by Third Street, S. M., from the present C-4, Central
Dusiness District Expansion Area, to C-3. Central Dusiness District, the matter
was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
end Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The above cited request mos considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of August lB, 1971,
Members of the firm 'of Hayes. Sear, Msttern and Mattern,
architects for the new Federal Rullding, made presentations
concerning the new federal building, describing Its history,
design features and related elements noting that many of the
design concept elements relating to space, function and the
like mere provided by the Federal General Services Administra-
tion. The consultants noted that, regretably, a representative
of the General Services Administration could not be present
at this meeting.
It mas noted by the consultants that the height and
parking regulations under the existing C-2 zoning designation
could not be met, and consequently a C-3 rezoning was being
requested. The consultants also noted that the new structure
was to be 14 stories high. have 200 parking spaces, and house
many of the now dispersed federal offices.
Members of the Planning Commission generally favored the
office structure, but noted that the parking situation posed
a critical problem.
The Planning Director noted that under a C-4 zone,
approximately 675 parking spaces Would have to be proridedo
In addition, it was agreed by many of the Planning Commission
members that the new office building would serve as a catalyst
for future office buildings locating in the do~tnwn area.
Much discussion centered on this parking problem and its
impact on the downtoum area. The Planning Director noted that
the Federal government should give attention and thought to
the feasibility of purchasing the contiguous block bounded by
Franklin Road, 3rd St., and Day Avenue. and utilizing it for
parking purposes. The City could then close 3rd Street from
Day Avenue to Franklin Road and provide a super-block con-
figuration for the new Federal Building.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by
John R. Parrott
Chairman"
No one appearing in opposition to rezoning the property, Mr. Trout moved
that the folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~lgR53) ~ ORDIN~CR to amend Title XV, Chapter d.l, Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 101, Sectional 1966
:~Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
WH£RE~S, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property located in the block bounded by Franklin Road, 2nd Street. S.
Day Avenue, S. M., and 3rd Street, S, W., in the City of Roanoke, designated as all
those lots and properties in Block 5, Sheet No. 2 S. M., of the Map of the City's
Official Survey, Official Nos, 1013102 through 1013116, inclusive, rezoued from C-4
Central Business District Expansion Area to C-3, Central Business District; and
~}IEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoaed from C-4, Central Business District Expansion Area,
to C-3, Central Business District; and
I~HEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title IV, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, os amended, relating to Zoning. have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WBEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice mas held on the 20th
ilday of September, 1971, ut 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
!iwhich bearing all parties ia interest and citizens were given au opportunity to be
'heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WNEREAS, this Council after considering the evidence as herein provided,
!!is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
:Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning. and Sheet So. 101 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City
faf Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz:
Property located in the block bounded by Franklin Road, 2nd Street,
iDay Avenue, S.M., and 3rd Street, S, W.. in the City of Roanoke, described as all
those lots and properties in Block 5, Sheet No. 2, S.N.. of the Nap of the City*s
Official Survey. designated on Sheet 101 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, as Official lax Nos. 1013102 through 1013116, inclusive, be, and is
hereby, changed from C-4, Central Business District Expansion Area, to C-3, Central
'Business District, and that Sheet No. 101 of the aforesaid map be changed in this
respect.
~ The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
iWebber ..................................... 7.
STREETS AND ALLEys: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
ilMonday, September 20, 1971. on the request of Mr. Fred P. Bullington. et ax.. and
~!Mr. William J. Gausman. et ax.. that a portion of 25th Street, S. W., lying between
;!the westerly side of Carolina Avenue, S. M., and the easterly side of a 12 foot
,ialley running through the centers of Blocks 28 and 29, Map of Crystal Springs, be
vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
i!re@ort recommending that the request be granted, and. in addition, that that portion
!!of 25th Street, S. #.. lying between the easterly aide of Wycliffe Avenue and the
!westerly side of a 12-foot alley running through the centers of Blocks 28 and 29
*also be vacated, discontinued and closed:
i
#August 19, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Wayor
end Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City
Planning Commission at Its regular meetings of August 4
end AuguSt 18, 1971.
Mr. C. Richard Crooweit, mttoruey fat the petitioners,
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that this
specific tpaper* street he is requesting to be closed is not
being used and it will never be used for street purposes
particularly owln9 to the 9rude sitoation.
Mr. Boynton, member of the Planning Commission, raised
the question of whether the street will ever be put through.
The Plnnuing Director noted that although the street
has an excessive grade, the Planning Commission should give
consideration to the fact that the closure of this portion
of Carolina Avenue will break the continuity of the street.
Some of the Planning Commission members raised the
issue of closing 2Sth Street extending from Wycliffe to
Carolina Avenue, owing to the fact that this extended
portion of Carolina Avenue represented in totality a
paper street of excessive grade.
Accordingly, notion was made, duly seconded and
approved with a voice vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay recommendin9
to City Council to grant this request and, in addition, to
recommend closing that portion of ~th Street lying between
the easterly side of Wycliffe Avenue and the westerly side
of a 12-foot alley running through the center of Blocks
20 and 29.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by LR
John ~. Parfait
Chairman'
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the alley in question and the neighboring property
and are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience would result to any
individual or to the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing the alley.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the alley, Mr. Wheeler moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(~19854) AN ORDINANCE permaaeotly abaedontng, vacating, dis¢oatinuin9
and closing a portion of 2$th Street, S. W., in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. as
shown on gap of Crystal Springs. a copy of which map may be found in the office of
thc City Engineer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and being also shown on Sheet
Nos. 105 and 106 of the ~ax Appraisal Map of said City of Roanoke.
I~HEREAS, Fred P. Bullington, Adrienne O. Bulliugton, William J. Gausmau
and Anna H. Gausmao have heretofore filed a petition before City Council. ia
accordance with law, requesting Council to permanently vacate, abandon, discontinue
'¸86
nndc~bgthat portion of 2Sth Street, S. N., lying between the mesterly side of
Carolina Avenue, S. N., and the essterly side of e 12 foot alley running through th~
center of Blocks 28 and 29. Hap of Crystal Springs, and, in addition, that portion
of 25th Street lying between the easterly side of Nycliffe Avenue, S. N. and the
Iwesterly side of a 12 foot alley running through the center of Blocks 28 and 29,
i~of Crystal Springs, which said street is more particularly hereinafter described;
end as to the filing of said petition, due notice was given to the public as re-
!!qnired by Section 15.1-364, Code of Virginia of 1950, us amended; and
~ItER£AS, in accordance with the prayer in said petition, Resolution No.
19772 was adopted by the said City Council on the 12th day of July. lgYl, pursuant
:to which viewers were appointed to view the said property and to report in writing
,mhat inconvenience, if any, would result from permanently abandoning, vacating,
idfscontinniug and closing the said street hereinafter described; and further the
!said City Council referred the issues raised by said petitioners to the Planning
Commission of the City o'f Roanoke for said Commission*s study of said request and
a report thereon; and
M~EREAS, it appears from the report in writing filed by the viewers with
the City Clerk. on the 9th day of August, lgYl,'that no inconvenience would result,
!either to any individual or the public from the permanent abandoning, vacating.
discontinuing and closing of the said street hereinafter described, to which report
no exceptions have been filed; and
RH£RRAS, the City Planning Commission by letter directed to the Mayor of
the City of Roanoke and the members of City Council, dated August 19. 1971.
recommended to City Council that the said street hereinafter described be abandoned
:vacated, discontinued and closed subject to the right of the said City to retain all
necessary easements to public utilities; and
WIJE~£AS, a public hearing on the question was held hefore the Council au
the 20th day of September, 1971. at which hearing all parties in interest and citi-
zens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question of the proposed
closing of the street; and
· R£REAS, upon consideration of the matter, the Council is of the opinion
that no inconvenience will result to any owner or to the public from the permanent
abandonment, vacating, discontinuance and closing of the street hereinafter described
:land that the petitioners application to permanently close the same should be granted,
i!suid petitioners having agreed to bear and defray the expenses incident to the
!!closing of same.
THEREFORE, RE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke. Yirginia,~i
that that part of 25th Street, S. W.. in the City of Roanoke, Virginia and
described as follows:
Beglunlng at the point of intersection of the westerly side
of Carolina Ayenue, S. W., and the southerly side or 2$tb
Street. S. W., said point being the northeasterly most corner
of Lot 20. Block 2B, as shown on the Nap of Crystal Springs;
thence with the northerly most line of Lot 20° Block 28,
according to the Nap Of Crystal Springs, N. 570 41' W. 150
feet to n point located on the easterly side of a 12 ft. alley;
thence with s lime across 2Sth Street. S. W., N. 32° 19' £. 60
feet to a point on the southwesterly corner of Lot 11. Block 29,
according to Nap of Crystal Sprlugs; thence with the southerly
most line of Lot 11, Block 29 according to the Nap of Crystal
Springs S. 570 41' E. 150 feet to a point on the westerly side
of Carolina Avenue; thence with the line across 2Sth Street, S.
S. 32° 19' W. 60 feet to the place of Beginning; being and
designated as that portion of 25th Street, S. W,, lying between
the westerly side of Carolina Avenue, S. W. and a 12 ft. alley
running through the center of Block 29 and 29. according to the
Map of Crystal Springs.
be and the some hereby is permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed,
the City of Roanoke, however, reserving unto itself an easement for any water,
sewer or other public utility line or lines, if any. now existing therein and the
right of ingress and egress for the maintenance and repair thereof.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke be,
and he hereby is, directed to mark "Permanently Abandoned, Vacated, Discontinued
and Closed* the street hereinabove described on all maps nod Flats on file in the
office of the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on which said mops
and plats said street is shown, referring to the book,and page of Ordinances and
Resolutions of Council wherein this Ordinance shall be spread.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of this Council deliver to the
Clerk of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia an attested copy of
this Ordinance in order that the said Clerk may make proper notations on all maps
or plats recorded In his said Office upon which are shown the said street herein
permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed as provided by law, and
may record same at the cost of petitioners, indexing the same in the name of the
City of Roanoke as grantor and Fred P. Bullington, Adrienne U. Bullington.
William J. Gausman and Anna H. Gausman as grantee.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................O.
Mr. Wheeler then moved that the question of closing that portion of 25th
i!Street l~ing between the easterly side of Wycliffe Avenue and the westerly side of
a 12-foot alley running through the centers of Blocks 28 and 20 be referred to the
City Attorney for preparation of the proper measures. The motion was seconded by
!Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday, September
::'20. 1971, on the request of Greenbrier Associates, Incorporated. a partnership cam-;
Iprised of Wessrs, William J. Woody and Fred P. Bullingtono that property described
es Lots 18, 19 end 20. Section 2, Sap of West park and Lots I and 2. Block 20, Sap
of Washington Heights, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to C-l,
lOffice and Institutional District, the metter wes before the body.
~ In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloming
lreport recommending that e C-I rezoning be approved in lieu or the original
lquest for a RG-2 rezoning:
'August 19, 1971
The Honorable Boy L. Webber, mayor
and members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City
Planning Commission at both its regular meetings of August 4,
and August ]8, 1971.
Wt. C. Richard Craumell, attorneF for the petitioners.
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that his
client wish to rezone this specific parcel in order to
construct a 10 unit apartment structure. He presented plans
to the Planning Commission delineating the sJteplan and noted
that he felt this rezoning petition would be in the best
interest of the City.
The Planning Director, noted that tbls type of development
would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, resulting in
additional requests from the surrounding RS-3 areas for apartment
zoning. Finally, the Planning Director noted that under the
zoning designation a limited number of apartment units could be
constructed under the special exception provision.
Mr. Lawrence, member of the Planning Commission, raised the
question about the number of units that could be constructed on
this particular site under a RG-2 zoning designation.
Lawrence remarked that he thought au apartment use constituted
a good use for this location.
Wt. Hoyntoo, member o[ the Planfliog Commission, made a
motion that the request be denied. Sr. John Parrott, Chairman
of the Planning Commission. stated ~hat if the request mas
denied by Council, the petitioner could not bring it back up
again for a period of one year. He suggested that the request
be tabled so that the petitioner mould have the opportunity Of
going before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Coleman, member of the Planning Commission, questioned
the necessary steps the petitioner mould have to take to bring
this petition before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
At the August 4, 1971 Planning Commission meeting, a motion mas made~
duly seconded and approved to deny this request with a split vote
of 3-to-3. Similarly, a motion mas made, duly seconded and
approved to approve this request with a split vote of 3-to-3.
mr, Coleman disqualified himself from voting. Since a quorum vote
could not be mustered, this petition was carried over to the next
meeting.
At the August 16, 19/1 Planning Commission meeting, Sr. Fred P.
Dullington presented a plat to the Planning Commission members
delineating his plans to construct au IG-unit apartment structure.
mith 27 parking spaces. He noted that the development would provide
for a suitable buffer zone for the neighboring residential uses.
Finally, he noted that there was no neighborhood opposition to this
rezoning request.
The Planning Director noted that the petitioner could construct
an apartment unit under a C-I zoning designation, which would appear
to be a more logical rezoning request in keeping with the commercial-
residential values of the area.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded ·nd ona·l-
mooaly approved recommending to City Council to grant ·
modification of this request, permitting the petitioner · C-I
rezonlng in lieu of the original HG-2 rezoning petition.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L.H.
John H. Parrott
Chairman'
Hr. Joseph £, Harris, 4115 Virginia Avenue, N. M., appeared before Coun-
cil and advised that he was not notified by the City Planning Commission of a hear-
lng to be held in connection with rezonlng this property and presented a petition
signed by 19 residents in the vicinity opposing the reaoning since it will disturb
the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, decrease the value of properties and
raised the question as to the safety factor involved since the proposed apartments
will be on the corner of · steep hill at Honroe Avenue and ¥irginia, N.
The Deputy City Clerk having advised Council that a list of affected
property owners in the area was furnished to the City Clerk by the attorney tepee~
seating the petitioners and that said list mas transmitted to the City Planning
Commission, Mr. Thomas moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(=IHHSS) ~ ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 276. Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have Lots lO, lg and 20, Section 2, Map of West Park, and Lots 1 and 2, Block
20, Map of Washington Heights. rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to
C-l, Office and Institutional District; and
WHEREAS, the City Plannin9 Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from C-2. General Commercial District, to C-l,
Office and Institutional District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the
!iCity of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted aa required and for the time provided by oaid sectton; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for ia said notice was held on the 20th
:iday of September, 1971, at 2 p.m.. before the Couocl~ of the City of Roanoke. at
iwhlch hearth9 all parties in interest and citizens were 9iran an opportunity to be
ilheard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, thin Council, after considering the evidence ns herein provided, i
ills of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1 Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. es
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 276 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Nap. City
of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular end no other, viz:
Property located on Virginia Avenue, N. M., described os lots IH. 19 end
20, Section 2, Nap of Nest Park, and Lots I and 2. Block 20. Nap of Washington
Heights, be and is hereby, changed from C-2, General Commercial District. to C-l,
Office and Institutional District. and that Sheet No. 276 of the aforesaid map be
changed In this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the f, Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrn. Garland, Lisk, Tuylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................
NAYS: Mr. Trout .........1.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearin9 for 2 p.m., Monday.
!September 20, 1971, on the request of Hr. Nicholas J. Nackley that property
:described as Lot 1S and the southerly 20 feet of Lot 14, Nap of Covelaud Court.
Official Tax Nos. 2480100 and 2460132, be fez,ned from RS-3, Single-Family Resi-
dential District, to C-l, Office and Institutional District, the matter was before
the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
"August 19, 1971
The Honorable Boy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetin9 of August 18. 1971.
Mr. George J. Jacobs. attorney for the petitioner, stated
uses are located in this general area. He noted that this
parcel is not suitable for o single-family use.
Mr. Edward Gentry. noted that this petition first come up
in January 1971. and he presented then a petition signed by the
neighboring property owners who opposed this petition. (The
petitioner had requested a C-2 rezoning designation for this
parcel mhich mas denied by the Planning Commissiun on January 6.
1971. but Was subsequently withdramn).
Mr. Rbeaton. a resident in the neighborhood, noted that this
fez,ming request would have an adverse impact on the neighboring
properties.
The Planning Director. stated that Cove Road bas tM, major
shopping nodes. (one at its intersection with Lafayette and
another at Bershberger Road.), and noted that any commercial
development should be restricted to these area. noting that
strip commercial developmeut is not conducive to enhancing the
amenity value of the neighborhood.
:!
request.
The Planning Commission members discussed the best and
appropriate use for this property, noting that n single-family
use did not really represent n viable use rot this parcel,
but seriously questioned its suitability as n commercial use.
The Planning Director. noted that it is' highly possible
that in the next few yearn, an apartment use wou]d constitute
· more appropriate use for this parcel ofland in question.
Accordingly. motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely.
S/ John R. Parrott by L.M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
Mr. Nicholas~ J. Nackley appeared before Council in support of his
Mr. £dmin P. Gentry, 3018 Cove Road, N. W., appeared before Council and
presented a petition signed by 21 residents of Cove I~ood, Coveland Drive and
Ferncliff Avenue. lq. M.. in opposition to the requested rezoning.
Mr. ?/ackley advised that it is hfs intention to get the property rezoned.
sell it and that he does not know what type of building the new owner proposes to
construct.
In view of the fact that the petitioner did not know the future plans for
the property in question, Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation
of the City Planning Commission and that the request for renaming be denied. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adapted.
SRI~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. M. Coldwell Butler. Attorney. representing
Fralin and Waldron, Incorporated. appeared before Council and read a prepared
:of the Murray Run Interceptor Sewer Line, requesting that appropriate officials
of the City of Roanoke be authorized and directed to proceed promptly with the
Line. that city officials accept the offer of the Roanoke County Board of Super-
Water Control Board upon conditions which officials of the City of Roanoke shall
consider reasonable and in the best interest of the city and that an appropriate
i Resolution authorizing and directing the Engineering Department of the City of
Roanofre to proceed with the construction of the MurraF Run /acllitfes be adopted.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that
the city should not proceed in this matter until the status of other lines is
"ascertained from the State Rater Control Board, that it is important to find out
if the $8 million allocated from the state is only for sewage treatment plant
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that a Resolution of intent to participate
in the upgrading and extension of the Murray Run Interceptor Sewer Line should be
.'92
adopted by Council, that the city has an obligation to the community to show that
the City of Roanoke ceo tuke care of itu own sewer lines and urged that Council
move aheud with this project.
After a further discussion of the request, Mr. Thomas moved that Council
tuke the matter under advisement until representutives Of the City of Roanoke have
met with the State Water Control Board on Tuesday, September 21, 1971. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber .....................................
NAYS: Mr. Llsk ..................1.
PETITIQ~S AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUllET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board, re-
*questing that $571.624.00 be appropriated to Section u76000, "Schools - Project
Second Step,' of the 1971-72 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, to provide
funds to operate the Yitle I Program, serving 3.411 children, through June 30, 1972,
the School Board to be reimbursed 100 per cent of actual expenditures for this
project by the Title I authorities, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanohe City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lg§55) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~?~000, #Schools -
Project Second Step,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency'(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 495.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................
NAYS: None ................... O.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
iquesting that $550,000.00 be appropriated to Section #77000, "Schools - Emergency
School Assistance Program," of the 1971-72 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, ii
itu provide funds for services in several critical areas resulting from the subatan-'
!!tinily ordered Desegregation Plan, 100 per cent of actual expenses for this
:to be reimbursed by the Department of Health, Educatlon and Welfare under Title 45,!ii
iEmergency School Assistance Program, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of tb~ Roanoke City
o
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19857) AN ORDINAI~CE to amend and reordain Section #77000, "Schools -
iiRmergency School Assistance Program," of the lq71-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and
~!providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book NO. 35, page 495.)
Mr. Liok moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrn. Garland. Lish, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...............................
NAYS: None ................ O.
TRAFFIC-SCBOOLS: A communication from the Boanohe City School Board.
requesting that students ut Jefferson Senior Nigh School be allowed to park in the
, eo parking none between Luck Avenue and Campbell Avenue on Fifth Street and Sixth
Street. S. M., until the completion of the student parking lot and that the students
be issued parking permits in order to Identify their cars; and further that Council
ban all trucks on Sixth Street hetmeen Campbell Avenue and Luck Avenue. S.
other than those having business with Roanoke Gity Mills. due to the noise and
vibration created by heavy trucks which constantly interrupt the teaching process.
particularly in the spring and fall when there is a need for windows to be open.
wes before Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendation tn Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STAYK COMPENSATION BOARD-SBERIFF: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. Kermit E. Allmau, Sheriff, advising
that an additional allowance of $1,443.75 for temporary employees to compensate
Mr. Paul J. Puchett for the month of September, 1971, was approved by the State
Compensation Board, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$1,443.75 to Personal Services under Section #23, "Sheriff,' of the 1971-72 budget:
(n19858) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 323. "Sheriff."
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinauce Book No. 35, page 496.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, I~neeler nod Mayor
Webber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None ................. O.
STREET LIGH?S: Copy of n communication from the Appalachian Power Com-
pany, transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of August. 1971, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: A conmualcakion from Mr. Lee B. Eddy, Chairman
of the Buooohe County Board of Superviaora0 traossJttiog copy of the oorrespondlog
instructions proposed to be submitted to Lsngley, McDonald gad Orermon in connec-
tion with making · preliminary study of · regional organization for the operation
of sewer services in the Roanoke Volley, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication and instructions be received end
lfiled. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
II In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report
forwarding certain comments in connection with the communication from Hr. Eddy,
· advising that without intent of deterring the County of Roanoke Jn its efforts,
it is his feeling these comments should be held in mind with respect to the pro-
iposal and especially with regard to the type and nature of the report as will be
forthcoming from the procedures of Roanoke County:
'Roanoke. Virginia
September 20, 1971
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council has before it this date a letter from the
Chairman of the Roanoke County Doard of Supervisors as to a
· Study of Regional Sewer Organization,*
Without intent of deterring the County in its efforts in
this regard. I make to the City Council the following comments
on the Proposed Instructions as accompanied the Chafrman*s
letter. The purpose, rather Of these comments, is that I feel
these points should be held in mind with respect to the Proposal
and especially with regard to the type and nature Of report as
would be forthcan~g from the County's procedures.
1. The limited time allowed for their study and the
approximations, which will be broad, as referred
to in Item 3 will minimize the conclusiveness of
the study.
2. The directions given to the engineers in, particuhrly,
Items 4, 5 and 6 prescribe specifically to the engi-
neers bow Such an organization will operate. There
are no leeways as to alternatives and no basic back-
ground ns to why these should be the specifics adhered
to. This observation is made recognizing Item g which
does not extend the leeway or considerattoo of alterna-
tives.
Item I prescribes the 'physical facilities and service
area* in fei.atica to the Fifth Planning District*s
'Interim Report,' Physical facilities and service areas
are still in fluctuation as to decisions and reasonably
definite determinations, whenever made, will bear con-
siderably upon material necessary to a study of this
nature.
4. Data as submitted by the City must carry the qualifica-
tion that is data of existing operations. It cannot be
reasonably projected at this moment. This is. why the
contract carries a variable formula. * The other govern-
ments would have the same qualifications on their data.
5. The Instructions make no reference to future system
developments os to sewer lines, within the political
jurisdictions. This Jsa major ingredient of any full
and thorough evaluation.
I
6, Item f requests the basis of service charges be
*particularly in respect to sewage treatment
plant additions.' Thin omits present facilities,
plant and lines, and future system development,
7. In overall, as to the above points and others, Jt
is submitted that n study of this mature does not
facilitate u *ready comparison* ns suggested in
Item h.
Respectfully submitted.
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-INVITATIONS: A communication from the Reverend T. E. Holmes. in-
viting the members of Council to attend the annual State Rally of the Progressive
Adult Club of Pilgrim Baptist Church on Sunday, September If. 1971. at ? p.m., was
before Council.
Mr. List moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS-CITY ENGINEER: A communication from Mrs. Carey Bull request-
lng that the trees he trimmed in the Raleigh Court section of the City of Roanoke,
mas before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for investigatioe and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor'
and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority. requesting that Council approve the Oevelop-
neat Program - Comprehensive Plan covering 72 dmelling units of low-rent housin9
for family occupancy to be situated on approximately fifteen acres of land on Blue=
stone Avenue, N. E., south of Tinker Creek, sas before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City of Roanoke
iRederelopment and Housing Authority and offered the follouing Resolution:
(mlgOSg) A RESOLUTION approving a Development Program and Comprehensive
Plan dated August 9, 1971, and authorizing and approving 72 additional units of
low-rent housing for Project No. VA. 11-9 proposed to be erected by the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Boot ~o~ 35, page 496.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mesarn. Garland. LISt. Taylor. Thomas. Tro ut, Wheeler and Mayor
bet ........... ~--~-~ .................... 7.
~AYS: ~oue ...................... O.
'96
ROUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-ZONING: A communication from the City of Roanoke
ledevelopment and Rousing Authority, requesting that Council approve, after proper
lrezoniug, the Development Program - Comprehensive Plan covering RO dwelling units
of lom rent housing for family occupancy to be situated on approximately ten acres
lof Rise Avenue, S. R,, mos before the body.
land
on
t that action the request be deferred until a recommenda=
Llsk
moved
on
!!tion is received from the City Planning Commission in connection with reaouing said
ilproperty. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. John M. Milson. Jr., Attorney. repro*
isenting Mr. J, R. Raid, et ax., requesting that property located in the City of
Roanoke. described as Lots 7 and 8, and part of un alley. Block Au Panorama Reights~'
Official Tax Nos. 2?40202 and 2740203, be resumed from RD. Duplex Residential
!District, to RG=I. General Residential District, mas before Council,
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezonlug be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Robert E. Ulenn, Attorney, representing
Mr. Franklin L. lngell, requesting that Lot 1, T. N. Fugate Map, Official Tax No.
1440606. be resumed from aG-I, General Residential District, to C-l, Office and
Institutional District, mas before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezonin9 be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
iwas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET~CIT¥ EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN: Council having adopted a Resolution
agreeing to appropriate $9.167.00. cash or in-kind contributions, representing ten
per cent matching funds, should the City of Roanoke receive a grant of $82,500.00
i:for employment of certain persons under the Federal Emergency Employment Act of
ii1971 the City Manager submitted the following report transmitting a list of 17
positions mhich have been established under this program and recommending that
:Council authorize, by budget ordinance amendment, each of the positions effective
'September 15, October 1, November I and December l:
"Roanoke. Virginia
September 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemeo:
As a further followup of the recommendation and tentative
approval by the City Council for the CJty*s participation in the
new Federal Government Public Employment Act Program, I attach a
list of the 17 positions that me did propose and have tentatively
submitted for the use of monies which the Department of Labor
has advised us could be provided to the City of Roanoke. It had
been initially intended to set up for 20 positions; however, in
balancing out expenditures and matters Of the grant, this total
number has been reduced to l?o Each of lhese positlon~ math
one exception, is within the present Pay and Classification
establish positions, in coordination with me, that weald pre-
with which these people can be added. As has been advised, the
Benefits which may reasonably be granted to Public Employ-
be granted, if desired, by the Public Employment Employee,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
*Roanoke, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
City*s sanitary sewer facilities on Project 6220-128-104,
Basically. this agreement provides for the necessary adjust-
wants of the Clty*s sanitary'sewer facilities to be made by the
by the City and included in the plans for tho roadway project by
the Repartnent of flighways."The'costs or these adjustments are
to be paid. for by the Department of flighways with the exception
of the inspection costs which are to be borne by the City~ The
inspection uorh sill be accomplished by our ,mn people, and thus
there will he no cost over and above those already budgeted.
It is recommended that City Council authorize this ordinance
and the execution of the agreenent.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirer
City Manager~
Mr. Yhomas ~oved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19860) AN ORDINANCE relating to the relocation or adjustment of
certain City storm and sanitary sewer lines in connection with Virginia Department
of Highways* Route 220 Southwest Expressway, Project 5220-128-104, C-501, from Elm
Avenue, S.' E., to Franklin Road, S. ~., in the City; authorizing the execution of
a contract between the City and the Commouuealth of Virgini'a, Department of
Highways in 'the premises; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text.of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 498.)
Mr~ Thomas moved the ~doption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the fo~lowing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
~ebber .........~ ...................
NAYS: None ...............O.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS-STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted the
following report in connection with the Southwest Expressway Project, Route
from Elm Avenue to Franklin Road, S. W., advising that there are significant
elements of storm drai.u c.onstruction and replacement of combined storm and
sanitary sewers that are necessary to be handled in connection with the project,·
and that this information is brought to Council because of the pending nature of
these storm drains and to indicate the heavy obligation on capital funds already
pending before the city in anticipation of tbs Southwest Expressway:
*Roanoke, Virginia
September 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Oeutlemen:
In the forthcoming Southmest Expressway Project, Route
from Elm Avenue to Franklin Road, there are significant elements of
storm drain construction and replacement of combined storm and
sanitary sewers that are necessary to be handled in connection with
the project. Mr. McGhee, City Engineer, and Engineering Department
personnel have morhed extensively on this in conjunction With the
State Highway Department to develop those lines that will be
necessary prior to the commencement of the actual road building
and also for those portions that would be a part of the highway
construction itself. In front of the City are the decisions of
authorizing proceeding with projects and also the provision of
necessary capital funds.
The. elements of the line construction or replacement are dea-
cribed as follows and I would make reference to the map which is
attached, which b! colored lines indicates the location of each
of the ~ements,
l..~lth the construction of the Southwest Expressway from Elm
Avenue to Franklin Road now scheduled to be underway in
,early 1972, it is imperative that we proceed at this time with
the construction of a storm drain hAlbemarle Avenue and
Jefferson Street from the intersection of Albemarle Avenue
and 3 1/2 Street to the intersection of Jefferson Street
and Dighland Avenue.
This construction is necessitated by several factors:
a. The existing combined drains must be eliminated.
b. The highway construction will cause the reconstruction
of the sanitary sewers in this area but the
Department will not provide for the reconstruction of the
storm drainage system.
c. This particular storm drain must be completed prior
tO the start of construction on the highway project.
Our estimate for this work. based on construction plan quantities,
is $100,000.
It should be pointed out that the following storm drain projects
will be required an a result of the highway construction ia
addition to the Albemarle Avenue storm drain:
2, A storm drain outfall from Jefferson Street at ~alaut Ave-
nue to the Roanoke River. The City*$ estimated share of
the total cost for this line is approximately $100.000.
3. An extension of the above outfall line from the intersection
of Jefferson Street along falnut Avenue to ~aple Avenue.
The estimated cost of this construction is
The ¥irginia Department of Nighways will construct the outfall
line (No. 2 above) and will bill the City for its share of the costs
of this construction based on the percentage of storm drainage that
the Citywould contribute to the drain as opposed to the percentage
of storm drainage which the highway project would contribute. The
City mould construct the extension (No. 3 above) after the outfall
is completed. These two storm drains will eliminate the combined
sener in this particular area.
4. There have been discussions over a lengthy period of time
with the Department of liighways concerning the necessity
to extend the storm drain outfall which now terminates at
Jefferson Street and Third Street, to Frauhlln Road at the
Norfolk and Nestern Railway. This proposal has been made in
the past to the Department of Highways by the City, but until
receutly was not given full consideration by them. Re have
noted to the Department the need to properly drain the
future extension of the Expressway between Franklin Road
and the Roanoke River and also of the proposed improvement
of Franklin Road to the north from the existing bridge over
the Norfolk and [estern Railway, which will also have to
be drained. At this time there are two pipes under the
Norfolk and #estern tracks which are insufficient to drain
this area. Our proposal involves the construction of a
storm drain from Jefferson Street at Third Street within
the right-of-way limits of the Expressway. This drain would
be sufficient to provide for the existing and future storm
drainage requirements of the drainage area north of the
Expressway which is not now nor would be properly drained
by the construction of the Expressway that is now contemplated.
The Virginia Department of Highways has estimated the City's
.share of the cost of this proposed storm drain to be approxi-
. mutely $270,000°00 based on the drainage runoff ratio basis
of assuming costs.
The alternative to constructing.this drain at this time, as
shown on the attached sketch, would be to construct a third
outfall drain under the Norfolk and Western tracks to the
river in the vi~inity of Franklin Road. This would appear
to hare a much higher cost and would put off the solution
Of the storm drainage problem at this location for an
unknown length of tine.
There is one remaining combined sewer which we are aware of
which is located in Whitmore Street adjacent to the Roanoke City
Mills which will also have to he replaced but it will not be
affected by the Southwest Expressway. The Engineering Department
is presently working on construction plans for this particular
line and mill have u COSt estiwnte in the near future,
A recapitulation of the storm drnfns to be constructed in
conjunction with this project is as follows: ·
Citvos Cost
1. Albemarle Avenue by City $100,000,00
2. Jefferson Street Ontfall by State $100,000.00
3, Walnut Avenue Storm Drain by City $ 17,000.00
4, Extension of Jefferson
Street Outfall to Franklin
Road by State $270,000.00
5. All Sanitary Sewers by State None
The Engineering Department is nom prepared to advertise Ho. 1,
which is the Albemarle Avenue storm drain. This advertisement me
mould like to go ahead and get underway unless there, would be some
objection or question by the Council.
There is $40,270.76 remaining in the Southmest Expressway
account. Other storm drain projects have been completed and Some
funds remain in those accounts mhich could be transferred into the
Expressmay Account to help supplement some of this money. It may
be possible also to obtain some funds by transferring money back
into the Southwest Expressway account that the City Council July,
1970, transferred to other highway projects from the Southwest
Expressmay account,
We would like and would plan to do so. unless Council would
hare a question or objection, to return to you heremith a listing
of such monies as might be procured in this fashion and then
indicate what supplemental additional funds may be required,
The above is brought because of the pending nature of these storm
drains and to indicate the fairly heavy obligation on capital funds
already pendin9 before the City in anticipation of this Southwest
Expressway.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Dirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then moved that the City Manager be authorized to advertise
for bids on the construction of a storm drain in Albemarle Avenue.and Jefferson
Street from the intersection of Albemarle Avenue and 3 1/2 Street to the inter-
section of Jefferson Street and Highland Avenue, The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the followin~ report
advising of the resignation of Wt. Howard E. Radford, Director of the Roanoke
Civic Center, effective October 8, 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 20, 1971
Honorable Ma~or and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This is to advise the City Council, pursuant to the City
Code, of my receipt of the resignation of Mr. Howard E. Radford'
as Civic Center Director effective October D, 1971. Mr. Radford's
resignation is made to accept a position which he advises has been
offered to him as Director of the proposed Von-Hraun Civic Center
in Huntsville, Alabama.
Mr. Radford leaves w~th my good wishes and mith a strong
sense of appreciation for the benefit of his services to the City
and to me as the City Manager during the four years he has been
here in Roenohe, The completion and opening of the new Civic
It is felt that the community has n general attitude of
pleasure in their new Civic Center and in the operation and
experience that has prevailed since its opening. A very large
measure of this.situation is attributable to Mr. Radford and the
the facility.
dlscnssJon with me, I had hoped that be might stay on a while
obtained by the time of Hr. Radfurd*s leaving of the City, I feel
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
ject,
101
,!.$.02
ns the Board and its staff submitted to the City in latter July,.
The fact that such u report mas foruarded to the Board mas
reported to the City Council two meeks ago,'
I om filing uith the City Clerk a copy of the report as
prepared by Aivord, Burdick and Bomsnn and 'as transmitted to the
rater Control Board, The report bears the date of S~ptember
1971, Individ~al copies mill be available to us by your meeting
of September 20 and we mill distribute such to you at that time,
The reason for this situation of not having the individual copies
to foruard to you with your agenda material is that they are Just
now being reproduced in volume inasmuch as me have held back on
this, pending some idea as to how thu discussions'with the Board
staff which followed September I would develop in order that me
could know mhether this particular document uould be the one that
me mould carry to the City Council and then to the Board this
coming Tuesday. It Is our conclusion now that this should be
the report as submitted.
Perhaps the immediate significance of the report to the City
Council is on pages34, 35 and 3~ of the report and there are
attached to this letter copies of those pages.
Me have requested of the Board staff, and I presume we will
have to do so of the Board itself, an adjustment in the original
program that was submitted to them, which we called initially
the Interim Program and then Phase I. Mltb the nature and volum~
of construction that is now contemplated at the plant site, the
physical limitations of the area. plus the necessity of maintain-
ing operations under these construction conditions, ia such that
we do not see hem we can handle everthicg that was wi~in Phase I,
or the Interim Program, within the original nine-months period
and still have major construction take place. It is our feeling,
at this point, that the staff of the Board concurs in this
situation. Thus, on page 35 is a new schedule of the timetable.
As will be noted on page ab. the total estimated construction
cost for the project at this point is estimated at
There are points yet unresolved insofar as the position of
the staff of the ~ater Control Board is concerned in matters
relatin9 to design of this preposition. One of the major points
still remaining is the matter of flow design. As you will recall,
the City had proposed thatthe plant be constructed to flow
capacity of 35 million gallons per day. The Board or its staff
first held to 2B million and now they take the position that 31
million is the maximum for which deal9n should be made. Me
strongly feel that this is inadequate capacity design particular-
ly in envisioning that this is projected to 1985 and in considera-
tion of the amount of funds that will be expended. The 8oard
has thus fur based its position in part on the Fifth Planning
District Interim Sewage Plan. A portion of this plan could be
interpreted to hold to about 31 million; however, other portions
plus procedures of determining future flow projections would
carry the figure higher.
The engineering firm of Hayes, Sony, Mattern and Battern
et the recommendation of the City to the Fifth Planning District
has met with us on two occasions to discuss this end us a result
they have written to the Fifth Planning District indicating their
interpretation that the figure approximately of 35 million gallons
design is a proper figure and this has been forwarded by the
Fifth Planning District on to the Water Control Board. Ne have
as yet not u determination definitely from the Board orlts staff.
Other elements relating to questions still pending have been
discussed at considerable length by the City and its e~gineers,
with the Board Staff. I will not go into the technical details
Of these except to summarize but these requests or items of
consideration by the Board staff represent approximately another
$5,000,000 in capital costs to the plant (in addition to the
above 12.5 million) mud an addition iA operating costs of between
$225,000 and $250,000 per year. Those additions in operating
costs do not inclede debt service but are pure operating expense.
Our general feeling is that the design of the plant as
included in the September I report will meet the criteria
directed by the Board, will do the same job as would a plant with
the additions that the Board has now suggested' and would be
obviously at somewhat less cost.
It is our understanding that the staff will submit the
various items to the Board at the hearing scheduled for Tuesday,
September 21, and will be individually reviewed at that particular
time.
The City Attorney has been asked to prepare for consideration
by the City Council, and it is recommended that the City Council
favorably apprcveo a resolution indicating the Councll*s concur-
rence In the September I report for submission to the Board at
the hearing. The ulllingness of the City'to provide the 20
percent of the cost and indicating some degree of Openness to
matter of additional points that the Board now has proposed.
We would be glad ut your meeting0 to discuss this matter, in
more detull as might be required or to any extent that the Council
might suggest.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager'
In this connection, the City Manager and the City Engineer verbally
explained certain aspects of the report to'the members of Council.
After a discussion o£ the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur
in the repor~ of the City Honorer and offered tho following Resolution adopting
and committing the City of Roanoke tu an Overall Program for the Roanoke Seuerage
System, based upon state and federal participation therein:
(nlgBbl) A RESOLUTION adopting and commit*in9 the City to an Overall
Program for the Roanoke Sewerage System, based upon State and Federal participation
therein.
(For full text of Resolution,~ see Resolution Book No. 35, page 499.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Br. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: ~essrs. 6arlaud, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, ]heeler and ~ayor
Webber ........................
NAYS: None .........O.
SL~MERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that Mayor Roy L. Webber has received letter notice from the State Water
Control Board that the Board will hold a hearing at its offices in Richmond.
Virginia, at 9:30 a.m., September 21, 1971, for the appearance of representatives
from the City of Roanoke in farther regard to sewage treatment.
Mr, Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.'
COMPLAINTS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City
ilManager for investigation and report a communication from Mr. and Mrs, David
Crubbs, complaining of n sewer line on Man*vale Road, S. W,, backin9 up in their
i~basement and requesting some relief from the City of Roanoke in connection with
the matter, the City Manager submitted a written report transmitting the following
communication in connection with the complaint:
"September 2, 1971
Mr. and Mrs. Oavid S. Brubbs,
Mr. and Mrs, George M. Corbin,
Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Rossie. Jr.,
Mr. and Mrs. R. J. Button,
Mr. and Mrs. William J. Barber,
Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Updike,
Mr. John J. Collins, Jr.,
Mr. and Mrs, Made F. Bond.
103
:Lo4
On the petition dated Marsh 25, 1971, you to whom thio
letter is addressed, requested the Clty*s immediate action
public sewer line serving your area. lbile it is believed
that most ir not nil the petltioRers are aware of that which
bas taken place, I believe that &t this time, it'Mould be
in order to reply to the petition.
On April 20, 1971, end for n period Of tiwe afterwards,
sewer line end its connections which line is an fi-inch line
stoppage in the line. Once enough foreign material gathered
flooding or backage In the future~
S! Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
COMPLAINIS: Council having referred to the City Manager for investlga-
iition and report a communication fram'Mr. Boy L. filankenship complaining Of the condi-
!seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMEfiT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: Th'e City Manag'er submitted a iwritten report
Public Welfare:
I
I
I
I
I
'As of July 3Into ne have 134 Active WIN Participants, Alto-
gether, they have 309 children receiving ADC. Or these Partici-
panta, 29 ore ncm working, baying n total of 75 children.
Since the beginning of the WIN Program in the Roaao~ ares.
approximately 61 receiving Public Assistance in Roanoke City
that bare been placed in Jobs ere still working. Some neat
right into Jobs after orientation. Some needed first to
study Basic Education SubJects or to get their GEB'a. Some
have completed secretarial training or training es Nurse's
Aides, LPN or lab technicians.
Many have hud setbacks that required their being out of
training for a while, due to physical illnesses of their
children or themselves. One typical example is a mother
of 5 children who started training early in 1969. She
hsd a past history of 3 nervous breakdowns. Her husband.
from whom she is now divorced, is a veteran with 60~ disability
and this disability is aggravated by alcoholism. She mss under
treatment at the Guidance Center and also has an Il-year-old
daughter who is seen regularly nt the Guidance Center. Her goal
mas to be trained as an LPN and her progress was such that she
wes accepted for training by the hospital and graduated in June
Of 1971. She worked one month at Roanoke Memorial and her grant
mas cancelled ss she had income to meet her needs. She has had
to apply for assistance again an ft was recently found she has
cancer and must have a hysterectomy. She seems this as only
temporary and plans on marking again as soon as released by
doctors. After u WIN participant bas been in a job 6 months.
if she is still in need of assistance she is terminated from WIN
and transferred back to the regular caseworker.
~e now have 41 clients marking whose grants are supplemented by
ADC. Gelow are some of the jobs they are doing:
2 - TAP Neighborhood Workers
T - Secretaries and Clerk-Typists - V.A. -'Roanoke City -
Sth Planning District
4 - Nurses Aides - Lemis-Gale and Community
4 - LPN - Community and Roanoke Memorial
1 - Medical Lab Assistant
I - Bar Maid
1 - Teachers Aid - Roanoke City School Board
2 - C~p Telephone Co.
Tbs remainder of the 41 ere working at Roanoke Mills. Eaton. Yale
~ Towns. Double Envelope. Hickory Springs. Bailey*s Cafeteria,
Gainsboro Electronics, Halmode, Fred Whitaker Co., day work and
one as a Case Aide with Roanoke County GPM.
17 recipients no longer receive any Public Assistance:
2 - GE Company
S - Roanoke Mills
I - Hotel Roanoke
] - Kenrose
2 - Practical Nurse - Burrell ~ RcVitty House
I - C~p Telephone
I - Eenrose
I - Lindy*~ (Curb Girl)
1 - Case Aide - Roanoke County DPW
1 - Arnold*s Hair Fashions
1 - Hickory Springs
' I - Nurse*s Aide
1 - Mache Vending
3 recipients are workiu9 and are not receiving a money payment.
Me are making part of their day care payments until their incomes
mill cover this:
I - Roanoke City Water Department ( will need none after school
starts)
I - Lewis-Gale Hospital
I - Roanoke Memorial Hospital"
Mr. Trout moved that the report and summary be received and filed. The
imotion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
105
:1.06
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a writtenreport
transmitting copy of a communication from Mr. Granville Bo Llles, Superintendent of
the Blue Ridge Parkway, expressin0 the interest of the Parkway nod the Park Service
in being posted on developments and in having on opportunity to participate in mutt*
relating to the parkway and in particular the Science Museum Proposal.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communication be received and filed
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND ~TORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
!iconcurring the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of
~Cues, Incorporated, in the amount of $25,350.00, for In-Line TV Inspection and
iRepair Equipment, for use Jn the inspection and repair of the interior of sanitary
sewer and storm drain lines, be accepted:
*September 20, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Friday, September 10. 1971. bids were received and opened
before the committee whose names appear below for In-Line TV
Inspection and Repair Equipment. The only bid received was
submitted by Cues, Inc., of Orlando, Florida. in the amount
of $25,350.00.
This equipment w~ll be used by the City in our infiltration
abatement program to reduce the quantity Of storm water in the
sanitary sewer system. The interior of sewer lines can be
inspected and certain corrections accomplished without the costly
procedure of uncoverin9 the lines. The purchase and use of this
equipment is one aspect of the City's interim improvement program
approved by the State Mater ControlBoard.
Such equipment is understandably complex and specialized. There
are few manufacturers of this equipment, however, the-firm of
Cues. Inc.. is the largest in the field. To assure the City of
quality equipment, we required prospective bidders to demonstrate
the acceptance and reliability of their equi~ent by providing a
list of purchasers, provide training for the City's personnel, and
insure the availability of service and parts with backup units
if needed. In all respects Cues. lac** has complied with our re-
quirements. The equipment is stated to be available within ten
(10) days receipt of order, thus enablin0 the rapid commencement
of this important program.
It is recommended that the City accept the bid by Cues, Iuc** of
Orlando. Florida, in the amount of $25.~50.00o This amount is
within the budget appropriation for this unit.
APPROVED: S/ Byron E. namer APPROVED: ~ William F. Clark
Byron E. Hamer Nilliam F. Clark
APPROVED: S/ B. B. Thompson
Bueford B. Thompson"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
~i~aoager nod that tbe matter be referred to abe City Attorney for preparation of the
!proper measure. The motion was seconded by ar. Trout and unahimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the
follnmfag report on the status of personnel in the Police Oepartmeet and the Fire
Department as of Aognst 31, 1971:
*Roenohe, Virginia
September 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor end City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Listed below is the status of the Police and the' Fire
Departments as of August 31, 1971:
*Fire Department
*During the month of August 1971 there were no changes in
personnel in the Fire Department.
There are no vacancies in the Fire Department at this time.*
*Police Department
Hired ~esioned
*Officer Bruce E. Beoth August 2, 1971
*Officer William K. Ralston August 2. 1971
*Officer Russell E. Nelson December 17. 1969 August B. 1971
'Officer Francis S. ShocteF March 24. 1969 August 30, 1971
*Ending August, 1971 (23 vacancies)
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirer
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising
that there has been instituted in the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke by Elvira
Wade. Administratrlx. etc.. motion for Judgment age.st the City of Roanoke and
Police Officer L. L. Fields, the same being based upon certain police action alleged
to have occurred September 13, 1969, resulting in the death of one William Roosevelt
Dr. Taylor offered the following Resolution authorizing the City Attorne
to represent L. L. Fields in connection with said pending civil action for compen-
satory damages brought against said police officer by one Elvira Wade:
(nigH62) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Attorney to represent a
imember of the Ctty*s Police Department in certain civil proceedings brought against/I
said police officer, upon the said police officer*s request for such representation
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 35, page 500.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoptl~n of the Resolution. The motion ~as secondeq
iby Mr. Trout and adopted by the follouing vote:
Webber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None ........ O.
107
~.08
AUDITS: The City Auditor subwitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of August, 1~71.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Rt. Lisk nod unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT DF PUBLIC ~ELFARE: The City Auditor submitted copy of the
monthly student of expenditures for Public ~elfere for the month ended August, 197
Mr. Trout moved that the statement be received and filed. Th~ wet,on
iwas seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZORIRU: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
iistudy, report and recommendation the request of #r. and NFS. Jesse Hodges in
4
i[connection with rezoniug Lots 10. 11 and the westerly half of Lot 12. Oak View
!!Ueights, from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District. to C-2. General Commercial
District, and further that the City of Roanoke pay all advertising costs pertaiaing!i
thereto, the City Plannin9 Commission submitted a written report advising that it
their feeling that they should not be asked to mauve the cost of rezoning the
property and recommending that Council 9rant the request that the property be
rezoned from RS-2, Single-Family B~sidential District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, provided a petition to rezone the property in question has been properly
tnhen out by the petitioner and submitted to Council.
In this connection.'Mr. Jack U. Coulter. Jr.. Attorney, representing the
petitioners, appeared before Council in supportof the request of his clients and
presented the following affidavit in connection with rezoning the abovedescribed
property:
*IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE: P£TITION OF MR. ~0 BRS. )
JESSER R. BODIES TO CORREC~ )
THE ZONING OF LO~S 10, 11, ) A F F I D A V I T
AND V~ESTERLY HALFOF LOT 12,)
OAK VIER HEIGHTS )
This day personally appeared before me. Janet G. Rakes,
a Notary Public in and for the City of Roanoke, State of
Virginia, Jack B. Coulter. who, niter being duly sworn, stated
amd certified as follows:
1. That by Ordinance No. 12627 adopted unanimously by
City Council on April 2, 1956, Lots 11 through 15,0ak View
Heights. were renamed from General Residence to Uustness'upon
the unanimous recommendation of the City Planning Commission
and after due notice, public advertisement, and public hearing.
Lots-Il and the westerly half of Lot 12 belonging to the peti-
tioners were included in this rezoning.
2. That by Ordinance No. 12863 adopted unanimously by
City Council on October 22, lq56, Lots 7, 8. g, and 10. Oak
View Heights, were rezoned from Geoeral Residence to Business
upon the unanimous recommendation of the City Planning
Commission and after due notice, public advertisement, and public
hearing. Lot 10 belonging to the petitioners was included in
this rezoningo
(I
3. Thus, at the time the new Zoning OrdlBlnce Wis being
studied during the mid 1960's, the subject property uas alresdy
4. On June 16, 196S, persons interested appeared before
City-Council in support or mnintaintng this area for business
S. On September 22. 1965, on behalf of persons interested.
the undersigned appeared before City Council at n public bearing
Shenandonh Avenue regarding zoning for business in
ss iris.' (Underlining added.)
S/ Jack B. Coulter
Jack B. Coulter
S/ 3anet G. Rakes
My commission expires:
September 17, 1973,'
109
Hr. Lisk then moved that o public hearing on re,zoning .the property be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday, October lot 1971, and that the City of Rosnohe absorb ull
icosts pertaining to the advertising. The motion mas seconded by Mr, Trout and
'unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation the request of Mrs. Adeline Delong
ithat she be granted a certificate to rent an apartment ut 2707 Richelieu Avenue,
S. N., said apartment having been rented prior to 1965, the City Planning
Commission submitted the following report recommending that special consideration
be given to the circumstances surrounding this case and that Mrs. Delong be
issued said permit:
"September 16. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited request uss considered by the City Plaunin9
Commission at its regular meeting of September 1S. 1971.
Mrs. Adeline Delong appeared before the Planning Commission
and asked that she be permitted to rent a vacant apartment in her
home. She stated that her home ia in a R$~2 District'and she had
not obtained a certificate of occupancy for a nonconforming use
during the tire period allowed by City Council because at that time
Sincerely.
S/ John H. Parrots NG
Chairman'
SPECIAL PERMITS-SIGNS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation the request of the Roy C. Kinsey
lSign Company, for n permit to erect a marquee type sign for the Security National
nnnh of Roanoke nt their downtown office at 24 Mesh Church Avenue, the City Plannin
Commission submitted the following report reiterating their earlier informal
approval of the proposal:
"September 16, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The City Planning Commission discussed the proposed
marque sign to be erected at the Security National Rank.
It was concluded that since the sign meets the requirements
of the Building Department that the proposal should be
approved.
Accordingly, all five members of the Planning Commission
present reiterated their earlier informal approval of the
proposal, and directed that a letter to that effect be sent
to City Council.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott NG
John H. Parrott
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(mlgf163) AN ORDINANCE permitting an encroachment of not more than four
feet of a marquee over and into the south right-of-way on Church Avenue, for a
ildistance of approximately tmenty-six feet, said marquee to be erected on the north
side of a building located on Official Ho. 1012307, upon certain terms and condi-
tions,
WHEREAS, Security National Bank of Roanoke, lessee of the property
'hereinafter described, on which the building of said firm is situate, located at
!124 West Church Avenue, requested that it be permitted to erect a marquee over the
public right-of-way so that said new marquee would extend upon but not more than
!: four feet into the south public street area of Church Avenue. said new marquee to
be approximately twenty-six feet in length along said right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the request
,of said applicant be granted as provided herein, a shetch of the proposed con-
i!strnction having been made and filed in the office Of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority vested in local governing bodies by
15.1-376 Of the 1950 Code Of Virginia, as amended, and as provided in Sec.
Chapter ?, Title XV of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, this
is agreeable to said applicant's proposal and is willing to permit the
111
encroochment hereinafter mentioned over gad into not more then four feet or the
southerly right-of-may urea for the public street abutting said npplicont*s
property, upon the terms gad conditions hereJnnfter contained.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIRED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, that
)ermission be. and is hereby granted Security Notional Bank of Roanoke. lessee of
· portion of the lot described os Official No. 1012307, on which the building occu-
Ipied by said company at 24 Jest Church Avenue is located, on the south side of
said to the side of said building, approximately
Church
Avenue,
to
twenty-six feet in length along said Church Avenue, which said new marquee may en-
croach northerly for a depth of not more than four feet and for the full height of
said marquee over the south right=of=may line and into the public street area on
ithe south line of Church Avenue, abutting the aforesaid lot. as the said marquee is
i!indicated on a certain sketch showing the location and h~lght of the same, a copy
iof mhich sketch is on file in th~ office of the City Clerk, said nam marquee to be
properly and safely constructed and maintained at the expense of the aforesaid
iapplicant, or its assions, or successors in interest, on permit issued therefor by
the Duilding Commissioner and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7. Title
XV, of the Cede of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and such of the City's
buildino regulations and requirments as are applicable thereto and subject, also,
to all of the limitations contained in § 15.1=376 of the 1950 Code of'Virginia,
abovementioned; it to be a~reed by said pernittee that by making 'and maintaining -
to indemnify and save harmless the City of Roanoke of and from all claims for ia-
i!juries or damages to persons or property that may arise by reason of the encroach-
BE IT FURTHER ORDAIRED that the provisions of this ordinance shall not
ibecome fully effective until such times us a written permit shall have been issued
!iby the City's Building Commissioner to the aforesaid applicant, or its duly uutho-
~!rized contractor or representative, and until an attested copy of this ordinance
!~shall have been duly signed, sealed and acknowledged by the said Security National
Dank of Roanoke. and shall have been admitted to record, at the cost of said
ipermittee, in the Clerk*s Office of the Dustings Court of the City of Roanoke.
EXECUTED and accepted by the undersigned this __ day of __
1971:
SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF ROANOKE
~ATTEST:
Secretary
President
I
I
I
I
113
STATE OF VIRGINIA ~
T,emit:
CITY OF ROANOKE
I, , a Notary Public in and for the City
of Roanoke, State of Virginia, do hereby certify that
and President. and Secretary, respectively, of Securit
National Bank of Roanoke, whose anm~s are signed to the foregoing mritiag bearing
date the .day of , lgTl, have this date personally appeared
before me in my City nnd State aforesaid and acknowledged the same.
GIVEN under my hand this -- day of lg?l.
My commission expires: .*
Notary Public
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ........% ...... O.
STREETS A~D ALLEYS: Council baling referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendattom the request of the Southwest
Virginia Community Development Fund that two alleys leading off of Cherry Arenue,
N~ R., ~e vacated, discontinued and closed, the ~Clty Planning Commission submitted
a written report recommending, that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing Qn the matter be held at 2 p.m.,
Monday. October 19, 1971. The motion sas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously
adopted.
PLA~HI~G: The City Planning Commissio~ submitted the following report
transmitting a Citizens' Guide to Planning and Development in the City of Roanoke:
"September 6, 1971
The Honorable Roy L, Webber, Mayor
and Nembers of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
This purpose of the Citizen*s Guide publications ts to pro-
mote a wider understanding of the planeing and development process
by all the citizens of Roanoke~ It is hoped that the Guide will
provide the impetus whereby the citizen*s contribution to the
governmental process will be a more meaningful and fruitful one.
~he major report, A CltJzen*s DuJd~ to Plannfno and Doral,n-
mens, offers a rich assortment of material,.pertaini~g to planning.
housing, urban renewal and developmental tecbiatques and procedure
In the City of Roanoke. The report address itself to the
~allowing speci£fc elements: the planning process, the need,
functions and benefits of city planning, and the participants
in the planning process; housing and the community, major public
and publically-assisted housing programs for Iow and middle income
families, and the urban renewal components and participants; and
the procedures for closing a street or alley, obtaining a building
and zoning permit, filing for a zoning a~peal, fez,ming property,
and filing for a subdivision or resubdivision.
In addition to the larger publication. A Citizen's Guide to
Planninm and Oevelonment in the ~ftv of R~aloke. three additional
reports have been prepared, comprised or e functional grouping
of all the sections of the major report, so as to serve specific
needs and segments or the population. These repots are:
A Citizents Guide to Rousing and UTba, Renewal in the City of
Roanoke. A Citizen's Guide to Plan~lnq in the City of Roanoke.
end A Citi~cn*s Guide to BuJldi~qt Zoninq- and SubdtYi~on Proce-
dures in the City of Roanoke.
It is hoped that these Citizen*s Guide reports will serve
and benefit a large segment of the Roanoke population. The
publications are available at the planning Department office.
and it is hoped that interested citizens will contact the
Oepartment for copies of these repot, s. which bear no charge.
but are. however, in limited supply.
Thank you.
Sincerely.
S/ Lo.hat Mernelstein
Lothar Mermelstein
Planning Director"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
APPALACHIAN POMER COMPANy-EASERENTS-NATER DEPARTMENT: Council having
~referved to the Real Estate Committee for study, report and recommendation a ~port
iiof the City Manager and a report of the City Attorney advising of the proposal of
~!Appalachion Power Company to acquire from the City of Roanoke a perpetual easement
ifor a right of way. 7.503. feet long and 200 feet wide. for the ccrstvuction of a new
iloverhead electric transmission line. offering to pay $4.375.00. cash. or. under
iCarvlns Cove watershed, the committee submitted the following report recommending
!ithat an agreement be prepared and submitted to the Appalachian Power Company for
!itheJr review embodying certain restrictive conditions, the final document to be
;subject to ratification by Council;
*Roanoke. Virginia
September 20. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of May 10, 1971. you referred to the
undersigned committee for study and recommendation a request
of Appalachian Power Company for a perpetual easement for a
right-of-way in which to construct and maintain a new electric
transmission tower line throngh portions of the City's Carvins
Cove property.
The power company has offered to pay the City $4.375.00
for the requested easement, or. os on alternate to convey to
the City a 72.61 acre tract Of land within the City watershed
it had acquired which land will also be crossed by a part of
the transmission line.
In our study of the matter, we have used the criteria as
established by the Council in Ordinance 19132. adopted April 20.
1970. granting an easement to Roanoke Gas Company for construction
of a gas transmission line through the City watershed for that
portion of the power line across the watershed and a current
appraisal for establishment of the value of the portion of the
easemeot outside the watershed.
The proposed power 'line would cross City property for
· dietance of 7,503 feet with n midth of 200 feet, which con-
verts to 34.44 acres. The Gas Company easement set un annual
rental value of property in the watershed et $74.25 per acre.
A current appraisal, rot rental value purposes, of similar
rural land to that owned by the City outside the watershed
establishes an annual rental value of $7.so per acre.' Thus.
the City's lend over which the power company wants an ease-
ment, (1/2 on watershed and 1/2 on adjacent lend) would be:
17.22 acres e $74.25 $1.276.5o
17.22 acres e 7.60 134,32
$1.412.90
Again, using the damage to the City*s property, as set
in the gas company easement at $67.37 per acre. and applying
damage only to the actual watershed area, the value would he:
17.22 acres @ $67.37 $1,160.00
A recent appraisal of the 72.61 acres of power company
property proposed to be conveyed to the City established the
value et $9.000.00. This is the same value assigned to the
property by the company.
The annual rental value of un easement across ? acres
of the power comtmy land would be $519.75 which should be
offset against the price of the land to the City. This ?
acres is a part of the 72.61 acres which the power company
proposes to sell to the City.
In addition, the power company contractors have entered
upon and cut the timber from 6.5 acres of City laud to the
west of the watershed, and within the 17.22 acres above
mentioned as off the watershed, for which we have set a damage
value of $500~00.
The power Company has requested that in lieu of nn annual
rental for the easement that said rental be capitalized and
the company be permitted to make one lump sum payment for
the easement on that basis. Therefore, the values of the
easement for the power company and of the land to be trans-
ferred to the City would be:
Annual rental of $1,412.g0 capitalized @ 0~ $17.661.25
Damage to watershed 1.160.11
Damage to land Off watershed (timber cut) 500.00
To be paid in lump sum by Appalachian
Power Company $ 19,321.36
Land to be conveyed to City $ 9,000.00
Less value of easement 519,75
To be paid by City $ 8,480.25
The agreement with the Power Company should, and is proposed to,
include certain restrictive conditions as to the extent to which
timber would be cut within the easement, it beta9 generally ed-
vised by the Power Company that this would be limited to the
immediate vicinity of the towers and at critical points, as to
the use of herbicides in spring for plant growth, as to access
to the easement for construction and maintenance and as to other
significant matters for the protection of the wate£shed and
minimizing the affect of the transmission lines. The Power
Company has generally indicated its consent to such conditions
and has indicated verbally its willingness to apply similar
conditions to the other existing easements for transmission
lines that occupy the Carvins Cove lands.
It is the recommendation of the Real Estate Committee that an
agreement be prepared and submitted to the Power Company for
their further review embodying the above. The final document
would, of course, be subject to City Council's ratification.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ David K. Lisk S/ Julian F. flirst
David K. Lisk Julian F. Hirst
S! James N. Kincanon S/ J. Robert Thomas
James N. Klncanon' J. Robert Thomas"
115-'
After n discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the report be
received and filed and that the Reel Estate Committee be nut.horized to continue
negotiations with the App+alanhlnn Power Company based upon their report, The motio~
mas seconded by Hr, Trout and u.nanimously adopted,
SALE OF PROPERT¥-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The Real Estate Committee sub.
mitred the following report, advising that the City of Roanoke has obtained options
on two parcels of land situated east of the prese.nt Sewage Treatment Plant property
that these parcels are 32,25 acres at $32o250,OO and one ante at $3.000.00 and
recommending that Council authorize these options to be exercised:
"Roanoke. Virginia
September 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
The City of Roanoke has obtained options on two parcels
of land situated east of the present Sewage Treatment Plant
property. These parcels are 32.25 acres at $32.250 and one
acre at $3.000.
Your Real Estate Cam=trice has considered these options
and the value to the City in having ownership of this property
for any possible future expansion and development.
It is the recomhendation of this committee that the City
Council authorize these options to be exercised.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ David K. Lisk
Heal Estate Commi~ee: David K, Lisk, Chairman
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon
S! Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Hirst"
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the Real
ilEstate Committee and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for prepara-
!tiaa of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously
!adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
CITY TREASURER-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having referred to the City
iAttorney for study, report and recommendation a communication from thn City Treasurer
;with reference to the duties imposed upom the City Treasurer with respect to the
{icollection or receipt and report of city monies, citing a provision in Section 37
iai the City Charter to the effect that the City Treasurer shall collect and receive
us Council shall by Ordinance make it the duty of some other officer or person to
collect, the City Attorney submitted the following report transmitting Ordinances
In connection with duties of officers and employees of the City of Moanoke with
reference to their collection and receipt of money of the city and their duty to
report, account for, pay over or deposit the same and another Ordinance prescribing
the duties and responsibilities of the Director Of the Civic Center Department:
"August 23, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Hoanoke City Council
Moanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council referred to the undersigned a communication of
the City Treasurer with reference to the duties imposed.
generally, upon that officer with respect to the collection
or receipt and report of City moneys, citing, among other
things, the particular provision in Section 37 of the City
Charter to the effect that the City Treasurer #. . . shall
collect and receive all . . . rents . . . fees and all other
revenues or moneys accruing to the city, except such as
Council shall by ordinance mahe it the duty of some other
officer or persons to collect . . .* (Excerpts and
emphasis my own.) The City Treasurer, mith some cited
authority suggested by the Attorney General, has expressed
some fear of personal liability with respect to responsibility
for certain, funds of the City mhich do not and, of necessity.
cannot in the first instance be 'collected' or 'received' by
that officer.
Mhile I am of opinion, as expressed to the City Treasurer,
that his personal responsibility for such public funds commences
only at such time as same have been *collected' or ~eceived*
bY him. it is apparent that certain provisions in the codified
ordinances of the City, of longstanding, have not been harmonized
with present, known procedures and practices mith reference to
the collection of certain of the City's revenues nor made to
recognize the general authority of the City Auditor with
respect to prescribing such procedures and practices.
The communications of the City Treasurer to the Council are
timely, inasmuch as they focus attention on the advisability
of amending certain parts of the City Code. in order to make
more express provision for employment of more current and
recognized procedures with respect to the receipt of and
accountiflg for some of the City*s revenues, Other than taxes,
levies, assessments and the like.
With thought being primarily given to revenues derived from
the City*$ operation of the Roanoke Civic Center and to the
peculiar ways and times at which portions of that Feven~e
are received, I have had prepared and transmit herewith for
the Council*s consideration the following ordinances, each
drawn as an amendment of existing provisions of the City Code,
and recommended to the Council for adoption:
(a) An ordinance which, by amendment of Sec. 4, Chapter 9,
Title ¥III, would impose upon the Director of the
Civic Center Department the responsibility of the
collection of all revenues derived from the operation
of that department and which would require payment
of those revenues to be made directly to the City
Treasurer or, if and as directed in writing by the
City Auditor, would require their direct deposit by
said Director to the credit of the City into a depo=
sitory of the City;'and
(b) An ordinance which, by amendment of Sec. I, Chapter 2,
Title V, would authorize direct deposit of certain City
funds into bank accounts Of the City, with report thereof
117
118
and accounting therefor to be made to the City
Treasurer and City Auditor, when and as such de-
posits shall have been directed by the City Auditor
mbo, under Section 25 of the City Charter, is charged
with general supervision over the collection and return
of City revenues into the City Treasury.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Nincanon
James M..Kincanon'
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney~
O
and offered the following emeroency rdinance prescribing the duties of officers
and employees of the City of Roanohe with reference to the collection and receipt
:tgi money, of the City and the duty to report, account for, pay over or deposit
(UlgRb4) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 1. Duties of Officers
~iint, erest, of Title V, Finance, of the Code of the City of Roanohe, 1956, as amended
prescribing the duties of officers and ~mployees of the City with reference to their
:collection and receipt of money of the City and their duty to report, account for.
pay over or deposit the same; and providing for an emergency.
(For full textof Ordinance, see Grdinance Rook ~o. 35, page 501.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
~seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lash. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... 7.
MAYS: Mane ............... O.
Mr. Garland then offered the following emergency Ordinance prescribing
the duties and responsibilities of the Director of the Civic Center Department:
(alga65) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 4., Chapter 9, of Titl~
VIII. of the Code of the City of Roanohe. 1956. as amended, prescribing the duties
and responsibilities of the Director of the Civic Center Department; and providing
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boo~ No. 35, page
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor acd adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
jWehber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND EE$OL~ION$:
STREEYS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 19842. vacating, discontinuing and
closing a certain por.tlon of an alley running in an easterly direction frow 4th
Street, N. W,, between Shenandoah Avenue and Centre Arcane fro n distance of 265.9
feet, hnvio0 previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid
over, was again before the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following for Its
second reading nad final adoption:
(#19942) AN ORDINANCE, permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that certain 265.9 foot long portion of the 12 foot wide alley which runs in an :
easterly direction from the easterly terminus of a portion of the same alley, which
was closed by Ordinance No. 16992 on March 14, 1966. the said alley originally
running in an easterly direction from the 4th Street, N. N, between Shenandoah
Avenue, N. R. and Centre Avenue, N. W.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page 492.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was Seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messr$o Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None .......... O.
ZONING: Drdinance No. 19843. amendtn9 paragraph entitled Special excep*ii
tions after public notice and hearings by the board of zoning appeals of Section,
S.I, RS-I, RS-2 and RS-3, Single-Family Residential Districts, Chapter 4.1, Zoning,
Title X¥, Construction, Alteration and Use of Land, Buildings and Other Structures,
of The Code of the City of Roanohe, 1956. as amended, by the addition of a new
subparagraph, to be designated Subparagraph 8, Private clubs and lodges, providing
criteria for allowance of private clubs and lodges in said districts as an
additional special exception and amending Section 79ol, Interpretation of certain
terms and words, of said chapter and title by the addition of a new subsection,
to be desionated 10ol Clubs and Lodges - Private, providing a definition of such
term, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid
over, was again before the body. Mr. Lisk offering the following for its second
reading and final adoption:
(~19643) AN ORDINANCE amending paragraph entitled Special exceptions
after nublic notice and hearinqs bT the board of zoninq appeals of Sec. S.l,
RS-I, RS-Z and RS-3 Sinqle-family residential districts, of Chapter 4.1. Zoninq
Of Title XV. Construction. Alteration and Use of Land, Bulldinqs and Other
'iStructures, Of the Code of the City of Roanc~.. 1g$6, as amended, by the addition nfl
'ia new subparagraph, to be designated Subparagraph 0o ~ivate clubs and lodqes, pro-i!
i!viding criteria for allowance of private clubs and lodges in said district as an
!additional special exception; and amending Sec. 7g.1. Interoretation of certain
!iterms and words, of said chapter and title by the addition of a new subsection.
119
120
to be designated 10.1 Clubs and Lodqes - Private, providing a definition of Such
term.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No** 35, page 493.)
Mr, Limb moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
hy Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYBS: #easts. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Th'onus, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
~ebber ..................................... 7.
NAYS: None .....................
POLICE DBPABTBENT: Ordinance No. lgB46, amending Chapter 1, Police
i!Forces, of Title X1, Police Force and Courts, of The Code Of the City of B, an,be,
i!1956, as a~ended, by the addition of a new section to he designated as Sec. 1.1,
!iResidency requirement, to provide that all commissioned police personnel employed
!ion a permanent status in the Police Department shall reside within a radius distance
!!of six miles measured from the Bunicipal Building of the City of Boanobe, having
~previously been before Council for its fh~t reading, read and laid over, was again
before the body.
In th~s connection, a communication from Mr. Harvey S. Latins, Atto rney,
representing certain police ,fliers, requestin9 that action On the second reading
of the ordinance be deferred one week, was before'Council.
Hr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Lutins and
that the second reading of the Ordinance be deferred one week. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the proposed Ordinance be referred hack to the
City Attorney for redrafting in connection with two police officers who reside :
ifurther than six miles from the Municipal Building. The motion was seconded by
:Trout and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
ithe proper measure amending Chapter 3, Sanitary Hegulations, Title XIII, Health.
i!of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new
i!section thereto, designated Sec. 5.1, MhJch would require bulk trash container units
!;at any new residential unit with ten or more apartments or dwelling units, he pre-
~sented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance:
amending Chapter 3, Sanitary Requlations, Title
L
AN
ORDINANCE
!iXlll, Health, of the Code o f the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition
!'of a new section thereto, designated Sec. 5.1, which would require bulk trash
container units at any new residential unit with ten or more apartments'or dwelling
!units; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 35, page $O3.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iiby Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the f, Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Rebber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
PLANNING-NAREET: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure approving end authorizing the employment of National Garages,
Incorporated. Michigan. feasibility study associated with n
Detroit,
to
I public parking facility in g, sa,he, upon certzin terms end conditions, he presentedl
iseme; whereupon, Mr, Wheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(819867) AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing the employment of
!iNztional Garages, Inc** of Detroit, Michigan, to make a feasibility study associated
'with a public parking facility in Roanoke. upon certain terms and provisions; re-
ijecting certain other proposals; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 504.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was sec,nde
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Th~mos. Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. ?.
NAYS: None ..............O.
MATER DEPARTMENT: Council haviog directed the City Attovney to prepare
the proper measure rejecting all bids received for the purchase of certain timber
standing on and near the Beaver Dam and Yallin9 Creek Watersheds. and directing
that the matter be readverti~ed for bids. he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Nheeler
offered the followiu9 Resolution:
(nlgOBB) A RESOLUTION rejecting all bids received for the purchase of
certain timber standing on and wear the Beaver Dam and Falling Creek Watersheds,
and directing that the matter be readvertised for bids,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 505.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
~ Webber .............................. ?,
NAYS: None .............. O.
MOT IONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ii SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Thomas presented the following communics- !i
!ition in connection with a letter from Mr. John N, Lampros. Attorney, regarding the
ilmatter of pgssible Court actions being instituted to collect balances allegedly duei
ilthe R, aa,he County Public Servic~ Authority from Roanoke City citizens residing iu
ithe Edgehill section for sewerage services, transmitting a petition signed by 96
!iresidents of the Rdgehill section requesting that Roanoke City Council intervene
!in their behalf, by court action if necessary, in seeking relief from payment of
isewerage services to the Roanoke County Public Service Authority, advising that
Council previously indicated it mould stand between its citizens and the Roanoke
!County Public Service Authority, and recommending that Council go on record in
121
122
I support of the request of the petitioners and authorize the City Attorney to take
the necessary legal steps immediately to protect the interests of the citizens of'
the Edgeblll area in this Batter:
'TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL September 20. 1971
PROM: HAMPTON M. THOMAS. COUNCILMAN
SUBJECT: OIff4ERSHIP OF EDGEHXLL AREA SE~ER LINES
You will recall that approximately one month ago Council
referred the attached letter of John N. Laupros. Attorney.
regarding the matter of possible Court actions being instituted
to collect balances allegedly due the Roanoke County Public
Service Authority from Roanoke City citizens residing in the
EdgehJll section, to the City Attorney for investigation, re-
port and recommendation.
You will also find attached hereto letters from Mr.
Thomas D. Paterson. 3726 Heatherton Road. S. M.. Roanoke.
Virginia, end Bias J. Elizabeth Temple, 421 Darwin Road,
S. M., Roanoke* Virginia. which I believe are self-explana-
tory and give a great deal of insight into the overall
situation.
Additionally, I have receivedpetitions from 96
citizens of the EdgehJll section of Roanohe City, the
original of which I nm filing with the City Clerk, stating
the following request:
'Me, the undersigned residents of the Edgehill Section
of Roanoke City, request Roanoke City Council to intervene
in our behalf, by court action if necessary, in seehing re-
lief from payment of sewage services to The Roanoke County
Public Sanitation Authority. Since these services are not
furnished by the aforesaid Authority, and are t~urnished by
the City, se feel these payments should properly be paid to
the City.'
It is my understanding that two possible alternatives
are available in this matter. First. the City Attorney may
desire to proceed.with the pending suit on behalf of the
City of Ronnohe seehing to bare the Court determine the owner-
ship of the sewer.lines in question~ Second, if the first
course Js deemed inadvisable, the City Attorney might conceivably
institute a newclass action on behalf of one or more of the
petitJxitng citizens to seek to determine the status of the owner-
ship of the saner lines in question by declaratory Judgment.
In vlem of the factthat Council has previously indicated
that it would 'stand between' its citizens and the Roanohe County
Sewer Authority and the undue length of time in which this matter
has been pending, it is my recommendation that the Council go on
record in support of the request of the petitioners and authorizing
the City Attorney to take the necessary legal steps immediately
to protect the interests of the citizens of the Edgehill area in
this matter."
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney, with
the authorization of Council, to tnhe such action as he deems necessary. The motion
,was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
The City Attorney advised that since the matter was referred to him on
!the regular meeting of Council on Monday. August 23, lg71, he has conferred withtwo
!!attorneys representing citizens in the Edgehill area, that he has saggested to
these attorneys that which Mr. Thomas has just proposed and pointing out that there
nay be some question as to the City of Roanoke representing private persons against
the Roanoke County Public Service Authority.
'1
123
BUILDIN6S: Malor Mebber called to the attentloo of Council that the fly
year term of Wt. S. Lemla Lloeberger aa x member of the Board of
Appeals, Building Code, expires on September 30, 1971, iud called for nominations
to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Llsh placed ia nomination the name of S. Lemit Lionberger.
There being no further nominations, Mr. S. Lemil £ionberger mas reelected
as a nembe~r of the Boord of Adjustments and Appeals, ~uildin9 Code, for · fire
year term beginning October 1. 1971, by the follouing vote~
FOR BR. LIONBEEGEB: #essrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout.
Wheele~ and Mayor Webber ......................
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
AT TE ST: \
/ City Cleft #alor
.124
COUNCIL, ~EGULAN MEETING,
Monday, Septemb.er ~7, 1971o
The Council of the City 'of Roanohe met in regula~ meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, September 27, 1971, 'at 2 p.mo, the
regular me'eting hour, with Mayor Webber presiding.
PRESENT~ Councilme'n ~obert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
tBampton M. Thom'as, James O, Trout, Vincent S. #heeler and Mayor Boy L. Mebber .... T.i
ABSENT3 Hone: ......................................................... Oo~
OFFICERS PRESENT~ Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, Cf*tv Manager; 'Mr. Byron E.
.Bauer, Assistant City Manager~ Mr. ~James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr,
iRobert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Raver'end Jacob
iiiM. Shrine. Associate Minister, Bethany Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copy of ~the minutes Of the regular meeting held on Monday,
September ?, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motien of Mr.
~Thomas, seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved ss recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
PAY pLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Mr. B. N. A~ers, President
of the Roanoke Fire Fighters Association, appeared before Council and read a pre-
ilpared statement in connection with probationary periods and pay increases for mem-
ibers of the Fire Department, advising that under the new Pay Plan a new employee
receives a one step pay increase upon completion of his first six mouths
employment rather than upon completion of bis first twelve months employment and
that a nam employee now goes into top pay in his grade in four and one-half years
rather than having to work five years for top pay. that from the time of the
adoption of the new Pay Plan in 1966 until August 1, 1968, there were 20 fire
ifi,lhters hired during the two years following the adoption of these rules, that
during the first five years of employment these 20 fire fighters were not paid
;iaccording to the pay rules adopted by Council, that members of the Fire Department
discussed this matter with Chief A° K. Bughson, that Chief Rughson in turn discussed
:~the matter with the City Nanager and was told that it would be sent to the City
iAuditor to dete~ mine the affect on the individuals involved, that the matter remain*
!lin the City Auditor*s Office for approximately five months mithout being answered,
;that the matter has not been resolved as of yet and requesting that Council make
ilsomeone responsible for this matter and have said person determine how much money
iithese 20 men were paid for their first 60 months of employment as compared to how
i!much they should have been paid had the rules been adhered to and report these
.;Ifindings to Council in a reasonable length of time.
125
Investigation and report by the*regular meeting of Council o~ ~ondey, October Il,
1971. The motion was seconded by Hr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COBBUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-HUNICIPAL COURT: A communication from Judge Beverly T. Fitz-
patrick, respectfully requesting the addition of two assistant clerks in the office
tiou mith his office, mas before Council.
by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUNICIpAL COURT: A communication from Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick
substitute judge, was before Council.
rates to be charged for suplus mater furnished to other incorporated municipalities,
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred toCouncil acting as a i
ilbe requested to establish a date and time for said meeting. The motion was seconded
i'by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted. ?
i!of Vinton.
AMBULANCES: An interim report from the Roanoke Valley Reglonal Health
Services Plnnoi.ng Council in connection with theirin-depth study of emergency
medical service needs in the City Of Roanoke, .recommending that Council take Gader
or reqnest.s for official recognition favorable to the establishment of nam emer-
gency medical services, ambulance, or rescue squad operations pending the final
report from the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council and en-
.cuuraging all local governments in the valley to take similar action to that
ilrecommended to the City of Roanoke because of the area implications of this study
ilund because of representatives mbo are participating in the development of this
iireport, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendtlons of the
i!Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
HUDGET-PCRCItASXHG AGENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $450.00 be appropriated to Extra Help under SectJofl 311, *Pur-
chasing Agent." of the 1971-72 budget, said amount to be offset by unexpended funds
in the amount of $476,00 which will accrue due to the resignation of a clerical
!employee In the Purchasing Department.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
:Manager and offered the follouing emergency Ordinance:
(~lgHGg) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~11, *Purchasing
Agent,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book bo. 36, page &.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................Oo
BUDGET-WATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the folloming.report
recommeeding that $3,000.00 be appropriated to Refund Connection Charges under
!Section #320, "Water - General Expense," of the 1971-72 Water Fund Appropriation
Ordinance, said account being solely for the use of refunds for water connection
[charges:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 27, 1971
'Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia
fl
It is recommended that the supplemental appropriation
of $3.000 be made to Mater Department Account 320 - 417.
charges. This is the refund of money that has been paid for
a new service and/or meter with the consumers subsequently
changing their minds and requesting the refund rather than
proceeding with the service.
We bed $1.000.00 approved In the current budget. The
amount of $475.00 was refunded in July, mbJch was supposed
to have been refunded in the previous budget year, but was
delayed due to insufficient funds. $125.00 was refunded
in August. $215.OO has already been refunded in September
with another $125.00 pending pyament this month. This makes
· total of $940.00 or an unencumbered balance of $60.00.
Me have Just had another consumer request refund of $670.00
on Salem Turnpike; h,meyer, we are ~10.oo short on funds.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager*
Mr. Link moved that Council concur ia the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19B70) AN ORDINANCE to amend and r,ordain Section ~320. *Mater-
General Expense** of the 1971-72 Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book.~o. 36. page 6.)
Mr. Link moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~y Mr. Garland and adopted by the following, vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. ICfleeler and Mayor
Webber .................................... 7.
~AVS: ~oae .................... O.
'BUDGET-MATER DEPARTMENT:
The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that the sum of STO.O00.O0 which remains as unexpended and is
at Boxley Hills on Wllliamson Road be transferred to the appropriate account for
tension of water mains within the City of Roanoke by City forces and service
· Roanoke. Virginia
September 27. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
It is recommended that the sum of $70.000 which remains
as unexpended and is needed in the water department fund account
for the construction of the pumping station at Boxley Hills on
127
'1.28
Williamson Rand be transferred to the appropriate account for mater
maim extensions to cover necessary and continuing expenditures for
the extension of mains mithln the City by CltF forces and service
connections. Funds for this work as remained uithll the bond
issue allocations of 1967 have been used and the shove amount
mould be sufficient to carry the cost of this mark rot ama to
three months. Prior to that time it mill be necessary to
accelerate our attention to uater department revenue, both for
this reason and otherso in orde~ to increase the available
income to the mater department to provide sufficient rands to
cover this sad other expenditures that have increased over n
period ~f s number of years mlthout -any adjustment in mater
rates.
An ordinance pr'oviding' for this transfer mill have been
prepared for your City Council agenda.
Respectfull! submitted,
$! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved th'at Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iMansger and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(UlgS71) Alt ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u450. 'Water**
of the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36, page 7.)
Mr. Zrout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Mr, Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................ 7.
NAYS: None ................ O.
SEWERS AND STORM DHAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report'
in connection with a meeting before the. State Water Control Hoard on September 21,
,1971. advising that it is felt that ~e overall decision of the Hoard was geoerally
satisfactory to the city in consideration of theapparent obligation of the city
to meet the plant effluent standards as,required by the State Water Control Hoard:
*Roanoke, Virginia
September 27, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Dy way of very general report at this stage, it is advised
that on September 21, Council members Wheeler and Thomas together
with members of your staff attended and participated in the
Hearing of the State Water Control Hoard in Richmond.
A letter, or order, is anticipated from the Hoard as to the
conclusions of the Hearing and when received it will be. reported
to the Council with comments that may be appropriate with regard
to the contents.
It is felt that the overall decision of the Hoard was generally
satisfactory to the City in consideration of the apparent obligation
of the City to meet the plant effluent standards as req0ired by the
Board. The design proposal of Alvord, Hurdick and Hanson is under-
stood to be acceptable, this being that plan outlined before City
Council at your last meeting.
There are five or six elements of design which, ns reported
to Council, were in question between the. City nnd its Engineers
resolved to the favor of the Clty..The others were left still
pending with the necessity that further extensive supporting
data be prepared and submitted to the Board.
In the meantime, the Engineers have been verbally and
formally requested to proceed with design work on Phase I which
is the phosphorous removml Increment. They have been also asked
to commence scheduling on the design for the total proJect. We
will need to bring to Council a formal contract with this firm
for the actual project.
We further will promptly begin a financing report to be
brought to City Council.
The matter of construction and replacement of certain main
interceptor sewer lines is still somewhat in the air. As soon
as the BoardOs letter in received, we will begin some clarifica-
tion steps on this important item.
It is In order, I believe, et this stage to acknowledge the
efforts, time and diligence of #r. Echmun and Mr. Gerstein of the
Engineers and Mr, McGhee. Mr. Clark, Mr. Natt, Mr, Zimmerman and
Mr. Raner of your City organization. Their professional skills are
exceeded only by their patience.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. M. Coldwell ~utleFo Attorney, representing
Fralin and Waldron, Incorporated, appeared before Council and again urged that
Council participate in the upgrading and extension of the Murray Run Interceptor
Sewer Line.
written report is received from the State Water Control Board outlining the
~findings from the meeting of the ~oard on Tuesday, September 21, 1971. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Lisk offered a substitute motion that the City Attorney be
~dirented to draft a Resolution of intent of the City of Roanoke to porticipnte
in the upgrading and extension of the Murray Run l~terceptor Sewer Line. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Carload and lost by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland and Lisk
NAYS: Messrs. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .......5.
The original motion was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .......5.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland and Lisk ......................................2.
With reference to the matter,.copy of a communication from Mr. Lee
Eddy. Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, repeating and
verifying an offer Of financial assistance in connection with the Murray Run
i~Interceptor Sewer Line which was previously submitted in a communication dated
129
130
August 2, 19Yl, addressed to Mr. Hampton N. Thomas, Chairman of the City of
Roanohe Sewer Committee from Mr. L. S..Moldrop~ Chairman of the Roanoke County
Public Service Authority, mn~ before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion mos seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Math further reference to the matter, Council baying previously
requested that the City Attorney prepare the proper measure by uhich Council
Mould exerciie the options to purchase the land necessary fur the expansion of
the Sewage Treatment Plant as recommended by the Real Estate Committee, the City
~iAttorney submitted the following report transmitting said Ordinance and advising
ithat the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, acting upon the recommendation of
ithe Roanoke County Planning Commission, rezoned the property from *Residential
~Estnte R£* to 'Industrial DistriCt M~I" so as to permit'the use of this
property for the expansion of the SeuageTrcatmeflt Plant:
"September 27, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanohe City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
1 hare prepared and am hereby transmitting to the Council an
ordinance by which the Council mould exercise the options to
purchase the land necessary for the expansion of the City*s
Semage Treatment Plant as recommended by the Real Estate
Committee in written report to Council dated September
At its regular meeting of September 22, 1971, the Board of
Supervissrs of Roanoke County, acting upon the recommendation
of the Roanoke County Planning Commission, rezoned the property
from *Residential Estate ME* to 'Industrial District M-I* so
as to permit the use of this property for the expansion of
the City*s Sewage Treatment Plant. The petition for rezonJng
had been filed by the City, which filing was ratified and con-
firmed by the Council, by Resolution No. 19269, on August 23,
Hespectfnlly,
S/ EdMard A. Natt
EdMard A. Hart
Assistant City Attorney'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
,and offered the folloMing emergency Ordinance appropriating $35,250.00 to
~urchase of Land - Sewave Treatment Plant under Section =450, *Mater,' of the
/1971-72 Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance, to provide funds in connection with
the purchase of tMo parcels of land situate east of the Sewage Treatment Plant
for the expansion of said plant:
(Z19872) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section x450, *Water**
bf the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 36, page ?.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Rt. Nheeler and adopted by the following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Webber .................................
NAYS: None ....................... O.
Mr. Mheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance exercising the
right of the City of Roanoke to purchase approximately 33.2S acres of land
situate in Big Lick Magisterial District, in Roanoke County. adjacent to the
existing Sewage Treatment Plant. said land needed for the expansion of the
· Sewage Treatment Plant, upon certain terms and conditions:
(Slgf173) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase approximately
33.25 acres of land situate in Big Lick Magisterial District, in Roanoke County,
Virginia, adjacent to the existing City of Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant, and
needed for said plant*s expansion, upon certain terms and provisions: providing
for notice of the City's exercise of said purchase options: providing for payment
of the purchase prices thereof upon delivery of deeds to the City and for recor-
dation of such deeds; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 8.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber .................................
NAYS: None ....................... O.
Or. Taylor then offered the following Resolution acknowledging to the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County the expeditious manner in which the
petition of the City of Roanoke for a zoning reclassification of property situate
in Roanoke County adjacent to the Sewage Treatment Plant of the City of Roanoke
was processed by the Board of Supervisors and other county agencies and
officials:
(XlgS?4) A RESOLUTION acknowledging to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County the expeditious manner in which the City*s petiton for a zoning
~ reclassification of certain property was processed by the Board of Supervisors
~and other County agencies and officials.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
! seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and
Mayor Webber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None ....................... O.
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTy IN ROANOKE VALLEY: Council having
directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure authorizing Total
Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley to use the Harrison Elementary School
131
132
as a day care center and Council having further requested the City Manager to
ascertain If there are any onexpended funds within the budget of the' Roanoke City
School Board that mere allocated to the former Bsrrl~on Elementary School uhich
can be used toward improvements in connection mitb using said building rot m day
care center by TAP, the City Manager submitted the follomlng report transmitting
a communication from Hr. R. D. Pack, Assistant Superintendent for Busiiess
Affairs of the Roanoke City School Board, advising that the possible closing of
the Harrison Elementary School was anticipated by the School Board. therefore,
there mere no funds requested in the 1971-72 budget for the maintenance of
Harrison Elementary School, the City Manager advising that there are several matter
relating to the proposed use of the building which have not been fully resolved,
~that uith this in mind he does not feel he is in a position to proceed at this
itime for a full agreement and faf full active occupancy by TAP of the building,
ithat as an alternate at this point, it is felt the best step would be for the
icity to direct a communication to Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley
iuhich mould permit them to establish Janatorial personnel within the building for
custodial services and attention at this time and recommending adoption of a
Resolution to this effect:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 27, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council referred to me the question of the possible
availability within the budget of the Roanoke Public Schools of
funds for maintenance of Harrison Elementary School. I attach for
your information and in reply thereto a letter from Mr. R. D. Pack,
Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs.
Supplemental on this matter, I would advise that Mr. Geary.
Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Clark and Rt. Brewer of the Department
of Public Works. and I met with representatives of TAP and of their
Day Care Program on Wednesday, September 22, 1971, to review various
matters in regard to the possibility of making the Harrison School
available for the day care operation. There are several matters
relating to TAP*s proposed use of the building that they have not
yet been able to fully resolve and these include necessary work to
the building for compliance with State Ptre Marshal regulations
for this type of occupancy and of certain initial maintenance work.
With this in mind, we mutually do not feel that we are in a
position to proceed at this time for a full agreement and for full
active occupancy by TAP of the building. As an alternate at this
point, it has been felt that the best step would be for the City
to direct a letter to TAP which would permit them to establish
janatorial personnel within the school for custodial services and
attention at this time. It is therefore recommended that the City
Council authorize a resolution as has been prepared by the Ci.ty
Attorney which would permit this purpose.
Just as soon as me are able to proceed to smother level of
occupancy or agreement It mould be intended to do so and that me
mould seeh necessary Council approval nt that time.
8eapectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager'
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of tbe City
Manager and offered the foil,wing. Bas,lotion:
(~19B75) A R£SOLDTION authorizing the City Manager to direct a
letter to Total Action Against Poverty in the Roanoke Valley permitting said
organization to establish Janitorial personnel within Rarrison Elementary School
for custodial purposes,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book NO. 35, page 10.)
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption Of the Resolution, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Nebber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having received and filed u report of the
City Manager advising of the resignation of Mr. Howard E. BodY,rd, Olrector Of
the Roanoke Civic Center, effective October 6, 1971, the City Manager submitted
n written report requesting that the date of resignation of Mr. Radford be
changed from October 8, 1971, to October 5, 1971.
Rt. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City ~anagero
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted,
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that
he has been notified by the Federal Aviation Administration of the allocation
of $128,500.00 to Roanoke Municipal (W,,drum) Airport to strengthen Runway
115-33 and parallel taxi'way and for shoulder stabilization end blast pad construc-
tion on Runways 5 and 33,
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and'filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously'adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report recommending
authorization for the execution of service contracts with the Federal Aviation
iAdministration at Roanoke Municipal (M,,drum) Airport for use of the airport
traffic control tower at a monthly rate of $675.61 and the FAA offices in
:Building Ho; 1 for flight service at a monthly rate of $1,000.77:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 27, 1971 .
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
~{
133
~34
Gentlemen:
It is recommended that the City Council by appropriate
instrument' authorize tbe execution of two service contracts with
the Federal Aviation Administration at the Roanoke Nunicipal
Airport, I em forwarding to the City Attorney the complete
contracts for extraction Of the essentials es to the contracts
as would be included in the ordinance or resolution of the
Council.
The contracts are as follows:
1. For use of the Airport traffic control toner at n
monthly rate of $675.61 covering facilities and the
provision or customary housekeeping services, The
effective date is July 1, 1969, for one year and
renewable each year unless 30 days* notice by the
government but not beyond June 30, 1979.
2. The FAA offices in Building No. I for flight service
at n monthly rate of $1,000.77 for facilities and
customary housekeeping effective February 1, 1969,
to June 30, 1969, and renewable only thereafter,
subject to 30 days' notice by the government, but
not beyond June 30, 1974.
The delay in these contracts has been due to negotiations
in the matter Of calculations and distribution of costs with
the Federal government over a period of time.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19076) AN OROINANCE authorizing the City's execution of certain
contracts for furnishing to the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department
of Transportation, United States of America, certain services in spaces in
Building No. I and in the Airport Traffic Control Tower and certain other places
,at Roanoke Municipal Airport, now leased to said agency; and providing for an
'emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 11.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, W~eele~ and
iMayor Mebber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None .......................O.
COUNCIL-AIRPOI~f-SEMER$ AND STORM.DRAINS: The catI Manager submitted
ithe following report in connection with bids to be received bI the City of
i!Boanoke for the Norfolk Avenue sanitary sewer replacement on October 4, 1971,
~iand for runway overlay at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport on October 11, lg?l,
!!advising that it is important for the city to proceed as rapidly as possible
committees be appointed at these two meetings to study the bids received and
iireport back to Council on the same day with recommendations in order that contracts
may be awarded during the weeks of October 4 and October 11 for said tmo projects:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 27, 1971
Honorable M~yor amd City Couacil
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your regular Council meeting on October 4,'lg?l. it is
scheduled te receive bids on the Hortolk Avenue sanitary sewer
replacement, It is considered valuable, due to the critical
situation of this sewer line, that the City proceed as rapidly
as possible to have the construction work started otter the
receipt of bids. It is therefore suogested, that if at nil
possible, there be appointed a committee to review the bids with
the Rope that a report might be made back at the same meeting
in order thut the contract could be awarded that week uitb
constructJoa to start the following week.
There will also be required appropriate ordinances for the
appropriation of tunds for this project rot the awarding of the
contract.
As a further Item. of similar nature, the City will receive
on October 11 bids for runway overlay at the Airport. We are
very much interested that, if at all possible, we be able to
handle this project us rapidly as practical fn order to get this
work authorized, under construction and completed during the
remainder of the good weather season prior to the winter. With
this in mind, it is suggested that the City Council consider the
possibility of a committee reviewing the bids on the date that
they are received with the hope that a report might be made back
in the same meeting in order that a contract might he awarded
that week with construction to commeace mithin the next weaR.
Your favorable consideration of these would he appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. llirst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager*
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland moved that Council
continue with its present method of handling bids. The motion was seconded by
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PURLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted the
followin9 report transmitting copy of the budget, as approved by the State
Department of Welfare and Institutions. for the City of Roanoke Department of
Public Welfare for the fiscal year 1971-72. advising that the state has
iallocated more than was requested by the city fur total reimbursable administra-
iitive expenses due to the 30 additional employees being added to the state budget
'for their full fiscal year and that the only other difference in the budget is
in General Seller for which the city requested $250.~00.00 and for which the
state appropriated only $84,020.00, recommending that Council not change the
!iappropriation of the city for General Relief since it is almost certain that the
;.city will have to request an additional appropriation from the state and that
i'the total city budget effective July 1, Ir71, will be sufficient to stand for
'136
#Rosnoke. ¥1rglnlo
September 27, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. ¥Jrginia
Gentlemen:
For the information of the City Council. I attach 8 copy
of the budget es approved by the State Department of Welfare
and Institutions for the City's Deportment of Public Welfare
for the fiscal year 1971-72.
The State, within their appropriations, bas allocated more
than the City's request for total reimbursable administrative
expenses, This is due to the 30 additional employees being
added to the State budget for their full fiscal year.
The only other difference in the budoet is in General
Relief for which the City requested $250.600 and for mhicb the
State appropriated only $84,020, In correspondence the State
has advised that they have approved for General Relief up to
their population entitlement. They have left the entire
estimate of local funds for General Relief in case additional
funds might be available at later points during the year. We
would recommend the City Council not change the City*s appro-
priation for General Moiler since it Js almost certain that we
will have to go bach and request additional appropriations from
the State. For the months of July and August, the City has
spent $35,733.61 from this category. There is no indication
that there mill be less applications in this category; in fact,
as winter months arrive the trend is toward an increase.
The State budget was received September 10, 1971. Unless
there should be reasons of which I am not aware, it would appear
that no action would be immediately necessary on the part of the
City Council and that your budget as adopted with the total City
budget effective July !. 1971. would be sufficient to stand and
for operation.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
The City Auditor having advised Council that he has been notified by
the State Department of Welfare and Institutions that additional funds will be
forthcoming. Mr. Llsk moved that action on the matter be deferred one week
awaiting official written notification from the State Department of Welfare and
Institutions on said funds. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARAr4CE: The City ManageF submitted a written report
:!advising that some time ago it was mentioned before Council the interest of
residents 'in the Deanwood area to have their residential section included within
the Kimball Redevelopment Project. that representatives from the area have
discussed the matter with him and requested that this interest be conveyed on
jtheir part and transmitting copy of a communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley.
)!Hxecutive Director of the City of Hoan*o~e Redevelopment and Sousing Authority
!it, the petitioners in the Donna(,od Area. advising of certain action now underway
~on the part of the Authority in behalf of their interest.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
RRIf~ES: ?be City Manager submitted the following report fa connection
with city maintenance crews entering the street nad highway, bridges over the
Norfolk end Western Railway Company right of may rot various maintenance purposes,
~ointSng out that he has been advised by the Railway Company of the necessity
of n written agreement for this entrance upon or over the right of may with
various conditions including indemnification and recommending that Council
request the City Attorney to review the matter with the intent of preparing such
document ns would authurize tbe City'of Roanoke tn enter into an agreement m!tb
the Norfolk and Western Railway Company for this maintenance work:
"Roanoke. Yirginin
September 27. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Over the years the Cit~ has routinely entered upon the
street and highway bridges over the Norfolk and Western
Railway right-of-way for various maintenance purposes.
Specifically. in the matter of current note.there has been
an annual program of the maintenance crews of cleaning end
minor repairs to the bridges in the City. This largely has
involved cleaning debris from the abutments, piers and other
members as needed and performing any minor maintenance items
that would be noted. Each Instance. except in immediate
emergency, has been by advance notice given to the company.
In response to our recent advice to the company of the
schedule for the conduct this fall of the annual cleaning and
repair, we are advised by the company of the necessity of a
written agreement for this entrance upon or over the right of
may with various conditions, includin9 indemnification,
It is felt that conference by the City's law department
with the Railway Company would be in order at this point and,
accordingly, it is recommended that City Cooncil request of
the City Attorney the necessary review of the matter, with the
intent of preparing for the City Council such resolution or other
Respectfully sub~jt ted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager"
adopted.
STADIUM: The City Manager submitted the following report recommending
ithat Title R~ Chapter 4, Sections I and 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
stadium, and athletic fields be amended to provide that each lessee shall provide
to each activity for performance, advising that this will not only assure that the
!,
~promoter is going to be able to provide such assurances but it will permit proper
'!cations, lighting and cleaning of facilities, etc.:
"Roanoke, Virginia
September 27, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke,Virginia
137
~.38 .
Gentlemen:
Title 6, Chapter 4 of the Roanoke City Code, which deals
with the opera*Jan and maintenance of the municipal stadium
and athletic fields, specifies under Sections I and 2,
facilities shall place with the City Clerk at least 24 hours.prior
to the time of the first scheduled activity a cash bond or
bond with corporate surety and a certificate*shaming the
necesaaryiusuracce to protect the City during the activity
scheduled ct this facility.. ~ '..
Experience has shown that the 24-hour period as outlined
in Sections I and 2 is not adequate, Aa a result, on several
instances, it has been necessary to deny usage of this facility
to promoters who have failed to provide either the performance
bond Or the insurance in adequate time.
It would appear advisable that City Council amend Section
1. Performance Bond, and Section 2. Insurance, of Chapter 4.
Title B, to require each lessee to provide a performance bond
and insurance or notice of insurance at least 72 hours prior
to each activity for performance.* Not only would this assure
that the promoter is going to be able to provide such assurances
but it will permit proper scheduling of City forces who are
required to assist in such matters as communications*, lighting,
cleaning of facilities, et cetera.
The City Attorney bas prepared for City Couccil*s consi-
deration an ordinance revising Sections I and 2 cf Chapter 4,
Title 8, of the Code of the City of Roanoke so at to require
each lessee to provide a performance bond and insurance 72
hours prior to each activity or performance. It is felt that
this revision is needed to permit proper scheduling of these
facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Blrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
~r. Thsmas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iiManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lqB77) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Bec. I and Sec.
Chapter 4, Title VIII, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended,
relating to each lessee providicg a performance bond and insurance for each
:iactirity or performance at the Municipal Stadium and Athletic Field; and providing
!for an emergency.
!i (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 12.)
:i Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
,seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ................................. 7.
NAYS= None .......................O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the
if, Il,wing report Jn connection with Open Space Project No. YA. 05A028 which deals
!iwith East Gate Park, advising that in the initial grant the amount of $2,150'.B0
i~was provided for relocation payments, that subsequent relocation payments as a
!¥e~ult of the East Gate Park Project exceeded the initial grant amount to such
a point that mow $4,122o00 ia needed to make reatitetiom to the relldeatl who
were affected by thil project, that he hun been iuformed that the Oepartweut of
Eouafng and Urban Development has agreed to amend the contract grant amouut
to $4,122.00 to cover the expenses incurred and advising that the city has been
requested to acknowledoe acceptance of this revision not later than October 4,
1971:
"Roanoke. Virginia
September RY, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gent lea·n:
On January lg. 1968, the City of Roanohe entered into a
grant contract with the United States of America for an Open
Space Project No. Va OSA-Zfl which provided that the Federal
government would assist the City of Roanoke in carrying out
the open space project which deals with East Gate Parh. This
open space grant provides that the Federal government mill
match on a ~0-$0 basis the local funds expended on this
project except for relocation payments which are totally
reimbursed by the Federal government.
In the initial grant the amount of $2.1SO was provided
for relocation payments. Subsequent relocation payments as
a result of this East Gate Park project bare exceeded the
initial grant amount to such a point that now $4.122 is
needed to make restitution' to the residents who were affected
by this project.
By letter dated September O, 1971. the City Ranager*s
office has been informed that the Department of Nousin9 and
Urban Development have agreed to amend the contract grant
amount to $4,122 to cover the expenses incurred. The City
of this revision not later than October 4, 1971.
The City Attorney*s office has prepared a resolution
Respectfully submitted.
S! Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Rlrst
Mr. Llsh moved that Council concur in the report of the City
Malinger and offered the following Resolution:
(m19878) A RESOLUTION approving an amendment'of a certain Grunt
~Contract with the United Stutes of America for Open Spuc· Project No. Vu OSA-20
DL dated*January 19, 1968; and uuthorizing and providtn9 for the Ctty*s execution
to the City from $2,150.00 to $4,1~2.00.
(For full text Of Resolution, see Resolution Roo'k No. 36, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption'of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. ~arland~ Link. T~ylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..................... ~ ............ 7.
~AYS: P~one .................. O.
GARBAGE REROVAL-CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a written
~,report concurring In the following report of a committee recommending that the
139
140.
bid or the Sanco Corporation for seven refuse packers and the bid or International
Harvester Company for seven cabs and chassis be accepted, and that an additional
$4,263.69 be appropriated to provide sufficient rands rot this purchase;
'September 27, 1911
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
Bids have been received and opened before the committee chose
manes appear below for seven (1) refuse collection vehicles to
replace old existing equipment. Bids were solicited in two
(2) parts, for the packer bodies and the truck cab and chassis.
Reference the attached tabulation Xl rot the packer units.
Several of the bidders submitted alternates for the City's
consideration which did not Beet our specifications. The
two (2) most important features or this equipment pertain
to the carrying capacity, and thus the ability to handle
refuse without unnecessary trips to the landfill for unloading.
We specified a minimum two (2) cubic yard hopper, and a minimum
qO0 pounds per cubic yard of compacted refuse in the packer
unit. The lowest bid meeting these specifications is Sanco,
Corporation or Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Also, reference the attached tabulation ~2 for the truck cab
and chassis. The low bid submitted by International Harvester
Company complies fully with the City's specifications. To this
bid there must be added to cost for freight to deliver the trucks
to the packer supplier by mounting. In the case of the apparent
low bid ua the packers, Sanco, Corporation, this freight will be
$92fl.69.
The total sum involved in order to purchase these seven (1) units,
completely assembled and delivered to Roanoke, will be
The current budget originally included $135,000 for refuse
collection equipment, however, $3,000 was recently transferred
based on then estimated costs. It is recommended that the bids
be accepted from Sunco, Corporation for seven (1) refuse packers,
and from International Harvester Company for seven (?) cabs and
chassis. This will require an appropriation of $4,253.59.
RECOMMENDED: S/ Byron E. Hamer S/ William F. Clark
Byron E. Hamer William F. Clark
Assistant City Manager Director of Public Works
S/ B. B. Thompson
Bustard a. Thompson
Purchasing Agent*
In this connection, the Assistant City Manager advised that $1,253.59
will be needed instead of $4,255.59 in order to provide additional funds for the
:purchase of this equipment.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation or the City
:!Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $7,253.59
to Vehicular Equipment - Replacement under?action ~Sq, "Refuse Collection and
Disposal," of the 1911-12 budget:
(~lgB19) A~ ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #69, "Refuse
Collection and Disposal," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 15.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ...... ~ ..................... ?. .'
NAYS':i' None ...... ~--~ ........ O.
Mr. Wheeler offered the folloming emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of the Ramco Corporation for furnishing and delivering seven refuse
ipscker bodies, rot the gross price of $55,335,00:
(elgOOO) AN ORDINANCE providing for the sale to the City of seven (7)
refuse packer bodies to be mounted by said supplier on seven (?) nee trucks to
be furnished by another supplier, for use by the Department of Public Works, by
accepting a certain proposal made therefor; rejecting certain other bids made to
the City for furnishing said equipment: and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Hook No. 36. page 16.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption bf the Ordinance. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: messrs. Garland. Link. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and
Mayor Webber .................. ~ ....... ~-7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
Mr. Link then offered the 'following emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of Io~ernational Harvester Company for furnishing seven new trucks for a
net purchase price of $84,92§.69, cash:
(nlgOOl) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City*s. purchase of seven (T)
trucks with cabs and chassis for use by the Department of Public Works by
accepting a certain proposal made therefor; rejecting certain other bids Made to
the City for furnishing said equipment; end providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 17.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ..................
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a written report concurring
in the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal o f
Finley and Associates of Virginia, Incorporated. for a tandem roller to be used
by the Department of Public Worhs, in the amount of $9,277.30, be accepted:
*September 28. 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Friday. S~ptember 10. bids were received and Opened before
the committee whose names appear below for a tandem roller to
be used in street repair by the Department of Public Works.
As shown on the attached tabulation, the low bid was submitted
by A. E. Finley and Associates of Virginia. Inc., Salem.
141
1-42
The proposal of the Finley firm conforms with tAe City*s
specifications.and is within the amount of fonds bugetted
for this equipment. It is recommended that. a contract be
Bmarded to AB E. Finley and Associates of Virginia, Ine,o In
the amount n! $9,2?7,30, and all.other bids be.reJected.
RECOMHENDED: Sl Byron E. Hamer . ..
Byron E. Boner
Assistant City #manger
S/ William F.' Clark
Mllliam F. Clark
Director of Public Work~
S/ n. B. Thompson ~
Dueford D. Thompson
Purchasing Agent"
Hr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
'City Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(n19882) A~ ORDINANCE authorizing the purchase of one hem tandem
! street roller for use in street repair by the Department of Public Moths, upon
:certain terns and prorisJons, by accepting the bid made to the City by A. E.
Finley & Associates of Virginia. Inc.; rejecting certain other bids; and providin9
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 36, page ltl.)
Mr. I~heeler moved the adoption of the. Ordinance. .The notion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Carland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ........... ~ ................ 7.
NAYS: None ..................O.
SEI~ERS AND STORM DRAINS-CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a
written report concurring in the following report of a committee recommending
that the proposal of Cory Hall Rachtnery Company. Incorporated. for a hydraulic
sewer cleaner to be used in conjunction with sanitary sewer maintenance
activities by the Department of Public Morks. in the amount of $15,962.22,
be accepted:
"September 27, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Wednesdgy,.$ep~emher fl, bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for a hydrallc sewer
cleaner to be used in conjunction with sanitary sewer maintenance
activities by the Department of Public Works. As shown on the
attached tabulation, the low bid was submitted by Cory Hall
Machinery Co.. Inc.. of Richmond.
Your committee has reviewed the several proposals submitted and
finds the low bid to be in conformity with the City*s specifications.
Funds are available within account u67-365, Sewer Maintenance -
New Vehicular Equipment. for this purchase.
It is recommended that the City accept the bid from Cory Hall
Machinery,Co.. Inc.. in the amount of $15,962.22.
RECOMMENDED= S/ Byron £. Hamer
Uyron E. Boner
Assistant City Manager
$/'Mllliam F;:Clark
Millium F. Clark
Director of Public Worhs
S! H. B. Thompson
mumford n. Thompson
Purchasing Agent*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~lgflR3) ~J~ ORDIHAHCE providing for the purchase and acquisition of a
hydraulic seuer cleaner for use in the repair of the interior of sanitary sewer
lines, upon certain terms and conditions; rejecting certain bids made for the
supply of said equipment; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Hop 36, page 19.)
Mr. Trout mated the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ................ ~ ........... 7,
HAYS: Hone ..................
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITY E~GINEER: The City Manager submitted a mritten
report concurring in the following report of a committee recommending that tho
proposal of A. E. Finley C Associates of Vlrginlo, Incorporated, for a motorized
sweeper to be used by the Sanitation Division oF the Department of Public
Works, in the amount of $19,555.72, be accepted:
"September 27, 1971
To the City Council'
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Friday. September 10, bids were received and opened before
to be used by the Sanitation Division of the Department of Public
Works. Proposals were submitted by A. E. Finley C Associates
of Virginia, lac., of Salem and Shaffer Equipment C Supply
Company, Inc., of Richmond. As shomn on the attached tabulation,
the proposal by Finley, bidding on a Mobil sweeper, is the lower
of the bids received.
The basic unit bid by Finley is in general conformity with the
City's specifications. From the standpoint of maintenance costs
it is considered appropriate to suggest acceptance of the alter-
in clutch replacements will offset the initial added cost.
Additionally, equipping the unit with air conditioning will increase
and unpleasant assignments, and this relatively small additional
expenditure can make the job more attractive and lead tolmproved
operator'mor~le and performance.
143
1;44
The entire bid, including both options, is within the funds
budgeted for' this equipment. · It is recommended that n contract
be amerded to A. E. Finley ~ Associates of Virginia, Inc., in
the amount of $19,555.72,
RECOWWENDED~ S/ Byron E. Hnner
Byron E. Bauer
Assistant City Manager*
S/ William F. Clark
William F, Clark
Director of Public Works
S/ B. B. Thompson
Ruer, rd B. Thompson
Purchasing Agent#
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
IUnnager and offered the following eeeroeney Ordinance:
(nlgflB4) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of one (1) new
4-wheel. dual control, street sweeper for use by the City*s Department of
Public Works upon certain terms and conditions; accepting a certain bid made to
tbe City for furnishing and delivering said equipment; rejecting another bid
made to tbe City; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 20.)
Mr. Trout moved tbe adoption of the Ordinance. 'The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by tbe following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................
NAYS: None-'- ....... ~ ........ O.
CITY ENGINEER: The Citl Manager submitted a written report concurring
in the following report of a committee r~commending that the proposal of
;Baker Brothers for a tractor with backhoe and front' end loader to replace an
old unit used in sanitary sewer and storm drain activities by the Department of
Public Works, in the amount of $13,4fl0.00, be accepted:
'September 27, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Friday, September 10. bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for a tractor with
backhoe and front end loader to replace an old unit used in
sanitary sewer and storm drain activities by the Department
of Public Works. Reference the attached tabulation showing
the six (6) bids received for this equipment.
The apparent low bid does not comply with the City;s
specifications in two important aspects'. The required
capaiity Of the front loader bucket is 1~ cubic yards,
mh~le the low bid is for only 14 cubic yards. Also the
required digging depth for the backhoe is 16 feet, uhile
the low bid has a standard rated depth of only 15 feet, Both
of these features affect the work performance of the equip-
ment. The second low bid is in complete compliance with the
City's specifications and the cost differential is very
minimal.
It la recommended that the bid of Boher Brothers be accepted
in the amount of $13,480, which Is within the budgeted funds
available for this equipment. '
RECOMMEND£O: S/ Byron E, Barter
Byron E. Hamer
Assistant City Manager
S/ William F, Clarh
'Director of Public Works
S! 8. B. Thompson
noeford U. Thompson
Purchasing Agent"
Dr. Tuylo~ moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(Ulgf185) AN OMOINANCK providing for the City's purchase of a new
tractor with backhoe and front end loader for use by the Department of Public
Works, by accepting a certain proposal of Baker Brothers, lac., made therefor;
rejecting certain other bids made to the City for furnishing such machine; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 36, page 21.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lfsk and adopted by the folio=Jug vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................
~A¥S: None .................. O.
WATER DEPARTMENT: The City'ManageF submitted a written report concur-
ring in the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of
Stetsco Service Company for Cleaning and painting the interior and exterior of
the Grandin Court No. I Mater Storage Tahk. in the amount of $6.1B1.00, be
accepted:
*September 21, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke
~lrginia
Gentlemen:
Hids were received in the office of*the Purchasing Agent
until 11:00 a.mo, September !0, 1971 and,publicly opened by the
undersigned committee for cleaning and painting the interior
nod exterior Of Grandam Court Number 1 Mater Storage Tank.
As Shown on the attached tabulation, four bids were received.
with Stetsco Service Company being low at a lump sum price of
$6,IOI.O0. Also, unit prices were quoted for repairs to the
tank. if needed and authorized. The low bidder did not quote
on these unit prices, but by a letter of explanation, explained
that any necessary repairs would be included in the bid price.
This letter of explanation mas at the request of the Committee.
Such additional repair work. if any, should amount to less than
$100.00. It was also noted that one bidder, L. R. Brown. Sr.
Paint Company had written in long hand on the outside of the en-
velope containing his bid *add to Base Bid $475.00', thereby
making his bid $6,970.00.
1'45
Stetseo Service Company has performed work for the City in the
past in a satisfactory manner. The sum bf $6,500.00 is provided
for in the budget for this mork.' It is the recommendation of this
Committee that the low bid be accepted. :
Respectfully submitted.
COMMITTEE S/ Byrop E, Hamer
'Byron E. Hamer
Sf Eli O,..Eiser
Kit B. Kiser
S~ 81Bt Thompson
Bueford B. Thompson~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur In the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the f, Il,ming emergency Ordinance:
(~19886) Mi ORDINANCE awarding a contract for cleaning, paintin9
iland related minor repair work of the interior amd exterior of a certain 250,000
iigallon elevated water tank belonging to the City; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Webber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None .......................O.
REPORTS OF COMMII'~EES:
SALE OF PROPERTY: The Real Estate Committee submitted the f, Il,win9
report recommending the city's sale. at public auction, of numerous lots and
parcels of land omned by the City of R,an,Re and held as surplus property and
for which no public use or purpose is foreseen:
'September 27, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
ROanoke, Virohia
Oentlemen:
EOF some time the Council's Real Estate Committee has had
under consideration the advisability and the means and
methods of the City*s~disposal. should the Couccil see.fit.
of numerous lots and parcels of land which-are at present
owned by the City but for which the City has no foreseeable
future public use or purpose. After much consideration and
screening a list of some 105 odd parcels of land, some of
which are adjoining lots or parcels, bas been dereloped which,
in the opinion of the uudersigned Committee, should be dis-
posed of by the City by sale and conveyance.
Other lots or parcels of land owned by the City which presently
are not impressed with public use are not included among the
· 105 odd lots aborementioned for the reason that the Committee
considers the same should be held by the City because of the
possibility of some futurepublic use.
In the screening process a list of all properties owned by the
City bas been'submitted to the Planning Department and to the
heads of other City departments so that*no property mould be
recommended to be disposed of by the City should such lot be
thought to be of any future foreseeable public use. The list of
the 105 odd properties accompanying this report are those which
those departments and the undersigned Committee consider should
be now sold and disposed of by the City to the general public.
The Committee considers that sale at public ouctionv after due
and proper advertisement, is the best' method by which to dispose
of sold properii~s, sale to be made to the highest bidder, for
cash. but with the right reserved rot Council to reJectsny or
all bids made for uny or all or the respective properties,
Recuuse or the number or properties involved, conceivably, more
then one auction sale might be advertised and conducted, It
mould be proposed that the City, la making each such sale and
conveyance, extend to the purchaser the same warranty and cov-
enants of title as those obtained by the City upon its acquisition
of the respective properties.
In advertising and conducting the auction sale. it would be
contemplated that each sale and offer of conveyance be made
subJect to the confirmation or the Council of the City*s
acceptance of the highest bid made at such sale, for each
particular property. There is transmitted with this report
an ordinance by uhich the Council would authorize that the
aforesaid lots be offered for sale at public auction or auctions
arranged by the Real Estate Committee end afte~ due advertisement
or publication, and authorizing the Committee, in any or all
cases, to fix a minimum sale price for any one or more of said
properties. The undersigned Committee respectfully recommends
the Counctl°s affirmative action on the proposed ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMITTEE:
S/ David K. LJsk
David K. Llsk, Chairman
S/ Julian F. Hit st
Julian F. Hirst
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S! James N. Kincanon
James N. Ktncanon"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the Real Estate
Committee and offered the following Resolution authorizing and empowering the
Real Estate Committee to arrange for the offering by the City of Roanoke for
sale at public auction to the highest bidder for cash each Of those certain one
hundred five odd lots or parcels of land now owned by the clt~ but which ore not
nam used or needed to be held for future use by the city for any public purpose,
under certain terms and provisions:
(~lg6RY) A RESOLUTION authorizing the Council*s Real Estate Committee
to arrange for the City*s offering for sale ut public auction of certain lots and
parcels of land owned by the City but not needed forany public purpose or use,
under certain terns and provisions and after due advertising of the sale of said
properties.
(For full text Of Resolution, see Resolution Rook No. 36, page 23.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
~by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas,' Trout, Wheeler and
ilMayor Webber ............................ 7.
.NAYS: None .................. O.
147
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Ordinance No. 19846, amending Chapter 1, Police
Forces, of Title' Il, Police Force, and Courts, of The Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, OS amended, by the addition of a new ~ection t~ be designated ns
Sec. 1.1. Residency requirement to provide 'tha't all commissioned police personnel
employed On a permanent s'tatua ~n ~he Police Department shall reside within u
radius distance of six milesme'aSured from the Municipal Building of the City of
IRoanoke. havi~g previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
,!laid over, was again before th~ body~
!i In ~hls eo~nection'. M~.. ....y S. Lutins, Att ....y. app
d
before
Council and presented a communication from Mr. Frank L. Peters. President.
iiOld Dominion Lo,ge al. Prater.nmi Order of Police. advising that at a regular
i]meeting of the Fraternal Order of Police it was unanimously voted to let it he
known that the Fraternal Order of Police is strongly opposed to the Ordinance
[
i!presented by the City Rsuager restricting the residency Of the members of the
:Police Department to a six mile radius from the Municipal B~ildiug and that they
see this limitation as unjust and unconstitutional.
Mr, Lutins verbally advised Council that the Fraternal Order of Police
idoes not want any residency restrictions placed upon members of the Police
:Department.
Various members of Council bein9 of the same opinion, Mr. Garland
:moved that there be no residency restrictions placed upon members of the
ilPolice Department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout.
Mr. Thomas offered a substitute motion that the communication from the
!iFraternal Order of Police and the proposed Ordinance be referred back to the City
!!Manager for the purpose of conferring with Mr. M. David Dooper. Superintendent
of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police with further report to be made to
i!CounciloThe motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
I! ZONI~G: Ordinance No. 19853, rezoning the block bounded on the north
iiby Franklin Road, on the east by Second Street. on the south by Day Avenue and
i!on the west by Third Street. S. M., from the present C-4, Central Business
ilDistrict Expansion Area, to C-3, Central Business District. having previously
i!been before Council for its first readiuo, read and laid over. was again before
lithe body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following for its second reading and final
!!adoption:
(n190§3) AN ORDINANC£ to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1955. as amended, andSheet No. 101, Sectional 1965
Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to ~oning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. ~5. page 1.)
Hr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the ~rdJjance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essrs, Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
#lyor Nebber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 198S4, vacating, discon.tinuing
and closing that portion of 2Sth Street, S. Wu, lying between the westerly aide
or Carolina Avenue, S. M** and the easterly side of a 12 foot alley running
through the center of Blocks 28 and 29, Map of Crystal Springs, baying previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
the body, NFo Wheeler offering the f, Il,ulna for its second reading and final
adoption:
(~lq§s4) AN ORDINANCE permanently abandoning, vacating, discontinuing
and closing a portion of 2Stb Street, S. W., in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
as shown on Map of Crystal Springs, a copy of mhich map may be found in the office
of the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and being also shown on
Sheet Nos. IO5 and 106 of the Tax Appraisal Map of said City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 2.)
Nr. Wheeler moved the udoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and
Mayor Webber ............................ T.
NAYS: None .................. O.
In this connection, Council baying previously referred the question of
vacating, discontinuing and closing that portion of 2Sth Street. S.' W.. lying
between the easterly side of Wycliffe Avenue and the westerly side of a 12-foot
alley running through the centers of ,locks 28 and 29 to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measures, the City Attorney submitted a verbal report
advising that he bas contacted the attorney who represents the two property
owners whose property abuts 25th Street, S. W., that one of the property
owners is opposed to closing the remaining portion of 2Stb Street and the other
property owner is not opposed to closing the remaining portion of the street
but does not want to initiate the necessary proceedings and requesting guidance
from Council as to whether i't is their wish to pursue the matter any further.
Mr. Thomas moved that that portion of 2Sth Street, S. N.. lying
iibetween the easterly side of Mycllffe Avenue and the westerly side of a 12-foot
il alley running through the centers of Blocks 28 and 29 remain open. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19855, rezoning Lots 18, lg and 20, Section 2,
Map of West Park and Lots I and 2, Block 20. Map of Mashington Heights, from
C-2, General Commercial District, to C-l, Office and Institutional District,
,having previously been before Council for its firstreading, read and laid over,
I, was again before the body.
149
.50
In this connection, Hr, Joseph E. Hsrris, 4115 Virginia Avenue,
N. M., eppenred before Council in opposition to the request for rea*ming nad
ndrised thst residents in the area mere not notified by the City Plhnning
Commission of n hearing before the Planning Commission in connection with the
matter.
Mr. Lothar #ermelstelo. Planning Director, advised that to the best of
his knowledge notices were sent to the property owners who would be affected
by the proposed rea*ming.
It appearing that certain affected property omnern 'In the area had
!not been properly notified bythe City Planning Commission of a hearing before the
ilPlanning Commission in connection with the requested rezoning. Mr. Trout moved
that the matter be referred back to the City Planning Commission for further
ilstudyo report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
ilGarland.
Nv. C. Richard Cranwell, Attorney, representing the petitioners,
appeared before Council in support of the request for rezoning and ndvised that
he complied math the law in that he furnished his list of nffecte+d property
owners to. tho Offico of the City Clork for thoir transmittal to the City Planning
Commission.
In · discussion of the matter, the City Attorney advised that the only
statutory requirement for notification is the notice of n public hearing before
City Council which is published in a daily newspaper by the City Clerk at least
15 days before raid public hearing, that legally the petitioner met the require-
i!ments of the law and sugpestin9 that the residents mbo are opposed to this rezon-
iing express their opposition to themembers of Council and that Council determine
whether the property should be rezoned on its own merits.
Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council Section 62, Subsection
i!(5) of the City Chartek which provides that zonin9 regulations, restrictions and
iboundaries may from time t5 time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or
i!repealed, however, in case of a protest against such change signed by the owner~
iof twenty per centum Or more oithor of the aroa of the lots includod in ouch
ipvoposed chango, or of those immodiately adjacont in the rear theroof, or of those
idirectly opposite'thereto, such amendment shall not become effective except
by the favorable vote'of five-sevenths of all ~he members of Council, Mayor Mebber
!ipointing out that in viesof Section 62, Subsection (5) of the City Charter,
i!this rezoning matter should be referred to the City Attorney for investigation
,i,Jand report to C6uncil.
Mr. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney
to determlneif twenty per cent of the affected property omners in the area are
9pposed to the rezoning, and if so, the number of votes requ'tred for adoption
iof Ordinance No. 19855 on its second reading. The motion was seconded by Mr.
rutland and unanimously adopted.
SPECIAL PEMMITS-~IGNS: Ordinance No. 19863, permitting naencrosch-
sent of not sore than four feet of a marquee over and into the south right of
way on Church Avenue, for a distance of approximately 26 feet, said marquee
~Ito be erected on the north side of n building located on official Tax No.
~ii 1012307. upon certain terns and conditions, having previously been before
'Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mas again before the body. Nr.
ilNheeler offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19863) AN ORDINANCE permitting an encroachment of not more than
four feet of a marquee over and into the south right-of-waf on Church Avenue.
for a distance of approximately twenty-six feet, said marquee to be erected on
the north side of a building located on Official No. 10~230Y, upon certain terms
'and conditions.
{For full tent of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 26, page
Mr. Rheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Link. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................ ?.
NAYS: None ..................O.
ZONING: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure authorizing the issuance of a permit to authorize continuance of
non-conforming use of premises located at 2707 Richelieu Avenue, S. W., Official
Tax No. 1062313, he presented some; whereupon, Mr. Wheeler offered the following
Besolutlon:
(~19000) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of a permit to
authorize continuance of nonconforming use of premises located at 2707 Richelieu
Avenue, S. W., Official Tax Mo. 1062313.
(For full text of Resolution, see Besolution Boor No. 36, page 25.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Besolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LisR, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................ 7.
MAYS: Mona ..................
BUDgET-PAY PLAM-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper neasure appropriating $02,220.00 to Personal
i!Servtces and $200.00 to Yravel Expense under Section g72, "Public Employment
?rogram,* of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds in connection with the
participation by the City of Noanoke in the Federal Emergency Employment Act
of 1971, Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19889) ~ ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section g72, "Public
'Employment Program.' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for
:an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boor No. 35, page 25.)
151
Rt. Llsh moved the adoption or the Ordinance. The motion wes seconded
by Dr. Taylor cod nd,pied by the fo~lomin9 vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Th,mss. Trout. Wheeler cad
Mayor Rebber--. ......................... 7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
SEWERS AND STORR DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney
to'prepare the proper measure accepting the proposal of Cues. Incorporated. for
furnishing In-Line Television Inspection and Repair Equipment for use In the
inspection and repair of the interior of sanitary sewer and storm drain lines.
for the sum of $2S.350.00. cash. he presented same; mhereupon. #r. Llsk offered
the following emergency Ordinance:
(alga90) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase and acquisition of
In-Line Television inspection and repair equipment for use in the inspection and
ilrepair of'the interlo~ of sanitary semer and storm drain lines, upon certain terms
and conditions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Bock No. 36,
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
..by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and
llMayor Nebber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None .................. O.
MoTIonS ~D MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: Mr. Garland moved that the City Attorney be instructed to
prepare the proper measure expressing regret On the passing of Day L. Gearhart,
former Town Manager of ViaCom, Virginia. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEI~EMENT-SCHOOLS: Dr. Taylor read the following
communication recommending that Council publicly commend the R,an,he City School
Board, the Roanoke City School Administration, the faculties, the parents
and the students for the smooth and efficient manner in which the Roanoke City
Public Schools were opened and for ih, quality of education which is being provided
children in the City Of Roanoke:
"September 23. 1971
The Honorabl.e Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Schools across the City of Roanoke quietly opened for the
Fall term despite grumblings and a rem isolated incidents of
defiance over busing. Naturally, all of us are concerned about
forced busing and all parents prefer sending their children to
neighborhood schools. B,waver, me must consider the importance
Of nhat happens at the end of the bus ride.
After 17 torturous years, the City of Soanoke has completely
desegregated its formally segregated schools. After more than a
decade and a half of legal struggles, the leu seemed unmistakably
clear and finally through the heroic efforts of our School Board,
School.Administration, faculties, parents and students we have u
fu!ly integrated school system and every child will hare the
opportunity to obtain a first class education which is the key
for final liberation and upward racial mobility.
During a recent survey I discovered that Black and White
Citizens are haviug more contact across racial lines and a larger
percentage of Nhites are more accepting of Blacks as u result of
additional communication and dialogue. They tell of encounters
with each other that have come about as · direct result of school
integration.
Ail of us can easily argue.about the cost of integration and
equality in our schools today. However, many of us have known
through painful experience the cost of inequality which resulted
in frustration, wasted talents and poverty stacked upon poverty.
I can personally say thanh God for the generosity, concern and
haman understanding which allowed us to transcend in our day the
dismal history of racial inequality. All of us share a mutual
concern and are opposed to massive busing but let us, also, be
mindful that what is 6r greatest importance is the education that
awaits the child, especially the minority child, for he is now
exposed to the same quality of institutions, facilities, equipment
and materials us other students.
Gentlemen, I firmly believe that the smooth and efficient
manner in which our schools have been completely integrated and
opened for the lq71-72 session merits a special expression of
appreciation and commendation from the Roanoke City Council.
I, therefore, recommend that we use this session to express
our deep gratitude and thanks to the Roanohe City School Board,
our School Administration. the faculties, parents and students
for their spirit of cooperation and understanding that may well
qualify our School System to be known as the Star School System
of the South.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the communication. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business. #ayor Webber declared the meeting
adJourned.
APPROVED
~ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
153
:%54
COUNGIL, REGULAR MEETING
Monday, October 4, 1971.
The Council or the City of Roanoke met in regular ueetlug in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Ruilding, Ronday, October 4, 1971, et 2 p,m** the
regular meeting hour. with Mayor Webber presidJngo
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Llsh, Noel C. Taylor,
Nanpton #. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent
Webber ................................
ABSENT: None ............... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Rlrst, City Manager,
Honer, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kineanon, City Attorney; and Mr,
J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend J. A.
Allison. Pastor, Raleigh COurt Presbyterian Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
September 20, 1971, having be~n furnished each uember of Council, on motion of
Rt. Thomas. seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof
was dispensed with and the Minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
AIRPORT: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids on painting at
Roanoke Municipal (Koodrum) .Airport, said proposals to be received by the City
Clerk until 2 p.m., Monday, October 4, 1971, and to be opened at that hour
before Council, Mayor Webber asked if anyone had any questions about the advertise~
meat and no representative present raising any question, the Mayor instructed the
City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids; whereupon, the City Clerk
opened and read the following bids:
Name Covered Walkway Terminal Bldq. Total Alternate
L. R. Brown, St,
Paint Company $1,250.00 $2,750.OO $4,000.00 $3.71 0.00
Hundley Painting G
Decorating, Inc. 2,970,00 1,B27.00 4,797.00 4,547.00
Mr. Trout moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appointedll
by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure, or measures in accordance with the
recommendation of the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
Mayer Webber appointed Messrs. Byron E. Honer, Chairman, Marshall L.
Harris, and Samuel H. McGhee, III, as members of the committee.
~ERERS AND ~ORM DRAINS: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids
on the construction of an interceptor sanitary sewer replac~eat on Campbell
Avenue, S. E.. said proposals to be received by the City Clerk until 2 p.m..
Monday, October 4, 1971, end to be opened nt thut hour before Council, Mayor
Webber asked'if anyone hud uny questions about the advertisement.
In this connection, Mr. E. C. Pac~, Jr,, representing Modulus ~ Pace
stated thnt there wes n possibility his firm bid on vitrified cloy pipe when it
meant to bid on concrete pipe and requeste~ that its bid be considered on the
basis of concrete pipe.
Mr. Trout moved that the opening of the bids be delayed until the City
Attorney and the City Engineer could study the advertisement and the specifications'!
for the project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Later during the meeting the City Attorney and the City Engineer reported
that advertisement and specifications for the project are written in such a way
that eltber yitrJfJed c]ay pipe or concrete pipe can be used and that ft is now
in order to proceed mith the opening of the bids; whereupon, the Mayor instructed
the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids:
The City .Clerk opened and read the followin9 bids:
Hudgins and Pace - $108,605.00
Aaron J. Conner General
Contractor, Inc. - 115,204.B2
Branch ~ Associates, Inc. - 138,918.00
Miley N. Jackson Company . 148,335.00
Mr. Link moved that the bids be referred to n committee to be appointed
by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure in accordance with the recommendation of
the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman, Million F.
Clark and Samuel H. McGhee. III, as members of the committee,
Upon request of the City Attorney, Mr. Trout moved that the records shun
that the City Attorney and the City Engineer did not consult with any of the
bidders in reaching their conclusion. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor.
and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A commuoication from the Roanoke City School Board,
:requestin9 a transfer of certain funds totaling $33,182.00 within the budget
iai the Roanoke City School Board, advising that said transfers have been
,approved by Title I authorities and will continue to be 100 per cent reimbursed
ifrom Title I, p. L. 89-10 funds, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
i!School Board and offered the followio9 emergency Ordinance:
(nlgOgll AId ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~68000, *Schools -
~Project Second Step," and Section nylO00, "Schools - Tonic for Learning," of the
!11971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 27.)
155
" 56
Mr. Thomcs moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion won seconded
by Dr. Taylor and.adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Mestra. Garland,- List, Taylor,- Tbomaso Trout, Wheeler
Mayor Webber ................ ~ ......... ?.
NAYS: None ................. O.
SENERS AND 5TORN DRAINS: Copy of n communication 'from Hr. Lee B. Eddy,
CtaJrmam of tho ~aannke County Board of Supervisors, informing Council of
laction taten by the Board of Supervisors to prevent the entrance of storm waters
to sanitary sewer'lines'through areaway drains end respectfully requesting that
Council give consideration to this matter at their earliest convenience, was
before the body.'
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion wassecoaded by Mr. LJsk and unanimously'adopted.
COMPLAINTS: A communication fram Mrs. Juonita Lynch, transmitting a
i~complaint of residents in the 900 block of Fnirfax Avenue, N. Wo,'that said
~iblock is being tatum over by rats and requesting that something be done to
i~correct the situation, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
!ilar investigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
i and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COHMONNEALTH*S ATTORNEY: Copy of a communi-
!icationfrom the State Compensation Board. addressed to Mr. Richard L. Lawrence,
iladvising that the state*s part Of claim for frames, mats and glasses in the
!itotal amount Of $15.98 has been disallowed since the state does not share in the
i!cost of such expenses and that the remainder Of the voucher has been approved for
ilpayment was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
i!motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE CORPE~SATIO~ BOARO-CLERK OF THE COURTS: A communication from
the State Compensation Board addressed to the City Manager enclosing a statement
I! of
ii receipts and expenses for the calendar year 1969 of the Clerk of the Hustings
:iCourt. Law and Chancery Court and Circuit Court. advising that the Code of
JlVirginia requires that this statement be published in one Or more daily newspapers
having general circulation in the City of Roanoke, to be selected by the auditor
ilar comptroller of the city, the cost of publishing to be borne by the City of
City Auditor for proper pnblication. The motion was seconded by Mr. List and
DEPARTMENT OF~PUOLIC WELFA'RE: A c~mmunication 'from Mr. Cecil Simmons.
complaining of the small amount of money he receives aa a recipient Of public
welfare compared to the cost of living today, mss before Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the comaunlcntJon be received and filed. The
motion mss seconded by Mr. Trout and unsn~mousl! adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr.' Michael K. Smeltzer, Attorney, repre-
, seating Woody Distributors, Incorporated, requesting that 2.209 acres of land
located on the south side of Rockland Avenue. N. M., be rezoned from ID#,
Industrial Development District. to L#. Light Manufacturing District. was before
Council.
In this coneectl6n, a commun~ ation from Mr. Smeltzer requesting per-
mission to withdraw the request for rezoning, was also before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request for permission to
withdraw the request for rezoning. The motion mas seconde~ by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. M. D. Prelim, Attorney. representing
Fralin ~ Waldron, Incorporated. requesting that a 13.33 acre parcel of land
]ocoted on the north aide of Salem Turnpike, adjoining FatrvJew Cemetery
Company, Incorporated, being a part of Official Tax No. 2650105, be rezoned from
RD. Duplex Residential District, to EG-I, General Residential District. was
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission fo~ ~study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Rt. John W. Boswell, Rental Agent for
Colonial American National Bank, Executor u/w of E. A. Thurman. requesting a
certificate of non-conforming occupancy for rooming house purposes for property
located at II2-A East Campbell Avenue. described as Lots gO, 9g, lO0 and 101,
Roanoke Land and Improvement Company Map. ~fficial Tax Nos. 4010501. 4010502
and 4010503, was before' Council.
Or~ Taylor moved that the communication be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PURLIC ~ELFARE: Council having deferred action on
a report of the City Manager transmitting copy of the budget, us approved by
the State Oepar~ eat of Welfare and institutions, for the City of Roanoke Depart-
meat of Public Welfare for the fiscal year 1971-72 until official written
notification is received from the State Department of Welfare and Institutions
in con~ection with additional funds which may be forthcoming in the General
Relief category, the City Manager submitted a mritten report advising that Miss
Bernice F. Jones, Director of Public Welfare, has received notification from the
157
State Department of Welfare end Institutions that the funds for General Relief
have been increased by $140,980,00 and that nt the present tine the approved
adjusted budget allotment for General Relief is $22s.ooo.oo.
Mr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the report or the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance revising Section n37, "Public
Assistance°# nf the 1971-72 budget to provide that $22s,5oo.oo be appropriated
its the General Relief category:
(nlgRg2) ANOROINANCE to amend and reordaJn Section a37. 'Public
Assistance°" of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
i!energency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 28.)
NF. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trou~ and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressr$. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Rebber .... ~ .......................... ?.
NAYS: Noae ...................... O.
BUllET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $100.00 be transferred from Operating Supplies and
Materials to Travel Expense under Section ~75, *Recreation, Parks and Recreational
Areas," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to reimburse Mr. Roland Malone
mhd was in charge of the overall operation and maintenance of the previously
operated TAP swimming pools for performance of his duties which required him to
travel between the pools and make trips to and from pool equipment suppliers
to keep operating supplies on hand:
"Roonohe, Virginia
October 4, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
In June of this year City Council authorized the opening of
the:previously operated TAP swimming pools and appropriated npproxtmatelyll
$20.000 for the operation and maintenance of these pools during
the current summer. After receiving this authority the City was
fortunate enough to obtain the services of many of the same
personnel who hod operated the pool under the TAP supervision.
The individual selected to be in charge Of the overall operations
and maintenance of these pools, a Mr. Roland Malone was hired
and in performance of his duties he was required to travel
between the pools and to make trips to and from pool equipment
suppliers to keep operating supplies on band. Daring the per-
formance of these duties, Mr. Malone traveled 1,909 miles ia
his own private automobile and he has not been reimbursed for
the expenses incurred.
In periormance of this travel, it is customary to pay
employees 9 cents a mile for travel. As funds were not es-
tablished for this purpose, it would be recommended that City
Council authorize the transfer of $160 from the Paths and
Recreation Department Account 75. Operating Supplies and
Materials, Object Code 320. to Object Code 230, Travel Expense
and the Director of Parks and Recreation be authorized to pay
Mr. Malone for the expenses he incurred in traveling for the City.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Ranager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(nlgflg3) AN ORDINANCE to nmend aid reordnin Section aTS, *Recreation.
Parks and Recreational Areas," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 3&, page
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinaoce. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Rbeeler and
Mayor Webber ............................... ?.
NAYS: None ......................O.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDXNO-CAPI?AL IRPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a written report in connection with his
study of courthouse facilities both on a short and long range basis, advisin9
that it is his hope to present Council with a total report on the matter at the
earliest practical date.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUR-COLISEUR: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that commencingSeptember 30, 1971, and extending through October 6. lgTl.
there will have been a series of inspections Of the Civic Center project con-
$tltutlng a final inspection of the facility at the request of ~ello L. Tear
Company and that he will report to Council as to the situation following the
completion of this schedule.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a written report concurring
in the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of Smith-
Moore Body Company, Incorporated, for the Nell Model HFL-24 mounted on a Diamond
Rea Model CF65-64D cab and chassis, in the amount of $26,434.B2, be accepted:
"October 4. 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Wednesday, September 8, bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for a front loading refuse
compaction unit used in servicing bulk refuse containers through=
out the City. This will be the seventh such unit in the City*s
fleet. We now collect from more than 400 bulk containers each week,
and have many requests for additional service. This new unit will
enable us to accommodate a considerable number of these requests.
Asshosn on the attached tabulation, proposals were submitted by
four dealers, however, alternate bids were received from two of
these firms. .The low bid submitted by Smith-Moore Body Company
on' the Hell front loading unit complies with the City's
specifications. The dealer submitted three alternate proposals
for the cab and chassis, and the Diamond Rea machine is the lowest
meeting specifications. The total bid of $26.434.62 is within the
funds available in the present budget.
159
'160
The period betmeen opening of bids and this report to Coanotl Was
needed to investigate carefully the low bld proposal. Bell
Manufacturing Company is~an experienced end reputable firm in the
refuse equipment field, but the particular unit offered is
relatively new on the market. Several conte~ts mere mode with
persons or firms alrecdy using this equipment, Your committee
now feels sufficiently confident to recommendpurchase of this
equipment.
It is recommended that the City accept the bid from Smith-Moore;
· Body Company, lac** for the Hell model HFLo24 mounted on a
Diamond Hca model CF&S-64D cob end chassis.
RECORMENDED: S/ Byron K, Haner
Byron E. Haner
Assistant City Manager
S/ William F, Clark .....
Rilliam F. Clark
Director of Public Marks
S/ Bt B. Thompson
8ueford B. Thompson'
Mr. Wheeler moved that Councll concur in the recommendation Of the Cloy
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19894) AN ORDINANC£ providing for the purchase of one new front
loading refuse compaction unit upon certain terms aod conditions; accepting a
certain bid made to the City for furnishing and delivering said equipment;
rejecting Other bids made to the City; and providing for aa emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. S6, page
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded'
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber ............................... 7.
i NAYS: None ...................... O.
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a written report.concurring
in the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of Carter
Machinery Company, Incorporated, for a tandem motor grader used in street
ilmaintenance and,repair activities by the Department of Public Works. in the
[amount of $25,459.00. be accepted:
"October 4. 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Tuesday. September 28, bids were opened and read by 'the
committee whose names appear below for a tandem motor grader
used Jn str~t maintenance and repair activities by the Department
of Public Works. As shown by the art.ached tabulation, proposals
were SUbmitted by three local dealers of construction machinery.
The City specifications requested bids to include a guarantee on
maximum repair costs (7500 hours or 5 years, whichever comes first)
and a guaranteed .depreciation schedule over the first 5 years life
of the equipment. Thio latter figure insures that the dealer will
repurchase (not trade-in) the equipment at the specified sums
should the City for any reason decide that such was In its best
interes.t. These guarantees provide information by which there
con be made an evaluation of the total cost to the City for
operating the equipment over it*s first 5 years, rather than
having to consider initial purchase price only..This concept
is similar to that previously used mhen purchasing several landfill
units in previous years, and the City has been well satisfied.
The bid by A. R. Finley and Associates did not Include guarantees
on repair costs and equipment depreciation, therefore, your
committee does not feel that they'compiled with the specifications.
The other two bidders have complied, and the units proposed both
meet all requirements, Therefore, it is considered appropriate
to evaluate the proposals on the basis of lowest overall cost to
the City. For information the following comparable calculations
have been made:
Carter~ Smith
Net Purchase Price $25,459,00 $25,101.00
~ Guarantee Repair Expenses. ~ 2-947,00 '~ 6.750.00
$28.406.00 $31.851,00
- Guaranteed 5 yr. Repurchase Price ~1~,~432,00 ,-I?~S?O,O0
Overall Cost to City $12.974.00 $14.281.00
Thus it mould appear that for the additional expenditure of $356.00
the City will save $1,307.00 over the first five years use of this
equipment. Of some additional benefit is the nine day' earlier
delivery offered by Carter Machinery Company.
It is recommended that the City accept the proposal made by
Carter Machinery Company, Inc., of Salem in the amount of
$25.459.00.
RECOMMENDED: S/ Byron E. Ba~er
Byron E. Hamer
Assistant City Manager
S/ William F Clark
William F. Clark
Director of Public Works
S/ B. B. Thompson
Duel, rd R. Thompson
Purchasing Agent*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance;
(=19895) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City's purchase of a new
tandem motor grader for use by the Department of Public Works, by accepting a
certain proposal Of Carter Machinery Company, lac** of Salem. Virginia. made
therefor; rejecting certain other bids made to the City for furnishing such
machine; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 30.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and
iMayor Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................O.
CITY GOVERNMENT: The City Auditor submitted the following report
transmitting a Resolution authorizing temporary borrowing of funds as needed
ifor operation of the city government, advising that the proposed Resolution
provides a maximum Of $5,500,000.00 on such borrowing:
"October 4, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council .
Roanoke, Virginia
161
~.62
Gentlement
Submit'ted hereWith'is · resolution es preparqd b~.the
City 'Attorney authorizing temporary borrowing Of fonds oS
needed for operotion or the city government', Under provisions
of the City Chart'er such los~s uu'y not e~ceed lOX of 'the
revenue fro~ all sources collected by .the city ,in the preceding
fiscal ~ear. During the fiscal year ended June 30. 1971 the
· total revenue collected by the city from all sources was
$39.680.754.53. The resolution provides a maximum of $3.500.000.00
on such borrowing.
I believe the resolution is self explanatory. It is
recommended that the resolution be adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
S! J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor"
Mr. Thomas moved thzt Council concur in the report of t~e City Auditor
and offered the f, Il,ming Resolution:
i#19§96) A RESOLUTION authorizing the ~egot'lation of short-term loans
for the purpose of paying current expenses or debts of the Cit~. '
(For full text of Resolution. s~e Resolution Book No. 36. p,ge 31o)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
M~yor Webber ............................... 7.
NAys: None .................~ .... O.
WAyER DEPARTMENT: Mayor Webber having declared Wednesday,' September 29,
1971, at 8:30 p.m., us a meetin9 of Council acting as a Committee Of the Whole
to discuss a Resol~ ion adopted by the Council Of the To~n of Y/nasa, ¥1roiuia,
that the City of Roanoke determine the actual cost for the production and
supply per !00 cubic feet of water furnished to 'the Town Of Vinton and establish
the rate Of charge to the 7own of Vinton at this figure until such time'as the
Order of AuOust 14, 1971, expires~ and Council having requested that
the City Auditor furnish them with necessary figures and stitistics in connection
with their study of the request from the To~n Of Vinton, the City Auditor sub-
mitted the following report transmitting said data:
"September 29, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia ''
Gentlemen:
At your meeting Of September 27, J971, you received and
took under consideration a resolution of the Town of Vinton
requesting that the City determine its costs of production and'
supply of water perlO0 cubic feet, and to establish a rate of
charge for the To~n of ¥Jnton at that ii,uFa'until the p~Jce
freeze established by Presidential Executive Order of August Id,
1971 expires. You also directed that I furnish the Council
with data upon ·bach it could make its decision.
The cost of delivering water upon mhich the Vinton rate
was set at 50~ per I00 cubic feet effective August '1. 1971.
was computed at 35¢ per 100 cubic feet based upon eleven
months operations (July 1970 = May 1971).
Rased upon the present mater department budget for fiscal
year 1971-72 and projected eater consumption for the year, the
cost per 100 cubic feet is 37¢, Nomever, it"is estimated'that
additional funds ore needed us folloMs; $80°000,00 for normal
extensions, $23,303.48 for o tank on Peatmood lad $108,149.52
for Falling Creek filter plant, If these additional appropri-
ations are provided, the cost of 100 cubic feet of mater mould
be 39t.
The i971-72 budget included l ............ ~unt of
$S0o000.00 based upon the 50t Vinton rate.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor"
In this connection, Dr. Tay.lor offered the following emergency
Ordinance modifying to an extent the operation and effect of Ordinance No. 19750
from September 1, 1971, to December 31, 1971, which Ordinance set the rate at
which the City of Roanoke would sell its surplus water to other incorporated
municipalities at fifty cents per one hundred cubic feet and establishing the
rate of thirty nine cents per 100 cubic feet as the rate to be charged other
incorporated municipalities for surplus mater for the period from September 1,
1971, to December 31, 1971:'
(~19897) AN ORDINANCE codifying to an extent the operation and effect
of Ordinance No. 197S0 from September 1, 1971, to December 31, lq71, which
Ordinance set the rate at which the City would sell its surplus water to other
incorporated municipalities at fifty cents per one hundred cubic feet; establtshin(
the rate of thity=nine cents per one hundred cubic feet as the rate to be charred
other incorporated municipalities for surplus water for the period from
September 1, 1971, to December 31, 1971; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. List, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ....... ~ .............................
NAYS: Mr. Garland ...............1.
REPORTS'OF COMMITTEES:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: A committee composed of Messrs. Hampton
Thomas. Vincent S. Wheeler and Julian F. Hirst submitted the following report
transmitting an Ordinance providing for the iscuance of $5,000,000,00 of
Sewage Treatment Revenue Bonds and an Ordinance calling for a referendum at
mhich the bond'issue would be submitted ~o the qualified voters for approval
on November 2, 1971. advising that the ~ommittee is of the opinion that immediate
action should be taken to provide adequate financing for expansion of the City
of Roanoke Sewage Treatment facilities~
163
164
'October 4, 1971 ·
The, Honor*bio Rayor, nnd,
Members of Roanoke City Councl~
Roma*Re, Virginia ' ' .'
Gentlemen: '"
Your Semage Committee submits heremitb an ordinonc~
providing for issuance $5,000,000.00 of Sewage Treatment
Revenue bonds and an ordinance culling for a referendum ~
at which the band issue would be submitted to the qualified
voters for approval on November 2, 1971.
Based upon the September 1, 1971 report of Alva;d,
Rurdick ~ Homson and discussions with representetl~ of
the State Water Control Hoard and the Federal Environmental
Protective Agency. me are of the ,pinion'that immediate action
Should be tohen to provide adequate financing for expansion
of the city*s sewage treatment facilities.
It is not anticipated that $5,000,000.00 mill be required
to meet the City's portion 'of the cost of projected improve-
ments, nor is it intended that all of the bonds mould be sold.
We do anticipate that there will be some costs mhich must be
totally born by the city. Romever, interim financing mill be
required to provide construction costs pending receipt of
Federal and State reimbursements. Authorized bonds mill pro-
vide a base for temporary borromJngs to meet such interim
payments.
We recommend adoption of the ordinances.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Hampton M, Thomas
Hampton Wa Thomas, Chairman
S/ Vincent S. Wheeler
Vincent S. Wheeler
SI Julian F. Rlrst
Julian F. Hirst*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the committee and
offered the following emergency Ordinance providing for the issue of bonds of
the City of Roanoke not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) to
provide funds to defray the cost to the city of needed public improvements,
to-wit: additions, betterments and extension of and to the city*s sewage
treatment plant and Of its sanitary sewer system, including the acquisition
of land, easements, rights of way and other rights in property related thereto:
(~lq690) AN OSDINANCE to provide for the issue of bonds Of the City Of
Roanoke not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) to provide funds to
defray the cost to the City Of needed public improvements, to-wit: additions,
betterments and extensions of and to the City's sewage treatment plant and of its
sanitary sewer system, including the acquisition of land, easements, rights-of-way
and other rights in property related thereto; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. ~6, page 33.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Gorlnnd0 Li~k, Toylor, Tb0woa, Trout, Wheeler and
~syor Webber .......................... 7,
NAYS: None .................O.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance directing end
providing for the holding of nn election in the city of Roanoke. Virginia, to
determine whether the qualified voters of the City of Roanoke will approve an
Ordinnnc~No. lgflqB, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on
October 4, 1971, providing for the issue of certain bonds of the City of Roanoke:
(nlgf199) AN ORDINANCE directing and providing for the holdiag of an
election in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to 'determine whether the qualified
voters of the City of Roanohe will approve an ordinance, NO. 19096, duly adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke on October 4, 1971. providing for the issue
of certain bonds of the City of Roanohe; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 36, page 34.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisho Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None .................
AIRPORT: Mr. Vincent S. Wheeler, Chairman of the Airport Advisory
Commission, submitted a written report advising that in accordance with the
instructions of Council, a meeting was held Thursday night, September 23, 1971,
in connection with Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport and that be will make o
further report on the matter at a later date.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION-OF CLA1MS~ NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No, 19855, rezoning Lots 18, 19 and 20, Section 2,
Map of West Park and Lots 1 and 2, Block 20, Map of Washington Heights, from C-2,
General Commercial District, to C-I, Office and Institutional District, having
received a 4-3 affirmative vote on its second reading at the regular meeting of
Council on Monday, September 27, 1971, and the City Attorney having been directed
to render an opinion as to whether it will require an affirmative vote of five
sevenths of the members of Council to adopt said Ordinance in view of opposition
to the proposed rezoning, the CityAttorney submitted the following report advistngl.
that investigation reveals that the owners of approximately one-third of the area
directly opposite to the land proposed to be rezoned have registered formal
written opposition to a change in classification of said parcel of land, that
accordingly, he is of the opinion that the provisions of subsection (5) of Sec.
165
'166
62, Zoning, of the Charter of the ~ity of Ronnoke~, 1952, mould require, in the
presence of mrltten opposition filed by more than 20% of the owners or properties
opposite the properties In question a fnvornble vote of five-sevenths of oil the
members of Council in order for Ordinance No. 19055 to be considered to have been
adopted on its second reading end that the opinion stated in his report Is
offered to assist the Chair in ruling upon the result of the vote taken on
Ordinance No. lqOS$, and not os being conclusive of the question of the passage
of the Ordinance:
'October 4, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the meeting of Council on September 27. 1971, Ordinance No.
19855, mhich mould, if adopted by the Council, rezone Lots
19 and 20, Section 2, Hap of Mast Park, and Lots I and 2, Bloch
· 20, Rap of #asbington Heights from C-2, General Commercial
District, to C-I, Office and Institutional District. was before
the Council on its second reading.
Opposition to the proposed rezoning mas registered by certain
residents in the area, and a written petition in opposition,
dated September 20, 1971, mas filed with the Clerk. The ordinance
was moved and seconded and a call of the roll resulted in a vote
of four to three members of the Council in favor of passage upon
second reading.
Prior to declaring whether or not the measure had been adopted
or defeated, the Mayor, noting the Charter provision requiring
a five-sevenths vote for a change in the zoning regulations in
the case of opposition by the omners of tmenty percentnm of the
area affected, or adjacent in the rear thereof or directly opposite
thereto, referred to the City Attorney. the question of the number
of votes necessary for the ordinance in question to be adopted.
Investigation by the undersigned reveals that the omners of
approximately one-third of the area directly opposite to the
land proposed to be rezoned have registered formal written 9ppo-
sition to a change in classification of the above-described parcel
of land, this calculation having been made by considering as
*directly opposite* to the subject property all of those properties
fronting on the north side of Virginia Avenue. H. M., between Comer
Street, H. W., and Monroe Street, N~ ~., as well as that property
fronting on the east side Of Monroe Street, H.
Accordingly, the undersigned is of opinion that the provisions
of subsection (5) of Sec. 62. Zoning, of the Charter of the City
of Roanoke. 1952, would require, in the presence of written
opposition filed by more than 20~of the owners of properties
opposite the properties in qoestion, a favorable vote of five-
sevenths of all the members of the City Council in order for
Ordinance Ho. 19855 to be considered to have been passed or
adopted on its second reading.
Noting that the opinion stated herein is offered to assist the
Chair in ruling upon the result of the vote taken on Ordinance
No. 19655 on last Monday, and not as being conclusive of the
qoestion of the passage of the ordinance, I am
Respectfully,
$/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Ktncanon'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council reconsider the matter and that it be
referred back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration and for
the purpose of giving proper notice to affected property sunera of future public
bearings on the proposed rezoning before the City Planning Commission. The
motion uss seconded by Mr. LJsk nnd unnnimously adopted.
#r. Garland advised that he has hsd complaints from a number of citizens
saying they have not been ~otified by the City Planning Co~mission of public
hearings in connection with rezonJn9 matters end that ~e is of the opinion
that certified or registered letters should be sent to affected property owners
advising them of public hearings before the City Planning Commission.
BUD~ET-#UNICIPAL COURT: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure appropriating $12,000.00 to Personal Services.
$675.00 to Office Furniture and Equipment = Replacement, $2,063.00 to Office
Furniture ~ Equipment - Nam and $1,465.00 to Other Equipment - New under Section
#20, *Municipal Court," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds in connection
#ith hiring two Assistant Clerks and the purchase of various office equipment
in the Municipal Court, Mr. Mheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19900) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section uR0, "Municipal
Court," of the ~?!=72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconde(
by Mr. LJsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, ~homas, TrOut, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber .......................... 7,
NAYS: None .................
COUNCIL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure recording the deepest regret of the Council of the City of
Roanoke at the passing of Guy L. Gearhart, former Tomn Manager of the Town of
Vinton, Virginia, he presented same; whereupon, Ur. Taylor offered the following
Resolution:
(UlggOl) A RESOLUTION relating to the late GUY L. GEARHART, former
Town Managevof the Town of Vtnton.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Rook No. 35, page 37.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion wes
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None .................O.
In this connection, the City Attorney odvised the members of Council
that a great deal of this Resolution was composed by Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City
Manager, since he worked very closely with Mr. Gearhart and hnew him well.
167
168
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SE'I/ERS ~.ND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Edward B. Brewe~, Jr., appeared before
Council and'rend a communication transmitting copy of a Notice of Motion for
Judgment against hiw by the Roanoke County Public Servi~e Authority to appear
in court on October 12, 1971. over the payment of $140.20 for · sewe~ connection
and inspection fee of $100.00 plus several months of sewage use charges, advising
that inosw~ch as he secured his sewer connection through the City Engineering
Department and paid the city several hundred dollars for the connection, inspec-
tion and ext~nsion of sewer service to his former residence et 3550 Minding May
Road, S, M.. in the Jefferson Bills area, he does not feel that he owes the County
of Roan*he for this same service, and requesting that Council authorize someone
to defend him in ~his court action.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
necessary notion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ACTS OF ACKNO#LEDi~EMENT-CITY SHERIFF: Mr, Garland moved that the City
Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure in connection with the retire-
ment of Mr. Eermit E. Allman. City Sheriff. The motion was seconded by Hr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
LICENSES: Mr. Garland read the following communication prop*sin9 an
arrangemeflt to be worked out with the State of Virginia whereby city decals and
state license tags could be purchased at the same time thereby eliminating
necessity for two separate waiting lines for these purchases and proposing
that a committee comprised of the CommiSsioner of the Revenue. the City Treasurer
and the City Auditor be appointed to study this matter and report back to
Council:
"30 Sept TI
Mayor Roy L. Webber and
Members Roanoke City .Council
Gentlemen:
The problem of purchasing city license decals for private
automobiles has become increasingly annoying through the years.
The temporary facilities located on Eighth Street are entirely
inadequate for the tremendous volume of people that pass through
it. There are certain periods of long waiting not to mention
inclement weather conditions. It is the source Of much aggravation
and anxiety amongst Our taxpayers and I feel that they are entitled
to a more efficient system. It would appear to me that there must
be a better way of doing it and it is the responsibility of this
council to undertahe the necessary changes to accomplish this.
The inconvenience is compounded inasmuch as the taxpayer usually
has to wait in lines while purchasing both state and city licenses.
I wonder if an arrangement could be worked out with the State whereby
the two purchases could be made simultaneously thus eliminating the
necessity for separate lines. This would be the preferable method
if at all possible. If it is not. then our state representatives
should be urged by this Council to provide the proper mechanism
to achieve this convenience for our people.
However. if this cannot be done or accomplished before next March
15th.. then the least the City Council could do would be to allow
the purchase of the decal by mail to those who prefer it.
I mould propose that a committee comprised of the CoumJssioner of
Bevenue, City Tressarer end City Auditor be appointed to study this
matter and report back to the Council.
Respectfu)ly submitted for your consideration.
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland"
After being advised by the City Auditor of the procedure to be folloued
in 1972 and thereafter to allow the purchase of city decals by m~il after
payment of'personal property taxes, Mr. Lisk moved that the connunication be
received and'filed. The motion was seconded by Rte Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUILDINGS: The City Clerk reported that Br. S. Lemls Llonberger has
qualified as a member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Building Code,
for a term of. five years beginning October 1o 1971.
Br. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business,-Mayor ~ebber declared the meeting
adJourned.
APPROVED
AT 7E ST:
/City Clerk Hayor
169
:1.70
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, October II, 1971o
The Council of the City of Roanohe met Ia regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal iailding. Monday, October 11, IRT1, at 2 p.m., the
liregular meeting hour, with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Ca~lando David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
i Hampton Mo Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S, Mheeler and Mayor. Roy L. Mebber---T~
i ABSENT: None--? .....................................................O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hlrst. City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Hamer,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. [lncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N.
'Gibson. Assistant City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting ~as opened with a prayer by Mr. Charles J.
Mhitacre, Director, O. A. R. of Roauoke.
MINUIES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
September 2?, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of
Dr. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof
mas dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
AIRPORT: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids on ADAP Project
No. 6-51-0045-01 bituminous overlay of south 2,250 feet of Rnnway 15/33 and sooth
2,000 feet of Taxi.ay 15/33 including crossovers, said proposals to be received
by the City Clerk until 2 p.m., Monday. October 11, 1971, and to be opened at that
hour before Council. Mayor Nebber asked if anyone had any questions about the
advertisement and no representative present raising any question, the Mayor in-
structed the CitI Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids; whereupon, the
City Clerk opened and read the following bids:
John A. Hall ~ Company, Inc. - $ 249,982.00
Adams Construction Company - 252,433.00
Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc. - 255,642.00
S. R. Draper Paving Company - 256.511.00
Mr. Thomas moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appoint-
ed by the Mayor.for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure in accordance with the recommendation of
the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Nebber appointed Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman, Marshall L.
Harris, William F. Clark and Samuel H. McGhee. III, as members of the committee.
PETITIONS AND COMMHNICATIONS:
S'fBEET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power
Company, transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of September, 1971, mas before Council.
Mr. Llsk moved that the communication end list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SHERIFF: Copy of · communication from Mr. Malker R. Carter, Jr., Clerk
of the Courts, transmitting co~y of an order appointing Hr. Paul J. Puckett City
Sheriff of the City of Roanoke effective October 1, 1971, to fill the vacancy
created by the resignation of Mr. Kermit E. Allman, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication and order be received and filed.
The motion was'seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SERERS AND ~YORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Town
Council of the Town of Vinton,'Virginia; at a special meeting held on September
6. 1971, going on record as favoring that the two sewerage treatment plants in the
Roanoke Valley he owned by n regional authority or commission, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
5~REETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. W. Heywood Fralin, Attorney.
representing Fralin and ~aldron, Incorporated, requesting that a small portion
of Bluestone A~enue, N. E., as described in a metes and bounds description, be
vacated, discontinued and closed,'was before Council.
Dr. Taylor offered the followin9 Resolution appointing viewers in connec-
tion with vacating, discontinuing and closing the street:
(n19902) A RESOLUTION. authorizing and providing for the City's appoint-
ment of viewers to view a portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., described as i
follows, to-wit: i
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Bluestone Avenue, N. E.. said point
being the extreme southeast corner of Lot 15, Section 1, according to Survey of
Bluestone Addition, of record in Plat Book 1. page 265, in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia; thence with Bluestone
Avenue, N. 15° 45' E. 3B7.26 feet to a point; thence with a curved line to the
left whose radius is 1682.43 feet, and whose chord bearing and distance is S. 9o
41' N. 355.61 feet, an arc distance of 356.2B feet to a point; thence with a
curved line to the right, whose radius is 25 feet, and whose chord bearing and
distance is S. 48° 37' #. 35.36 feet, an arc distance of 39.27 feet to a point;
thence N. 66° 23' M. lB.81 feet to the place of BEGINNING, as shown on Rap made
by Buford T. Lumsden and Associates, Certified Land Surveyors, dated September 1,
1971. i
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 38.)
:
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Nebber ..........................~--~--7,
NAYS: None .................-0.
Hr. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the City Planniog
Commission for'study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
171
ZONING: A petition from Rt. M. Caldmell Butler, Attorney, r~presentieg
Mrs. Charlene M. Sntherland, requesting that propert~ located on Dnleton Avenue
hetmeen ~lght Street and Maline? Street, described as Lots 3 - 13, inclusive,
Section 4, Jackson Park Addition, Official Tax Nos, 3210819 - 3210029, inclusive,
be rezoned from LMo Light Ranufacturiug District, to RG-2, General Residential
District, was before Council.
Mr. Llsk moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Hr. DaFfy N. Licbtenstein. Attorney.
representing Mr. Raymond B. Naif, et ax** requesting that property described as the
easterly one-half of Lot 15, all of Lot 16, all of Lot 17 and the westerly one-
half of Lot 18, Map of Park Square, Official Tax Nos. 1561135, 1561136 and 1561137,
be rezoned from RS-3, 5ingle-Family Residential District. to RD, Duplex Residential
District, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the request for resorting be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-S~ATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted the following report
recommending thug $53,05T.46 be appropriated to Route 220 Project - Franklin Road
under Section aRg. "Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72 budget,
to provide funds in order to pay current progress bills in connection with the
U. S. Route 220 P~oject:
~Roanoke, Virginia
October 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City has received from the Virginia Department of
Highways progress bills on the work accomplished through June
of 1971 on Franklin Road (Projects 0220-128-102 and 0220-128-
103). In reviewing the bills it is noted that the costs ore
considerably above the costs referred to the City in the original
agreement between the City and the State with respect to that
portion of the'project between McClanahan Street to the South
corporate limits. The original agreement anticipated our right-
of-way costs of $135,000 and the agreement did not include any
construction engineering costs. The latest billing indicates a
right-of-way cost on this project of $221,569.5fl'and a construc-
tion engineering cost total $TI.903.17. Included in the right-
of-way cost figures are the costs for adjustment of the
Appalachian Power Company and C ~ P Telephone Company facilities.
The current amount dna the State, and these are not the final
billings on these two projects, is $123,270.g?. Funds remaining
within this account amount to $69,413o51. In order to pay the
current progress bills me will need an additional $53,D57.46.
At the present time the State Highway Department is unable
to tell us what additionil costs we uill have on these prSject$.
We koow that several parcels of right-of-say are still to be
acquired by the State, one is still to be acquired by the City,
and additional billings are expected from the Norfolk and Mestern
Railway. At such time as these billings are made, it is antici-
pated that we will have to come bach to City Council requesting
additional fonds, At this time it would be recommended that City
Council appropriate $53,657.46 to ~apital Improvement Program,
CIPIg. Route 2200 Roanoke River to South corporate limits in
order that we may pay these current progress bills,
Respectfully submitted,
S~ Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19903) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #69, *Transfers
to Capital Improvements Fund.' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text Of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. #heeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Rheeler and Mayor
Rubber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None ...................O.
DUDGET-MU~ICIPAL COURT: Council havin9 previously adopted an Ordinance
appropriating funds in connection with the hirin9 of two Assistant Clerks and the
purchase of various office equipment in the Municipal Court, the City Manager
submitted the following report with regard to the request of Judge Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick for chairs to be used in the courtrooms which the Municipal Court has
instituted on the second floor of the courthouse building and the construction of
a new witness dock for said courtroom:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
During the City Council budget meetings fo~ 1971-72, the
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Judge of the Municipal Court.
met with the City Council seeking to have returned to the budget
for the Municipal Court various items that had been reduced from
the budget for the Municipal Court various items that had been
reduced from the budget by the City Manager as a part of the total
balancing of the municipal budget. At that time Judge Fitzpatrick
requested a number of items of furniture, two of which in particu-
lar the City Council agreed to reinstate in the court budget.
One was as to a request for 50 chairs to be used in the court-
rooms which the Municipal Court has instituted on the second
floor of the courthouse building. The City Council asks that
we endeavor to determine if these chairs could be available from
other City government sources.and specifically with the possibility
that there might be surplus chairs in the school system. A
second item Was a uaw witness dock for the courtroom which the
Council requested that we check into.
Our contacts with the school administration have indicated that
they do not have surplus chairs of the nature desired. It has
been ascertained that the refinished chairs that Judge Fitzpatrick
has in mind are available at a price of $19.75 each. Fifty of these
chairs would necessitate a total expenditure of $967.50.
173
174
The building maintenance division of the Department of Public
Works is now determining the cost of constructing n witness dock.
There are no funds available within the Municipal Court budget
to purchase either the chairs or tae witness dock, As soon ns an
estlwate of the dock cost is obtained, we will report to Council
on that matter,
If it would be the wish of the City Council to proceed with
the purchase of the chairs, it would be necessary, for there to be
wade an appropriation of $989.$0 to ~unicipal Court, Departwent
20, ObJect Code 380, Office Furniture and Equipwent-New.
Respectfully subwitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager"
After a discussion as to whether funds have already been appropriated
for the purchase of the fifty chairs, Mr. Trout moved that the City Manager be
irequested to ascertain if funds have already been appropriated for the purchase
, of the fifty chairs in question. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and
,unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-MUNICIPAL BUILDINC: The City Manager submitted the
following report subwitting an evaluation and certain recommendations with respect
operating with the City of Roanoke which are monitored and supervised in the city*s
communications control center located on the first floor of the courthouse build-
in9 by the police and fire personnel:
'Roanoke, Virginia
October 11. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This report is ietended to submit to you an evaluation and
certain recowwendntioos with respect to what is known as the pro-
prietary fire and burglar alarm communications systems operating
within the City of Roanoke which are monitored and supervised in
the City's communication control center, on the first floor of the
Courthouse Huilding, by police and fire personnel. The relocation
of the communications control center from the Courthouse Building
to the first floor of the Municipal fluildin9 now requires a
dicision as to whether it is the intent of the City to continue
this particular service. Over some period of time personnel of
the City have directed considerable effort toward finding the proper
approach whereby the private sector of professional business and
industry and the community's best interest will be satisfied.
The first silent-type burglar alarm, to be monitored by the
Roanoke Police Departwent, was installed in 1938 by the American
District Telegraph Corporation to secure the narcotics vault of the
McKesson and Hobbins Wholesale Corporation located on West Salem
Avenue.
Today there are 95 of these devices connected into the City's
installed over the past six years. This is the bank of equipment
and varieties of equipment mounted on the wall to the left as one
different alarm companies mbo have installations into the communica-
tions center. At best this can be described as a hodgepodge system.
substantiated, it is generally considered that central police or
fire station monitoring of such private burglar and fire alarm
systems is practical in small comuunities wherein there would only
be a limited number of preferred subscribers, At this point in
time, it is questionable as to whether the City of Roanoke any
longer fits into this category. There is the question.as to whe-
ther this type of protection from police enforcement personnel should
be expected by private businesses; the question as to whether
police or fire monitoring of these private systems is providing
the soundest and most effective system available,
The matter arises at this point because tn the relocation of
the communications center the present alarm equipment will have to
be terminated in use and the decision as to whether to re-establish
the present equipment or new equipment in the hem communications area.
There is attached a listing of the proprietary alarm systems
that are connected into the control center, It will be noted as to
the variety of locations and the different number of companies who
have made the installations mhich result in a number of different
companies providing the naintainance.
Our opinion and proposal is that the City discontinue the
inclusion of these private alarms within the City's control center
and that as a desirable alternative this type of service for
professional business and industry can be better provided by pri-
vate business through the several means that are available through
the companies in alarm service.
' The single most crucial problem is that of false alarms. These
run as high as gO to 95 per cent of calls to police. Unless these
are reduced sharply, they threaten the usefulness and viability of
the alarm system and of the Police Department. False burglar
alarms concume valuable time of the operating personnel in noting
the alarms, dispatching police and maintaining the records that
ensue. This further causes delay in response to real emergency
calls. Several communities have attempted to resolve the false
alarm problem by assessing a penalty of some type upon the business
or industry whenever the Police respond to a false alarm. Mhile
this may in some instances produce revenue there is a question
of its fairness and also it has little success in reducing the number
of flame alarms.
Private Police Durglar Alarms and Street Fire Alarm Boxes are
similar in respect to the high incidence of false alarms; however,
here the analogy ends. Fire Alarm Street Boxes being vulnerable
to the public are subject to deliberate false signals. American
Insurance Association Regulations require us to maintain these
street boxes. Therefore, improvement in this area is a Police
enforcement problem. Burglar alarms on the other hand if directed
to a priv~ely supervised alarm center, would allow the false calls
to be screened out thereby, imposing less of a burden On the Police
Department.
In the City of Roanoke during the period of July 10 thru
August 10, 1970. sixty-three burglar alarms were received in our
Control Center. Of these sixty-three, two were actual alarms and
sixty-one were false. This is 95 per cent false alarms. Line
trouble or obvious alarm malfunction accounted for sixteen of these
sixty-one false alarsm, forty-five were responded to by the Police
with an estimated expenditure of thirty-four man hours. The average
time out-of-service is twenty-nine minutes per alarm, and on many
occasions involved two patrol cars or beat patrolmen. Out-of-service
time varies depending on the time of day. Alarms received late at
night often require the patrol car to wait longer than 30 minutes
for the property owner to arrive on the scene.
In discussions with Mr. R. E. Hilton, President of Electralarm
Corporation and Mr. M. J. Robinson, Regional Sales Manager of
American District Telegraph Corporation (T5% of the alarms connected
in the City Control Center are their customers), both gentlemen
agree that if we were to discontinue this service, the private sector
would accept this decision, provide the needed facilities, and
ultimately the community's best interest served. The rationale
being that as long as the City continues to monitor for free, they
cannot justify the installation of a central station on a competitive
basis. The factor cuts both ways. by providing this service the
City inadvertently removes from the private sector the nucleus
necessary to encourage the development of central monitoring
facilities.
175
Proprietary central stations buys unlimited pos~ibilities,
l.e.. industrial supervisory monitoring Jointly with criminal
circuits. This includes muter or gas pressures, boiler water or
fuel levels, temperatures in refrigerated ureas ss nell as for
power failureso the presence of snake and other possible hazards,
the automatic transmission of slurs signals, In the event that
these reach danger levels, and telephone answering service to nome
a few,
Some municipalities have attempted to provide adequate facili-
ties and personnel by charging for their service, However. capital
expenditures for equipment and space requirements are so costly it
is quite possible that before the initial costs could be offset, '
the private sector could force the City into a non-competitive
position, It must be remembered that It is the alarm companies
who control the customer, their salesmen who contact the subscriber
and recommend on premises equipment, install same, and determine
if a local or silent alarm ls to be used.
The Federal Bank Protection Act of 1968 does not require
bank alarms to be directly connected to the Police Department.
Commercially operated central stations are fully acceptable as an
lnternediary point where trained personnel are on duty to receive
the alarm and initiate procedures whereby the Police Department
is alerted.
· A farther advantage of a private central alarm operation is
that within this type of system the operation would maintain a
file on each customer, could evaluate calls that come in, have
special arrangements of monitoring the business or operation, can
respond directly to each customer without the commitment of the
Police Department, can have direct contact with plant or business
personnel and can. as previously stated, serve in monitoring capacity
for other operations or situations in the particular business or
industrial locations.
It is. as stated necessary that the system be moved. The
CltI does not own the equipment. That which is there has mt,wain
all shapes and manner. In 1966 there was~lly o~e company in the
alarm field large enough to supply the equipment and the system
suitable for Roanoke. Now there are a number of companies and it
would apparently be necessary for the City to go to bids if it
were to continue to provide the monitoring service.
The ~ain thin9 is the matter of man power as previously
stated and the detraction from the available man power that the
City has.
There is wall space for the equipment in the new communica-
tions center but there is a definite problem as to external space
for the equipment that is behind the panels. This would apparently
have to go into the telephone room in which there is not adequate
space for this type of installation.
It is understood through reliable information that if there
was a central alarm office in Roanoke, properly credited, that the~e
would be a reduction of up to 60 per cent in private burglary
insurance by those firms that would connect into it. One of the
further advantages js that under a private system the operators of
that system would provide personnel who would go to the call of an
alarm for an initial check and also to meet with the police and
provide adequate entry and handling of the situation.
The City ha~ thus far taken a position Of handling only
commercial accounts and there have.been declined requests by pri-
vate individuals to come into an alarm monitoring. Me further have
had requests commercially and industrially beyond those that we
have on the board and we have attempted to deter or minimize new
accounts. There is the further question of the City subsidizing one
group in this particular manner to the disadvantage who might want
to make use of.it. The City additionally does not have any equip-
ment for testing these alarm systems and we have no way of determin-
ing whether or not they are effectively working and this on some
occasions has raised some questions or presented some issues with
respect to response by the City.
As to the potential of a Central Alarm Office,.privately operated,
this could quite logicallly include alarm systems to be monitored
for the County, Salem and Vinton and could even extend into the
Smith Mountain Lake area. This volume potential would be attracted
to a company in this business.
It is not believed that there is any ordinances or formal
action by the Council which provided for the original institution
is controlled by any specific rules and regulations of the City.
However, It ia felt that before decision is made to discontinue the
operation that advice to and/or concurrence in by the Council would
be in order.
On the item of private fir alarms, the American District
Telegraph Coupany now provides a panel in .the control center which
monitors eight private fire alarm systems. Some of these systems
could be connected directly into the municipal fire alarm system
by way of master boxes. He now have 34 connected in this manner.
There is a possibility that in some instances, this would not be
practical or economical os to those locations which are far removed
from the municipal fire alarm circuits. In these special cases,
the company has agreed, that it could provide a recorder that would
be connected to telephone circuits and used for the purpose of
terminating these alarms for a reasonable charge. This recorder
could be located in the communications control center and mould he
compatible mith the municipal fire alarm system and would he ade-
quate for the foreseeable future.
It is recommended:
A. That the practice be discontinued of permitting private
burglar alarm Systems to terminate in the City*s communi-
cations center.
fl. That private subscribers and burglar alarm companies be
notified of this decision and of the effective date of
change which is suggested as being 90 days. The copy
of this letter to the Council is being sent to those
firms which are now on the system so they will be advised
of this consideration.
C. That a survey be made relative to private fire alarm system
terminations in the communications center to determJoe
which of these can be connected via master boxes and
combined into the municipal fire alarm system and alter-
natirely those which sill bare to connect via commercial
circuits.
D. That encouragement be given to private enterprise to pro-
protection services available so that all would have
knowledge of what service is available, bom it might be
obtained and the cost through a private system.
Respectfully submitted,
S~ Julian F. Hirat
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Hayor Webber be requested to appoint a committee
to study the recommendations of the City Manager amd to submit their report to
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber 'appointed Messrs. Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Byron E.
Hamer, Robert H. Turner, Jr., and Olin Carrett as members of the committee.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
with the decommissioned gas fired airway beacon tower located on the top of Read
Mountain, advising that the property is leased by the City of Roanoke from Mr.
Morris Crumpacker. that Mr. Crumpacker has agreed to cancel the lease if the
city would donate the tower to him and recommending that Council authorize the
necessary instrument to enable him' to make this release to Mr. Crumpacker:
'Roanoke. Yirginla
. ' October 11, 1971
~ouorable M~o~ and'city Council
· Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen: .
On July 7, 1969, the City accepted frow the Fe'deral govern-
ment n decommissioned gas fired airway beacon tower located on
top of Read #ounlaln. The policy of requesting out of ~ervice FAA
beacon towers has been used by the Roanoke Airport foF at least
ten years in order to secure bndly needed beacon parts to keep
several City operated obstruction warkiug lights in service. In
the past the Airport has taken all useful parts from these beacon
¥1rgJnla for relocation, through its aeronautics division, to
snail airports in the State. In the case, however, of the Read
can get to it with a truck. Both the State and the City have
tried but all possible takers have turned it down when they note
the location. Thus we have had without any use to os this remote
structure which now has no further usable parts for ns,
The FAA has notified the owner of the property, on which the
tower stands, that it would cancel its land lease and then has
notified the City to remove the tower.
The owner of the property, Mr. Morris Crnepacker, Route 1.
Rox 30§. Roanoke. has agreed to cancel the lease if the City
would donate the tower to him. It is felt that a decision in
this directien would benefit the City ~nd to that purpose we would
like to hare appropriate authority to make this donation,
over an almost impassable road and if taken down and brought to
a convenient spot, at no cost to the City would brlng only
limited return.
It is recommended thatthe City Council authorize the neces-
sary instrument to enable us to make this release to the property
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian. F. Hi'st
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor muted that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted.
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to. the City Manager
for investigation and report a communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranwe]l, Attor-
ney, representing the James E. Long Construction Company, Incorporated, advising
that in June, 19700 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in communications wtth l
the City of Roanoke. requested that Section 2 of Hampden }Jills, owned by the Jamen
Eo Long Construction Company, Incorporated, be included' as an amend'ed area under the
then existing sewage treatment contract between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke
County and requesting that his client be informed relatively soon as to what cours ,
of action the city is 9sing to take in connection with approving this area for
sewer hookups, the City Reneger submitted a written report transmitting copy of.
;the following communication written by him to Mr. Cranwell summarizing the situation
and subnittin9 said communication as a return report to Council:
"October 6, 1971
Mr. C. Richard Cromwell
Pedigo ~ Cromwell
Attorneys at Lam
354 West Campbell Avenue
Roanoke, ¥1rginia 24016
Oear Mr. Cromwell:
On August 30, 1971, you by letter and personal appearance came
before tbeRoanoke City Council In behalf of James E. Long Construction
Company. Incorporated, requesting incorporation of on area being
developed by the Company and designated as Section 2, Hampden
Hills, be included qb a resolution area amendment to the contract
between the City and Roaaohe County and that permission be given
The City Council referred the matter to me for Investigation
and report back to them and I do so by a copy of the letter to you.
Much of the past details and discussions on this proposal are
familiar to you but I briefly mention them as a summary bearin9
upon the observations of this letter. May 1 assure you, at the
outset, of the interest of the City in morking with you and with
the developer-to the benefits of the developer as well as the
potential homeowners in the area and the surrounding sections of
the City and County.
This particular item, which is an addition to the first section
of Ilampden Hills, has been in discussion between our City Engineering
Department, and I believe also our Planning Department, and the
developer over a period of some several months. Included in the
sequence of events was the resolution which came before the Roanoke
City Council on June 8, 1970, from the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors for the addition of 12.B55 acres of land under the
contract between the City and the County for treatment of sewerage.
This particular area lies immediately-east of Bandy Road and south
of and adjacent to the Hampden Hills Subdivision which is an area
that had been previously accepted by the City as resolution area
No. 59. In the initial several months of the developers contact with
the City, we had experienced a number of delays in receiving from
Mr. James Long the necessary data concerning the proposed develop-
ment in order that we could make a reasonable evaluation of this
extension of the sewage system.
There have been, I believe, continuing discussions involving
the developer as well as representatives of the City in this matter
since your appearance before the City Council. Two basic items
have hindered our approval of the subdivision plat and granting
of sewer hookup permits. These same two items have bung for some
period of time. Me feel they are valid and I briefly summarize
them here.
The first is as to the sanitary semer system. The majority
of the dwelling units within this acreage would connect into the
existing sanitary sewer system in the adjacent Hampden Hills
development. There is no problem connected with this. However,
a portion of this acreage actually drains into an adjacent sub-
drainage shed which would generally flow to the creek which parallels
Eddington Street and thence to Carnaod Branch which parallels
6arden City Boulevard. The developer has proposed the installation
of septic tanks on those lots which do not lie within the drainage
shed mhich would flow through the existing sanitary sewer systeM.
I believe there are five lots that would be on his proposed septic
While we realize there mould be additional expense involved.
if the developer proposes to build on these particular lots, to
provide sanitary sewer aystem service either by pumping or by
question the wisdom of there being permitted the'development ef
with septic tanks. One of the prime intents of the resolution
is to bring about a public sanitary Sewer system. The suggested
arrangement within this particular subdivision, as proposed by the
developer would offset this intent as well as producing an area
mith two methods of semage disposal to the disadvantage of pro-
spective homeowners as well as effective utilization of public
179
It is felt that sanitary seuers should be made available
to the entire development if this area is to be added to the. con-
tract and appropriate approvals obtained and that the developer
should give consideration to such an approach,
The second matter is as to storm mater drainage. The City
experienced this past summer on four Or five occasions during heavy
rains, a serious problem of storm water flows from the 91ready
developed area of Hampden Bills as mell as the area being grated
under the current proposal, down into the Bandy Road and Garden
City Boulevard areas. Heavy floms of mud and sediment in the
storm water' produced damage and potential damage to residences
and private property In the latter areas. Our Public Norhs crews
spent considerable time and attention during and following those
rains in trying to provide some temporary corrective actions to
relieve the situations that were presented by these storm water
flows. It mould appear, that unless permaoent corrective action
is taken, that this situation will continue. Under these circum-
stances, we have no alternative but to question the propriety
of increasing the problem by the grading and opening of additional
areas as would be the net result of the proposed Section 2 of the
subdivision.
I assure you and Mr. Long of the interest of the City in our
working with you in any manner that we reasonably and properly can
to clear up these two matters that have necessarily continued to
affect final approval on the proposed additional development. At
such point as these can be satisfied to the Engineering Department
of the City, I om sure that adequate clearance can he made.
Sincerely yours,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communication be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopte~.
PAY PLAN-CITy EMPLOYEES-CITY MANAGER: Council having previously
adopted an Ordinance agreeing to appropriate $9,167.00 cash or in-kind contributiot3~,
representing ten per cent matching funds, should the City of Roanoke receive a
9rant of $82,500,00 for emp.loyment of certain persons under the Federal Emergency
Employment Act of 1971, the City Manager submitted the following report recommend-
ing the adoption of an Ordinance including the position of Community Assistant
within the Pay Plan, advising that this position would be intendedto function
directly under the City Manager's Office for assignment in various matters of
community contact and community relations:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Included in the listing of positions that would be proposed
to be financed through the Federal Emergency Public Employment
Act which has recently and previously been before the City Council,
there was a position of Community Assistant. This position would
be intended to function directly under the City Manager*s office
for assignment in various matters of community contact and
community relations.
As this i~ o newly defined position, it is necessary to
include it within the.pay plan of the City and there is forwarded
with this Agenda an ordinance providing for an amendment to the
City pay plan to designate this position.
It is recommended that this be fevorably adopted.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Hivst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
il Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u19904) AN'ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19751, heretofore.adopted
i
on June 20, 1971, providin9 a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan,
. by adding to said Pay Plan a new position of employment under the Emergency
Employment Act of 1971; and providing for an emergencyo
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 40.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Robber .................................
NAYS: None ..................O.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to
the City Ranager for imuestigatiom and report a request of certnim members of
the Fire Department for back salary adjustments, the City Manager submitted a
written report advising that the method o£ assembling data on this matter is
such that he would request an extension of one week for a return report.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
that the matter be carried over for an additional week. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE HIGHWAYS-INDUSTRIES: The City Manager
submitted the following report recommending the adoption of an Ordinance
exercising an option from Mrs. Lelia Mo Haymaker for a portion of land comprising
22,550 square feet needed to be acquired either as right of way or as construction
easement for the Industrial Access Road leading to the Macke Vending Company and
adjoining properties, for the sum of $21,000.00 which is within the appraised
value:
"Roanoke. Virginia
October 110 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City has hid made independent appraisals of propirty
as mould need to be acquired either as right-of-way or as con
struction easement for the Industrial Access Road leading to the
Macke Vending Company and adjoining properties. Me are now in
the process of negotiating for these areas.
181
As n first of the acquisitions, option has been obtained from
Mrs. Lelin a. Rnymuher for n portion of land owned by her comprising
22t550 square feet with un average width of ?1.6 feet and on approxi-
mate depth of 315 feet. The option is in tho amount of $21,000
which is within the.spprulsed value.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the prepara-
tion of the necessary papers by the City Attorney for the City
to exercise this option.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. ~iFst
City Manager"
Mr, Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#lggOS) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase a parcel of land
containing approximately 0.516 acre situate on the northerly line of loth Street.
N. W.. in the City of Roanoke. and needed for the City*s Industrial Access Road
Project 9999-128-103, C-502. upon certain terms and provisions; providing for
notice of the City's exercise of a mritten purchase option for said land; provid-
ing for payment of the' purchase price thereof upon delivery of a deed to the City
and for recordation of said deed; and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No'. 36, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
!Nebber ..............................
NAVS: None .................
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
report summarizing certain correspondence from the Virginia State Water Control
Board addressed to Mayor Roy L. Webber mith regard to directives of the Board
in connection with the City of Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant and transmitting
three procedures which he plans to effect:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
By certified mail on October 8, 1971, the Mayor received
the folloming correspondence from the Virginia State Inter Con-
trol Hoard:
1. Letter dated October 6, 1971, from A. N. Passeler,
Executive Secretary transmitting Minute 11 of the Board
and the order of the Board and prescribing certain tasks
to he accomplished by the City within specified time.
2. Special order dated October 6, 1971, issued to the City
by the Board.
3. Minute 11 of the Board, described as.*Excerpt from the
Proceedings of the Board st its meeting on September 20-21,
lg?l* and being the summary of the Board of the Bearing
for the City of Roanoke on that date.
In brief digest, the directives of the BoArd as derived from
three documents are us follows:
1. The City proceed with Phase I (Interim Plan) which
principally is:
a. installation of five bubble diffusers in 2 aeration
tanks
b. equipment for phosphate removal
c. additional sludge handling equipment.
Concurred with City that fill requirements of suspended solids
removal could not be met in Phase I timetable but mould be
result of total plan.
2. City proceed with design of phosphate removal equipment
and facilities. Noted that equipment and facilities
essentially same whether pickle liquor or ether chemical
aids are used.
Comprehensive report on pickle liquor be submitted by City
Engineers to Board not later than February 1,
3. Limited 9rant participation to a plant design of 31 ~illion
gallons per day (MGD). Requested further justification
information on City*s proposal to 9o to 3S MGD be submitted
by Hore~be~ 1,
4. Noted State Health Department objection to sludge lagoons
and unless City's engineers cnn convince Health Department
Engineering Division and Board staff othermise in 60 days,
then vacuum filters and incineration would be required.
(Additional capital coat $2.9 million; annual operating
$2250000).
5. Accepted City proposal to take alternate bids on dual-media
vs tri-media filters. City to submit report not later than
April 1, 1972.
6. City meet requirements of and satisfy State Department of
Health of additional chlorination facilities. This refers
to Health Department Engineer's request for additional
application of chlorination of effluent. (Additional
capital cost
7. Accepted City's design to eliminate ballast ponds as
requested by Department of Health. City. however, to
submit further data for discussion with Health Department.
B. Mithin 45 days, City obtain from users of City sewage
treatment plant, information on volume and frequency of
overflows in sewer system and steps taken to meter
overflows. Staff to report to Board and Board to determine
if hearings to be held on this.
9. The following timetable to be met:
Work to be Cumulated Time for Cumulation
1. Installation'of fine bubble diffusers
in 2 aeration tanks Immediately
2'. Design and construction of chemical
feed equipment 9 months
3. Design and construction of sludge
handling equipment 1 year
4. Design of plan~ addition, nitrifica-
tion, flocculation, coagulation, and
filtration facilities 12 months
5. Construction of facilities in ~4 above 20 months
183
There Is no reference in these papers to funds or funding, The
letter of August 12, 1971, This referred to the granting.of Sa
million mhich mas the earlier figure under the design requirements
of the Board prior to their criteria of July 13, 1971. Further,
there is no referenda to interceptor lines, or the programiug or
funding of such,
In addition to the levernl deadlines for items as listed above,
me will effect the folloming procedures:
1, Formal application for grant funds will be prepared nnd
submitted. This mill be based on the BO~ - 20~ rates
nnd on the design cost of $12,442,G00. Qualification will
be made on the amount in that should the additional
facilities, abavo noted be required, additional participating
grant fnnds~mlll be then requested.
Grant funds will be requested for bath the Phase ~ (diffusers
and land excepted) and Long Range programs. Grant application
mill hare to go through the Fifth Planning District for
comment.
It Is construed from the Board letter of. August 12. 1971.
that the City has 30 days within which to submit the
application from the date of notification, which was
October B, 1971.
2. Have the City Attorney reviem the Code of Virginia as
cited in the Order for any guiding significance.
3. Determine the best procedure to be followed to comply
with Item 8 ns to overflows.
If the City Council has any requests or suggestions ia this
total matter, we invite your assistance.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hir'st
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the City Attorney
be directed to prepare the proper measure concurring.in the report of the City
Ranager. The motion was seconded by Rt. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
WATER DEPARTMENT: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising
that on October 5, 1971, an order was entered in the Circuit Court for the County
of Roanoke dismissing the declaratory judgment praceedtng of the Town of Vinton
v. the City of Roanoke mithout prejudice and that pending before the Court at the
time of such dismissal was a plea in abatement filed on August 6, lg?l. by the
City Attorney on behalf of the City of Roafloke which plea is flo~ made moot by the
aforesaid dismissal.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL COURT: Council having referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure a communication from Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrickl,
requesting that Substitute Judge Charles P. Alexander be reappointed for another
term as a Substitute Judge of the Municipal Court since his services are needed
as a warrant issuing officer and as a substitute judge, the City Attorney sub- that
mitted a written report advising that Judge Fitzpatrick bas advised his office
the position of substitute judge is presently filled, that Judge Alexander mould
serve ns an additional substitute Judge in accordance with Sec. 1 (a) of Chapter
2, Title Xl, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. and if Council so desires,
Judge Alexander may be elected to serve another two-year term uh$ch would begin
October 1, 1971.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that Judge Charles P. Alexander be reappointed as an additional Substitute
Municipal Court Judge of the City of Roanoke in accordance with Sec. I (a)o
Chapter 2, Title xI, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. for a term of two
years ending September 30. 1973. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
adopted by the following vote:
FOR JUDGE ALEXANDER: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout.
Mheeler and Mayor #ebber ............... 7.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Roanoke Swift Homes, Incorporated,
that 14.33 acres of land, more or less. described as Official Tax Nos. 4210501 -
4210505, inclusive, 4210401 - 4210409. inclusive, 4210307 - 4210327, inclusive,
4210330, 4210331 and portions of 4210326 and 4210329, be rezoned from LM. Light
Manufacturing District, to RG-I, General Residential District, the City Planning
Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr~ Trout mored thot a public hearing on the request for resorting be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday. November 8. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler
and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, a communication from the City of Roanoke Redevelop-
ment and Housing Authority. requesting that Council approve, after proper rezonlng.'
the Development Program - Comprehensive Plan covering DO dwelling units of low-
rent housin9 for family occupancy to be situated on the abovedescribed property,
wes also before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the request of the City of Roanoke Rede-
velopnent and Housing Authority be deferred until the public hearing on Monday,
November 8, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. J. RD Maid, et ux., that
property located in the City of Roanoke, described as Lots 7 and 8, and part of
an alley. Block A, Panorama Heights. Official Tax Nos. 2740202 and 2740203, be
rezofled from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RO-1, General Residential District
the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the
request be granted,
Mr. Thomas moved that apublic hearing on the request.for rezontn9 be
held at 2 p.m., Monday, November 8, lgTl. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler
and unanimously adopted.
185
STREETS A~D ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation the request ur Cora Realty Company
for assistance of the City of Roanoke in Midening 35th Street, N. M.o between
Melrose Avenue and property presently under development and proposed to be develop-
ed by said Company, the City Planning Commission submitted the followi.ng report
recommending that Council assist Caru Realty Company in the widening of 3Sth
Street, .N.M.:.
~October 7, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Rembers of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request wa~ considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetings of September 15 and October 6.
1971.
Mr. Thomas Rutherford, part-ouner of the Caru Reality Com-
pany, appeared before the Planning Commission and noted that his
firm has completed constructing 116 units of federally-assisted
housing aa 3Sth Street and Melrose. lie in now contemplating
constructing another ISO units in the same general vicinity~ the
FHA, however, is holding up construction of these units unless
35th Street is widened to nccepatable standards. Rt. Rutherford
noted that his firm could possibly dedicate a portion of bis
property for street purposes. Finally, he stated that he is
attained for the street widening,
for 55-years noted that her home would be affected by the widening
of 3Sth Street.
The Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission on
June 1, 1967 had recommended rezoningthis general area from RD
to RG-1 predicated on the developer making the necessary improve-
ments to 35th and ~6th Street (title to the property has since
that the City should assist the Caru Reality Co. in obtaining
Mr. Coleman. Planning Commission member, c~ncurred with the
Planning Director in that it appeared to him that the Caru
Corporation was asking the City to finance the entire widening
of this portion of 35th Street.
approved recommending to City Council that the City assist the
Caru Corporation in the'widening of the 35th Street project.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L.M.
· Mr. Wheeler moved that the City Wanager be directed to proceed with
negotiations for acquisition of the necessary rights of way for the widenin9
of 35th Street. N, W.. and ascertain the estimated cost of the project. The mariani
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion of the motion, the City Manager suggested that Council
ascertain how much money is involved in the widening of the street in question be-
* fore making any definite commitments.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to n committee
for tabulation, report and recommendation the bids received for construction of a
replacement interceptor sanitary sewer located on Campbell Avenue, So E°, thc
committee submitted the following report recommending that all bids be rejected and
~that $1,200.00 be appropriated in order to obtain test borings along the route
of this sewer line to provide future bidders with more definitive information with
regard to the soil and rock situation:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, October 4, 1971, bids were received and opened
before City Council pertaining to construction of a replacement
interceptor sanitary sewer located on Campbell Avenue. S. E. Four
bids were received with the bid of Hudgins and Pace in a total
amount of $109,b05 being low. The latest City estimate prior to
9aim9 to bid for this project was $75.000o
It is surmised that Sma items effected the amount of these
hJgb bids; one, concern for possible conflict with the Corps of
Engineers project on Lick Rnn and two, and even more important,
the concern for the amount of rock which would be encountered in
vitrified clay pipe was $45 per linear foot. This low unit price
as high as $72 per linear foot. As Jt felt that definite infor-
be rejected and that City Council appropriate $1,200 to the
lowering future bids.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Haner
S/ Milliam F. Clark
S/ Sam B. McGhee, III
187
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendations or the
committee and offered the following Resolution rejecting said bid~:
(Ulgg06) A RESOLffEION rejecting all bids received for construction or
an lntercep~or'sanltary sewer replacement on Campbell Avenue, S. E.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 36. page 42.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion uas seconded
by NF~ Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Outland. Llsk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Mebber ..............................
NAYS: None ............... O.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$1,2oo.oo to cIp 62 Campbell Avenue Interceptor Sewer under Section agO, "$euoge
Treatment Fund,~ of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to obtain test borings
ainu9 the route of the interceptor sanitary sewer located on Campbell Avenue, S. E,,
to provide future bidders with more definitive information with regard to the soil
and rock situation:
(~19907) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #gOo "Sewage
Treatment Fund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergenc~.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 42.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Or. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ......... ~ .... O,
AIRPORT: Council having referred to a committee for tabulation, report
and recommendation the bids received for painting the interior of the airport
terminal building and painting the interior and exterior of the covered walkway
adjacent to the airport terminal building, at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport,
the committee s'ubmftted the following report recommending that all bids be reject-
ed and that the city consider readvertising this project as One job instead of
breaking it down into two jobs:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 11, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After proper advertisement, bids mere publicly opened and read
b~fore City Council at its regular meeting on October 4. 1971, for
painting of the interior of the airport terniual building and for
painting the interior and exterior of the covered walkway adjacent
to the airport terminal building. Two bids were received as shomn
on the attached tabulation sheet.
The specifications provided for each bidder to submit · separate
bid amount for each of the two Jobs and a total bid amount if he uss
to be swarded both painting Jobs, The City reserved the privilege
of awarding separate contracts for bach of the two Jobs If Jt was Jo
the City*s. interest to do so
Hundley Painting and Decorating. Inc** submitted the low bid for
painting the interior of the terminal building and L. R, Brown.
Painting Company submitted the Iow bid for painting the interior and
exterior of the covered walkway. The sum of these two separate
bids is less than the total low bid submitted by either firm far
painting both facilities. It would, therefore, be the committee's
recommendation that separate contracts be awarded.
However. the bid submitted by L. R. Brown. St,, Painting Com-
pany was qualified as follows: 'Me are not interested if separate
awards are made.* It Is your committee's opinion that this
qualification renders improper the bid submitted by this firm.
Since there is a significant difference between the lowest cost
to the City determined by adding the two separate low bids and the
total low bid submitted by each of the two firms and since one of the
bids usa improper, it is your committee's recommendation that all
bids be rejected and that the City consider readvertising this
project as one Job instead of breakin9 it down into two jobs.
Respectfully submitted,
S/BTton E, Hane~
Byron E. Hamer
Assistant City Manager
S/MarshalI IlaFFis
Marshall Harris
Airport Manager
S/Sam H. RcBhee. Ill
~a~ H. McGhee,
City EnBineer"
MF'~ Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the committeel
and offered the following Resolution rejecting said bids:
(~1990B) A RESOLUTIOH rejecting all bids received for painting the
interior of the airport terminal building and the interior and exterior of the
covered walkway adjacent to the airport terminal building at the Roanoke Municipal
Airport, and directing that the matter be readvertised for bids.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. S6, page 43.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. Yhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................. ?.
HAYS: Hone ...............O.
U~FINISIiED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INYRODUCTIOH AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SHERIFF: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure relating to the Honorable Kermit E. Allman, former Sheriff of the
City of Roanoke, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Garland offered the following
Resolution:
189
1.90
(#19909) A RESOLUTION relatiug to the Honorable EERMIT EDWARD ALLNAN.
former Sheriff of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 43.)
Mr, Garland moved the'adoption of the Resolution. The motion uas
seconded by Mr. ~heeler and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor,.Thonas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
NAYS: None~ ......... 0', '
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL-MUNICIPAL BUIL01NG: Mr. Lisk brought to the attention of Council
a matter in connection uith the soundsystem for the Council Chamber. advising
that since placing this item on the Agenda on Thursday. October 7. 1971. he has
learned that' on November 23. 1970. the City Ranager mas directed to put this
equipment out for rebid using the same specifications but to include an alternate
bid for tape recording equipment to be utilized by the City Clerk and that it is
his understanding that the City Manager is nou in the process of advertising
for said bids.
CITIZENSt AD¥ISORY COMMITTEE: The City Clerk reported that Mrs.
Jolliet T. Croson. Mrs. ~onnie K. Lowo, ~r$..Cordeltn S. ~illiams, Mrs, Lottie M.
Neely. Messrs. E. L. Bayse. A. A. Akers. J. E. Dudley, Sr., N. A. Melvin. James E.
Robertson, George ~, Harris, Jr., Thomas L. Hutson, E. C. Moomam, Dr'~'S~ R.
Crockett and Reverend R. R. ~ilkinson have qualified as members of the Citizens*
Advisory Committee for terms of tuo years each ending April 14, 1972, and that
Reverend G. Thomas Turner has qualified as a member of the Citizens* Advisory
Committee to fill the unexpired term of Hr. George E. Riddick. resigned, ending
April 14, 1972.
Mr. Thoma~ moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business. ~ayor ~ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, October 18, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roan,he met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, October lO, 1971, at 2 p.m., the
regular meeting hour, with Rayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Llsh. Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ............................. 7,
ABSENT: None ............ O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Raner,~.
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened ~ith a prayer by Dr. Harry Y. Gamble,
Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
October 4, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Lisk. seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
SEWERS AND nORM DRAINS: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids
on the construction of a storm drain on Albemarle Avenue. S. E., and Jefferson
Street, said proposals to be received by the CitI Clerk until 2 p.m., Monday,
October 18, 1971, and to be opened at that hour before Council, Mayor Webber
ashed if anyone had any questions about the advertisement and no representative
present raising any question, the Mayor instructed the City Clerk to proceed with
the opening of the bids; whereupon, the City Clerk opened and read the following
bids:
NV, ] No, 2
Wiley N. Jackson Company - $ 141,202.00 $ 139,057.00
Branch ~ Associates, Incorporated - 146,865.50 146,993.00
Hudgins ~ Pace - 171,285.00 171,286.00
Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor.
Incorporated - 193,264.99 193,264,99
Mr. Thomas moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appoint-
ed by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council. the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure, or measures, in accordance #ith the
recommendation of the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Chairman. William F.
Clark and Samuel H. McGhee. III, as members of the committee.
Mayor Webber then requested that the City Auditor ascertain the amount
of funds which are available for this project and report back to Council.
191
192
STREETS ANO ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p~m~,
Monday. Oc'tober I8,'iq?l, on the request of the Southwest Virginia Community
Development Fund that two unopened alleys leading off of Cherry Avenue. N.
be vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter was before the body.
In th'is connection, the City Planning Commission Submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
#September 16, 1971
Th~ Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
The above cited request was considered by the City Pluonfng
Commission at its regular meeting of September 15, 1971.
Mr. Georhe Mo Harris, attorney for thepetitioner, appeared
beYore the Planning Commission and requested that the two
unopenqd alleys leading off Cherry Avenue be vacated, discon-
tinued and closed, Mr. Harris noted that the alleys have never
public easements under them, Mr. Harris further stated that it
is the intention of the Southwest Virginia Development Fund
the alleys and that they will need the additional area to carry
out their plan,
Mr. Roy Pollard apoke up to say that he thought' it was a
good idea that all t~e alleys in the block be closed in aa much
as access to them would be substantially reduced if the closure
was carried out as proposed. The Plonnie9 Commission agreed
the Planning Department to ascertain the desirability of closing
the remaining alleys in the block and to initiate their closure
approved recommending to City Council to grant the request.
S/ John H. Parrott N.O.
John H. Parrott
The viewers appointed to study the matter submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the alleys in question and the neighboring property
individual from vacating, discontinuing and closing said alleys.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
itho alleys, Dr. Taylor moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
(~19910) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating and discontinuing two (2)
iunopened alleys in the northeastern section of the.City of Roanoke pursuant to the
Iprovislous of Section 15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,as amended.
NHEREAS, Southwest Virginia Commqnity Fund has heretofore filed appli-
(cation before the Couqcil of the City of Roanoke requesting Council to discontinue
land vacate two (2) unopened alleys in said petition described; and,
WHEREAS, notices of the intended application were posted in three (3)
public places la the City of Hoanohe ten (10) days prior to Council*s considera-
tion of said application; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the prayer contained in said application
Resolution No, 19H36 wes adopted by the said City Council on the 30lb day of
August. 1971. pursuant to which vlewers were appointed to view the said property
and to report in writing what inconvenience, if any. would result from permanently
vacating and discontinuing the two (2) alleys hereinafter described; and further.
the said City Council referred the issues raised by the said application to the
Planning Commission of the City of RoanoRe for the Commission's study of said
request and a report thereon; and,
WHEREAS, it appears from the report in writing filed by the viewers
with the City Clerk dated the 23rd day of September, 1971, together with the
Affidavit of said viewers, of even date therewith, that no inconvenience would
result, either to any individual or to the public, from the permanent vacating
and discontinuing of the said two (2) alleys, and to which report no exceptions have
been filed; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, by letter, directed to the Mayor
of the City of Roanoke and the members of City Council, dated the l~th day of
September, 1971, recommended to City Council that the request contained in the
application aforesaid be granted; and,
WHEREAS, after notification to tho land proprietors along the alleys
hereinafter described and after newspaper publication as by statute provided, a
public hearing was held before Council on the lflth day of October, 1971, at which
hearing all interested parties and citizens were afforded an opportunity to he
heard on the question of the proposed alley closings; and,
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the matter, the Council is of the opinion
that no inconvenience will result to any owner or to the public from permanently
vacating and discontinuin9 the two (2) alleys hereinafter described.
THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia!
that the following alleys located in the northeast section of the City Of Roanoke
be, and the same hereby are, permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and
closed:
Alley ~1 - extending north from Cherry Avenue N. W., to an alley
running parallel to Cherry Avenue, N. M., lying between Cherry and
Orange Avenues in the City of Roanoke, being 120 feet in length and
10 feet wide, bounded on the west by Official Lot ~2020273 and bound-
ed on the East by Official Lot u2020254;
~lley ~2 - beginning at the end of Alley ~1, extending west parallel
to Cherry Avenue, N. W., in the City of Roanoke, being approximately
611 feet in length and 10 feet wide for approximately 234 feet, then
15 feet wide for approximately 377 feet bounded on the South by
Official Lot ~2020273, 2020272, 2020253, 2020271, 2020252, 2020251,
2020250, 2020249, 2020248, 2020247, 2020246, 2020245, 2020244, and
2020243. and bounded on the North by Official Lot ~2020212,
2020213, 2020214, 2020215, 2020216, 2020217,
2020218. 2020219. 2020220, and 2020221.
:!.93
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke, be,
and hereby is, directed to mark 'Permanently Abandoned, Vacated, Discontinued and
Closed* those two (2) certain alleys hereinabove described on all maps and plats
on file in the Office of the City engineer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. on
which said maps and plats said alleys are shown referring to the book and page of
iOrdinances and Resolutions of Council wherein this Ordinance shall be spread;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that notwithstanding anything to the contrary
herein contained, the City reserves unto itself an easement for any mater or
sewer or other public utility line or lines, if any, now existing in the two
(2) alleys hereiuabove described, alonR with the right of ingress end egress for
the maintenance and repair thereof.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of this Council deliver to the
Clerk of the Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, an attested copy
of this Ordinance in order that the said Clerk may make proper notations on all
maps or plats recorded in his said office upon which ave shorn the said alleys
herein*permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas and adopted by the foZioming
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7,
NAYS: None ........... Oo
ZONING: Council having set a public heatlog for 2 p,m., Monday, October
18, 1971, on the request of Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Hodges that Lots 10, 11 and the
westerly half of Lot 12, Oak View ~eights, Official Tax Nos. 27302~5, Z730226 and
2730227, be rezoned from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report:
"September 16, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Malor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of September 15, 1971.
Mr. Jack B. Coulter, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and made a presentation with
respect to the rezoning classification of the lots in question.
He raised tmo points, one that the property had been eroneously
rezoned from commercial to residential, and two that because of this
circumstance the City should assume the cost of rezoning it nom.
Mr. Coulter noted that these properties has been renamed for
commercial use in the mid 1950s, and he presented information in
support of his contention that it was the intent of City Council
that this property and adjacent areas be retained in a commercial
classification in the new Zoning Ordinance which was prepared in
1966,
Question wes raised with respect to the appropriateness of
the Planning Commission making a determination with respect to
this situation, lnaswuch as only one of the Commission members hod
been serving ut the time the new ordinance was passed, The Cam-
mission felt that it should not be asked to waiver the cost of
renaming the properties.
The Assistant Planning Director, Hr, Griffin, brought up the
fact that no petition had come from the City Clerk*s office to
the Planning Deportment to rezone the properties in question, It
was his opinion that the question to be decided nas whether or not
the properties hod been renamed erroneously and that the Commis-
sion could not act on a renaming request unless proper procedures
hod been followed. He showed the Commission a letter from the City
Attorney*s office which stated that in their opinion no mistake had
been sade with respect to the zoning classification or the property
in question. In the Judgment of the Planning Department, the
property does lend itself to commercial use end from this stand
point, there is no apparent problem as far as appropriateness or
rezoning the property is concerned.
After extended discussion, the Planning Commission determined
that the properties should be rezoned provided the necessary
procedures were followed.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request pro-
vided that a petition to rezone the property in question had been
taken out by the petitioner and submitted to City Council.
Sincerely.
S/ John H. Parrott N.C.
John D. Parrott
Chairman'
Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(zlggll) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 273. Section 1965
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property located on the north side of Shenandoah Avenue. N. W.. in the
City of Roanoke. designated as Lots 10. 11 and the westerly 50 feet of Lot
Map of Oak View Heights. Official Nos. 2730225, 2730226, and 2730227, renamed from
RS-2, Single Family Residential District to C-2, General Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommeded that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RS-2, Single Family Residential District.
to C-2, General Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, tho written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke, 195b, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published
and posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 18th
day of October* 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to
be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
195
196
WHEREAS, this Council after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be r,zoned.
i THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
ITitle IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
lamended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet NO, 273 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map,
~City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz:
Property located on the north side of Shenandoah Avenue, N. M.o in the
City of Roanoke described as Lots 10, 11 and the westerly 50 feet Of Lot 12,
idesignsted on Sheet 2T3 of the Sectional 196b Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as
iofficial Tax Nos. 2730225. 2730226 and 2730227, be, and is hereby, changed from
iRS-2, Single Family Residential District to C-2, General Commercial District,
and that Sheet No. 2T3 of the aforesaid map be chun§ed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following
!vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SPECIAL PERMITS-ZONING: A communication from Mr. Melvin L. Clemons
!requesting that be be permitted to repair televisions and radios in his home
at 1000 Pleasant View Avenue, N. W., was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
iMheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Jack V. Place, Attorney, representing Mr.
J. Calvin Carnand. Jr.. requesting that 0.309 acres of land. described as Official
Tax Nos. 4350602 and 4350604. be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District,
and RD. Duplex Residential District. to RG-1. General Residential District. was
before the Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the request for r,zoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
~was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
SEMERS AND S'fORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting the following communication written by him to the staff of the State
Water Control Board summarizing the position the City of Roanoke has taken on the
IRurray Run Interceptor Sewer Line and transmitting his comments and the position
which be has stated before City Council and Mr. M. Caldwell Butler. Attorney. repre-
isenting Fralin and Maldron. Incorporated. the development firm who is seeking this
!sewer line for its proposed apartments:
"October 12, 1971
Hr. Robert R. Jennings
Olrector
Planning end Grants Division
Virginia State Hater Control Doard
P. O. BOX 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Bear Hr. Jenuings:
This is to acknowledge your letter of October I in regard
to the Hurray Run interceptor. This line has been a matter of
considerable discussion over a period of some months. I take
advantage of your inquiry to attempt to summarize our position
here with respect to it. This I will try to do as briefly as
possible though there is much involved.
Tour comment that it had been called to your attention that
the City was not considering the construction of its portion of
the Hurray Ran interceptor and also that the City desired to
have the grant for this project used for another project is quite
in error. He are fully aware that persons who are interested in
this project have developed this line of rems.mina. Also at .em
point, either verbally or in writing there has been local reference
that I nad. a statement to this general effect at the last hearing
in Richmond at which the City of Roanoke appeared. This additional-
ly was err.nons.
The background goes to 1965 when, in December of that year.
flay.s, Seay, Hattern and Mattern completed and submitted to the
City a study of the City*s interceptor sewers. Their report set
up a detailed program of priorities on interceptor replacement.
new construction, et cetera. Following the City*s receipt of that
report, at least One stage and perhaps others, copies of the report
were furnished to the Hater Control Doard and for its staff members.
On January 17, 1967, as is documented in my letter of March
1967, to the Hater Control Board. representatives of the City came
before the Water Control Board to discuss the program of improve-
ments of the City*s sanitary sewer interceptors and trunk mains.
That letter mud. reference to the engineers' study and to the fact
that a report had been submitted to the Hoard for its records and
files, That letter also listed nine first priority projects
which the City scheduled and proposed to get underway. Hurray Run
was not listed in this first series of priorities at that time.
Further, I would also call your attention to Mr. Paessler*s letter
to me Of June 1, 1967 on essentially the same matter.
Following those particular occurrences, there were various
reports, correspondence and conversations over a period of time by
City representatives with the Board and its staff, Included by
particular reference was a letter of January 15, 1969. in that
letter the City reported en the status Of its program indicating
priority lines of consideration. That letter made reference to the
Hurray Run relief line. It noted the line as being in a second
phase following completion of a previously listed series of pro-
jects and noted further the line as the fourth item in the desig-
nated second phase Of the City's eonstrnctJon program.
Again, I will not go through all the details of what took place
but would generally comment that I think the City maintained fairly
close contact with Board Staff members over the period of the
several years. We endeavored, whenever possible to secure partici-
pating grant funds on the various interceptor and mainline projects.
Of course, at the same time we were handling improvements to the
Sewage Treatment Plant as were presecrihed by the Board nad our
own Operating needs as being necessary. Crantfunds were staged
by the Board commensurate with the availability of monies on the
Federal level and the City endeavored to follow what we under-
stood to be tbe availability of these fueds in securing projects.
One project, for instance, the Hilliamsou Road - Campion Road
sewer line was a matter of continuing difficulty in securing monies
as it had been considered to be an early priority project for us,
Having been denied funds by the Board on this project, the City, as
X am sure you know, has since taken, over thc past year and a half,
at least, efforts in the direction of the Federal agency. HUD, to
try to secure monies for its construction.
19'7
't98
I would then bring you on up to · letter of June 30, 1971, which
Mr. ¥cGhee, our City Engineer, wrote to Hr. Owens of the Board's
st,re. This letter, written et Mr. Owen's request, listed the pro-
Jects that the City proposed to construct within the next rive
years. In that letter there were six Interceptors listed. The.
fourth, in order, of these lines was the Hurray Run interceptor.
Previous to thee, in the listing, were the Trout Run interceptor.
the Campbell Avenuehterceptor and the Norfolk Avenue interceptor.
This letter uss requested end written, as me understood it at the
time, for the purpose of having available to the Board and its staff
information upon which to base the grants that were to be determined
and set up by the staff and the Board for the then coming fiscal
years end.possibly several years thereafter.
He next learned that the grant program which then was recommend-
ed by the staff to the Board, and which the Board adopted in Its
July meeting, listed funds for the Sewage Treatment Plant and then
listed for the Roanoke County Public Service Authority and the City
$268,800 in year 1972-73. It has been understood, by all advice given
us, that these roads are to be applied to the Hurray Run line. There
was no further referencefn'the schedule of allocations to any funding
for interceptors in the Roanoke Valley area until we get to a table
2 of that program. Table 2 lists projects which may be funded from
contingency funds within the four-year plan and Roanoke City. for
interceptors, is listed as number 33 in line and without any funding
indicated, although all other localities of that table 2 do provide
stipulated dollar amounts.
Our point of issue, if that be the proper word, here has been
and is on the question of priorities, There is no doubt at all
with us but that the Rurray Run interceptor as it exist within the
City should be replaced. We would like to be able to do so as
rapidly os possible. However, it is not within our first priorities
in the sense that we have at least three other lines within the
City that we and our consulting engineers feel require more immediate
attention. It is also my understanding that the Hurray Run line is
not of the first priority listing insofar as Roanoke County is con-
cerned, We are under the impression, from various sources, that
there are at least two ~ines that.are within the County*s first
priority determinations. ! believe Cravens Creek and Tinker Creek
are the two but I am not absolutely sure on location.
He have a further concern with regard to Botetourt County.
The absence within the ~ext four years of interceptor money as
might be applied to a replacement of the Tinker Creek interceptor
or to participating costs of an interceptor to reach Botetourt
County has the conspicuous affect of holding their availability of
public sewer service back by at least four years,
It is realized that there has been a 9real deal of pressure
applied from interested parties within the County to secure the
monies for the construction of the Hurray Run interceptor. Intent,
as we have been told here, is that the need for this line is to
serve approximately 144 apartments or dwelling units which the firm
of Fralin and Haldron proposes to build in the south County area.
We are fully in accord with new development and growth.. Yet at the
same time we feel that our demanding need is the replacement of
existiog interceptor problems which the Board has urgedo which the
Health Department is urging and which we feel should be done. There
is additional wondering on our part of the allocation of these
interceptor monies to accommodate this apartment development in
view of the position which has been written to us recently from
Board staff that Federal and 5tats funds should be applied to
correcting those existing situations rather than extensions for
new growth and development.
Basically, it is supposed that the point narrows down to our
inquiry as to the reasoning involved in the reaching down into a
lower priority project and bringing that out for funding when the
extent of our information is that its immediate need is to the
accommodation of the new apartment development. Again, the City of
Roanoke does not dispute the value of replacement of that line
within the City. It is highly desirable on our part that this be
done. Yet at the same time our question evolves around determining
how best to proceed when by our automatically filing application
and accepting this grant we are shifting what me feel to be a fully
determined system of priorities. We further are removing ourselves
for a period of four years from interceptor replacement other than
the Hurray Run line. And further we are causing Roanoke County
to shift in its priorities. Still further we are setting Botetourt
County back four years in their potential sewer service.
This is the summary of the position that we have tahen on
this matter and of the comments Bad position that I hare stated
before our City Council and tn Delegate M. Calduell Ostler who
represents the develooment firm thus is seehing this semer line
deductions we, of course, would he glad to have them pointed out.
Any advice or further guidance that you or your stair associates
might be able to furnish to us would be helpful in our interest
in an orderly resolution of the matter.
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. HJvst
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report amd communication be received and filed.~
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. M. Caldwell Dutler. Attorney, representing Fralinll
C Waldron, Incorporated, appeared before the body and requested that Council
review once more the request of his client that the County of Roanoke be
authorized to proceed with the Murray Run Interceptor Sewer Line at its own
expense and that Council agree to accept the grants authorized by the State Mater
Control Doard.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the City Manager
be instructed to gather data for the ~uvray Run Interceptor Sewer Line including
easements and costs involved and report back to Council as soon as possible~ The
motion was seconded by Dr~ Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to the
City Manager for investigation and report a statement from Mr. B. N. Akurs,
President of the Roanoke Fire Fighters Association, in connection with probationaryi:
periods and pay increases for certain members of the Fire Department, the City
Manager submitted the follouing report recommending that Council refer the matter
to the City Auditor for proper compilation and payment taking into consideration
all necessary deductions for retirement, income tax. etc.:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 18, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Three weeks ago several personnel of the City Fire Depar't-
meat appeared before the City Council in regard to a matter which
they claim to be inequity in the handling of the promotion of a
group of fire fighters. These members of the department had met
with me some number of months ago on this particular matter. The
City Council referred this to me for review and report.
There is attached a listin9 of those fire fighters who are
considered to be involved in this particular situation. This
listing indicates the date of employment and the successive dates
of salary changes to each individual resulting either from a merit
raise or the general raise as made by City Council in the course of
budget adoption h a particular year. The progressive steps in the
pay plan of each individual is indicated and the amount of salary
resulting from the dated changes.
This attached data information has been developed from the
personnel records in the City Personnel Department. This bas not
been matched with actual payroll records as that information is
not thus far available; therefore, there is a possibility of some
199
200
differences in department records versus payroll records by virtue
or the procedure by mhich salary entries are made in the personnel
records but for the purpose'or this report this data Is believed
to adequately, reflect the payroll situation,
From the period from February 21. 1966, to February 16, 1960,
Inclusive, 20 individuals were employed as fire fighters in the
department. Or these rive left the City service during their
probationary period or within the six months. Another three served
for nora than six months, their salary situation uss similar, to that
which will be later described but these three have since resigned
from the City,. This leaves 20 rife righters who ere the subject or
this matter end who are detailed on the attached sheets.
Each or these men mere employed at Step I as was applicable
in the pay plan for the rife righter position at the time or their
employment. They are retained in Step I for a period of twelve
months, then advanced to Step 2, The debate is o~er the advancement
to Step 2 after 12 months rather than after, six months or service.
After the 12 months when they are advanced to Step 2, they advanced
orderly to the successive steps without apparently any f~oblen.
or course, as the attached indicates, there were the application
or the various raises granted with the budgets by City Council.
The situation commenced, apparently, with the adoption of the new
system of pay rates and ranges which was done by the City Council
by Ordinance 16988 adopted May 2, 1966. This hem system of pay
rates and ranges was applied commencing first with the pay checks
of May 1o 1966. However. the ordinance of adoption made the pay
scales retroactfvely applicable commencing January 1, 1966.
The steps for the fire fighter as of that new pay plan were:
Step I $400
Step 2 420
Step 3 442
Step 4 464
Step S 488
Step 6 514
Three men (Nos. 9449, 9519, 8396) were employed during the
retroactive period at the startin~ salary which applied under the
previous pay plan of $33T.50. This is the reason for these three
indicating significant jumps between their date of employment and
May l, 1956. It mill need to be determined if the retroactive
salary increases were applied to these three men as this would
bear upon the computations involved in this overall matter.
At the same time approximately that the new pay plan went into
effect, new personnel rules and regulations, including those for
the administration of the pay plan, were commenced in use. I
use the phrase commenced in use because, while the rules and
regulations were presented to City Council on several occasions.
they were not adopted but at the same time there was believed to
be a general understanding that they had to be used in order to
provide a proper administration of the new pay plan and orderly
proceedings relating thereto,
These rules provided *employees shall be rated probationary
employees during the first six months of their employment; rehires
shall be rated probationary during the first three months rollowin~
the date of re-employment provided their former employment exceed-
ed six months ..... Ail probationary employees will be graded by
their supervisor prior to completion or that period, in order to
determine their eligibility for retention on the City payroll. When
an employee is retained on the pay roll his seniority will date
from the commencement or his then current employment, For pay
review purposes all probationary employees, new hires or rehires,
shall have a revieu period of six months. Prior to completion of
the probatiohary period any employee may be terminated by the head
of his department with confirmation of the City Manager or Super-
intendent of Schools, as the case may be, if in their opinion the
employee does not possess the qualifications required by the
position to which he was appointed. In the event an employee is
terminated during his probationary period he shall have no recourse
in grieving his layoff or discharge, Probationary periods may be
extended for a single period of sixty (60) days upon approval of
the City Manager.'
The rules go on further to say that to provide 'the one step
pay increase, usually frow Step I to Step 2, shall be granted each
employee upon the successful completion of the probationary period.
Such probationary period will be considered as the first six months
or euployment mith the City, Ir such increase is not granted, the
employee shall be so notified.and employment terminated or the
employees shall be notified in writing that the probationary period
shall he extended a single additional period not to exceed 60 days
ut the initial rate of pay. Xr the increase is not granted at the
end or the second.period then the employment shall be terminated.
Notice or intent to terminate or extend shall be given to the
employee not later than 10 calendar days prior to the end o! the
period**
Formally adopted at not, these rules or pay plan administration
were considered to apply, they were made applicable to all other
emplolees of the City then and since and the administration or new
employees under probationary circumstances has been under and within
.these conditions.
In investigation or the matter it i~ understood that it was
the determination or the head or the department, in these cases.
that a man employed as a rite fighter did not become sufficiently
proficient in the duties of a fire fighter within a six months
period to merit the movement from Step I to Step 2 but ~hat this
proficiency developed only after approximately a year of service.
On these grounds direction Was given during this period of time
that movement from Step I to Step 2 be at 12 months rather than six
months.
In reviewing this matter. I would have to acknowledge that the
particular point or the time within which a new employee would
become proficient to some degree in fire fighting may be quite true
in comparison of six months versus to 12 months: however, I would
not consider that that constitutes within itself a basis upon
which there could be a deferment or advancement from Step I to
Step 2. Rather. as described in the excerpts above, the advance-
ment from Step I to Step 2 is a merit movement only in thc sense
that the employee is released from a probationary status. If tho
employee is released from a probationary status then he automatical-
ly moved from Step I to Step 2 and this takes palce at the six
months point. If the employee is not released from the probationary
status, and correspondingly is not moved.from Step I to Step 2,
then the excerpted policy is clear that the alternative is only that
the employee is released from City service or is granted an addition-
al 60-day probationary period at the conclusion of which he must
be either released or retained and then advanced to Step 2.
In other words these rules of procedure supercede any judgment
factor on the part of the administrators or supervisors of the City
at the six months point except as to release from service or
retention of a maximum or a six mouths extension or probation.
In view or this, I am or the opinion that there was error in
the handling of pay to these particular employees. The error
is such that I further feel that correction should be made by close
review of the salaries since their employment as paid to. them on a
month-to-month basis and that they should be paid an adjustment
mhicb would have to be determined by a month-to-month calculation
taking into account their successive step increases and the
salary increases by City Council to provide a proper balance out as
if they had been advanced out of the probationary period into
Step 2 at the conclusion ar their first six month~ o$ employment.
A point has been made that each or these personnel at least
annually signed a merit review or their work performance although
the salary being paid at the time of the merit review was in error
because of the above circumstances. However this should not weigh
to change this condition.
It is also noted that in the case of three employees (0590,
'9439, 994§) merit increases were granted at the mid-month pay
period whereas the rules elsewhere prescribed that merit advance-
ments would only be effective on the first day of the month.
This should be rechecked so that proper adjustment can be made
as to this point in the overall adjustment.
I hesitate to advance any figures as to dollar amounts
involved in these adjustments. This can best be determined by a
month-to-month review or payroll data and any figures given might
resolve ia an erroneous anticipation on the part or the employees
involved.
201
202
It Is recommended that the City Council opprore this determina-
tion and refer the matter to the City Auditor for compilation and
payment, taking into Consideration nil necessary deductions for
retirement, income tax, et cetera.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. 8irst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
~Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Auditor fur said compilation
[and payment. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
In this connection, Mr. Trout moved that the question of bringing the
iPay Plan Rules and Regulations up to date be referred to the City Attorney for
report to Council, The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Council having deferred action on a report of the Airport
Advisory Commission transmitting certain recommendations in connection with Roanoke
Municipal (Moodrum) Airport. the City Manager submitted the following report in
connection with the restaurant bids at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport; a
summary breakdown of the principle units considered in the expansion of the
Terminal Building at Roanoke Municipal (~oodrum) Airport to be presented to
Council at a later date; and the present fuel and nil concession contract at
Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport:
'Roanoke, ¥irginia
October 18, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentleme'n:
Mr. Mheeler, Chairman of your Airport Advisory Commission,
Mr. Harris and I met on October 12 to discuss several matters
relating to the Airport and in behalf of the three of us, I have
prepared and submit to you this report.
1. The City Council on August 23, 1971, received and opened
bids for the operation under lease of the terminal build-
ing, restaurant and gift shop at the Airport. There were
five bids received and a tabulation of the bidding is
attached. A committee tabulated and reviewed the bids and
recommended the award to the high bid submitted by
Mr. M. L. Hagood, Sr., and Mr. W. L. Hagood, Jr. The
Council referred the bids then to the Airport Advisory
Commission which returned on September 6 with a recommenda-
tion of the award to the high bid subject to the approval
of the bidders financial statement by the City Auditor.
The Council took thin recommendation under advisement.
It is our understanding that the Auditor has inquired into
the matter and is satisfied with financial arrangements,
We recommend to the Council the award of the restaurant
lease to the high bidder under the conditions of bid
document. It is particularly felt that a decision is
necessary on this matter as the present operator is
performing under considerable difficulty inasmuch as
their lease expired the end of August and they are now
in the second month of an extension Mhich presents
difficulties in operation of this type of business.
2, Re met with Mr. J, Stuart Frs~n end reviewed plans end
reviewed plans and various cost data relating to the
terminal building, Mr, Franklin indicated that he would
shortly furnish me with a' summary breakdown of the principle
units considered in the expansion of the terminal nnd these
will be brought to the City Council for your decision,
3. The present fuel and oil concession contract bns expired and
it is recommended that the City Council authorize the
preparation of and enter into an agreement with the present
concessionaire for a month-to-month operation pending more
definite decisions on a new end longer term arrangement
to mhich consideration is now being given.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F, Nirst
Julian r. Rirst
City Manager*
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. LJsh stated that in view of pending
improvements to the Terminal Building at Roanoke Municipal (Roodrnm) Airport,
including the possibility of placing the restaurant on the second floor of said
building, he does not approve of a five year lease at this time for the existing
restaurant facilities on the first floor of the building and raised the question
as to whether or not the lease for the existing restaurant facilities on the first
floor of the buildZn9 could be limited to one year with the right of renewal until
the proposed expansion for thc Zerminal ouilding in agreed upon.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager that the proposal of M. L. Hagood, Sr., and M. L. Hagood, Jr., for the
five year lease on the existing restaurant facilities, be accepted, and that the
matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation Of the proper measure.
The motion was seconded by Mt. Thomas and lost by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .................
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor and Trout ...................4.
Mr. Garland moved that the bids for a five year lease on the existing
restaurant' facilities be rejected and that the City Manager be directed to readver-
tise for bids on a lease for the existing facilities for a period of three years.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk.
Mr. Trout offered a substitute motion that the City Manager be directed
to readvertise tar bids on a lease for the existing facilities for a period of
two years. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor.
After a further discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout withdrew the substi-
tute motion and Mr. Thomas offered a substitute motion that the matter be taken
under advisement and at the same time referred to the City Manager and the City
Attorney to confer with the current bidder to ascertain what arrangements can be
worked out with regard to said restaurant facilities.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Trout then offered a substitute motion that the report of the City
Manager be tabled until Council has had an opportunity to confer as a Committee
of the Mhole with the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
adopted by the following vote:
203
,
~204
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor% Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
BRIDGES: Council having requested a status report from the City Manager
on the 24th Street - Relrose Avenue Project and the Jefferson Street Bridge Pro-
Ject both of which have'been considered under the federal government's TOPICS
iram, the City' Manager submitted the following status report:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October 18, 1971
Ronorable Bayor and City Councll
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council requested several meetings ago that a report
he made to you regarding the 2dth Street project and the Jefferson
Street Bridge project both of which have been considered under the
Federal government's TOPICS Program. The following is in response
to that request. Some of this information has been previously
submitted but is restated herein.
As brief summary review, TOPICS is a Federally funded program
that has been in existence for approximately two years. Its intent
is to provide participating money for localized areas on principle
streets or highways where improvements would benefit safety and
the floe of traffic. This money contrasts with urban aid money
which is directed to the purpose of complete highway projects. A
total Valley area study was made under funds authorized by the
Federal government with the City of Roanoke participating by the
firm of Hayes, Sway', Mattern and Mattern to pinpoint specific
potential TOPICS projects. The two mentioned herein were a result
of that study as well as consideration by the City Council over a
period of years. These particular projects are considered to meet
the criteria of eligibility under TOPICS. TOPICS does not provide
money for the acquisition of rights of way. This has to be done
by other means or either the improvements aye handled totally with-
in existing and available right of way.
Aa a general observation TOPICS has met with only fair success
across the country. It has been in some locations a controversial
program, in other situations it has been highly Criticized for the
time involved in other intersections in the program to facilitate
progressive traffic flow and would include a master controller.
Most of the improvements would be within the existing right of
way although there would be some widening of limited amounts in
several locations. For example the present right of way on Melrose
in this area is BO feet. This width koald be utiliaed however the
80 feet would be established through the entire area which would
result in acquiring some additional land because of the absence of
an BO-foot right of way entirely through the project area. On
Melrose there would be a 64-foot pavement, curb-to-curb allowing
for four moving traffic lanes.
24th Street. between Melrose and Salem Turnpike. is 75 feet
existing right of way and this would be widened to 85 feet and
there would be provided four moving lanes plus a fifth center
turning lane.
24th Street from about Center Avenue south across Shenandoah
to the end of the project at the railroad would be retained at an
existing right of way width of 50 feet, a pavement width of 40
feet providing for three lanes hut improving each of the inter-
sections and particularly the intersection of Shenandoah Avenue.
The project as propbsed does not totally realign the curve
situation at the north approach to the underpass at Shaffers
Crossing. If the project mere to proceed this may merit further
study but would require right of way expenditure.
The estimated cost (January 1971) of this project is
24th Street - Melrose Avenue
Roadway Improvements $3930100
Signal Equipment 5 Installation 133.600
Right of Ray 33,~00
Total
London Avenue - Salem Turnnike Coq~ction
Roadway Improvements $130,500
Right of Ray SO,OOO
Total $180,500
Total Project
Roadway Improvements $523,600
Signal Equipment ~ Installation 133,600
Right of May 03,800
Total 9741,000
as follows:
These costs include 15 percent for engineerin9 and contingencies.
Nith the City's share at 15% this would be estimated at 9101,150.
To provide some margin of safety at this particular point an
addition of 10% would be suggested which would take the City*s
share to $112,150.
2. Jefferson Street Uridge.
This project basically is to replace the Jefferson Street
Bridge over the Roanoke' River. This was reported to the City
Council on yourAgenda of January 16, 1971. Three schemes were
'proposed by the consultant and discussion arises as to which
is the best arrangement. One factor that becomes involved in
as to whether to continue a grade crossing of the Norfolk and
Western or to 9o under or over these tracks. There are obvious
control points including Roanoke Memorial Hospital,' the inter-
section with Niley Orive. Victory Stadium. the intersection of
Reserve Avenue and the question Of the business properties on
the east side Of Jefferson Street.
Scheme A involved the relocation of Jefferson Street from
the vicinity of Reserve Avenue to an alignment which would
connect with Crystal Spring Avenue south of the river. The
existing railroad grade crossing would be eliminated by the
relocation and there would he an onderpass of the railroad and
a bridge over the river. The estimated cost would be
for construction plus 987,000 for right of way or a total of
$2,170.000,
Scheme B proposes the same relocation of Jefferson Street
except that the street would he carried over the railroad and,
at $1,760.O00, the right of way 987,000 for a total of $1,847.000.
between Reserve Avenue and Wiley Drive--Belleview Avenue inter-
section. This would be also un overpass of the railroad crossing
and of the river. The estimated cost is 91,353,000 for construc-
tion, 976,000 for right of way for a total of $1,d41,000.
A fourth arrangement, which was not proposed by the study, would
contlne the grade crossin9 and provide only for a new bridge
over the river with improved grade and intersection at Belleview
and Wiley Drive. A very general estimate of this would be
construction of 9430,000 plus right of way $40,O00 or u total
of $470.000.
In the presentatiou in January the discussion developed oo the
basis of Scheme C. Using this as a basis, the City's cost at 15%
of construction would be $204,450 plus $78,000 for right of way,
plus a 10% factor applicable now for a total of $310,h95.
Both of these projects were seriously Studied generally a year
ago. There were not funds available to consider taking any
definite action at the time. It had been hoped that capital
205
'206
monies wight be available in the 1971-72 budget that would enable
some wore serious consideration. AS Council is aware, shem
the 1971-72 budget uss adopted there were no capital funds
available end this was anticipated in the budget preparation.
As · result of this the idea of being able to proceed within
the current fiscal year with these two projects was again
dropped.
Ne would like to do both of these projects. Nlthout minimizing
at all the Jefferson Street Bridge, but rather looking at the
possibility of accomplishment and total cost as sell as a very
considerable need, it is felt that if n question existed as to
which to commence with first, that the recommended decision
would be the Melrose--24th Street project.
AS noted, the estimated Cityts share at this point in the 24th
Street-Melrose project is approximately $112,000 and in the
bridge at Jefferson Street $310,695. This is a total of $422.695.
Ne are not administratively aware of these monies in hand OF
accessible; however, i£ the City Council would be of the Judg-
ment that these funds could be provided, we would certainly
be most anxious to proceed with either or both of the projects.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
After a discussion Of the report, Mr. Trout moved that the City Manager
be authorized to proceed with plans for improvements to 24th Street, H. W., and
Melrose Avenue and the construction of a new Jefferson Street Bridge. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Wheeler then moved that the City Manager be instructed to make a
study of the two tunnels on 24th Street, N. W., and report back to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with funds which will be needed for winterizing the cooling
tower in the new Municipal Building:
*Roanoke, Virginia
October 18, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council '
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In the budget that was drafted for 1971-72, there was in-
cluded funds for winterizing the cooling tower in the new
Mudicipal Building. However. these funds were eliminated in
the final decision on the budget. In the fairly near future.
as soon as overnight temperatures begin to fall below freezing.
it will be necessary to drain the cooling tower on the new
building and to rely on natural outside air for circulation
throughout the upper three floors of the building.
Under these circumstances, which are necessary with the
present design of the cooling facilities, there will result
the situation that when outside temperatures rise during the
daytime, there will be times when this natural circulation can-
not overcome the heat buildup from lights, body heat, etc.,
and the building will become uncomfortably warm.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern furnished the City with
plans for winterizing the cooling tower so as to make it operatable
throughout the year. The majority of the majority of the work
can be accomplished by City maintenance personnel. However,
there would be a cost estimated at, S1,300 for materials and
equipment. Ne consider this desirable, however, make no specific
recommendation in view of the fact that this was a deleted budget
Item and in view of the gneral budget situation, There is
$2,500 in the Municipal Building budget under miscellaneous
air-conditioning and boating maintenance mbich could be used
to this purpose; however, we are reluctant to do so as these
funds were not originally intended for this resson and it is
customarily anticipated.that other items mould arise through
the year which would draw upon these monies.
As indicated, there ~ no opinion stated on this subject
but it is realized thaL complaints mill undoubtedly occur the
first uarm day that air-conditioning does become inadequate.
If the City Council has amy particular reaction with regard to
this matter me mould be glad to accordingly.comply.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian 'F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure providing for said funds. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unani-
mously adopted,
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the following report
mJth regard to refuse disposal and transmitting certain recommendations in
connection with the matter:
"Roanoke, Virginia
October IH, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
There is attached and submitted a report to me of October 7
from Mr. Clark, Director of Public Works. as to the situation on
refuse disposal and sanitary landfill availability. If anything
Mr. Clark is mild in his reflection of the serious and immediate
need the City has for n sanitary landfill, site. either short-range
the remainder of this.
*DAZE: October 7, 1971
TO: Mr. Hirst
FROM: Mr, Clark S/ Nilliam F. Clark
SUBJECT: Landfill
Me have this week moved into the small tract along Roanoke
River leased from the Norfolk and Western Railway· Company
for sanitary landfill purposes. [e were able to excavate
only three feet (3') before encountering ground water, and
with the several utility lines passing through the site, this
will limit the quantity of refuse which can be disposed of
at this location, One small area remains on the Tinker
Creek fill site for another lift. and. we are keeping this
for use during inclement weather so as to avoid use of the
temporary grade crossing placed over the railroad, lhe
combined capacity of these two sites is estimated as 2-3
months and tbenwe really are out of business.
The State H~altb Department now has regulations pertaining
to the approval, and operation of sanitary landfills. By
April 1, 1972, all local governmental units throughout the
State will have to have submitted a 20-year plan for solid
wastes disposal. Needless to say, the City of Roanoke has
no such plan at this time and I feel reasonably certain
that none of the other jurisdictions in this Valley presently
have facilities which fulfill this requirement. The State
must mom issue permits for sanitary landfills, and existing
sites will have to be discontinued or brought into compliance
with the regulations.
207
;208
Obviously a 20-year plan cannot be developed or agreed upon
within the time remaining ut the City*u present landfill,
Such m plan should logically be approached on u regional
basis for the Valley rather than have four or five different
plans for such s homogeneous area, I still believe the City's
former Brushy.Mountain proposal is the best solution for solid
wastes disposal for the region,. It mould seem that the con-
sultant for the Regional Planning Commission agreed when he
recommended in bis 19&9 report: **** in the absence of a
disqualifying factor at the Brushy Hountain site, it is
recommended that the latter site be used as n Regional Lsnd~
fill stte,* ~o real disqualifying factor is known to exist,
Nevertheless, there has been end most likely remains opposition
to this location, Any attempt by the City to promote this plan
raises objections from the County, mhlle the additional cost
to haul to Dixie Caverns on the most westerly limits of Roanoke
County seems such an unnecessary waste of money and time to
the City, Possibly one further attempt to resolve this impass
through the Fifth Planning District Commission might be
fruitful, Such an effort seems worthwhile when the State*s
requirement for a 2o-ye~ solid wastes disposal plan is
brought into the picture.
One additional long-range site has been brought to my attention
mbich could be considered by the District Planning Commission.
Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke Company owns approximately 850
acres of land near Blue Ridge at the Botetourt-Bedford County
line. Botetourt County is already leasing a small area for
solid wastes disposal. Representatives of VICC have previously
indicated a willingness to consider sale of a portion of this
property and we have an appraisal of $45,900 for approximately
378 acres which might be developable as a regional landfill.
The property is about 10 miles from Roanoke and might be so
situated as to interest Bedford County participation.
Still we are back to the problem of an interim solid wastes
disposal site for the City, a very near future need. A potential
location which was investigated is the old VICC ore pits in
the Chestnut Ridge area of southwest County. The actual site
is on land owned by the City but intended for long term lease
to the National Park Service. It would seem desirable if
these ore pits, some of which are very deep with steeply
sloping sides, were filled. Access would be from U. S. Route
220 (Franklin Road) just south of the City. It would be
necessary to cross land still owned by VICC, and their
representatives have again expressed a millingness to consider
sale of their remaining acreage. Re have an appraisal for ~e
50.5 acre tract at $45,450. Site preparation costs would be
somewhat expensive, including improvements to Southern Hills
Drive for access.
AS an interim solid wastes disposal site, I consider a most
appropriate location would be the north clear zone at the
airport, property acquired by the City from the Church of God.
Access is excellent from Interstate Route 5BI. and State Route
117. Only three houses in the Dogwood Acres development just
east of the clear zone are anywhere near the site and only one
of these is so situated as to be able to observe the property.
I visited the site with Mr. C. R. Mastersono engineer for the
State Health Department Dureau of Solid Naste and Vector Control,
and he expressed the opinion that it. appeared quite acceptable
for landfilling.
Reference the attached topo map of the north clear zone area
on which I have identified the City's property limits. The
area atop the knoll has previously been excavated for borrow
material used in airport runway expansion. Core borings
taken at that time indicated the absence of ground water or
hard rock for some considerable depth. Therefore, our pro-
posal would be to start near the northern portion of the clear
zone, most removed from view, with a trench type fill. Earth
excavated from the trenches can be used as cover material for
the fill and any excess stockpiled for use on neighboring
areas. The easterly portion of the clear zone, which includes
a rough ravine, can also be leveled so as to enable its
maintenance in a condition much more attractive than presently
possible. Good vehicularcirculation can be had by use of the
tmo driveway connections to Route 117; a left turn storage lane
,!
209
should be developed for eastbound traffic approaching the site.
A small lehe could be created near the southeast corner of the
City property to serve as a siltation basin fornaturel runoff
from the clear zone. The site would be so graded to direct
rain flow away from the fill, and once completed and reseeded
the quantity of runoff would most likely be less than under
present conditions**
As it is believed City Council is amare, the problem for the
City of Roanoke is created by the absolute absence of reasonable land
within the City for sanitary land filling and the apparent reluctance
of Roanoke County to permit the City to go beyond its corporate
boundary. This latter situation, as mas experienced in the Orushy
Mountain Regional proposal is, or mas, developed around public
objection. This objection was and is simply unfounded on the basis
of the facts of a properly operated sanitary landfill.
I mill not 90 into repetition of the points stated by Mr. Clark
nor into the background of the local situation or into the standards
and procedures of sanitary landfill. Both of these latter points
have been extensively covered in the past.
As summary the following recommendations~e made.
1. The City first petition the County for permission to operate a
temporary landfill in the north clear zone. This will not only
offer a good location but will provide an excellent means to
improve the appearance of this ragged land.
1 realize there may be objections to this site. But I believe
the need is there and actual operations mill quickly overcome
objections.
2o At the same time as No. I above, the City reaffirm or repetition
the County for the use of the City owned property in the Brushy
Mountain area, with intent of a long-range regional facility.
The County, through the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors,
and by testimony in the recent annexation proceedings has taken
the position that the City has withdrawn its request at this
location. The documents of the matter are to the contrary.
3. At the same time, as the above two proposals, the City also
submit and petition for use of the ore pit area in the Chestnut
Ridge area. This would be offered as an alternative for their
consideration. This could also be a reglonal or semi-regional
facility.
4. The County be requested .to give a very early reply.
5. If'the County does not give an early reply to the North Clear
Zone area as a temporary or intermediate location, then the
only apparent alternative for the City is to go into the small
unimproved City park area at the top of Yellow Mountain Road
on the northwest side of the Parkway. A portion of this is in
the City. This would also be short-range. We have avoided
pressing this location, because of thenarrow roadway approaches
via Yellow Mountain Road.
6. If, further the County delays or denies in response or ties the
situation up in other matters, then the City:
a. Determine if stronger steps should be taken, aed/or
b. Seek to work out an arrangement for the site on theBedford-
Botetourt line referred to by Mr, Clark. This location and
a program there could be of considerable use benefit to our
neighbors to the east.
As stated, there is un immediate need for both a short-
range and a bog-range location. A primary reason for the short-range
facility is that time will be .required for site preparation of any
of the long-range locations and for working out hauling and land-
fill equipment, including transfer stations, not only by Roanohe but
also by the other jurisdictions if'they join in.
May I ca~l your note to the attached copy of a newspaper article
of October 14. This reflects Roanoke County's problems at its
present refuse site. Attention is also asked to the last paragraph
of the article.
I sm firmly convinced that once n decision is made and the
operation gets underway, the clamor will disappear and everyone
mill wonder what it was all about, The history of successful
sanitary landfills hears this out, here and elsewhere,
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F, Hirst
Julian F. flirst
City Manager#
In this connection, Mayor Mebber appointed Vice Mayor James O, Trout as
an additional member and as Chairman of the City of Roanoke Landfill Committee,
Mr, Rheeler then moved that the report of the City Manager be referred
to the Landfill Committee for study, report and recommendation to Council, The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY P~AN: Council having previously taken under advise-
i meat reports from the City 'Mannger in connection with establishing a grievance
i procedure for city employees, the City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting another proposed grievance procedure, advising that this procedure
differs from those previously presented to Council on January 25, April 27 and
September 14, 1970, by the inclusion of the Personnel Department as a review step
and by certain refinements to clarify proceedings in certain situations and
Strongly recommending that Council give favorable consideration to such a procedure:
'Roanoke, Virginia
October lB, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
There has previously been submitted to the City Council
recommendations for the adoption by the City Council of an
employee formal Grievance Procedure. These recommendations .
were made on January 26, April 27 and September 14, 1970. It is
considered that the desirability and need for such a Procedure
continues and increases,
There is herewith submitted a recommended Procedure, This,
as submitted, differs from those previously presented by the
inclusion of the Personnel Board as a review step and by certain
refinements to clarify proceedings in certain situations,
PROPOSED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
CITY OF ROANOKE
1, GRIEVANCE POLICY:
It shall continue to be the policy of,the City to permit
and encourage discussion and exchange of ideas amen9 employ-
ees of the City in the interest of good and effective communi-
cation and understanding between employees. This policy is
also for the purpose of continuing betterment of employment
and employment conditions. Such a policy of discussion and
exchange among personnel includes the necessary requirements
that levels of supervision be respected by all personnel and
that in .certain departments and agencies of the City there
are particular procedures that also apply.
It is considered desirable that, along with the above, the
City make available to its employees a formal Grievance Pro-
cedure. In establishing this Procedure, .it is the intent
and direction of the City Council that this Procedure shall
be available to any and all employees who desire to use it,
[i
211
It is the further intent and direction that when an enployee
uses this Grievance Procedure, or any step within it, it shall
be the obligation of both the employee presenting the grievance
and the employee reviewing the grievance to conform to smd
respect this Procedure.
The following Grievance Procedure does not eliwinate the
policy of discussion and exchang~ among personnel, as stated
in the first paragraph above. Rather this is a formal pro-
cedure available to any employee who wishes to present a
grievance in the manner hereinafter stated and to have that
grievance heard, reviewed and answered.
In the presentation of grievances at any ~upervisory level.
employees are assured of freedom from restraint, interference.
discrimination or reprisal.
2..CRIEVANCE PROCEDURE:
a. ORAL REPORT TO IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR: An employee wishing
to submit a grievance shall first present his grievance,
orally, to his immediate supervisor.
b, #R]TTEN RE~QRT TO IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR: If the oral
grievance presentation does not satisfactorily answer the
matter or fails to settle the dispute, the employee may
then within five (5) working days submit a written Grievance
report to his immediate supervisor. Mithin three (3)
working days after receiving such a grievance, the immedi-
ate supervison shall furnish the employee with a written
reply to the question or dispute.
If conditions of the grievance are such that the immediate
supervisor requires more than the three (3) days, then
the supervisor shall in writing advise the emplbyee of the
reason for the need of additional time.
c. A~pEAL TO APPOINTING AUTHORITY: If the written reply to
the grievance is not satisfactory to the employee, he or
she may, Within three (3) working days after receiving
the reply, submit an appeal in writing to his or her
appointing authority. The appointing authority' may be
the head or supervisor of the employee's division,
department, office unit or agency. The appointin9
authority shall confer with the aggrieved employee and
any witnesses prior to rendering a decision.
The decision of the appointing authority shall be reduced
to writin9 and shall be 9ivan to the aggrieved employee
within seven (7) working days of the date on which the
appointing authority received the appeal.
In all instances in which the appointing authority is
not the department bead, the written decision of the
appointing authority shall have attached thereto a
statement by the department head that the head has know-
ledge of the decision. Such statement need not indicate
agreement or disagreement with the decision--only know-
ledge of the decision is required.
d. APPEAL TO PERSONNEL' BOARD: The employee may. after follow-
lng the previously described steps, and if the last decis-
ion received is not acceptable, appeal in writing to the
Personnel Board. Such appeal shall be made within three
(3) working days after receipt by the employee of the
decision of the appointing authority.
On an appeal to the Personnel Board, the City Personnel
Director, prior to the scheduling of a Board hearing.
shall review the appeal. The Director may meet with the
aggrieved employee and/or summon such persons or
information as amy assist him in his review. If the
Personnel Director shall resolve the matter, this shall
be confirmed in writin9 to the employee ten (lO) working
days after receipt by the Director, on behalf of the
Board, of the employee's letter of appeal to the Board.
The Personnel Director shall not resolve the matter
contrary to the prior decision of the appointing
authority without concurrence of the appointing authoriV.
212
If the Personnel Director dues not resolve or does not
seeh to resolve the setter, he shall within the ten (10)
dsy period schedule 8 hearing before the Personnel Hoard.
The hearing shall be conducted not later then fifteen (15)
working days following the end or the ten (10) day period.
e. REVIEW BY CITY MANAGER: The Personnel Hoard shall promptly
report in utitlngits findings and any recommendation to
the City Manager, The City Momager shall make a decision
in the matter not later than slx (6) working days after
receipt o! the report of the Hoard. This decision shall
be in writing to the employee, with a copy to the department
head end/or appointing authority and the Personnel Director.
The decision of tbs City Manager shall he considered as
final,
3. PROCEEDINGS OF PERSONNEL BOARD:
For the purpose of implementing this Procedure the Personnel
Board shall be guided by the follouieg. Hearings of the Board
shall be closed except as to: (1) the aggrieved employee and
any representation the employee say request; (2) any witnesses
whom the employee or Board may determine and request as being
beneficial'to the presentation or consideration of the matter;
and. (3) as the Board may further determine in its judgment.
Notice to the employee of the call of the hearing shall be by
personal service or by certified mail to the employees last
known hose address. The verbatim recording of the proceedings
of a hearin9 shall be at the discretion of the Hoard. A hearimj
may be continued if the coutJnuance will benefit decision and
is not unduly extended. Employees of the City shall respond
to call by the Hoard for appearauce before a hearing of the
Board. The Hoard say set such further rules of conduct or
procedure as it maI deem necessary to its purposes.
4. RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENTS:
A decision in a 9rievamce may include the condition that an
adjustment for the grievance be retroactive but not earlier than
the date the grievance mas first submitted in writing by the
employee to the immediate supervisor.
5. TIME LIMITS:
The time limits as prescribed for filing and answering all
written grievance shall be strictly eeforced. If an employee
fails to file a grievance mithim given time lisits the grievance
will be void and not considered. Exception to these time limits
may be made if the employee due to injury or illness is physical-
ly unable to file a grievance. Extensions for any other reasons
shall be only with written authority of the City Manager and
for justifiable reason.
If the reviewing authority fails to answer within the given time
it will be assumed the employee can automatically move to the
next step of grievance preceders without awaiting an omswero
The scheduling of any meetings, conferences or hearings on any
matter involving the attendance of the aggrieved employee shall
be with the reasoeable consideration of the ability of the
employee to be present. If the employee elects to he represented
before the Persounel Hoard. the inability of the representation
of the employee to meet the schedule of this Procedure or of
the Hoard shall mot be justification or cause for the Hoard
to postpone or delay its hearing.
6. GENERAL:
a. The office or department in which the employee is employed
shall provide clbrical assistance in preparing a written
grievance when requested by the employee. This assistance
shall not extend to aid to any persons representing the
employee before the Personnel Hoard.
b. If the employee feels that the continuance of a grievance
causes a condition of immediate hazard to health or safety,
the employee say omit one or more steps of the procedure in
Paragraph 2 or may appeal verbally instead of in writing.
However. if the person appealed to does not regard that such
a hazard exists, the grievance appeal may be sent back to
,1
i
213
the ewployee, mithout decision, requesting that the employee
conform to each step of the procedure established in Pare-
graph 2, la the step of the Personnel Board the ab,re
determination may be made by the Personnel Director without
the convening of the Board.
c. If an appeal constitutes a 'class' grievance, namely tm* OF
more employees under more than one supervisor, then the
employees shall be entitled to Initiate appeal action at the
next foil*ming step, in this Procedure, ns mould encompass
all employees making the appeal. In a class appeal, all
employees appealing shall sign the letter er letters of
appeal. Should t~e person appealed to determine that class
action does not apply, with the Personnel Director acting
for the Personnel Board, then the employees may he directed
to conform to the prior steps of this Procedure.
d. If a grievance Involves personalities, in the opinion of the
aggrieved employee,, as would remo~e objectivity or proper
consideration from the proceedings, then the employee shall
be entitled to initiate appeal action at the next following
step, in this Procedure as would avoid an issue of
personalities. Should the person appealed to determine that
there is not a sufficient personality issue to justify going
over a step, then the employee may be directed to conform
to prior steps of this Procednre.
e. A decision, under subparagraph c or d above, directing
the employee to return and conform to prior steps shall,
within itself he appealable by the employees or
employee to the next following step in this Procedure
and all time schedules and other conditions of this
Procedure shall hencefortB apply in the appealed matter.
?. OTIIER ~ERSONNEL APPEALS:
Zhis Procedure will in e* way supersede or replace a permanent
employee's right to review by the Personnel U~ rd in cases where
the employee has been discharged, suspended for thirty (30)
days or more, discharged or reduced in pay shall have the right
to appeal such action before the Personnel Board; a written
appeal notice must be filed with the Personnel Director with-
in five (5) days after notice of such action by the empleyee*s
supervisor; and the Personnel Board Rearing will be held not
less than five (5) nor more thaw ten (10) days after receiving
the empbyee*s written request. The recommendations of the
Uoard are provided to be referred to the City Manager for
decision. In these conditions, or any other conditions ns
may be designated to the Personnel Board, these Grievance
Procedures shall not apply or be followed.'
It is strongly recommended that the City Council give favorable
consideration to such a Procedure and that appropriate action be taken
for adoption in the interest of an orderly personnel program.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, the City Manager verbally urged that Council adopt
this grievance procedure as s'oon as possible.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. LAsh moved that the report be
taken under advisement by Council for study as a'Committee of t~e Mb*lc. The
motion was seconded b~ Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
LEAGUE OF VIRGINIA MUNICIPALITIES: The City Manager ~ubmitted a written
:eport in connection mith Urban 12, advisin9 that Urban 12. as a somewhat separate
function, has been dissolved and its concept incorporated.totally into the Virginia
Municipal League structure, that three sections have been set up under the league
2:1.4
organization for cities over 35,000 population, for cities under 35.000 population
end for towns, transmitting u notice os to · meeting of the section over 35.000
tpopulation and proposed operating procedures for the group and also transmlttJn9
i!copy of the brief of the preliminary legislative program of the League.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be recefred and filed. The motlen was
!!seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
BUILDINGS: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting
;the quarterly condemnation report as prepared by Mr. L. G. Leftuich, Commissioner
!of Buildings, for the period from July 1, 1971, to September 30, 1971, and January
1. 1969o to September 30. 1971, respectively.
Mr. Llsk moved that the report of the City Manager and the quarterly
!condemnation report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY ENGINEER-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT:
The City Manager submitted a written report concurring in the following report of
a committee recommending that the proposals of Magic City Motor Corporation,
Antrim Motors. Incorporated, and International Harvester Company. for furnishing
seventeen new 1972 model automobiles to be used by the Police Department, the
Department of Public Works and the Juvenile Detention Home, be accepted:
"October 18, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Friday. October 6, bids were received and opened,before the
committee whose names appear belom, for several automobiles to
be used by various departments of the City government. As shown
on the attached tabulation, bids from fire (5) local dealers were
received, although some did not bid on every item, The several
automobile categories are hereafter discussed in turn:
Item 1, 10 police cars - the lam bid submitted by Magic City Motor
Corporation complies with the City's specifications. On September
5, police car ~233, not proposed for replacement in the current bud-
get. was wrecked while in pursuit of another vehicle. This 1970
model car has over UOoO00 miles and an estimated value of $1,000.
The damages sustained in the wreck were estimated in excess Of
$1,200, or a total loss. Magic City Motor Corporation has
expressed a millingness to sell the City an additional new
police car at the gross unit bid of $3,39b.bS. The sum of $34,500
is included in the present budget for (In) police ears, so sufficient
funds would remain to purchase this additional vehicle. The
wrecked auto would be salvaged by the City for parts.
Item 2, (3) compact cars - these are intended for use by the
Engineering Department, Public Morks Department. and Garage Divis-
ion. The sum of $7,993.20 is included in the budget for these
vehicles. The low bid by Magic City Motor Corporation complies with
the City'* specifications and is within the budget.
Item 3. (1) compact car - this unit will be used in the Sanitation
Division. The sum of $2,300 is included in the budget, which is
slightly less than the low bid submitted by Antrim Motor Co., Inc.
Item4, (1) Station Wagon - this unit will be used by the Juvenile
Detention Home. 7he sum of $3,250 is included in the present budget.
The lom bid submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation is within the
available funds and complies with the City's specifications, The
committee does not feel that air conditioning is necessary for this
vehicle.
215
Item S, (1) Jeep Type Yebicle - this unit will be used by the
Police Department and assigned to patrol at Carvin*s Dove. The
mum of $3,400 is included in the budget for this vehicle. Interest
has beenexpressed.by several City departments In the use of the
intended trade-in, a 1961 pickup truck. This vehicle is considered
· in reasonably good operating condition end morth more than the
trade-in offered'by the low bidder. The proposal from International
Harvester Company ~cludes a recommendation for mammal front wheel
locking hubs at an additional cost of $56. This is au operational
feature related to the 4-wheel drive aspect of the vehicle, and
considered worth the extra expenditure. The alternate gu air
conditioning is not deemed appropriate.
In summary the committee recommends na follows:
Item I - accept the low bid of Magic City Motor Corporation for (IO)
nam Police cars in the net amount of $2g,f141.54, plus one additional
new Police car in the amount of $3,396.65 (budget Form 3A attached);
Item 2 - accept the low bid of Magic City Motor Corporation for (3)
new compact cars in the net amount of 97,196.18; ~ten 3 - accept
the low bid of Autrim Motors, Inc., far (1) nam compact car in the
net amount of $2,315.17; an appropriation of $15.17 will be required
for this purchase; Jtem ~ - accept the low bid of Magic City Motor
Corporation for (1) nam station wagon in the net amount of $3,030.92,
Harvester Company for (1) new Jeep type vehicle in the amount cf
$3,105.59, mithout trade-in, without air conditioning, but including
manual front wheel locking hubs.
RECOMMENDED: S/ Byron E, Hamer
Dyron E. Hamer
Assistant City Manager
S/ Mil~iam ~, Clark
Nilliam F. Clark
Director of Public Marks
S/ B. B. Thompson
Dueford D. Thompson
Purchasing Agent*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n19912) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of seventeen (17)
new 1972 model automobiles for use by various departments of the City~ upon certain
terms and conditions; accepting certain bids made to the City for furnishing and
delivering said vehicles; rejectin~ certain other bids made to the City; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 44.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler amd Mayor
Mebber ............................7.
NAYS: None ............. O.
SALE OF PROPERTY-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Attorney submitted a
written report advising that by deeds dated October 6 and October 11, 1971, the
City of Roanoke has purchased the properties required for expansion of the Sewage
Treatment Plant facilities.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report cf the City of
.Roanoke for the month of September, 1971.
Mr. Llsk moved that the report be received and filed. Th~ motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARB: The City Auditor submitted n monthly
statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended September, 1971.
Mr. Lisk moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion mas
ilseconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Robert A, Garland, Chairman
of the committee appointed to review private fire and burglar alarm systems pre-
sently installed in the communications center and determine the responsibility
of the City to continue the practice of permitting private alarm systems to terminate
in the City*s communications center, submitted a written report advising that on
Thursday, October 14, 1971. the committee met with the citiaens interested in the
continuance Of the present alarm syste, that as a result of this meeting, Mr. J.
5ink and Mr. Alfred Beckley were instructed to study the equipment required to
continue the performance of this function with city personnel and at the earliest
practical date report their findings to the committee and at such time as all the
information is available the committee will submit a final report to Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Council having referred to a committee for tabulation, report
and recommendation the bids received for the construction Of a bituminous overlay
of the South 2,250 feet of Runway 15/33 and the south 2,000 feet of TaxJway 15/33,
including crossovers and blast pads at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport. the
committee submitted the following report recommondin9 that tho low bid of John A.
Hall and Company, Incorporated, in the amount of $249,992.00. be accepted, subject
to approval by the Federal Avaiation Administration:
~Roanoko, Virginia
October 18. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
After proper advertisement bids were received and publicly
opened and read on Monday, October II, 1971, for the construction
of a bituminous overlay of the south 2,250 feet of Runway 15/33
and the south 2,000 feet of Taxiway 15/33, including crossovers
and blast pads at the Roanoke Municipal Airport, This project
is to be constructed with aid from the Federal Aviation Agency,
Project ADAP 8-51-0045-01.
Four (4) bids were submitted as shown on the attached tabula-
tion with the Iow bid in the amount of $249,982.00 being submitted
by John A. Hall and Company. Inc.
The low bid Is within the City's estimate for this construc-
tion and the funds for this project are available in Account T1-
102. We have received notification from the Federal Aviation
Agency aa to their participation in this project based on previ-
ous estimates at fifty percent {50~) of the project cost, their
share estimated at that time to be $120.500.00.
217
It is your committee*s recommendation that:
1, The low bid in the amount of $249,982,00 submitted by
John A. Hall and Company, lac** be accepted and that a
contract be awarded to John A. Hall and Company, Inc.,
subject to approval by the Federal Aviation Agency.
2. Ail other bids received by rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron £. Haner
Byroo E. Naser
Assistant City Manager
S/ Marshall Harris
Marshall Harris
Airport Manager
S! William F. Clark
William F. Clark
Director of Public Marks
S/ Sam H. McGhee. III
Sam H. McGhee, III
City Engineer*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
committee and offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the proposal Of
John A. Hall C Company, Incorporated, for performing said work:
(#19913) AN ORDINANCE accepting a certain proposal and awarding a
contract for construction of bituminous overlay of the south 2,250 feet of Runway
15/33 and the south 2,000 feet of Ta~iway 15/33, including cross-overs, at Roanoke
Municipal ~oodrum) Airport, together with other related work, for Federal Airport
Project No. ADAP 8-51-0045-01, at Roanoke Municipal Airport, upon certain terms
and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite
contract; rejecting all Other bids made for said improvements; and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 35, page 45.)
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: MeSSrS. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................. T.
NAYS: None ..............O.
Mr. Trout then offered the following Resolution authorizing and directing
the City Manager to execute and file with the Federal Aviation Administration
requisite requests for federal aid to assist the City of Roanoke in accomplishing
its proposed Airport Project No. ADAP B-51-0045-01 for certain necessary improve-
ments for development of Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport and in so doing to
make certain assurances to the United States:
(m19914) A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City Manager to
execute and file with Federal Aviation Adeinistration requisite requests for Federal
Aid to assist the City in accomplishing its proposed Airport Project No. ADAP
B-51-0045-01 for certain necessary improvements for development of the City's
'2'~8
Roanoke Nunicipal (Woodrum) Airport and, in so doing, to make certain assurances
to the United States.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Dook No, 36. page
Hr. Trout moved the adoption or the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by DF. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... ?.
NAYS: None ................ O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CO'NS1DERAYION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
AIRPORT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the properl
measure relating to certain surplus air navigation beacon facilities located on
Read Rountain in Roanoke County. he presented same; whereupon. Nr. Trout moved
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19915) AN ORDINANCE relating to certain surplus air navigation beacon
facilities located on Read Mountain in Roanoke County.
MHEREAS, by Ordinance No. IOTT?o adopted July ?, lg6g, the Council pro-
Vided for the City's acceptance of the donation by the Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration, of certain air navigation beacon facilities locat-
ed on Read Mountain in Roanoke, County. upon certain terms and conditions more
particularly set out in said ordinance; and
MHEREAS, the City Manager has reported to the Council that certain of
such facilities have been removed from Read Mountain and placed into operation
elsewhere, there remaining on Read Mountain certain other of such facilities which
are not needed bT the City for the operation of its Nunlcipal Airport, and, due to
the inaccessibility of the location, cannot be economically removed for appropriate
disposition, said City Manager further reporting that the owner in fee simple
of the lands upon which the unneeded facilities ore situate is willing to allow
the same to remain thereon provided title to said unneeded facilities is trans-
ferred to him without cost; mod
MHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended that, the City being under
obligation to the Federal Aviation Administration to remove all of such beacon
facilities at the City's expense, it would be in the City*a best interest to donate
the remainder of such facilities as are no longer needed by the City to the fee
simple owner of the lands upon which they are situate, in which recommendation the
Council concurs.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the City Ranager be and is hereby authorized and directed to deliver to Mr. Morris
.!
~iCrumpacher. ocher in fee sinple of certain lands upon Read Mountain lu R,so,he
~Cuunty. such munlments of title as may be nppruprlate to nil Of the Surplus air
navigation beacon facilities presently remaining upon his lands uhich facilities
are no longer needed by the City.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lish and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES:' Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ...............O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSIWESS:
POLICE DEPARYMENT: Mr. Lisk called to the attention Of Council that
several resident's have suggested to him that Roanoke City Council enact a measure
similar to that adopted by the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, in connection
the amount of vandalism On Halloween night.
The City Manager sug'oested that the matter he taken under advisement since
it is too late to prepare the measure for enforcement this year but that it be
kept in eind for possible enactment next Halloween.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE ST:
ity Clerk
Mayor
219
220
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Rondoy, October 25, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting In the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Dullding. Monday. October 25. 1971, at 2 p.m.. the
regular meeting hour. with Mayor Mebber presiding.
pRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. David M. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thosas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Rayor Roy L. Rebber---?.
ABSENT: None .........................................................O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Bryon E. Honer
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with o prayer by the Reverend
Carlton D. Camay, Pastor, Northview Methodist Church.
MINUTES: Copy Of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
October ll. lg?l, having been furnished each member of Council. on motion of Mr.
Lisk. seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
COMPLAINTS-AIRPORT: A communication from Mr. Saunders Uuerrant suggest-
ing that the canned music in the airport lobby at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum)
be eliminated, was before Council.
Airport
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the Airport Advisory
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was second-
ed by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. R. P. Mason. Jails Super-
intendent, Department of Welfare and Institutions. in connection with a routine
inspection of the Roanoke City Jail on October 6, 1971. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then moved that the City Manager be instructed to obtain
cost estimates on installing sufficient toilet facilities and drinking water
facilities in the city lockup and report back to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SEERS AND STORM DRAINS; Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Botetourt
Jaycees supporting and endorsing a regional sewage treatment and water supply
system with each locality in the Roanoke Valley Area Planning Jurisdiction sharing
the cost of building and having a voice in the operation and function of the
regional system as opposed to each locality trying to update their existing systems
or build new ones which might not be adequate, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
:!was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING-SPECIAL PERMITS: An application from Mr. Harvey S. Latins, Attor-
ney representing the J. H. Smith Re*mia9 House, Lessee, and Colonial-American
National Rank, Administrator of the Estate of N. M. Schlossberg, Lessor, requesting
a *se variance to the exlstJug zoning lams for property located at 125A Campbell
Avenue, S. H., was before Council.
The City Attorney pointed out that this request is much broader than it
appears on the surface and recommended that Council simply receive and file the
communication from Mr. Lutius.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and riled. The motion
Has seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, III, Attorney,
representing Ivauhoe Corporation and Mr. Fred C. Ellis, et ux., requesting that
property described as Lots 2 through parts of 19 and 19. inclusive, H~ock g.
Lincoln Court. Official Tax Nos. 2041325 - 2041341. inclusive, be fez.ned from
IDM, Industrial Development District, to HM, tleavy Manufacturing District. mas
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request f~r rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. M. Cnldwell Butler, Attorney. representing
Mr. Joseph Grigqs, III, requesting that 10,74 acres of land located on Green Rood,
N. E., described as Official Tax Nos. 3250801 - 3250804, be fez*ned from RD,
Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District, was before
Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred ~ the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Daffy H. Lichtenstein. Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. Raymond B. Naif. advising that on October lO, 1971. Council referred
to the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation a request
that property described as the easterly half of Lot 15, all' of Lots 15 and 17
and the westerly half of Lot IG, Map of Park S~uare. Official Tax Nos. 1551135 -
1561137, inclusive, be fez*ned from RS-3. $ing'le-Family Residential District, to
RD, Duplex Residential District, and that he would lihe to revise said fez*ming
request to include only the easterly half Of Lot 15 and all Of Lot 15. Map of
Park Square, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the revised request for fez.nlm9 be referred to the
City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
221
'222
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-RECREATION DEPARTMEhT-PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager
submitted a mr~tten report recommending that $1BO.O0 be appropriated to Operating
Supplies and Materials under Section #TS, *Recreation, Parks and Recreational
Areas** of the 1971-T2 budget, ~o provide funds for the purchase of championship
trophies to be presented to sandlot football teams participating under the
direction of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(:19916) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =75, *Recreation,
Parks and Recreational Areas,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation OrdJnance~ and pro-
vidin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 52.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $400.00 be appropriated to Travel under Section :gO.
Treatment Fund," of the 1971-72 Se'edge Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance,
to reimburse expenses already incurred and to provide sufficient funds for normal
travel to be anticipated within this account.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloeing emergency Ordinance:
(~19917) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section :90, *Sewage
Treatment Fund." of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance.
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 53.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................
NAYS: None .............. O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting copy of a communication from Mrs. William J. Damco. General Chairman of
the 1971 Color and Fashion Shoe, conducted at the Roanoke Civic Center. said
communication expressing appreciation to the staff of the Roanoke Civic Center for
itheir cooperation in connection with the 1971 Color and Fashion Shoe.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report and communication be received and filed.
iThe motion was seconded by Mr. Carland and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the City Manager be reqaested to clarify the
ipolicy of the Roanoke Civic Center in charging certain occupants of the CIvic
~Center for removal of the Ice on the coliseum floor and report back to Council.
!The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the folloming report trans-i
mittlng an Ordinance applicable to noxioos weeds, offal and refuse and the clearin~
of same from properties in the City of Roanoke, recommending that Council inact
this Ordinance as it is believed that it is a considerable improvement over the
present City Code provisions:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
*Roanoke, Virginia
October 25, 1971
There is herewith submitted, as prepared by the City Attorney,
an ordinance applicable to noxious meeds, offal and refuse and the
clearing of same from properties in the City. It is recommended
that the Council inact this ordinance as it is believed that it is
a considerable improvement over the present Code provisions.
As I believe is generally understood, there does not seem to
be anything that has been found by other localities as an ideal
or perfect meed ordinance. Thus the direction has to he to try
to 9et mhat appears to be the best under the circumstances. Me
would like to adopt this and try to proceed under it. If adminis-
trative Or enforcement problems later develop ~t could become
entirely possible that amendments m~uld have to be provided.
This bas been reviewed mith the Director of Public Health who
is in general concurrence with it. It is to be noted that there
is provided that the Health Department will advertise twice a
year as to the enforcement of this ordinance and the cost of
those advertisements would have to be borne out of other accounts
than the Health Department inasmuch as this type ~ thing would
not be a participating item by the State Health Department.
One problem which an ordinance of this type carries is the
difficulty of obtaining personnel and equipment, mba*her it be
City or private, to do this type of work. Ne will have to test
it to see mhat type Of success we can have. We also will need
special funds which can be called for later in this fiscal year
in order to handle whatever clearing might be necessary in the
spring of the coming year. There then would have to be budgeted
funds in the 1972-73 fiscal year. Based on the volume of work
that may he involved, it is also possible that some individual
in the Public Works Department may necessarily have to be designated
to supervise the actual clearing work and to keep adequate records.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager~
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested that action on
this matter be deferred one week due to a question in the wording of the proposed
Ordinance.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
that action on the matter he deferred one meek. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Lisk and unanimously adopted.
WATER DEPARTMENT: Council having previously awarded a contract to Brock
, ~ Davis Company, Incorporated, for the construction, equipping and installation
of the Boxley Hills Booster Pumping Station Project, Contract *M*, the City Manager
223
224
isubmitted th~~ folloxing report recomnending that n time extension attributable
to the delay in a required hlghmay permit and a labor strike delay at the Henry
pratt Company, the supplier of the valves for this project:
'Roanoke, Virginia
October 25, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City awarded a contract to Brock ~ Davis Co.. Inc..
Maynesboro, Virginia. for the construction, equipping and
installation of this pumping station with contract date of
May 25, 1970, and in the amount of $14§,000. The contract
provided for a tine limit of 300 calendar days from the
starting date and charges of $50 per calendar day beyond
the 300 days unless the time is extended for 'unavoidable
delays.' Contract starting date was established as June
1970, The 300 calendar day tine limit would have expired
April 18, 1971.
The contract provided that 'The Contractor shall obtain
all necessary Contractor's licenses as required by any govern-
mental authority involved.* This was to include permits from t~
Department of Highways for work within the highway right of way.
In June 1970 the Contractor's representative was informed
that the Highway Department would not issue the permit to him
since he was not the omner. On July 1, 1970, the Mater Depart-
ment wrote the Highway Department seeking to obtain the permit.
After some difficult discussions, from outright refusing to
grant the permit to modification of a valve vault to permit
precastin9, the permit was issued to this department on
November 9, 1970. The permit stipulated that no murk mas to
begin before March 15, 1971. The contractor received the valve
wbtch was to go into the right of way on March 24. 1971. There
was a period of some six weeks during the last of January
and February mhcn the contractor did not do any murk mhile
waiting for the valve and the time when he could begin work in
the right of way.
There further mas ~volved a material delay in the con-
tractor's performance due to a three months employee labor strike
at the Henry Pratt Company, the supplier of the valves on the
project. Under the City's contract document for this project
labor strikes was designated as a reason for delay in the
allotted time.
Brock ~ Davis is on record with tbe City by letters of
August 11, 1970. December 2. 1970. December 22, 1970, April
27, 1971 and June 17, 1971. as advising of contract delay
elements or requesting extension of time.
The company has also requested extension on the basis
of a late delivery of suction chambers which are inserted in
the floor slab and because of non fitting component parts of the
pump. These reasons, however, are not considered justification
and have been denied by the Mater Department as a reason of delay.
Air,rd, Burdick and Howson have concurred in writing as
to there being a justification for extension of time to the
contractor.
The contractor originally requested an extension Of 39 days,
however, his actual time overrun mas 26 days. This at $50
per day would otherwise result in a contract reduction payment
of $1,300.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize by ordinance
a time extension of 26 days.to the contractor in this matter said
extension attributable to the delay in the highway permit and
labor strike delay of the supplier.
Respectfully submitted,
$! Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
225
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure in accordance uith the recommendation of the
City Manager, The motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a mrltten report concurring
iu the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of Oran
Roanoke Corporation for supplying one Oran Model 752 Pamper Tanker combination
with Materoas CM-750 class (A) two stage centrifugal pump and eqaipment, moanted
on an International F-lDO0 Truck Chassis, for the sume of $2§,855.98, be accepted
and that $1o656.98 be appropriated to provide safficient funds for said purchase:
"October 25, lg71
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Oo Wednesday, October 13, bids were received and opened be-
fore the committee mhose names appear below for a new tank truck
to be used by the Fire Department. As shown on the attached
tabulation, the low bid was submitted by Oran Roanoke Corporation,
Vinton, Virginia.
The committee has reviewed Se two bids submitted and finds
the low bid to be in conformity with the City's specifications.
The sum of $24,000 is included in the carrent budget. Accoant
~47-365, for this equipment.
It is recommended that the bid of Oran Roanoke Corporation
be accepted for supplying one (1) Oran Model 752 Pumper Tanker
combination, with Materous CM-750 class (A) two stage centrifagnl
pump and equipment, mounted on an International F-1800 Truck
Chassis, for the sum of $25,8§6.98. This will require an
appropriation of
Respectfully submitted,
S/ By'on E. Hamer
Byron E. Haner
S/ William F. Clark
Milliam F, Clark
S~ D. B. ~hompson
Bueford B. Thompson"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Manager and offered the follomiag emergency Ordinance appropriating $1,95b.98
as additional funds for the purchase of the fire truck:
(z19916) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n47, "Fire Department,-
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 53.)
Mr. Treat moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
226
Mr. Uheeler then'offered the follamJng emergency Ordinance accepting
the proposal of Oran Roanoke Corporation for furnishing said fire truck in the
amount of $25,fl56.98:
(=19919) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of one (1) hem fire
truck upon certain terms and conditions; accepting a certain bid made to the
City for furnishing and delivering said vehicle; rejecting a certain other bid
made to the Cltyt and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 54.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Carland, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
LEGISLATION: The City Attorney submitted the following report in connec-
tion with certain recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and
legislation enacted by the Oeneral Assembly of Virginia at the 1971 Extra Session
responsive tosuch Court decisions and transmitting an Ordinance with regard thereto:
"October 25, 1971
~onorable Mayor and Eembers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Oentlemen:
In conversation with Mr. Richard L. Lawrence, Commonwealth's
Attorney, and certain judges in the City, it appears that
certain recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States and legislation enacted by the General Assembly of
Virginia at the 1971 Extra Session responsive to such Court
decisions have made necessary amendment of Chapter 7. Enforce-
ment of Fines, of Title XXIII, Misdemeanors and Offenses, of
the City Code.
It now appears that #heuever a person is convicted of a violation
and is ordered to pay a fine and if such person is financially
unable to pay such fine thathe must be given opportunity to
pay such fine in installments or upon such other conditions
as the Court trying the case may deem appropriate. It does
not appear that any change in the present law need be made
for persons who are financially able to pay such fine but who
refuse or neglect to do so and these persons may be coufined
in jail until the fine is paid.
An ordinance which would implement the intent of the recent
decisions of the Supreme Court Of the United States and the
provisions recently made by the General Assembly is transmitted
herewith, the pro~ision$ outlined above being codified as Sec.
1, of Chapter 7, of Title XXIII, of the City Code.
Section 2 of said Chapter 7. presently provides for time off for
9god behavior for a person committed to jail in the City, in
accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 52-151 of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The last-mentioned section
of said Virginia Code further provides for the addition of
certain accumulated time off for good behavior upon subsequent
misbehavior, and it is the opinion of the undersigned that
reference to the addition of such accumulated time should be
made in the City Code. Accordingly, such amendment has been
(!
II
i
227
incorporated into the ordinance transmitted herewith for the
Councll°s recommended adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ H, Ben Jones. Jr.
for J.N. Kincanon~
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19920) AN ORDINANCE amending in its entirety and reordaining Chapter
?. Enforcement of Fines, of Title XXIII. Misdemeanors and Offenses, of the Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended; and providing for au emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 55.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted bI the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None ........O.
CITY CODE-MUNICIPAL COURT-HUSTINGS COURT-LAW ANO CHANCERY COURT-CIRCUIT
COURT-JBVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The City Attorney submitted the
following report transmitting an Ordinance, for recommended adoption by Council.
which would increase the minimum and maximum penalty to not less than ten nor
more than one hundred dollars for an offense for which no specific penalty is
presently provided, advising that said Ordinance further contains a provision
which would impose a maximum fine when none is stated of five hundred dollars:
"October 25. 1971
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Sec. 2. of Chapter 2. Title I, of the City Code presentl7 pro-
vides for a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than twenty
dollars upon conviction of any offense of any provision of the
City Code for which no specific penalty is stated. It is the
feeling of many in the City government who are concerned with
such matters, thai such a minimal fine is unrealistic in light
of the economic conditions existing today and that the present
fine limits would do little to discourage violations of the
applicable provisions in the Code.
Accordingly, an ordinance has been prepared and is transmitted
herewith for the Council's recommended adoption, which would
increase the minimum and maximum penalty to not less than ten
nor more than one hundred dollars for an offense for which no
specific penalty is presently provided. The recommended ordinance
further contains provision which would impose a maximum fine when
none is stated, of five hundred dollars.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ H. Ben Jones, Jr..
for J. N. Kincanon?
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
228'
(xlggZl) AN ORDINANCE amending Sec. 2. General Penalty. of Chapter 2,
,Construction, Title I, General Provisions, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 19561
Ins amended, by increasing the minimum and maximum penalty, upon conviction, for
violation of provisions of said Code for mhich no specific penalty is stated; and
providing .for an emergency.
! (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page
i Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The' motion was second-
i ed by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
i Nebber ............................. ?.
i NAYS: None ............... O.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation a request of Mr. John M. Boswell, Rental Agent
for Colonial-American National Bank, Executor u/m of E, A. Thurman, requesting a
certificate of non-conforming occupancy for rooming house purposes for property
located at llZ-A East Campbell Avenue, described as Lots 98 - 101, inclusive,
Roanoke Land and Improvement Company Map, Official Tax Nos. 4010501 - 4010503,
inclusive, the City Planning Commission submitted the following report recommending
that the request be denied:
'October Zl, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited requestwas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of October 20, 1971.
Mr. Jerry Jamison, an associate of Mr. J. ~. Boswell. appeared
before the Planning Commission and noted the following:
(a) his firm had been renting for many years the properties
noted in his petition,
(b) the,second floor portion of this building has always been
utilized for rooming house purposes.
(c) he was not tboroughly acquainted with tbs zoning laws,
and is now requesting a certificate of non-conforming
occupancy.
Mr. Charles Cornelison, attorney for some of the neighbor.in9
property owners, noted the following in regard to this petition
in support of eliminating this rooming house use:
(a) the rooming house was closed two months ago by the Health
Department because of water damage.
(b) Loitering is prevalent in this area and the rooming house
seems to bring undesirable people into the area,
Mr..Lawrence, Planning Commission member, inquired about the
ownership of property. It mas pointed out that many owners were
involved here.
The Planning Director noted that rooming houses are not n
desirable use in the dountoun area; and the Planning Commission
should, whenever possible and feasible not permit this use in
donntomn.
Accordingly. motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to deny this request,
Sincerely.
S/ Henry D. Boyntgn by L. M.
Henry B, Boynton
Acting Chairman"
Mr. Garland moved that Council orant the request of the petitioners pro-
vided it is acceptable to the Health Department and that the matter be referred
to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure accordingly. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
Study. report and recommendation the request of Messrs. James C. Charlton and
Herbert Davis that property located in the 1700 block of Hanover Avenue. N.
described as Lots 5 - D. inclusive, Block 26, Melrose Land Company. Official
Tax Nos. 2220005 - 2220807, be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to
HG-2, General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a
written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearicg on the request for rezoning be
held at 2 pom.. Monday, November 22, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mrs. Lorraine Franklin, 1716 Banover Avenue, N.
appeared before Council in opposition to the request for rezoning and advised
that she was not notified of a hearing before the City Planning Commission in
connection with the proposed rezoning.
Mayor Webber suggested that Mrs. Franklin appear before Council at the
public hearing on Monday, November 22. 1971. to voice her objection to this request
for rezoning.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Fralin and Maldron, Incorporated.
that a small portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., as described in ametes and
bounds description, be vacated, discontinued and closed. the City Planning Commis-
sion submitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the question of vacating,
discontinuing and closing the portion of the street be held at 2 p.m.. Monday,
November 22, 1971. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Greenbrier Associates, a partner-
ship comprised of Mr. William J. Moody and Mr. Fred P. Bullington, that property
229
23O
described ns Lots lB. 19 and 20, Section 2, Map of Meat Park, and Lots I and
Block 20, Map of Washington Heights. be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial
District, to aG-2. General Residential District, the City Planning Commission
submitted a written report recommending that the request he granted.
Hr. Thoaas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning he
held at 2 p.m.o Monday, November 22, 1971. The motion was seconded by DF. Taylor
and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to a committee for
tobolation, report and recommendation bids received for the construction of n
storm drain on Albemarle Avenue. S. E.. from 3 ~ Street. S. E., to the intersection
of South Jefferson Street and Highland Avenue. S. W., the committee submitted the
following report recommending that the low bid submitted by Miley N. Jackson
Company, using reinforced concrete pipe, in the amount of $139,057.00, be accepted:
'Roanoke. Virginia
October 25. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After proper advertisement, bids were publicly opened and
read for City Council at its regular meeting on Monday, October
lB, 1971, for the construction of a storm drain on Albemarle
Avenue, S. E.. from 3 ~ Street. S. E.. to the intersection of
South Jefferson Street and Highland Avenue. S. W. Four bids
sere submitted with the low bid'in the amount of $139,057.00
being submitted by Miley N. Jackson Company. This bid was
for reinforced concrete pipe. The tabulation of the bids is
attached for your use.
As you can see from the attached tabulation, there is a
significant variance between the two low bids and the other
two bids which sere submitted. It is your committee's opinion
that the two low bids are good bids and merit consideration.
The City's latest estimate for this construction work was
$115,000.00. Several factors can explain the difference in
the City's estimate and the cost of the project:
1. The cost of tunneling under the railroad is higher
than anticipated due to the existence of clay soil with
a high moisture content which sill make this work some-
what more difficult.
2. Anticipated problems in constructing the pipeline across
the intersections due to traffic, existing utilities and
the existence of rock.
3. Stricter enforcement of the State*s safety rules and
regulations governing construction, demolition and all
excavation. This sill probably require shoring the
ditch for the entire length of the project and represents
n significant cost to the contractor.
It is your committee's recommendation that the low bid -
submitted by MileyN. Jackson for using reinforced concrete pipe
in theamount of $139,057.00 be accepted and that n contract
in that amount be awarded and that ali other bids received be
rejected.
Your committee has discussed funding of this project with
the City Auditor, who has advised the committee that funds
are available. It is your committee's understanding that the
231
City Auditor is submitting a separate report concerning
this.
Respectfully submitted,
$! Byron E. Hamer
Byron E, Banero Chairman
Assistant City Manager
S/ MIIIlam F. Clark
MlllJam F. Clark
Director of Public Works
S! Sam H- McGhee. Ill
Sam H. McGhee, Ill
City Engineer*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the commit-
tee and th t the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having referred to the City'Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. George H. Ashwell, et ux.,
that property located in the lBO0 block of Chapman Avenue, S. W.. described as
Lots 13 - 16, inclusive. Block 27. Map of Riverview Land and Manufacturing Company,
Official Tax Nos. 131609 - 1313612, inclusive, be rezoned from RG-2, General
Residential District, to C-I, Office and Institutional District, the City Plannle9
Commission submitted the folloiwn9 report recommending that the request be denied:
"October 7, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of October 6, 1971.
Mr. Benton O. Dillard, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and noted that the petitioners
propose to convert the existing structure on this site into a home
for the aged. Also. the petitioner appeared before the Planning
Commission and noted the size of the ne~ structure and discussed
its future use.
The Planning Director noted that the petitioned site area is
approximately .6 acres and does not meet the 2-acre minimum required
for commercial rezoning. He also stated that this type of use is
permitted in a RG-2 zone as a special exception, but however a
minimum site area of 5 acres is required. Finally. he noted that
the proposed use is not compatible with the neighboring industrial
uses.
Accordingly, motion was made,' duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Greed K. Lemon Jr. by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Vice-Chairman"
In this connection, the City Clerk reported that Mr. Ocnton O. Dillard,
Attorney. representing the petitioners, has advised her office that his clients
do not desire a public hearing on the request Mr rezoning but that she has not
received Written notification from Mr. Dillard to this effect.
232
la view of the fact that there ia no wrlttee eotlflcatiom from Mr.
Dillard as to whether or not his clients desire a public hearing on the matter°
~Wr. Thomas moved that the request for rezoning be received end filed~ The motion
:nas seconded by Hr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAiMs: NONE,
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. lgDlO, vacating, discontinuing and
closing two unopened alleys leading off of Cherry Avenue. N, ~** having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following for its second reading and final
adoption:
(u19910) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating and discontinuing two (2)
unopened alleys in the northeastern section of the City of Roanoke pursuant to
the provisions of Section 15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 48.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the'adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by M~ Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk. Tuylor. Thomas. Trout. #heeler ond Mayor
#ebber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None ............. O.
ZONXNG: Ordinance No. 19911, rezoning Lots 10. 11 and the westerly half
of Lot 12, Oak View Heights, Official Tax Nos. 2730225, 2730226 and 2730227,
from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District, to C-2. General Commercial Dis-
trict, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid
over. was again before the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following for its second
reading and final adoption:
(nlgDll) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥,.Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 273, Section 1966
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text.of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36, page 50.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance..The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following'vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland', Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
:Webber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................ O.
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. 19915, relating to certain surplus air navigation
beacon facilities located on Read Mountain in Roanoke CountT, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
ithe body, Dr. Taylor offering the following for its second reading and final
iadoptiou:
il
(u19915) AN ORDINANCE relating to certain surplus air navigation beacon
facilities located on Read #ountuin in Roanoke County.
(For full text or Ordinance. see Ordinance Oook No. 56, page 51.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion nas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland. Lish, Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and
Mayor ~ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ................. O,
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure appropriating funds for winterizing the cooling toner
in the neu Municipal Building, Mr.'iheeler offered the follomiug emergency
Ordinance:
(=19922) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #64, "Maintenance
of City Property." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Eook No. 35, page
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS
COURV: Council having previously adopted a measure accepting the proposals of
Magic City Motor Corporation, Antrim Motors, Incorporated, and International
Harvester Company for supplying seventeen new 1972 model automobiles for use by
the Department of Public Moths, the Police Department and the Juvenile Detention
Home. Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $5,450.00
from Vehicular Equipment - Replacement to Vehicular Equipment - Additional under
Section =45, "Police Department." of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the
purchase of a 1972 automobile to be used by the Police Department:
(=19923) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =45, "Police
Department," of the '1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 57.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Nebber .........................7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
MISCELLANEOUS-LANDMARKS: Miss Margaret Higgins, a student at Cave
Spring High School, appeared before Council and presented a communication from the
students of Cave Spring High School and Concerned Citizens of Roanoke Valley and
233
234
also presented e petition signed by 2,350 citizens of the Roanohe Valley expressing
the hope that the National Theater Corporation and Roanohe City Council will mahe
e concer~ed effort to 'do everything possible to save the American Theater Building
and try to find some useful and morthuhile purpose for said building.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the Roanohe
Historical Society for their consideration. The motion wa~ seconded by Hr.
Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: Mr. Trout moved that Council meet in Executive Session at
the conclusion of the Council meeting on a real estate matter. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
ACTS OF ACKNONLEDGEHENT: Dr. Taylor presented the following communica-
m
tion advising that Monday. October 25, lg?l, is being observed as Veterans Day
and that it is important for us to observe Yeterans esi in the proper spirit of
humble thanksgiving for the gift of freedom bestowed upon us by our American
fighting men and requested that each person in the Council Chamber bow their
head for 'ten seconds of silent prayer in appreciation for the sacrifice and courage
of those who have fought 'to win and maintain our liberty:
"October 25, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Hembers of City Council
Hunicipal Building
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
This year, under the provision of the Monday Holiday Act,
Veterans Day is being observed on this fourth Monday in October.
#e remember today with great appreciation the sacrifice and the
courage of those who have fought to win and maintain our liberty.
We remember how bitterly our freedom was won, the down payment
that mas made for it, the installments~at have been made since
this Republic Was born. and the price that must yet be paid for
our liberty.
Our thoughts go out today to those of our loved ones who
have been killed or maimed in the terrible wars involving our
nation. On land and sea and in the air American men and women
have given their lives so that the day of ultimate victory might
come and assure the survival of a civilized world. They shed
their blood that freedom might live.
Ne think of those who have suffered the loss of fathers+
husbands, sons, brothers and sisters whom they loved. No
victory can make 9sod their loss or bring bach the faces they
long to see. Onll the knowledge that the victory, which these
sacrifices have made possible, will be wisely used. can give
them any comfort.
For those who' were fortunate enough to return unharmed or
without injury, we must remember the war-caused disruption of
their lives. To those who laid the supreme sacrifice on the
altar of this country's freedom, we must pay special tribute.
Our country exists today, proud, free, and unafraid, because of
their sacrifices in time of national danger.
These fallen heroes of our fair city have fought the fight,
they have kept the faith, they have finished their course. So
we must press on with courage on this Veterans Day knowing that
there is an eternal presence that shall guide and protect us as
we labor to establish a greater nation under 6od.
235
Let us therefore observe Veterans Day In the proper spirit
of humble thanksgiving for the gift of freedom bestowed upon us
by our American fighting men.
Respectfully submitted,
$! Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor*
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned,
AppRovED
A~TEST:
/ City Clerk Mayor
'236
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
Monday, November 1, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
!Chamber in the Municipal Buildin9~ M~nday, November 1. 1971, at 2 p.m** the regularll
Imeeting hour. with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Llsk. Noel C. ~aylor,
iDampton M. Thomas. James O. Trout. Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber ............................. 7.
ABSENT: None ............ O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Danero
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr. H. Ben Jones,
Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with n prayer by the Reverend Tom
Baird, Director of the Baptist Neighborhood House,
MINtrI£S: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
October lB, 197i, and the regular meeting held on Monday. October ZS, 1971, having
been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Yr. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed mith and the
minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STATE HIORNAYS: A communication from Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt. Attorneyo
representing NFS. L. D. Brugh, owner of properties located at the southwesterly
intersection of Nilllamson Road and Forest Hill Avenue, described as Lots 11 - 14.
inclusive, Block F, Map of ~illiam$on Grove, advising that according to Plat 03
of the Major Arterial Highway Plan dated December. 1963, a proposed straightening
of the Forest Hill Avenue intersection would cut through the property of Mrs. Brugh~
rendering development thereof impossible, that because of the confusion existing
over the intent of the Arterial Highway Plan, his client requests that Council
amend the Arterial Highway Plan, excluding therefrom the proposed straightening
of Forest Hill Avenue. rather than proceeding through the Board of Zoning Appeals,
was before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Charles B. Osterhoudt, Attorney, representing
the petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the request of his client.
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred to the City Planning
!Commission for study, report and recommendation to Counci 1. The motion was
' seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
237
AUD1TS-INDDSTgl£S: A coamunicatiou from Mr. Jnch C. Smith. Chairman
!iof the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roan.he, Virginia, submit-
itlu9 the audited financial report of the Authority for the period from October 21,
11968° to June 30, 1971, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication and audit be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Tailor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having previously received and filed a report of the
City Planning Commission recommending that the request of Mr. George H. Ashuell.
et ux** that property located in the lDO0 bi,ch of Chapman Avenue. S. M** described
as Lots 13 - 16. inclusive. Block 27. Map Of givervlew Land and Manufacturing
Company. OIIicial Tax Nos. 13136D9 - 1313h12. inclusive, be fez,ned from RD-2.
General Residential District. to C-l. Office and Institutional District. a
communication from Mr. Denton O. Dillard. Attorney. representing the petitioners.
requesting that a public hearing be held on the request for fez.ming, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the matter be held at 2 p.m..
Monday, December 13, 1971o The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Claude D. Carter. Attorney. representing
Mr. Floyd W. Overstreet, requesting that Lots 6 and 36, Section 1, Map of Avendale,
be fez*ned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to C-2, General Commercial Dis-
trict, and that Lots 7, G, 9, 32, 33, 34, and 35, Section 1, Map of Avendale, be
rea*ned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RC-2. General Residential Dis-
trict, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the request for Fez*ming be referred to the City
Planning Commissiqn for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Philip H. Lemon, Attorney. representing
Fizer Funeral Home, Incorporated, requesting that property described as Lot 11,
Block ah, Map of Melrose Land Company. Official Tax No. 2221011. be rea*ned from
gG-l, General Residential District. to C-I. Office and Institutional District. sas
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for fez*ming be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, u communication from Mr. Stafford A. Fizer, President,
Fizer Funeral Home. Incorporated. in connection with the abovedescribed request
for fez*ming, expressing the hope that Council will understand their dilemma and
grant them an early ruling on their request for fez*ming, was also before the
body.
238
Hr. Mai*er YJzer, representing Fizer Funeral Hose, Incorpornted, appeared
before the body and requested that Council do everything it can to expedite this
request for rezoning since time is of the essence.
¥ith reference to the matter, the City Manager submitted the folloming
!report advising that the Building Commissloner*s Office, the City Planning
Deportment and his office have separately been into this matter to some extent
and transmitting supplementary information sith regard to the situation:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November l,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council has on the agenda today a letter from Fizer
Funeral Home, lac., in regard to a mutter of building construction
and zoning on Melrose Avenue, N. M. The City Building Commissioner's
Offic.e and the Planning Department, as well as this office, have
separately been into this matter to some extent and I advise you
of the following to give you supplementary information to the
situation.
He are in complete sympathy and understanding with the Messrs.
Fizer as to the problem that they have.
The firm purchased three lots on the north side of Helrose
immediately east of 15th Street. Two of the lots, nearest 15th
Street were vacant. The next Or third lot had a dwelling structure
on it. They apparently had plans drawn and entered into a contract
for construction. The contractor was proceeding, the early part
of the past week, in demolishing and removing the dwelling structure
on the third lot. Hhen the contractor came to obtain a building
permit, the process of issuing the permit was part of the way
through when it was realized that there was a zoning difficulty.
The south side of Melrose in this area is zoned RC-I. The
north side of the street is generally zoned as C-2 with exception
of several indentations along the street providing for a projection
of thq RC-I district across the street and into portions of Se,first
tear of lots along Melrose. Commencing at 15th Street, on the
north side of Melrose, and proceeding east, the first two lots are
zoned C-l. Then the next four lots are zoned RB-I. T~em the
zoning returns to-C-1 for the next two lots, reaches lith Street
and then continues with C-I for three lots. The result of this is
that the first two Of the Fizer lots are zoned C-I and the third
lot is RG-Io
Under the zoning ordinance funeral homes are permitted in C-l.
They are not permitted in RO-I with the exception that they may
occupy an existing structure under certain conditions.
The building which Fizer Funeral Home proposes to construct
is approximately 62 feet in length and 28 feet Of this, on the
east end of the building, will be situated on the third lot Which
is in RO-I. These lots are generally about 50 feet in width. Be-
cause of this extension over into RG-I. the building permit was
denied with the advice that rezoning would be necessary. The fivm*s
owners then sought the various City departments includiu9 talking
with me about this.
Their concern is in that their financing is currently ranged
with a time to be expended and a contract has been let and time
delay of uny consequence would put the construction into the winter
mouths.
He have'advised them that we 'know of no basis upon which there
could he an allowance made to permit the issuance of a permit and
construction which would run contrary to the zoning ordinance. As
239
noted ia their letter they are proceeding mith · petitioe for
resuming. They discussed with me the possibility of scehlng
the Council°a considesatiuno to mhlch I advise that I reit
sure of the willingness of the City Council to have the matter
come before the governing body; however, I felt that the
Council would hare some problem mith a variance to the ordinance.
In overall obs~rvationo I have the reaction that there mould
not be objection to the rezonlng and further that the structure
and new business enterprise at this location would be of considerable
neighborhood benefit.
If me can provide additional information we would be glad to
do $0.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
Or. Taylor moved that the communication from Hr. rimer and the report Of
the City Hanager be referred to the City Planning Commission for their information
in connection with their study of the request for resuming, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $40,000.00 be appropriated to Promotion Fund and that
$300,000.00 be appropriated to Exhibitions under Section =77, *Civic Center.*
of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to pay'for future shows and to fund
activities sponsored by the City of Roanoke such as the college basketball tourna-
ment. the tennis tournament and the broadway series of plays:
· Roanoke. Virginia
November 1o 1971
Honorable Hayer and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
During the budget preparation and review process the decision
Was made to establish an account of $2b0,000 under the Civic Center
Oudget Account 77. Object Code 349. Exhibitions. for payment of
exhibits and shows which perform in the City Civic Center. It
was recognized at the time of the preparation of the budget that
this was not sufficient to carry throughout the year; however, it
was decided that at such time as these funds were expended we
would ask Council for an additional appropriation. Additionally
$40,000 was appropriated under Object Code 345° Promotion Fund,
to be utilized to fund activities sponsored by the City. such as
the Bob Hope Show. Both of these accounts are presently over
expended. Object Code 349. Exhibitions. is over expended by
$31,000 while Promotion Fund. Object Code 346. is over expended by
$3.1oo.
To date on shows which have' played the Civic Center since
July 1, 1971, the Civic Center has grossed $364,051. From this
amount of funds all of the activities which have performed have
been paid.
The Acting Civic Center Director has reviewed the future
program for the Civic Center and determined that an additional
$300,O00'is needed in Object Code 349. Exhibitions, to pay for
future shows and an additional $400000 is needed in Object Code
3d6. Promotion Fund; to fund activities sponsored by the City
such a~ the college basketball tournament, a tennis tournament and
the broadway series of plays.
24.0
It mould be asked that City Council appropriate the ~eceasary
funds to these accounts nnd the City Auditor hms been asked to
prepare n budget ordinance to this affect.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F, Hlrst
Julian F. Hirat
City Manager"
Hr, Lisk expressed concern over the method in which certain events have
been advertised at the Roanoke Civic Center and expressed the opinion that he does
not think the city is getting the most for its money as far as advertising is
concerned.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(nlg924) A~ ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u??, "Civic
Center," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text'of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page $?.}
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................. ?.
NAYS: None .............. O.
BUDGET-CLERK OF THE COURTS: The City Manager submitted the following
report requesting that $414.00 be appropriated to Maintenance of Machinery and
Equipment and that $5,384.32 be appropriated to Other Equipment - Replacement under
Section ~RS, 'Clerk of the Courts,~ of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the
replacement of the recording equipment in the HustinRs Court and in the funding
of a maintenance contract to maintain the new equipment for one year:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City has been notified by Hustings Court that the court
recording installation is in dire need of replacement. As a
result they have notified the Ci~ Auditor that they have deposited
uith the Ci~ Treasurer the amount of $5,798.32 for the purchase
of new equipment. They have requested that the City appropriate
to their account $5.364.32 to Clerk of Courts Department 25t
Object Code 3?0, Other Equipment - Replacement, for the purchase
Of the new equipment and $414 to Clerk Of Courts AccounL, Object
Code 260, Maintenance. of Machinery and Equipment.
These appropriations will permit the replacement of the
recording equipment in the Hustings Court and in the funding
of a maintenance contract to maintain the neu equipment for
one year.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City ManuRer"
241
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(e1992S) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section #2S, 'Clerk of
Courts," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(Pot full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page S8.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uaw seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES~ Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomus,.Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
#ebber ..............................
NAYS: None ............... O.
JAIL: Council having instructed the City Manager to obtain cost esti-
mates on installing sufficient toilet facilities and drinking water facilities
in the city lockup, the City Manager submitted the following report proposing
that the matter be held in abeyance until a total report on any changes within
the courthouse building can be returned to Council as indicated in another item
on the agenda:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 1. 1971
Ilonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your last meeting the City Council referred to me the
points made in the inspection report of the Superintendent of
Jails for the Department of Welfare and Institutions as to
additional toilets and drinking water facilities within the
City lockup. You invited cost estimates and plans on this. I
would note to you a report that is included on this Agenda
add which had been proposed to be advised to City Council prior
to the matter of the lockups.
A significant part of any changes within the courthouse
building would as almost a first step, involve remodeling of the
lockup. This would mean that such items as toilets and water
facilities would be included in that remodeling work when author-
ized by City Council. Accordingly cost estimates would be
included in the total buildin9 work.
I would propose to the City Council that the matter just
recently referred to me be held in abeyance until the total report
can he returned to Council as indicated in the other item on
the Agenda. It is believed that it would be preferable to handle
that work in the course Of the total work on the building rather
than separating it out, recognizing that some rearrangement in
the lockup facilities would be anticipated to be desirable as
a part of the total building short range remodeling program.
If the City Council should feel that this would not he the
proper course to follow, we would, of course, be guided by your
advice.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
J~lian ¥. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
'242
MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted the following report in
connection with brlngingthe members of Council upto date on the nature of studies
and.the approach being taken with regard to the courthouse building and related
ibuildings, facilities and proposals which have been a matter of long time considera-
tion:
'Roanoke, Virginia
November 1, 1971.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This is written to bring you up to date on the nature of the
studies and the approach being taken with regard to the court-
house building and related buildings, facilities and proposals nhJch
have been a matter of long time consideration. It is to be recalled
that the last activity involving the City Council in this matter
was the presentation some months ago by the consulting architects
and administrative personnel of a proposal for limited remodeling
of the courthouse building, yhe matter was then held in abeyance
due to the extensive involvements in the annexation suit of the City.
Me administratively, along with Hayes, Seay. Hattern and M~rn, hav~
sense been going into the various aspects of facilities with the
objective of submitting to the City Council just as soon as possible
on overall analysis of the situation both as to a short range and
a long range plan and/or alternatives. It is intended that this
presentation will include:
1. An immediate or short range remodeling program ~r the
courthouse building.
2. An analysis of the present Federal building as to its
potential for accommodation of any City facilities should
that building become available to the City in the future.
3. An analysis of the Third Street building (formerly Reid
and Cutshall) as to its possibilities of accommodation of
City activities and as to costs that would be involved in
making it satisfactorily usable; and
4o A projection as to long range facilities for the courts and
related City activities.
Our primary delay in this matter has been in obtaining the cost
that will be associated with the Third Street building. The
Engineering Department Of the City has submitted to the firm of
Sowers, Redes and Whitescarver suggested floor layouts for accommoda-
tions within the structure. These ore being interpreted by that
firm into cost of mechanical equipment. This is a fairly involved
matter. It is presently anticipated by Sowers. Redes and Rhite-
scarver that they will be in a position to advise us.within approxi-
mately 30 days. Following that we then would be in a position to
compile the material that would be presented to Council and which
it would be hoped ~ould cover with some fairness all aspects of
this total matter.
In the meantime, as I am sure the City Council is aware, we
have been giving consent to the several of the constitutional officers,
the law library~ the municipal court and'the registrar permission
to use vacant space within the courthouse building. In each instance
the agency has been advised that the occupancy of additional areas
or relocated areas is on a temporary basis and would be subject to
final determination by the City Council as to space allocations and
projected use of t~e building. This procedure, which has been
carried out under conditions that there be no structural or wall
changes but only minor painting and the such, bas enabled almost
all of the vacant space within that building to be reoccupied.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
243
Mr, Thomas moved th~ He report be received and fi led. The motion mas
ilseconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE REMOVAL! Council having deferred action on a
i!proposed Ordinance applicable to the cutting end removal of weeds due to a questlonl
in wording of said Ordinance, the City Ranager submitted a written report advisin9
that the Ordinance presented to Council at its last regular meeting contained
references to the removal of offal and refuse, that these two categories had been
included in the original Ordinance as it was mritten approximately a year ago
under slightly different circumstances and intent and should ual be included at
this time in this particular Ordinance which iS directed solely to weeds, grass
and the such, that. the handling of offal and refuse should be a separate matter
and mould require different treatment as' to City Code requirements and enforce-
ment procedures and transmitting a revised Ordinance for recommended adoption
by Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Ranager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(Ulgg26) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XIlI, Health, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, by adding thereto a new chapter to be numbered
Chapter 15. defining noxious weeds; providing for notice to be given under certain
conditions for the removal of noxious weeds as so defined from properties in the
City of Roanoke; providing for a lien to be placed upon properties whose owners have
disregarded such notice after removal of noxious weeds by City forces; and provid-
ing for aa emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 58,)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Nebber ...... ~ ....................... T.
NAYS: None ...............O.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that
he is glad to see the adoption of this Ordinance, that it is something the city
has needed for a long time, but he is of the opinion that the City Of Roanoke ~
is the greatest offender of this Ordinance, that until the city cleans up its
own properties, it will be difficult to enforce the Ordinance for other property
owners.
In this connection, Mr. Lisk reques~d that Se City Manager be instructed
to ascertain what he needs in the may of equipment and manpose~ in order for the
City of Roanoke to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and report back
to Council as soon as possible.
244
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the follow
lng report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire
Department as of September 30. 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire Depart-
ments as of September 30. 1971.
*Fire Department
During the month of September 1971 there were no changes in
personnel in the Fire Department.
There are no vacancies in the Fire Department at this time.
Police Department
Brenda R. Hale. Clerk-Steno.
Officer Leland T. Ayers, Jr.
Officer Robert M. Spangler
Officer Frank J. Ross. III
Officer Carry N. Newbold
Officer Nilliam E. Jones. Jr.
Hired Resigned
Sept. 7, 1971
Sept. 13, 1971 -
Sept..13, 1971 -
Aug. 16,1966 Sept. 15, 1971
Sept. 20, 1971
Sept. 28, 1971 -
Ending September. 1971 (19 vacancies).'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Ltsk and unanimously adopted.
COAL AND FUEL OIL: The City Manager submitted a written report concur-
ring in the following report of a committee recommending that the proposal of
American Oil Company for supplying No. I fuel oil, in the amount of $.142, and the
proposal of Whiting Oil Company for supplying No. 2 fuel oil, in the amount og
$.1319. for the period beginning November 1, '1971. and ending October 31, 1972,
be accepted:
"November 1, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Tuesday, October 19, bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for supplying fuel oil to
the City of Roanoke for the period beginning November 1, 1971,
and ending October 31, 1972.
7he attached tabulation sill show that seven bids were
received, with The American Oil Company being low bidder for
supplying No. I Fuel Oil. aud'Rhiting Oil Company low bidder
for supplying No. 2 Fuel Oit.
It is the recommendation of the committee that the low bids
be accepted for supplying fuel oil to the CitI for the period
beginning November 1o 1971. and ending October 31, 1972. as out-
lined below.
245
The American Oil Company for supplying No. I Fuel 011:
Tank Nagon Price $.187 per gal.
Less Discount .04fi per gel.
Net Price $.!42 per gel.
Nhltlng Oil Company for supplying No. 2 Fuel Oil:
Tank Wagon Price $.1750 per gal.
Leas Discount .0431 per gal.
Net Price $,1319 per gal.
The above tank wagon prices are based on current 'Posted
Consumer Tank Wagon Prices* at Roanoke. Virginia, and are to be ad-
Magon Prices' in effect at Roanoke, Virginia on day of delivery.
but the above discounts will remain unchanged throughout the
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Mllliam F. Clark
COMMITTEE: William F. Clark
Director of Public Works
S/ Kit B. Kiser
Kit B. Kiser
S/ B. B. Thompson
Dueford B, Thompson
Purchasing Agent"
(~19927) AN ORDINANCE providing for the supply to the City of its
annual requirements of No. I fuel oil and No. 2 fuel oil; accepting certain pro-
posals wade therefor; rejecting certain other bids made to the City for furnishing
said fuel oil requirements; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No, 36. page 60.)
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
Mebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ...............O.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report on an exam-
the financial condition of the fund.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report on aa
examination of the records of the West End Elementary School for the school year
:246
ended June 30, 19710 advising that the examination uss made in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards and that nil the records mere In order and
the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the
period and the financial condition of the fund.
Mr. Mheeler movedthat the report be received and filed. The motion was
by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: i
TAXES-AIRPORT-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council having appointed a ~
committee composed of Messrs. James E. Curt, Chairman, La.cy M. Hanson, M. Vernon ;
i Hicks, J- Robert Thomas and J. S. H~mard, Jr. I
Percy
T.
Keeling,
James
R.
Sprinkle,
to study sources of revenue available to the City of Roanoke through taxes, licenses,
service charges, fees and assessments, the City's existing and potential revenue
structure, the provisions made and made available for tax relief for elderly
persons, and thereafter, to recommend to Council feasible means for obtaining
sufficient Of such revenue for the purposes Of the city and a program pursuant to
which the borden of ali such local taxes, licenses, fees. service charges and
assessments be distributed fairly and equally, the Commission submitted the
following report in connection with o public hearing they held on September 3,
lgYl. on the matter of tax relief for the elderly, recommending that Council
repeal Ordinance No. 16225 regarding tax relief for the elderly and that based
upon its studies, the Commission recommend.s that the city grant certain tax relief
to elderly persons who qualify and meet certain criteria:
~INTERIM REPORT HO. 1
OF THE
REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
~F ROANOKE
Submitted November 1, 1971 i
TO the Council of the City of Roanoke:
By Resolution No. 19768 dated July 6, 1971, you appointed
a commission composed of Messrs. James E. Cart, Chairman, Lacy
W. Hanson, W. Vernon Hicks, Percy T. Keeling and James R. Sprinkle,
the City Auditor and the Commissioher of Revenue for the purpose
of studying the sources of revenue available to the City through
local taxes, licenses, fees. servi~e charges and assessments; the
City's existing and potential revenue structure; the provisions made
and made available for tax relief for elderly persons; and
thereafter, to recommend to the Council feasible means for obtaining
sufficient of such revenue for the purposes of the City and a
licenses, fees. service charges and assessments to be distributed
fairly and equally.
The*resolution empowered the commission to conduct such hearings
as it deemed necessary and to carry out the aforementioned responsi-
bilities with full cooperation of all City officials and employees.
The first meeting of the commission was held August 12, 1971 in
the Municipal Building. Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor. was
elected Vice Chairman.
The Commission established u list of items to be studied as
follows:
1. Budget revenue estimate of the City of Roanoke for fiscal
year 1971-T2.
2. Tax relief for the 'elderly.
247
Various commission members were assigned tasks in connection
mith tax relief for the elderly, and a public hearing on this
matter was scheduled for September 3, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke passed Ordinance No. 16225
January 25, 1965 to provide tax credit as to property taxes imposed
upon real property in this City, for certain persons who are sixty-
five years of age or over as follows:
]. Effective for taxable year beginning January 1, 1966, and there-
after.
2. To be eligible, the taxpayer must be sixty-five years old or
older, have been a resident within the limits of the City of
Roanoke for at least the preceding eight years, have legal or
benenficial title and be a resident In a home in the City of
Roanoke, have total net assets of every kied and description
exclusive of the home, which et fair market value are worth
not more than $$,000.00, have a total gross annual income from
all sources not in excess of $2,000.00; and not he receiving
any form of public welfare assistance other than medical care
available to the medically indigent.
3. The tax credit to be a sum equal to the taxes currently due on
the first $450.00 of assessed valuation Of the property as this
valuation is determined for tax purposes.
Prior to the public hearing on the matter of tax relief for
the elderly, the commission and its members received a large number
of letters from concerned elderly citizens of the City of Roanoke.
Various City officials contributed information concerning this
matter as the information pertained to the local situation. Methods
used by ~ther localities in the State were solicited and made n
part of the commission records and were included in its deliberation.
Various organizations and citizens presented their views at
the public hearing. Their contributions were invaluable in assisting
the commission in its deliberations.
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
ELDERLY CITIZENS - STAYISTICAL REVIER
REAL ESTATE TAX CREDIT
The accuracy of this presentation is conditioned on the relativ-
ity of National elderly statistics (1) to local elderly income levels,
home ownership, and marital status. No statistics on elderly net
worth and home values have been located. For purpose and illustration
of this presentation, it was approximated that elderly persons
having income of $2,000 aaa below would qualify 100% under the out
worth limitation, those with income between $2,001 and $3,000
would qualify 90%, those with income level between $3,001 to $4,000
would qualify 70% and those with income level between $4,001 to
$5,000 would qualify 50% under the net worth limitation. The City
of Roanoke elderly population is 14,216 reported by 1970 U. S.
Census first count, April, 1971.
! DEFERRAL METHOD
1. Asset Limitation: $20.O00 including value Of dwelling and
the land, not exceeding one acre.
2. Income Limitation:
Income Leyel % Relief
0 - $1,000 90%
$1,001 2,000 70~
2,001 3,000 50~
3,001 4,000 30~
4,001 5,000 10%
3. Estimated No. Eligible Home Units:
Estimate No. of Home Units
Income Level Married S/mole Total
$ 0 - $1,000 62 680 750
l,OOl - 2,000 207 1.567 1,?74
2,001 - 3,000 331 688 1.019
3,001 4,000 310 306 616
4,001 - 5,000 · 20~ lgl 398
1,117 3,440 4,557
STATISTICAL REVIE~ (CONT.)
4. Estimate Eligib~lity - Income/Assets:
Income Asset Net
Incoue Level Eliaibles ~liaibilftv ~liaibles
$ 0-$1,000 750 100~ 750
1,001- 2,000 1,774 100% 1.774
2,001- 3,000 1,019 90% 917
3,001- 4,000 616 70% 431
4.0Ol- 5,000 390 50~ 199
4.55? ~ 4,071
5. Estimated Tax Revenue Deferred:
Eligible Appraised Real Estate ~ Net Tax
Income Level ~nolicant~ Value Tax ~elief Revenpe Deferred
$ 0 -$1,000 750 $2,306.500 $ 02,334 go~ $ 74,101
1,001 - 2,000 1,774 5,644,868 194,740 70% 136,324
2,001 - 3,000 917 2,917,894 100,667 50~ 50,333
3,001 - 4,000 431 1,371,442 47,315 30~ 14,194
4,001 - 5,000 199 633,218 21.846 10~ 2.104
4,071 $ 446,910 $277.136
11, TAX CREDIT/DEFERRAL RETROD
1. Asset Limitation: $20.000. including value of dwelling and
the land, not exceeding one acre.
2. Income Limitations: $ O -~$3,000 - $25.00 Flat Tax Credit
3,001 - 4.000 - 30% Deferral
4.001 - 5.000 - IO% Deferral
3. Estimated Tax Revenue Exempt/Deferred:
Eligible Appraised Real Estate ~ Net Tax
Income Level Applicants Valu~ Tax Re]~f Revenue Exemot/Deferred
$ 0-$3.000 3.441 $10,949.262 $377.749 $25. Flat $ 86.025
3,OO1- 4,O00 431 1,371.442 47.315 30% 14,194
4,001- 5.000 199 633,218 21.846 IO% 2.184
4.O71 $446.910 $102.403
(1) May. 1970 Issue *Aging* - Older Americans Speak to the Nation. Prologue to the 1971 White Hguse Conference on Aging.
1. The commission recommends that the Council repeal Ordinance No.
16225, passed January 25, 1965. concerning tax relief for the elderly.
2. Based upon its studies, the commission recommends that the City
grant ~ax relief to elderly persons who qualify and meet the following
criteria;
'Th~ Commissioner Of Revenue shall, upon application made and within
limits as hereinafter provided, order exemption or deferral of pay-
ment of tax on real property owned and occupied as the sole dwelling
house of perso~ or persons not less than sixty-five years Of age, upon
the terms and conditions hereinafter, set Out. To be eligible for
such deferral of payment or exemption, the total combined income during
the immediately preceding calendar year from all sources of the owners
and relatives of the owners living ia the dwelling on such property
shall not exceed five thousand dollars, and the net combined financial
~orth of said persoes, includin9 equitable interests, as of the thirty-
first day of December of the immediately preceding calendar year and
including, also, the value of the dwelling and the land upon which
it is situated, shall not exceed twenty thousand dollars.
The Commissioner of Revenue shall make further inquiry of persons
seeking such deferral of payment of the tax or exemption as may be
reasonably necessary in determining the 'qualifications therefore.
Such further inquiries shall be answered under oath. No person or
persons receiving public assistance, other t~an medical assistance of
any form. shall be eligible for the within provided deferral or
exemption. All 'information received by the Commissioner of Revenue
in connection with any application for such deferral or exemption
shall he deemed to be confidential and shall not be revealed other
than in the offi.cial administration of this section. The amount of
tax deferred on any one property shall be as follows:
249
Total Combined Percent or
Income Level, Tax Payment
$ o - $1.o00
1,OOl - 2,000 ?og
2,001 - 3,000 50~
3,001 - 4,000 30~
4.001 - 5,000 'lOg
occupying such.dwelling he ~3,000 or less, such owner shall have the
option of claiming, in lien of his right to defer payment of tax as
Submitted herewith is 5n ordina~ce prepared by the City Attorney,
elderly persons.
(u19926) A RESOLUTIO~ authorizing the issuance of a Change Order to
the City's Contract #M", with Brock & Davis Co,t Ina,. dated #Dy 25~ 1970, for
the nam Boxley Hills Booster Pumping Station so ss to extend for 8 period of
twentl-sJx (26) additional calendar days the controct time,for,performance of the
contract by said contractor.
(For full tent of Resolution. see Resolution Book ~o. 36, page 62.)
#~. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The mot~nwas seconded
iby Hr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messr$. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Rayor
lebber ...............................
NAYS: None ................ O.
ZONING: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure authorizing the issuance of a permit to authorize continuance of noncon-
forming use of premises located at II2-A East Campbell Avenue. Official Tax Nos.
4010501, 4010502 and 4010503, he presented same.
In this connection. Mr. Paul A. Croy, representing Wrights Furniture
Company, and Mr. C. C. Milton, President of Nrights Furniture ~ompany. appeared
galore Council in opposition to granting the certificate of non-conforming
occupancy, pointing out that when the. roomin9 house was open. there were very
unsatisfactory conditions in the area and requesting that Council do everything
possible to see that the rooming house remains closed.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur '
in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission that the request for said
certificate of non-conforming occupancy be denied. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measures providinR for the construction of a new storm drain
on Albemarle Avenue, S. E., from 3 ~ Street. S. E.. to the intersection of South
Jefferson Street and Highland Avenue. S. ~o, upon certain terms and conditions,
by accepting a certain bid made to the city and rejecting certain other bids.
he presented same.
In this connection, the City Attorney requested that Council defer
action on the adoption of the two Ordinances due to certain arrangements which
need to be worked out mith the Norfolk and Western Ratlmay Company.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
that action on the proposed Ordinances De deferred one seek. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: NONE.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL~ REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, Norember 8, lgTl.
inoke met in regular meeting in the Council
ay, November 80 1971, It 2 p.m., the regular
nB.
%* Garland, Noel C, Taylor, Hampton I. Thomas,
Mayor Ray L. Mebber ................... 6.
Lisk .................................. 1.
s E. Hamer, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James
N. Klncaaon, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened With a prayer by the Reverend Maynard
C. Powell, Pastor, First Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
November 1, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
pensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
DEA~IHG OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, November
8, 1971, om the request of Mr~ J~ Bi Wold, et ux., that property located ia the City
of Roanoke, described as Lots 7 and 6, and part of an alley, Block A, Panorama
Heights, Official Tax Nos. 2740202 and 2740203, be rezoeed from RD, Duplex Residen-
tial District, to RG-1, General Residential District, the matter was before the
body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
"October 7, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Yirginia .'
The above cited request was considered by the City Plunning
Commission at its regular meeting of October 6, 1971.
the Planning Commission and stated that he planned to construct
12-units of small apartments on each lot. He noted that the
abutting lots and many of the neighboring lots were presently
zoned RG-1.
Mr. N!iltam Bandy, a focal resident, raised q~estlon con-
cerning the access to this proposed housing development. In
addition, some of the planning Commission members also expressed
The planning Director noted that the use generally conformed
with the character of the area.
251
(z19926) A RESOLUTION authorizing the lssunnce of a Change Order to
the Clty*s Contruct 'M", with Brock ~ Davis Co., Inc** dated May 25, 1970, for
the new Ooxley Hills Booster Pumping Station so as to extend for n period of
l tmenty-six calendar days the contract time.for:performance of the
(26)
additional
contract by said contractor.
(For full text o! Resolution, see Resolution O,ok No. 36. page 62.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution, The mot~n mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the f,Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lish, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... T.
NAYS: None ................ O.
ZONING: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure authorizing the issuance of a permit to authorize continuance of n,nc,n=
forming use of premises located at ll2-A East Campbell Avenue, Official Tax Nos.
4010501, 4010§02 and 4010503, he presented same.
In this connection, Mr. Paul A. Cf,y, representing Wrights Furniture
Company, and Mr. C. C. Milton,'President of Wrights Furniture Company, appeared
.el,re Council in opposition to granting the certificate of non-conforming
occupancy, pointing out that mhee therooming house was open, there Mere very
unsatisfactory conditions in the area and requesting that Council do everything
possible to see that the rooming house reeains closed.
After a discussion Of the matter, Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur
in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission that the request for said
certificate of non-conforming occupancy he denied. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND ~TORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measures providin9 for the construction of a new storm drain
on Albemarle Avenue, 5. E., from 3 ~ Street, S. E., to the intersection of South
Jefferson Street and tlighland Avenue, S. M.. upon certain terms and conditions.
by accepting a certain bid made to the citI and rejecting certain other bids.
he presented same.
In this connection, the CitI Attorney requested that Council defer
action on the adoption of the two Ordinances due to certain arrangements which
need to be worked out with the Norfolk and Western Railway Company.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
that action on the proposed Ordinances be deferred one Meek. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: NONE.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
AppRovED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL~ REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, November R, 1971o
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
iChamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, November 8, 1971, st 2 p.m., the regulnri!
,meeting hour, with Mayor Mebber presiding, i
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas,
James O. Trout, Vincent S. Nheeler and Mayor Roy L. #ebber ................... 6.
ABSENT: Councilman David g. Llak ..................................1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Hamer, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James
N. Kin:au*ri, City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened mith a prayer by the Reverend Maynard
C. Po~ell, Pastor, First Christian Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutez of the regular meeting held on Monday,
November 1, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Thomas, seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dis-
pensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
IIEA~ING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC YATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, November
0, lq?l, on the request of Mr'~ 3'~ R~ #aid. et ux*~, that property located in the City
of Roanoke, described as Lots 7 and 0, and part of an alley, Block A. P~norama
Heights, Official Tax Nos. 2740202 and 2740203, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residen-
tial District, to HO-l, ~eneral Residential District, the matter was before the
body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"October 7. 197]
The Honorable Roy Lo Webber. Mayor
nnd Members of Clty Council
Roanoke, Virginia .'
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
C.omission at its regular meeting of October 6, 1971.
Mr. Wilson, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that he planned to construct
12-units of small apartments on each lot. He noted that the
development mould be an attractive one and, in addition, the
abutting lots and many of the neighboring lots sere presently
zoned RG-I.
Mr. William Bandy, a local' resident, raised question con-
cerning the access to this proposed housing development. In
addition, some of the planning Commission members also expressed
concern with the access problem. Mr. Wilson, noted that the
necessary street improvements would be made to Vairvies and Pano-
rama to enable adequate access to be provided to this development.
The Planning Director noted that the use generally conformed
with the character of the area.
251
252
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded nad unanimously'
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LaM.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr,
Vice-Chairman"
Hr, John W. Wilson. Jrt, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients,
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezonlng, Mr. Trout
moved that the follomlng Ordinance be placed upon Its first reading:
(m19929) AN OROINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 274, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application bas been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have Lots 7 and 8, part of an alley and part of Panorama Avenue Block A,
Panorama Heights, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to HG-I, Genera 1
Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoncd from RD, Duplex Residential District, to HG-1,
Ceneral Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be publishedI
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter ~.1, Title XV,' of The Code of the'
City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WtlEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 8th
day of November, 1971, ut 2 p.m** before the Council Of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to
be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,~
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE° BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV. Chapter 4.1t Section 20 of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 274 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Panorama Avenue, described as, Lots 7 and 8, part of
an alley and part of Panorama Avenue Block A, Panorama Heights, designated on
Sheet 274 of the Sectioual 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No.
2740202 and 2740203, be, and is hereby, changed from RD, Duplex Residential Dis-
trict, to RG-I, General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 274 of the afore-i
said map be changed in this respect.
253
The motion mas seconded b7 Hr. Nh,clef end adopted by the following vote:i~
AYES: Wessrs. Gnrlendt Taylor, Thomas, Tv*uti Wheeler end Mayor
Yebber .................................. §.
NAYS: None ....................O. (Mr, Lish nbsent)
ZONING: Council hnvieg set a public hearing for 2 p.m., No,day, November
0, 1911, on the request of Roanoke Swift Homes, Incorporated, that 14.33 acres of
land, more or less, described as Official Tax Nos, 4210501 - 421050&, inclusive,
4210401 - 4210418, inclusive, 4210307 - 4210321, inclusive, 4210330, 4210331 and
portions of 4210328 and 4210329, be fez*ned from LM, Light Manufacturing District,
to RG-I, General Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, tho City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"October 7, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular ne,ting of October 6, 1971.
Nv. Jach Place, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and presented exhibits delineating
the proposed Yurnhey housing development project, which is
eventually to be tnrned over to the Redevelopment and Housing
Authority. He noted that access to the housing development is
good.
The Planning Director noted that the project site area was
of sufficient size, had adequate parking facilities and open
space, and was in a good location relative to highway access and
shopping facilities.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by
Creed N. Lemon, Jr.
Vice-Chairman"
#ith regard to the matter, Mrs. F. G. Longnecher, 1418 ~ise Avenue, S. E.,
appeared before Council in opposition to the request for fez,ming and expressed
the opinion that there will be many undesirable people moving into the area if this
request for rezoning is approved.
Mr. JacR V. Place. Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared be-
fore Council in support of the request of his clients.
Mr. Wheeler then moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its
first reading:
(19930) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanohe, 195b, as amended, and Sheet No. 421, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanohe, in relation to Zoning.
MHEREAS. application hun been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to bare · 12 acre more or leaa trnct bounded on the south by Wise Avenue, S. E., al
the north and east by Tinker Creek, and.on the west by the remaining land or
Virginia Scrap Iron ~ Metal Co** Inca knuun as Lots I through 3, Block 33; Lots 1
through 16. 6lock 34, Lots 7 tbrongb 19. Block 35; Lots ] tbrougb D, Block 39;
the greater portion of Block 38; the southeasterly 1/3 more or less of Block 37
· ccording to the map of McDon·ld Addition and that narrow strip of land bounded on
the north and east by Tinker Creek and the Norfolk and Western right of way and on
the south and mess by Blocks 33 and 34 McDonald Addition designated as official tax
map numbers.n4210501 through n4210506, n320~01 through ~4210419, ~4210307 through ·
#4510327, #4210330, ~4210331 and portions of n4210320~ and ~4210329, rezoned from
LM, Light Manufacturing District. to RG-I, General Residenti·l District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Connission has recommended that the hereinafter
described l·nd be rezoned from LM. Light Manufacturing District. to R6-1. General
Residential District; and
WHEREAS. the nritten notice and the posted sign required to be published
and postedt respectively, by Section 71, Ch·pier 4.1, Title XV. of The Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956, 3samended, relating to Zoning, h·ve been published and posted
as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WBEREAS. the hearing as provided for fo s·td notice was held on the fish
day of November, 1971, at 2 p.m.. before the Council of the City of Ro·noke, at
which hearing all p·rties in interest and citizens were ~iven an opportunity to be
heard, both for and ag·last the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described l·nd should be rezoned.
THERECORE, DE IT ORDAXNED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Title
XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of au·nuke, 1956, as amended,
tel·ting to Zoning, and Sheet' No. 421 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of
RO·noke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Mime Avenue, S. E., described as:
BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Tinker Creek at
the Westerly most point of · 1.2 acre more or less tract con-
veyed to Norfolk and Western Railw·y by deed d·ted March
1960 from Spruce Realty Corpor·tion of record in Deed Book
1072 at page 213 in the Office of the Clerk of the Bustings
Court of the City of Roanoke; thence with the southerly line
of said 1.2 ·cra tract with a curve to the right whose radius
is 1272.69' more or less for an arc distance of 667' more or
less to a point on the southerly b·nk of Tinker Creek; thence
generally with the southerly bank of Tinker Creek in its
meanderings the folJowlflg courses and distances: S, 40° 40' E.
76.01 feet to a point; thence S. 52° 23' E. 241.36 feet to a
point; thence $. 50° 33* E. 233.00 feet more or less to · point
on the northerly side of Wise Avenue; thence leaving Tinker
Creek and with the northerly side of Wise Avenue, S. 76° 11'
119.94' to a point; thence continuing with the northerly side of
Wise Avenue, S. 82° 20* W. 1200.44' more or less to the south-
westerly corner of Lot 7, Block 35 according to the Map of
McDonald Addition (Deed Book 330. page 6); thence with the westerly
line of the s·id Lot 7, Block 35 McDonald Addition and with a new
line extending 75 feet into Block 30 McDonald Addition, No 7°
· total distnnce of 3T5'~00 feet to · point; thence with n
straight new line through Blocks 37 end 38 McDonald Addition
in a northe·aterly direction for · distance of $00,00 feet more
or less to the place of DEGINNING nnd with reference to the map
of McDonald Addition aforesaid BEING nil of Lots I through 5.
Block 33; Lots I through 16, Block 34; Lots T through 19,
Block 35; Lots I through 8, Block 39; the greater portion of
Dlock 38; the soutkensterly 1/3 note or less of Bloch 37;
end that narrow strip of lend bounded on the north and east
by Tinker Creek and the Nortatk and Neatern right of way and on
the south and west by Blocks 33 and 34 McDonald Addition; and
further,
BEING a portion of the same property conveyed to Virginia Scrap
Iron ~ Metal Company by deed dated July 12, lgb6 from Sylvia
Derman of record in Deed Book 1203 at page 601 in the Office
of the Clerk of the Rustings Court of the City of Roanoke.
Said property designated on Sheet 421 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap, City
of Eoanoke. as Official Tax Nos~ z4210501 through z4210506; n421040l through
#4210418; ~4210307 through #421032T; Portions of z421032fl and ~421032g; and
n4210330 and #4210331, be, and is hereby, changed from LM, Light Manufacturing
District; to RG-I, General Residentia 1 District, and that Sheet No. 421 of the
aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The notion uae seconded by Mr. Carlaod and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Webber .......
NAYS: None ...........................................................O.
(Mr. Ltsk absent) (Mr. Thomas not voting)
With further r~ference to the matteF, a communication from the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Rousing Authority, requesting that Council approve, after
proper rezoning, the Development Program, Comprehensive Plan covering 80 duelling
units of low-rent housing for fami~ occupancy to be situated on approximately ten
acres of laud on Wise Avenue. S. E., was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the request of the City of Roanoke Redevel-
opment and Dousing Authority be deferred until the next regular meeting of Cousctl
on Monday, November 15, lg71, when it considers Ordinance No. 19930 on its second
reading, The motion nas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
CDESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY: Mr.'Edwin II. King, Architect,
representing the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, appeared before Council
and presented a communication in connection with proposed additions to the C~P
Telephone Company Building on Luck Avenue, requesting an encroachment into the ten
foot setback line still in effect along part of Third Street, S. W., and permission
to have underground fuel ell storage tanks along the Franklin Road side of the
building..
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
Study, report and recommendation to Council as Soon os possible. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
INDUSTRIES: A communication from Mr. Jack C. Smith, Chairman, Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, advising that the audited
financial report of the Authority which was presented to Council at its meeting of
255
.'256
November 1o 19710 contained n typ6graphicul error on the last page and transmitting!
corrected page to be inserted in said rep,taB.was before Council,
Hr. Tuylor.moved that the comnnnication und corrected page be received
and filed. The motion was seconded by Hr, Garland and ununlwonuly adopted.
BONDS-SEMERS AND STOR# DRAINS: The following Certificate of the
Electoral 8Bard of the. City of Roan,he relating to the election on the question of
approval of 0rdinance No. 19898, providing for the issue of certain bonds of the
city held on November 2, 1971, certifying that 1o,285 votes were cast YES and 3,389
votes were cast NO on the question, was before Council:
'CERTIFICATE OF ELECTORAL BOARD
We, the undersigned, members of the Electoral Hoard of the
City of Roanoke, pursuant to an Ordinance adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on the 4th day of October, 1971,
tO take the sense of the qualified voters of the city as therein
provided, said Ordinance being Ordinance No. 19899 and entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE directing and providing for the holding
of an election in the City of Roan,he, Virginia, to
determine whether the qualified voters of the City of
Roanoke will approve an ordinance, No. 19898. duly adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke on October 4, 1971.
providing for the issue of certain bonds of the City of
Roanoke; and providing for an emergency."
do hereby certify that at an election held on the 2ad day of November,
1971, votes were cast as follows:
QUESTION: Shall Ordinance No. 19898 adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke on October 4, 1971, entitled, tAN
ORDINANCE to provide for the issue of bonds of the City of
Roanoke not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00)
to provide funds to defray the cost to the City of needed
public improvements, to-wit: additions, betterments and
extensions of and to the City's sewage treatment plant and
of its sanitary sewer system including the acquisition of
land, easements, rights-of-way and other rights in property
related thereto; and providing for an emergency.t, be
approved?
YES were cast TEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIDfl'IY-FIVE votes
(10,285)
NO were cast THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE votes
(3,389)
GIVEN under our hands this 4th day of November, 1971:
S/ Andrew H. Thomnsofl
Andrew 8. Thompson, Chairman
S/ James H. Evans
James Ho Evans, Member
ATTEST:
R. A. GRURBS
Secretary of the Electoral
Board of the City of Roanoke
S/ B. A. Grubbs ,
B, A. Grubbs, Secretary
Members of the Electoral Board of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia.
CERTIFIED to the COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA
L. aHA#, CITY CLERK:
B. A. Grubbs
Secretary of the Electoral
(Seal) Board of the City of Roanoke
Mr. Nheeler moved that the certificate be received and filed and be made
a part of the Minutes of Council end that Ordinance Bo. 19890 adopted October 4,
]971, be declared as having been approved by the qualified Toters of the eJtyo Thai
mo*Jan was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a communication from the Roanoke Cou
Board of Supervisors, advising that on August 11. 1971, the Board of Supervisors
approved n Resolution requesting the Council of the City of Roanoke to waive that
provision of the existing sewage treatment contract that would require a ShOrt
portion of the county's proposed Peters Creek Relief Interceptor Sewer Line located
within the city to become the property of the City of Roanoke, that to date they
have received no reply to this request from the city and respectfully requesting
a prompt reply to their request so that this project may proceed without luther
delay, was before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Hampton M. Thomas, Chairman of the Sewer Committee,
advised that this matter had previously been referred to the Sewer Committee for
study, report and recommendation but that it presently is in the hands of the City
Manager for report and moved that the City Manager be requested to furnish Council
with a report on the request, The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
SCHOOLS-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY-POLICE DEPARTMENT: A communication from
Mr. Ralph W. Oecher, advising that he considers it u civic disgrace when the
School Administration delegates school disciplifle to the already burdened
Commonwealth*s Attorney and Police Department, consequently, he requests a change
of policy and/or personnel within the school system, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Frank K. Saunders, Attorney, representing
Mrs. Grace W. Densmore, requesting that Lots 7, 0, 9, 10 and 1T, Section 3,
Map of Washington Club Land Company, and a closed alley extending between Gilbert
Road and Westside Boulevard, Official Tax Nos. 26T0307, 2670308, 2670309, 2670310,
and 2570317, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-2,
General Residential District, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the request for reaoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power Company,
transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
October, 1971, was before Council.
Mr. ~heeler moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Dr. TayIor and unanimously adopted.
257
'258
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGEI~-AUOITORIHM-COLISEUM: The Assistant City Manager submitted the
foil*ming report Of the City Manager recommending that four Watchmen positions and
two Laborer I positions at the Roanoke Civic Center be abolished and that five
laborer II positions be approved, effective November 1o 1971:
"Roanoke, Virginia November 6, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Some error, confusion and difficulty exists with respect
to tm* groups of positions allocated to the Civic Center opera=
tlon. These are, in the 1971-72 budget, two Laborer I positions
and four Watchman positions.
At the present time all six positions are unfilled as
permanent employee positions and the extent to mhtch me have
been able to put people-in these positions has been by paying
from Extra Help account. Some of these positions are being
filled also by part time help who have been paid for at least
40 hours a week or more. Among those being filled are a Doorman
and #atchman position which are not properly designated for
adequate functioning within the center. It has not been possible
to obtain persons to the work at the center under the Laborer
classification and salary with the exception that the few that
have been obtained hare remained but for a short time.
It is felt that a change is in order whereby the position
should be filled and once filled would be assigned to the main-
tenance division of the center. It is reasonable to assign the
security responsibility for the center to the maintenance team
morking each particular shift. A change in the use of the money
available to hire these personnel would allow the available people
to perform varied tasks not be limited by strictly night matchmen
duty or pay. We are also finding that the assignment of Laborer I
positions is not worhing out as compatible with the established
duties within the center activities.
Should the Council concur in the following, it would bring
the maintenance staff to full strength whereby there would be a
regular crew on duty 24 hours a day and the security of the
building would be in tact during this time. Sot only is it felt
that the operations would benefit by this but there would he
available money to draw from in case of emergency to hire part time
employees.
The 1971-72 budget lists the following:
1. Four matchmen - Group 7 ~ Step 1, for six months g
$336.00 and Step 2 for six 'mouths 8 $352.00; making
a total of $4,128.00 per watchman. Four watchmen
$4,128.00 equals a total of
2. Two Labor I - Group 7 - Step 1, for six months @
$336.00 and Step 2 for six months 9 $352.00; making
a total of $4,128 per Labor I, total amount appointed
for 1971-72 is two Labor 1.8 $4,128.00 equals a total
of $8,256.00.
3. Four watchmen $16,512.00
Two Labor I 8,256,00
Total appointed 1971-72 $24,768.00
It is recommended that these positions be abolished and the
following positions be approved effective November l, 1971:
Five-labor II for six months at $390.00, equals $11,700.00
and two months at Step 2 @ $410.00, equals $4,100.00. Total
amount of $15,800.00. ~----
As listed above the total amount appointed for the six
positions amounts to $24,768.00 nad is intact due to positions
not being filled. The cost of the recommended positions of
Labor II will cost $15,800.00 to July 1. lg?2o and therefore
no appropriation mill be needed by City Council rather only
re-classification os stated.
It is recommended that the City Council by appropriate budget
ordinance amendment provide for this change in personnel desig-
nation at the Civic Center.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. flits,
Julian F. 8irs,
City Manager~
Mr. CarJaed moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(olgg31) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section ~??, *Civic Center,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 36, page
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...............................
NAYS: None ................O. (Rt. Ltsk absent)
RgOGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The Assistant City Manager submitted a
written report of the City Maoager advi$iog that there in an apparent error in the
final preparation of the 1971-72 budget in the listing of the Box Office Manager and
the Box Office Supervisor at the Roanoke Civic Center, that both of these positions
carry the same total salary requirements of $T,512.00, pointing out that there
appears to be duplication and recommending that the position of Rox Office Supervi-
sor be deleted from the Civic Center personnel listing.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19932) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain' Section ~77, *Civic Center,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and proFiding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 3G, page 63.)
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..............................
NAYS: None ...............O. (Mr. Lish absent)
BUDGET-AIRPORT: Council having previously adopted a Resolution autho-
rizing and directing the City Manager to execute and file with the Federal
Aviation Administration requisite requests for federal aid to assist the City of
Roanoke in accomplishing its proposed Airport Project No. ADAP 8-51-0045-01
259
260
for certain necessary improvements for development of Ronnoke Municipal (#oodrgm)
Airport, the Assistant City Manager submitted the following'report of the City
Manager advising that the low bid of John A'~ Hall and Company, Incorporated, in
the amount of $249,982.00 was approved for this project and was formarded to the
FAA for their approval and fundingt homever, it has been discovered that before
the FAA will purticJpate in this project they have indicated that the project must
be revised upward to the figure or $290,000'~00 and recommending that $23,501.00 be
appropriated to Airport Runway 33 under Section a89, "Transfers to Capital Improve-
ments Fund,' of the 1971-72 budget to comply math this request and that Council
also approve the execution of the grant agreement with the Federal Aviation
Administration for said project:
'Roanoke, Virginia
November H, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On October Il, 1971, City Council received bids for a project
to overlay bituminous runway and taxiway 15/33 at Roanoke Municipal
(Moodrum) Airport. The following Mondayt October 18, 19Tit City
CouucJl approved ~ commi.ttee report recommending .that the lom bid
of John A. Ball and Company, Incorporated, in the amount of
$249,992 be approved and the project be forwarded to the Federal
Aviation Agency for their approval and funding.
The FAA has indicated a willingness to proceed mith this
project contingent upon the fund revisions as outlined in Mr.
McGhee*s report to the City Manager. A copy of his report is
attached. As Mr. McGhee indicates it is not anticipated that
the additional funds requested would be expended; however, prior
to the FAA participating in this project they have indicated that
the project must be revised upward to the figure of $290o000.
'DATE: November 4, 1971 ''
TO: Mr'. Hirst
FROM: Mr. McGhee S/ Sam H. McGbee, III
SUBJECT: Roanoke Municipal Airport - ADAP Project 6-51-0045-01
We have been in continuous correspondence with the Federal
Aviation Agency since filing the project applicatiun for the
overlay of Runway and 7axiway 33 as outlined under the above
project number. With winter weather rapidly approaching, it
is imperative that c~nstruction start as soon as possible in
order to build up the strength of the runway while it is still
possible to place the bituminous concrete. With the weather
problem in mind, we have already held a precoustruction meeting
with the low bidder, John A, Hall ~ Company, Incorporated, and
representatives of the FAA.
After talking with the FAA on Hovember 5, 1971, I was advised
that the FAA will be hand-carrying to Roanoke the Grant Offer
and Acceptance forms for this project on Friday or Monday,
Hovember S or O. They also advised me that they are revising
the costs as shown in the application to reflect a new total
project cost of $290,000.00 instead of $260,000.00. The table
below shows a comparison between the costs as outlined In our
project applica~on which reflected the construction costs of
the l~w bidder and the revised project cost which the FAA has
now established.
PROJECT
APPLICATION REVIS£D FAA
ITEM COST COST
Construction Cost $249,962.00 $249,982.00
Engineering and
Supervisions Cost 6,000.00 12,499.00
Administrative Cost 3,000.00 3,000.00
Contiegenciea I.OIH'~Q 24.519.00
TOTAL $260,000.00 $290,000.00
The FAA mould be participating in SO~ of all project costs with
their maximum participation now being $145,000.00 instead of
$130,000.00.
The Increases shown for the engineering and supervision cost,
if actually expended, are amounts already budgeted for salaries
in the Engineering Department budget. If engineering and super-
vision expenses are actually above the $6,000.00 as shown in
the project application, the increased amount would allow the
FAA to participate in the remainder of these costs. It is
questionable in my mind as to whether or not any of the con-
tingency fund would be spent, be it the amount shomn in the
project application or the revised amount submitted by the FAA.
The revised contingency fund as established by the FAA is based
ga approximately 10~ of the constroction cost and is supposedly
to be used for uny variations in actual quantities for con-
struction, engineering and supervision, and administration. The
City has already included within the construction cost amount
which was bid by John A. Hall ~ Company a 10~ increase over
actual quantities as measured on the construction drawings.
Thus, we have already provided a contingency amount within the
proposed construction contract. For this reason, I do not
believe that we would use any of the contingency fund.
Since the engineering and supervision costs and administrative
costs are already budgeted mithin the Engineering Department
operating budget and since the FAA mould be participating in
SO~ of the total project cost, I am advised by Mr. J. Robert
Thomas, City Auditor, that the City's share of the increased
appropriation to this project would be $11,750.$0 although the
total additional appropriation required for this account would be
$23,501.00.
It is my recommendation that these additional funds be appro-
priated to this project.
Nith respect to the Grant Offer and Acceptance, it is my recommen-
dation that City Council be requested to approve the grant agree=
meet between the FAA and the City of Roanoke. Since the grant
agreement will not be in our hands until Friday or Monday, I
would lihe to suggest the possibility of your placing an item on
the agenda for the approval of the grant agreement and the City
Attorney*s preparation of the proper resolution. This prior
preparation would permit us to then proceed on Monday, November H0
with approval by Council of the grant agreement and the appropria-
tion of the additional funds and would then allow the execution of
the contract between the City and John A. Hall ~ Company so that
construction might begin.
Please advise me if I can provide any additional information.'
To comply with this request, City Council would be asked to
appropriate an additional $23,501 to this project.
It is further requested that City Council approve the execution
of the grant agreement with the Federal Aviation Agency for this
project. The City Auditor has prepared a budget ordinance providing
the necessary funds and the City Attorney has prepared a resolution
accepting the grant offer for Council*s approval.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
261
262
In this connection, the Assistant City Manager submitted the follomlng re
port advising that since the above report was written, the Federal Aviation
Administration has indicated their ullllngness to proceed ulth this project con-
tingent upon the construction cost or $249,982.00, engineering end supervision
cost of $6,000.00, administrative cost of $3,000.00 with u contingency of
$1,018.00 for a total cost of $260°000.00 and recommending approval or the execu-
tion of the grant agreement with the FAA:
"Roanoke, Virginia November 0. 1971
Honorable Hayer and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On October 11, 1971, City Council received bids for a pro-
Ject to overlay bituminous runway and taxiway 15/33 at Roanoke
Municipal (Woodrum) Airport. The following Wonday, October 18,
1971, City Council approved a committee report recommending that
the lam bid of John A. Hall ~ Company. Incorporated, in the
amount of $249,902 be approved sad the project to be forwarded
to the Federal Aviation Agency for their approval and fundleg.
The,Federal Avia,iDa Ageocy bas indicated their willingness
to proceed with this project contingent upon the construction cost
of $249,902, engineering and supervision cost of $5,000, administra-
tive cost of $3,000 with a contingency of ~1,018 ~or a totul cost
of $260,000. As the initial Federal Aviation Ageucy tentative
allocation for this project was in the amount of $128.$00 un addi-
tional $1,SO0 will be needed for them to fund their portion of
this project. They have indicated a willingness to increase this
grant subject to the request of the City that they do so.
As the City has funds in the amount of $260,000 appropriated
for this project, there remains the necessity for City Council
to approve the executiou au the grant agreement with the Federal
Aviation Agency for this project. Yhe City Attoreey has prepared
a resolution for City Council's approval to accept the FAA grant.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Hamer
for Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Manager and offered the following Resort Jori approving execution of the grant agree-
ment with the Federal Aviation Administration:
(e19933) A RESOLUTION accepting a Grant Offer made to the City.of Roanoke
by the United States of America, actin9 through the FederalAviation Agency, for
Roanoke Municipal Airport ProJect No. ADAP 8-51-0045-01; authorizing the City Mana-
ger to execute said Grant Agreement as evidence of the City's acceptance thereof;
authorizing the City Clerk to affix the City's seal aedto attest the same; and
authorizing the City Attorney to execute the requisite Certificates.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page
Mr. Trout moved'the adoption of the*Resslutto~ Th~ *~otion was seconded
by Or. T~ylo~ and adopted by the'followingvote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted the
!foil,ming report of the City Manager advising that the City of Roanoke applied for
land received grant through the State Council on Criminal Justice of federal law
enforcement and administration funds for the purchase of a mobile crime investiga-
tion unit, that this grsnt was in the amount of $17,192',00, that the first quarter
check for this grant has been received by the city and in order to enable the pur-
chase Dad proper credit of funds, it is recommended that Council appropriate
$17o192.00 Into a special account in order that purchase of this equipment and
material may proceed:
*Roanoke, Virginia
November 6, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The City of Roanoke in fiscal 1970-71, applied for and
received grant through the State Council on Criminal Justice
of federal lam enforcement administration funds for the pur-
chase of a mobile crime investigation unit. This grant was
in the amount of $17,192. The first ~arter chech for this
grant has been received by the City.
In order to enable the purchase and proper credit of
funds, it is recommended that the City Council by budget
ordinance amendment provide the appropriation of $17,192
into a special account in order that purchases of this
equipment and ~aterial ~ay proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Ilirst"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19934) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m45, "Police De-
partment,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordieance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinonce, see Ordinance Boob No. 36, page 65.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. b.
NAYS: None ...............Oo (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Assistamt City Manager submitted the
following report of the City Manager recommending that $1,175.50 be appropriated
to provide funds in connection with the Virginia Criminal Information Network,
advising that the City of Roanoke has made application for a terminal point and it
is anticipated that T55 of the expenses for the first year of this operation will
be refundable to the City of Roan,to as well as to other points under the LRAA
grant:
~263
-264
'Roanoke, Virginia November 0, 1971
Honorable Hayor und City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the State'level und ut those local levels which~have
teletype connection with the State Police teletype system or
which are designated os connection points under the new system,
the system known us the Virginia Criminal Information Netuorh
(VCIN) is progressing well tueord establishment and is ex-
pected to be operational by December 10, 1971o This date is
provided that there are no further delays expereienced in de-
livering and installation of equipment. The project ia being
developed with centralized information point within the State
Police for almost instant computer feed of information to the
various terminal points throughout the State.
It is anticipated that 75 percent for the first year*s
expenses of this operation would be refundable to Roanoke as
well as to other points under a LEAA grant. The City has made
application for a terminal point.
In order to implement and maintain local participation and
to enable the project locally to get into operation, appropriation
of funds will be necessary as detailed below.- As stated TS percent
of these first year funds will be refundable. Operating funds
for this project will be included In the Police Department budget
for fiscal 1972-73.
A breakdown of the estimated cost for the seven-months period
is as follows and in the event that the ¥CIN Project is not activated
by December 18, the amount mould be accordingly reduced in the rental
area.
1~ Rental of IHM 2T40-2 Communication Terminal for (?} -
months at a monthly rental rate of $196.50 $1o025~50
2'. One roll paper holder (one-time purchase) 65.00
3. Installation charge for installing roll paper holder 15~00
4. Supply of teletype paper for designated period 50.00
5. Supply of typewriter ribbon for designated period ~O.O0
Total amount needed to implement and maintain pro-
gram for 7-month period. $1,175.50
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the above
amount anticipating reimbursement as stated.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lgg3S) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m45, "Police
Department," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by DF. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
:1
AIRPORT: The Assistant City Homager submitted the f~llouing report or
the City Manager recommending that $30500.00 be appropriated to provide funds for
proper settlement mfth John Talbert ~ Associates, Incorportned, for a Master Plan
Study of Roanoke Municipal (Va,drum) Airport, in the total amount or $~T,soo0.00,
advising that 80~ of this. $17,500.00 was paid during the 1970-71 fiscal year:
'Roanoke, Virginia
November 8, lgTl
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
C-entlenen:
The City, in the last fiscal year. lg?O-Tl entered into
a cpmtract wotJ tJe for, pf Talbert and Cox, Mllmington, North
Carolina, for the Master Plan Stady of the Airport. The con-
tract mas in the amount of $1TtS00. Eighty percent of this was
paid in the last fiscal year. we have been billed for the re-
maining 20 percent, $3,S00, and. find that this unpaid amount wus
not carried over Into the 19Tl-T2 budget.
It mill be Fecal]ed that the Commonwealth of Virginia con*
tributed to the City 50 percent of the total cost of this study.
In order that proper settlement can be made with the
engineering firm, it is recommended that City Council by budget
ordinance amendment provide for the appropriation of $3,500.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirlt
Julian F. Ilirst
City Manag~r~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Manager and offered the followtngemergency Ordinance:
(#1993b) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m65, #Airport,'
of the lg71-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 67.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................. 6.
NAYS: None ..................O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
LIBRARIES: The Assistant City Manager subBitted a written report of the
City Manager transmitting a request of Mrs. Elizabeth M. Oreury, President of the
Roanoke City Public Library Board, to appear before Council in connection with
certain appropirafions for additions to the main library building.
In this connection, Mrs. Elizabeth M. Dremry appeared before Council and
read the following prepared statement requesting that Council include funds in
the 1~T2-73 fiscal year budget to extend mork space on the unfinished second floor
of the main library building and that funds also be appropriated for adding a room
on the east side of the first floor of the main library building:
As President of the Roanohe City Public Library Board, I mould lihe
to aah City Council to grant monies for n number of capital improve-
ment items; such aa
Expanded service area In the Downtown Main Library
2. Expanded Branch facilities in the N. W. area
3, Boohmobile service for
Those'in retirement apartments
Those in nursing homes
Those in outlying districts of the city
Buto hnoming that monies are limited, I mill speak today on ti
of the Library priority list, The others mill be brought
before yon next year.
I ask you to include in the next budget 1972-73 - capital outlay
funds for expanded service facilities at the Bomntomn Main Library,
One member of our Board hasdescribed our need as that of a child
As a housewife, I would say that the present kitchen f~lities are
too small for the household.
As a school teacher, I would say that our school kitchen is serving
more satellite schools that we can serve well. The hitchen is
functioning, and functioning pretty mall because cf the dedication
of employees, but it could function much better if it bad better
facilities with which to work.
1 ask you to look at the plans for the Main Library original
strucutre, completed In lg52. At that time a large part of
the 2nd floor was left unfinished. The time fur finishing
off the 2nd floor, 20 years later has Come. The projected.
space, over ?,O00'square feet) is urgently needed. This will
cost about $265,000 or more plus equipment.
In addition, I ash you to consider building a two story addition
on the south side (over 3,000 square feet) for a Music and Arts
room and balcony at a cost of SbOtO00 or more plus equipment.
I do not ask for items ~2 mud n3 in this 1972-73 budget for
capital improvements. Only for ml expansion service areas in
the Main Library in the 1972-73 budget.
Thank you Mr. Mayor--I welcome questions.~
Miss Nancy E. Him*s, Director, Roanoke Public Libraries, also appea~ed
before Council in support of the requests presented by Mrs. Dremry.
After n discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the requests be
referred tp tie flty Manager for study, reportand recommendation to Council and to
lgT2-?3 budget study. The motion Was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously
adopted.
ZONINg-SPECIAL PERMITS: Council having referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Melvin L. Clemens for permissio'n
to repair televisions and radios in his home at 1109 Pleasant View Avenue, N. M.,
the Assistant City Manager submitted the following report Of the City Manager
recommending that Council authorize or direct the Zoning Administrator to issue a
certificate of occupancy for ~uch use which would provide the city with proper cone!
trol over compliance with th'e City Code:
AIRPORT: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following report of
:the City Manager recommending that $3,500.00 be appropriated to provide funds rot
~proper settlement with John Tulbert ~ Associates, Incorporated, rot o Master Plan
Study of Roanoke Municipal (Wood*nm) Airport, in the total amount of $17,500.00,
advising that 80~ of this $17.500.00 was paid during the 1970-71 fiscal year:
"Roanoke. Virginia November 8, 1971
Nonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City. in the last fiscal year, lgYO-Tl entered into a
contract with the firm of Talbert and Cox, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for the Master Plan Study of the Airport. The con-
tract mas in the amount of $17.500. Eighty percent of this was
paid in the last fiscal year. We have been billed for the re-
maining 20 percent. $3,500. and find that this unpaid amount was
not carried over into the 1971-72 budget.
It will be recalled that the Commonwealth of Virginia con-
tributed to the City 50 percent of the total cost of this study.
In order that proper settlement can be made with the
engineering firm, it is recommended that City Council by budget
ordinance amendment provide for the appropriation of $3,500.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F~ Birst
City Manager#
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
/ ~ ' (~19936) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaJn Section u65, *Airport,"
I of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordnance. and providing for an emergency.
,~ e -"~ (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 35, page bY.)
~/ '9c~ -~--AYES: Messrs. Garlandt Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mhceler and Mayor
'Mebber~ ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
LIBRARIES: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report of the
City Manager transmittiug a request of Mrs. Elizabeth M. Drewry, President of the
Roanoke City Public Library Board, to appear before Council in connection with
certain appropriations for additions to the main library building.
In this connection, Mrs. Elizabeth M, Drewry appeared before Council
and read the following prepared statement requesting that Council include funds in
the 1972-73 fiscal year budget to extend work space on the unfinished second floor
of the main library building and that funds also be appropriated for adding a room
on the east side of the first floor of the main library building:
265
'266
Aa President of the Rooooke City Public Library Board, I would like
to ask City Council to grunt monies rot 8 number or cnpital improve-
1. Expanded service area in-the Oomntomn Main Library
2. Expanded Brunch fscilities in the,imoi.~u~ea
3. Bookmobile service for /~.~
Those in outlying districts of the city
But, knomlng that monies are limited, ! will speak today on =l
of the Library priority list. The others will be brought
before you next year.
I ask you to include in the next budget - 1972-73 - capital outlay
funds for expanded service facilities at the Downtomn Main Library.
One member of our Board has described our need as that'of &'~hlld
who has outgrown hfs clothes.
As a housemife, ! mould say,that the present kitchen facilities are
too small for the household.
As a school teacher, I would say that our school kitchen is servia9
more satallite schools than we can serve Hell. The kitchen is
functioning, and functioning pretty well because of the dedication
of employees, but it could function much better if it had bette~
facilities with mhich to ~ork.
! ask you to look at the plans for the Main Library original
structure, completed in 1952. ALthat time a large part of
the 2nd floor was left unfinished. The time for finishing
off the 2nd floor, 20 years later has come. The projected
space, over 7,000 square feet] is urgently-needed. This will
cost about $265,000 or more plus equipment.
In addition I ask you to consider building a two story addition
on the south side (over 3,000 square feet) for u Music and Arts
room and balcony at s cost of $60,000 or more plus equipment.
I do not ask for items =2 and'=3 in this 1972-73 budget for
capital improvements. Only for ~1 expansion service areas in
the Main Library in the 1972=73 budget.
Thank you Mr. Mayor--I welcome questions**
Miss Nancy E. Himes, Director, Roanoke Public Libraries, also appeared
before Council in support of the requests presented by Mrs. Dreary.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the requests be
referred to the City ~anoger for study, report and recommendation to Council and to
1972-73 budget study. The notion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously
adapted.
ZONING~SPECIAL PERMITS: Council having referred to the City Ranager for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr, Melvin L. Clemons for permission
to repair televisions and radios in his home at 1108 Pleasant View Avenue, N.
the Assistant City Manager submitted the following report of the City Manager
recommending that Council authorize or direct the Zoning Administrator to issue a
certificate of occupancy for such use which would provide the city with proper con-
trol over compliance with the City Code:
*Roanoke, Virginia November 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on October IH, lgTl, received a letter
request from Mr. Melvin L. Clemens, IIOH Pleasant Viem Avenue,
N. u** rot permission of a permit to repair televisions and
radios in his home.
City Council may b~ ordinance grant · revocable, non-
transferrable permit t~ Mr, Clemens to do repair work on
radios and televisions in his home as a home occupation
under certain terms and conditions for home occupations as
defined in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly in accordance
with paragraph (h)o mhich reads as folloms:
(H) PROVIDED, however, that the term home occupation
may include activities in the nature of repair of
television receivers and repair of fractional horse-
power motors, provided that such activities:
(1) Are limited to basements or garages,
(2) Involve no employees,
(3) Are limited to normal daylight hours,
(4) Involve no advertising signs on or off the premises,
(5) Involve no wholesale or retail sales from or upon the
premises,·
and provided, further, that permission for carrying on any such
activities shall be granted solely at the pleasure of the Council,
any such permission being in the nature of a temporary revocable
permit; and nothing contained in this section shall be construed
to establish in any such permlttee a right in his premises to carry
on any such activity as a nonconforming use under this chapter.
It is stated in the ordinance that such permit is granted to
be non-transferrable and revocable at the will of City Council. It
is to be agreed by the permittee as evidenced by his execution of
an attested copy of the ordinance that he consents and agrees to
all requirements and filed with the City Clerk.
Mr. Clemens is a veteran of World War II and suffered service
injuries. After service and hospitalization, he returned to
Roanoke and returned to his former murk as a line foreman with
Appalachian Pomer Company. The service injuries began to cause
reoccurring problems. He is mom completely unable to work, is
a 100 percent disabled veteran and in connection with his situation
he undergoes treatment three times a weeR at the Veterans Hospital.
It is considered that these circumstances with Mr. Clemens
justify consideration under the above sited provision of the City
Code.
It would be recommended that the Council authorize or direct
the zoning administrator to issue a certificate of occupancy for
such use which would provide to the City the proper control over
compliance with the Code.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution:
267
'268
(#19937) A RESOLUTION granting revocable, non-transferable perwission to
!Melvin Lo Clemons to pursue the home occupation of repair of television~ and radio
ireceivers upon premises located at 1108 Pleasant View Avenue, N, M., knomn ns Lot
10, Block 13, Nap of Round Hill Park, Section No. 5, Official Tax No. 2141410, upon
certain terms and conditions.
(For tull text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page
Mr, Garland moved the adoptbn of the Resolution. Thc motion was seconded
by Or. Taylor and adopted bT the following vote:
AYES= Eeasrs. Garland, TaTlor0 Tbomaso Trout, Mbee]er and Mayor
Mebber ...........................
NAYS: None ............O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
MUNICIPAL COURT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City Manager advising that on October 11, 1971, be submitted a report to
Council with regard to the purchase of chairs for the Municipal Court as hsd been
requested by Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick during the 1971-72 budget review, that
he did not realize Council had previously granted approval for these choirs along
mith certain other items requested by Judge Fitzpatrick and that the prior action
o£ Council appears to bare fu11~ band]ed this matter.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted~
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The Assistant City Manager sub-
mitted a written report of the City Manager transmitting the following communication
written to him from Mr. Russell R. Henley, Executive Director of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, with regard to the possible acquisition by the
Authority of the city's incin~erator property situated within the Nimhall Redevelop-
ment Project:
Mr. Julian F. Hirst
City Manager
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hirst,
"September 16, 1971
RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO KIMBALL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PROJECT R-46,
INCLUDING PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY OF
ROANOKE AS A PART OF THE PROJECT.
The City of Roanoke has taken action recently favoring disposal of the
incinerator plant and land to this Authority as a part of the Kimball
Redevelopment Project.
In order to proceed with this matter, we have had comprehensive ap-
praisals by two independent appraisers of the incinerator property.
Our Real Estate Officer has reviewed such appraisals and on the
basis of these appraisals established a value of $60,000.00 for the
property. This value was obtained as a net figure by considering
demolition costs mhich are estimated to be $15,000.00 or more.
I,'
269
If the City agrees to the ~igure stated, we will pursue the amending
process of tbn ProJect (to include the property ns · part of the
Kimball Project) through the Are· Office or the Department of Housing
~ Urhnn Development. Until that Office spprores such amendment, no
further action in this matter can be t·hen.
If this ·uendwent is approved, concurrence on the value of the pro~
party also will have to be obtained from the Department of Housing
~ Drban Development.
Another element of this matter on which you should be informed0 deals
with ~hether un amendment approved by the Federal Agency will permit
the consM~atlon for the property to he paid in cash to the City or
the value donated as a part of the financing. Additional Federal
Funding would be required on a cash transaction and Funding is
currently limited. In addition, this would probably seriously delay
processing of the Amendment.
As you know, in the ~iwball ProJect, all City properties were
donated at value us a part of the project financing. [e recommend
that the City donate the value of the incinerator as a part of
project financing which donated amount would generate $120,000.00
in Federal Grants to apply to other ProJects.
I discussed this with Mayor ~ebber, advising him that we now could
present a valuation figure for the incinerator property. He re-
quested me to put the matter In writing to you timely for early
consideration. I tolhed by phone to Mr. Trout alma.
As yon know, a decision in this matter is crucial toward expe-
d/ting sale of property Jn this area.
I trust it can be discussed with the City Council on Monday,
September 20, 1971.
Sincerely yours,
S/ Russell R. Henley
Russell R. Henley
Executive Director"
Mr. Mheeler moved that the report amd communication be referred to the
Landfill Committee for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following report of the
City Manager in connection with notification or verification of notification of
adjoining property owners in proposed rezoning matters, submitting two points, one
as information, and, the other as recommendation with regard thereto:
"Roanoke, Virginia November 6,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
~oanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On several occasions recently discussion or question has come
before the City Council as to the extent of notification or verifi-
cation of notification of adjoining propertyowners inmatters of
proposed rezonin9 particularly as to the conduct of hearings on re-
zoning petitions. In order to avoid or minimize instances similar
to those that have come up, I submit the following two points, one
as information amd, the other as recommendation.
In the form of information I would advise that Mr. Mermelstein,
Director of Planning, has established within the PlanniugDepartment
a recording system of all letters being sent out to,adJoining
property owners, listing name, address and date that the letters are
sent. This should offer some protection by way of having a basis
for reference when there is a challenge as to whom has been notified.
270
In the torn of a reconnendotion, I would submit the
following uhlch it would not seem to me would be necessary
to be handled by ordinance but rather could be filed by abe
· Council and constitute an understanding as to the procedure
to be follomed by attorneys In these matters as well as the
City Clerk, Presently the customary procedure of attorneys
is to go to the deed or property bookt and for.each property
extract the name listed on these records, fn frequent
Instances these names nay constitute a firm who is the mortgage
holder or who has some other relationship to the property but
mbo may not be particularly the individual owner nhomlght be
the one to question or inquire with respect to neighborhood
rezoning,
It would be recommended that the attorneys, In addition
to submitting a lilt of the adjoining property owners, also
provide that such lists are to further include the head Of
each household residing on the adJoining properties as designated
tar notification end wherein the omnerahlp of record at a parcel
is shown to be other than an individual, then the attorney shall
determine and provide the name of any individual who may have
ownership in the property although the actual ownership may be
obligated by mortgage or otherwise to others.
It is believed that the-above two would benefit the situation
that has frequently arisen.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carlan~ and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The Assistant City Manager submitted
a written report of the City Manager transmitting copy of a communication from Mr.
James T. Stamps, Secretary, Roanoke - Salem Plaza Merchants Association, Incorporated,
objecting to the. removal of the fire and burglar alarmsystems from the communications
center in the Municipal Building and. further transmitting copy of a communication
written by him to Mr. Stamps in reply to his objection.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communications be referred to a
committee composed of Messrs. Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Byron E. Namer, Robert
Turner and Olin 6arrett for their information in connection with their study of the
matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND'PLAYGROUNDS: The Assistant City Manager submitted a mritten
report of the City Manager transmitting the following memorandum from Mr. John A.
Newsom, Acting Director of the Department of Paths and Recreation, regarding promo-
tion of the Mill Mountain Zoo:
~DATE: November 1, 1971
TO: Mr. Julian Hirst
FROM: Mr. John A. Newman - Acting Director, Dept. of Parks and
Recreation
SUBJECT: Promotion of 2oo
On October 11, 1971 the Department of Parks and Recreation embarked
on a new project to promote the Mill,Mountain Zoo. Our aim was to
visit as many schools and civic groups as possible. Since the above
date, Mr. Dooley, Superintendent of the Zoo, has visited 23 groups
reacbtn~ a total of 2200 people. Eighteen groups'b~ve requested Mr.
Booley to come for the month of November 1971.
Mr. Uooley*s program consists of slides of the zoo and bringing one
at the small animals, such aa the monkey, to the show. Our office has
received many complimentary remarks and letters from the groups that
have been visited.
i,
I'mnnted you to have this information, Similar plans are being made
to promote the Museum.'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and memorandum be received and filed.
The mo
The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor end unanimously adopted,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-HURRELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL:
The Assistant City Manager submitted the folloming report of the City
Manager transmitting the State-Local Hospitalization Plan for Borrell Memorlal
Hospital for the period from November 1, 1971, to October 31, 1972, advising that
the terms of this contract are the same as those for the previous year, being
$46.33 per day for in-patient service and $5.50 per visit for out-patient and/or
emergency room service, and that the Administrator for Burrell Memorial Hospital
indicated that because of the date of this contract be feels that it is necessary
to abide by the present contract rates; however, he indicates that at such time
as the mage and price freeze is lifted a renegotlation of the reimbursement rate
mill be in order to more adequately reimburse Burrell Memorial Hospital for their
services:
*Roanohe, Virginia
November O, 1971
Bonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Several months ago the City Council was presented with the
revised contracts for State*Local IlospitalJaation plan with
various hospitals which provide this service to the City of
Roanoke Health Department. TI~s presentation included all hospi*
tal contracts except that Of Hurrell Memorial Hospital which
contract covers from a period of November 1, 1971, to October 31,
1972. This contract is now in hand and awaits City Council*s
approval prior to the City Manager signing the contract.
It will be noged that the terms Of this contract as pre-
sented are the same as those for the previous year being ~48.33
per day for in-patient service and $5.50 per visit for out-
patient and/or emergency room service. Mr. Mol II. Lipton,
Administrator for Burrell Memorial HopsJtal, has indicated that
because of the dates of this contract he feels it necessary
to abide by the present contract rates; however, he does indicate
that at such time as the wage and price freeze is lifted a
reoegotiotlon of the reimbursement rate would be in order to more
adequately reimburse Burrell Memorial Hospital for their services.
It would be recommended the City Council authorize the City
Manager to sign this agreement under the present rates as sub-
mitted.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation Of the proper measure. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and
unanimously adopted.
271
'272
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE HIGHHAYS-INDUSTRIES: The Assistant City
Manager submitted the foil*ming report of the City Manager advising that the City
Roanoke has made independent appraisals Of property required for right of way
construction easement for the Industrial Access Road leading to the Macho Pending
Company and adjoining properties, that us a second of these acquisitions, option
has been obtained from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas M. Ct*well for a strip of land containing
16,797 square feet, in the amount of $2,T00.00, and recommending the adoption of
an Ordinance exercising this option:
*Roanoke, Virginia November fl, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As previously advised the City has made independent
appraisals of property required for right-of-way and/or
construction easement for the Industrial Access Road leadin9
to the Macho Vending Company and adjoining properties. As a
second of the acquisitions, option has been obtained from
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas M. Ct*well for a strip of land 70 feet
in width, approximately 239.95 feet in length, 16,797 square
feet. The option is in the amount of $2,100 which includes
approximately $1,200 in nursery stock value. The stock was
not included in the appraisal and the option amount is within
the appraised figure.
It is recommended that City Council authorize preparation
of necessary papers by the City Attorney to exercise this option.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. Hirsh
City Manager"
Hr. Thomas moved that Cooncil concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19936) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase a parcel of land
containing approximately 0.386 acre situate in the City of Roanoke, being the
southwesterly portion of Official Tax No. 213041g, and needed for the City*s Indus*
trial Access Road ProJect 9999-128-103, C-502, upon certain terms and provisions;
providing for notice of the City*s exercise of a written purchase option for said
land; providing for payment of the purchase price thereof upon delivery of a deed
to the City and for recordation of said deed; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Ho. 36, page 69.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................ 6.
NAYS: None ............. O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
273
SPECIAL PERMITS-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The Assistant City Manager sub-
mitted the following report of the City Manager recommending that WBRA-TV be granted
permission to utilize floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter
building atop Mill Mountain and to install their antenna on the main communications
tower at that location and advising that the ETV Association will pay the City of
Roanoke $562,80 per year for this privilege:
*Moanoke, Virginia
November 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City of Roanoke has received a request from Educational
Station MBRA TV requesting permission to utilize floor space in
the main equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill
Mountain and to install their antenna On the main communications
tower at that location. The Blue Ridge ETV Association would
pay the City $562.80 per year for this privilege. For this pay-
ment the City would provide heat, light, water and electricity.
The City mould reserve the right to terminate this agreement on
30 days notice should it determine that the City had need for
this space or should the equipment installed interfere by its~
operation math the operation of the City's radio or any communi-
cations equipment presently utilizing this tower.
It would be recommended that the Blue Ridge ETV Associat'ion
(WBRA TV) bo authorized to utilize thisspace and that City Council
approve an ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to that affect.
Respectfully yours,
$/ Julian F'. llirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Manager and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(m19939) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) square feet of
floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill Moun-
tain to the Blue Ridge ETV Association for use, upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the Council that the Dime Ridge
Association desires to rent certain space in the main equipment room Of the City's
transmitter building atop Mill Mountain for use of a television translator and
associated equipment and, also, certain outside space on the antenna tower, and said
association is agreeable to the terms and provisions hereinafter contained.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that said
City doth hereby agree to rent to the Blue Ridge ETV Association four (4) square
feet of floor space in the main equipment room Of the transmitter building atop
Mill Mountain for said association's use for the placement and operation of a
television translator, with associated equipment, and, also, space on the tower
,lucent to said building for their antennae, to he connected by coaxial cable to the
radio equipment in said building, upon the following terms and conditions:
1. That the right of such asa shall commence daring the calendar
iyear 1971, on or after November I in said year;
2. That the term of acid agreement shall be from month to month mith the
fright b either party to terminate said agreement cpon 30~days* written notice to
isafd other party~
3, That the Blue Ridge ET~ Association pay to the City the sum of
15562.80 per lear, payable in equal quarter-annual payments cf $140.70 each;
4. That the City supply without additional charge therefor, beat light,
water and electric power, but not telephone service, reasonably necessary for the
operation of the aforesaid radio equipment;
S. That authorized representatives or employees of said association have
a free Fight Of ingress and egress to and from the aforesaid premises at all rea-
sortable times in and about the operation and maintenance of said radio equipment;
6. That the radio and other equipment installed on the City*s premises
pursuant hereto be located in such place or places and be of such type as is
specified or approved by the City*s Chief Communications Officer; and
T. That the City reserves the right to terminate the aforesaid agreement
at any time on 30-days* prior notice in writing by the City Manager to said
association should the City Manager determine a need for the City, s ewe use of the
space or premises hereinabove mentioned or should the City Manager determine that
said association's radio equipment interferes, by its operation, with the operation
of the City*s radioor communications equipment, or the operation of uny other
lessee of the City.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the agreement herein authorized to be entered
into on behalf of the City may be effected by the City*s executiofl of a written
lease agreement embodying the terms herein provided, approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
The motion mas seconded by Mr:~ Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ............................
NAYS: None .............O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
SIDEWALK-CURB AND ~UTTER: Council having previously entered into a con-
tract with H ~ S Construction Company for the construction of curb and gutter
throughout the City of Roanoke, the Assistant City Manager submitted the following
report of the City Manager recommending the adoption of a Resolution providing for
Change Order NOg 2 to the contract with B ~ S Construction Company for additional
curb and gutter, in the amount of-$6,1B3.45, with a time extension of 60 days to
said contractor:
275
'Roanoke, Virginia November 8, 1971
Don*ruble Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Vfrgieln
Gentlemen:
The City instulls curb, gutter and sideualk on n first some,
on u half-cost basis with the City. At present there ure more
requests from property owners who would like to participle than
there are funds available.
H ~ S Construction Company is the contractor for ~lnstnlling
curb and gutter under the present program, They are working under
a contract dated October bo 1970, in tbs amount of $24,9fl8o?$, and
un additional Change Order No, 1, dated October 16, 1970, ia the
amount of $13,137.$6. After these obligations have been completed
which are nearly finished, there will have remained unexpended from
the last appropriation $6,183.45.
The contractor has agreed in uriting to extend this contract
to cover this latter amount and me would like to continue with
the construction until the funds have been exhausted and help all
of those possible that are on the waiting list. It is felt certain
that any new contracts would be higher in unit price than the price
received approximately a year ago.
There is forwarded with the Agenda a resolution prepared by
the City Attorney which it is recommended be uppFoved uhJch would
authorize the execution of Change Order No. 2 to the contract in
the amount of $6,183.45 with a time extension of 60 days to the
contractor.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ 3ulian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager~
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution:
(~19940) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager*s issuance of Change
Order No. 2 in connection with the City*s contract for the construction of concrete
curbs, gutters and sidewalks in various parts Of the City, heretofore authorized
by Ordinance No. 19340.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 70.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. 6.
NAYS: None ...............O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
MUNICIPAL BUILOING: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following
report of the City Manager recommending that two change orders be entered into with'
John W. Daniel ~ Company, Incorporated, inconnection with the construction of the
new Municipal Building, one change order to be in the amount of $214.00 for the
installution of a dedication plaque om the main floor of the new Municipal Building
and the other change order to be in the amount of $378.86 for the installation of
hardward panels to support the coat racks within the new Municipal Building:
'276
#Ronnoke, Virginia
November 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Ronnokeo Virginia
Gentlemen:
The plaque which was proposed tn be Installed on the went
wall of the new Municipal Building, on the main floor near the
entrance hasnever been put up because of questions which we
had in the Judgement that the original material and design would
not produce n satisfactory result, There was un allowance of $500
in the contract for this plaque.
In reviewing this with the contractor and architect over a
period of time, there has max resulted a material and design
which it Is felt would be suitable.
In order to accomplish this and proceed with the installation
it is recommended that the City Council approve a change order to
the contract with John W. Daniels and Company, Icc,, to provide for
the additional sun of $214, or a total of $714, for the installation
of u dedJcstionplaque.
A second matter relating to the building which has been under
discussion for a considerable period of time is as to the installa-
tion of coat racks. Approximately nineteen (19) panels were furnished
end installed in order to properly support these coat tachs on the
walls of the building. The architectural detail drawings did not
indicate that these panels would have to be provided, but the contrac-
tor, under lnstructioes from the architect, proceeded to install the
coat racks utilizing these panels. Bad this procedure not been
followed, the walls would not have supported the coat racks. To
coyer this situation it is recommended that the City Council approve
a changeorder to the contract with John W. Daniels and Company,
Icc** in the amount of $378.86 for the installation of hardward
panels to support the coat racks within the building.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Ilirat
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution providing for the change order with
regard to the installation of the dedication plaque on the main floor of the new
Municipal Building:
(~19941) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager*s issuance of a Change
Order in connection with the City's contract for the construction of the Municipal
Building Annex.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page ?1.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout~ Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 6.
NAYS: None ............O. (Mr. Link absent)
Mr. Wheeler then offered the following Resolution providing for the change
order with regard to the installation of hardware panels to support the coat racks
within the new Municipal Building:
(n19942) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's issuance of a Change
Order in connection with the Clty*s contract for the construction of the Municipal
Uuilding Annex.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Boor No. 36, page
Hr. Nheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 6.
NAYS: None ............O. (~r. Link absent)
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted
a written report of the City Manager concurring in the following report of a
committee recommending that the proposal of MOtorola Communications and Electronics~
Incorporated. for supplying several items of radio communications equipment, in the
amount of $36,690.00, be accepted:
*November U, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
On ~ednesday, October 27, bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for several items of
radio communications equipment. Only one (l) proposal was re-
Inc,, although RCA did submit a *No Hid' reply.
The specifications for this equipment covered the folIowing itemS:
28 mobile radios for various departments, 11 of which are
replacements for old equipment;
on Mill Rountain;
20 portable radios to replace existing equipment used bl
Police ond Fire.
The sum of $39,442.00 is included in the present budget for
Traffic Engineering and Communications, therefore, the bid re-
cetved is within available funds.
The units proposed by Motorola comply with the City*s specifications.
Similar equipment is already in use by the Citf and our experfence
with the quality of these products is favorable. Our personnel
and test equipment is already available. Such cannot be said
about other radio equipment which wight have been bid and would
have had to be a factor if competitive proposals had been sub-
mitted. Nevertheless, the City*s specifications mere not restrictive
The committee recommends that the City accept the proposal of
contract in the bid amount of $36,690.00 for the specified
equipment. Several motor vehicle units which will use these
radios, including police patrol cars, are already on order and
it is necessary that an order b, placed promptly for the radio
equipment.
RECOMMENDED: S! Bvrpn E. Hz~r S! William F. ~]~rk
Byron E. Hamer Milliam F. Clark
Assistant City Mann,er Director of Public W, fRs
S! B. B. ThO~DSOn
Buefcrd B. Thompson
Purchasing Agent"
277
'278
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the follomlng emergency Ordinance:
(~19943) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase and acquisition of radio
communications equipment for use in certain. City automobiles, by accepting the
proposal of Motorola Communications and Electronics, Imco, upon certain terms and
conditions; and providing for on emergency.
(For fell text of Ordinance, see. Ordinance Book No. 36, page T3.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...........................
NAYS: None .............O. (Mr. Lfsk absent)
COUNCIL-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
requesting the opportunity of an Executive Session with the members of Council at
the conclusion of the meeting at ~hich time he ~ould like to discuss certain
pending litigation in which the city is involved.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
for an Executive Session at the conclusion of the Council meeting. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
UUDG£T-ClT¥ GOYERNMENT: The City Auditor subaftted a written report
advising that ueder the authority granted him by Resolution No. 19896 he has
negotiated two short term loans in the total amount of $1,500,000.00 and that aa
appropriation of $1.500,000.00 will be needed for repayment of the loans and
$6,200.00 will be needed for interest on the loans.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19944) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~93, "Temporary
Loans," and Section =95, "Interest on Indebtedness," of tbe 1971-72 Appropriation
Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 36, page 74.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The.motion was seconded
by Mr. Trent and adopted by the following' vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout,' Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................... 6.
NAYS: None .........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The CityAudttor submitted a written report traosmitting!
a report on aa examination of the accounts and financial records of the Roanoke City
School Board forthe year ended June 30, lqTl, made by the firm of Andrews, Burket'
and Company, Certified Public Accountants, under the direction of his office, ad-
vising that based upon the report, it is his opinion that the funds of the School
Board were properly handled and accounted for.
279
#r. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mis
seconded by Hr, Wheeler nad unanimously adopted,
AUDITS--SCBOOL$: The City Auditor submitted an examination of the records,!
or the Duff Lane Elementary School for the school year ended June 30~ 1971,
vising that the examination nas made in'accordance math generally accepted audi*in
standards and that ail the records Mere ia order and the'Statement of Receipts
and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions for the period and the financial
condition of the fund,
#r. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-PENSIONS: A comnuuicatiou from Mr. J. Robert Thomas, Secretary
Treasurer, Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System, transmitting the
audit of the Employees* Retirement System, of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1971, made by Kennett and Kenoett, Certified
Public Accountants.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication and audit be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Hr. Charles ~. Bodges that Council
give him relief from a problem of a lot division on lmlay Avenue, S. E., the City
Planning Commission Submitted a mritten report recommending that the request be
denied.
In this connection, Msyor Webber advised that Mr. Dodges has requested
that action on this matter be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, December 6, 1971.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. tlodges that
action on the matter be deferred until Monday, December 6. 1971. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study.
of land. described as Official Tax Nos. 43§0b02 and 4350604, be rezooed from LM,
Light Manufacturing District. and RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General
Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted O written report
recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday. December 6, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation a request of Mr. Raymond B. Naif that property
described as the easterly haig ag Lot 15 and all of Lot 16, Map of Park Square,
28O
Official Tax No. 1561136, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District!
to RD, Duplex Residentiol District, the City Planning Commission submitted a mritt~n
report recommending that the request be granted,
Mr, Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held at 2 p.m., Monday, December 6, 1971. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland
and un~nieously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having referred to the Landfill Committee for
study, report and recommendation a report from the City Manager with regard to
refuse disposal and certain recommendations in connection therewith, the Landfill
Committee submitted the following report transmitting three recommendations in
connection with the matter:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November B, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Your undersigned committee has met and viewed the report
of the City Manager, which the City Council referred to it,
regarding the refuse disposal situation. Zhe landfill committee
recommends as follows:
1, Zhat the City Council authorize the City Attorney to
prepare and formard to the Roanoke County Roard of
Supervisors, us early as practical, the appropriate
petition requesting pernission for the City of Roanoke
to operate u sanitary landfill in the north clear zone
of the Roanoke Municipal Airport property. This north
clear zone property is omned by the City of Roanoke and
situated on the north side of Peters Creek Road (VA,
Route 117). It would be expected that the City would use
this area for a maximum of lO months, The filling and
grading of the area in the operation of a landfill would
he in strict accordance with the highest standards of a
sanitary landfill. On completion of the use the area
would be graded in a neat and attractive manner and seeded
for grass. Your committee feels that the City faces an
immediate need for additional laedfill space for the dis-
posal of its refuse, that this site is reasonably con-
venient for present equipment and operations, that this site
is the only Such location that can be readily adapted, and
that these operations would not be harmful to the
surrounding area and would result in a needed improvement
to the land forits appearance and future maintenance.
2[ That the City continue to pursue actlviely the determina-
tion of a long-range landfill site especially with the hope
that Such a site could be developed and used on a regional
basis by the governments in the.Valley.
That the City staff be authorized to negotiate for archi-
tectural services for the design of a transfer station for
the present City Garage site and submit to the City Council
a recommendation of un agreement for the.services.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ James O. Trout, Chairman
James O, Trout. Chairman
~/ David K, Lisk
David E. Lisk
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst"
I
281
MAth regard to Recommendation No, 1. Mr. Trout moved that the City Attor~
ney be authorized to prepare and formard to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisorsi
as early as practical, the appropriate petition requesting permission for the City
of Rosnohe to operate a sanitary landfill in the north clear zone of the Roanohe
Hunicipal (Moodrum) Airport property. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Wheeler and
;unanimously adopted.
With regard to Recommendation No. 2, Mr. Trout moved that the La~dfill
Committee be directed to continue to actively pursue the determination of a long-
range landfill site especially with the hope that such a site could he devdoped and
used on a regional basis by the governments in the Roanoke Valley. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mlth regard to Recommendation No. 3, Mr. Trout moved that the City
Manager be authorized to negotiate for architectural services for the design of a
transfer station for the present' City Garage site and to submit to Council a
recommendation of an agreement for said services. The motion Mas seconded by
Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
A1RPORY: The Airport Advisory Commission submitted the following report
in connection with Roanoke Municipal (Moodruh)
transmitting three recommendations
Airport:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 4. 1971
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
During a called meeting of Council*s Airport Advisory
Commissioe Rednesday November 3. 1971, the matter of u request
by the Airport Auto Parking Concessionnaire for a change in their
contract provisions, to provide lower payments to the City. mas
heard in detail. Also discussed Mere the matters of a notice to
the Civil Aeronautics Board, from the City, of its interest in
expanded air service to the Northmest, North, and Northeast:
the use of Eastern Airlines office and reservation space by Pied-
aunt Airlines and the early completion of contracts with the air-
lines.
Your commission voted unanimously to recommend the following
,items to Council:
1. That the petition of The Airport Parking Company of
American. I. T. T., to alter its contract mAth the
City to pay a percentage of the gross instead of the
monthly guarantee, be compromised or resolved to the
mutual satisfaction of both parties.
2. lhat the City of Roanoke officially request the Civi~
Aeronautics Board to consider expansion of air service
to and from Roanoke to the Northmest. North and Northeast
including but not limited to Chicago. St. Louis, Cleveland.
Detroit, Pittsburg, Syracuse, Albany. Doiton.and Phila-
delphia.
That Piedmont Airlines be permitted to use Eastern Air-
lines reservation counter and baggage slot to contact
£astern*s passengers, on a temporary basis, until more
permanent arrangements be established by contract and
that those counter alterations required be approved
immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Vincent S. Wheeler
Vincent S. Wheeler, Chairman
Airport Advisory Commission*
'282
Rith regard to Recommendation No. 1, Hr. Wheeler moved that the petition,~
~of the Airport Parking Company o~ America to alter its contract uitb the City of
iRoanoke to pay a percentage of the gross instead of the monthly guarantee for
operation of the automobile parking lot at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport be
taken under advisement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
Rlth regard to Recommendation No. R0' Mr. Rheeler moved that the City
Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measnre requesting the Civil Aeronautics
Board to consider expansion of air service to and from Roanoke to the northwest,
north and northeast, including, but not ~aited to, Chicago. St. Louis. Cleveland,
Detroit, Pittsburg, Syracuse, Albany, Boston and Philadelphia. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mith regard to Recommendation No. 3, Mr. Wheeler moved that Piedmont
Airlines be asked to present a written proposal to Council for use of Eastern
Airlines reservation counter and baggage slot in order to contact their passengers,
on a temporary basis, until more permanent arrangements can be established by con-
tract. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The Citizens' Advisory
Committee submitted a written report requesting that Council enforce all Ordinances
pertaining to keeping properties free of refuse, that the City of Roanoke clear their
properties and notify all other property owners to do the same, that it is felt
this clamming should be done in stages and recommending that the first stage be
from the Jefferson Street Bridge to the City limits on the east and that the City
Manager be requested to submit a report to Council pertainin9 to the money needed
to see that this project is completed.
Mr. Trout moved thatthe report be referred to the City Manager and
any other department of the city associated with this matter to confer with Mr.
Calvin B. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Th~ Citizens' Advisory
Committee submitted the following report transmitting six items to be considered
relative to obtaining the best qualified men for the-City of Roanoke Police
Department:
"November 2. 1971
1531Riverdale Road. S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia
of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia.
and also to have the best qualified candidates, we recommend
that the following items be considered for your approval.
1. Starting age requirements be amended to provide for
acceptance of 18 through 45 year old males.
2. College students qualifying after 2-year lam enforce-
ment course with an associate degree should bn pernitted
to become candidates for police force upon graduation.
3. Pay scale from minimum to maximum should be analyzed to
provide faster attainment of maximum,
4. Reltrement age should be reduced to 60 year limit.
5. Insurance coverage in case of loss of life on active
duty should be provided for policenan*s wife and family.
6. Limitations on distance candidates cone from should be
increased from four miles to 16 niles.
Ne feel that if these items are given your undivided attention
relative to getting the best qualified men for the police force.
Roanoke will not only get young, energetic men, but they will also be
dedicated. This gentlemen is nhat Roanoke needs. Of Course. it costs
a little more, but we believe the money will be well expended.
$/ Calvin M. Fulton
CALVIN B, FULTON, Chairman
Citizens Advisory Committee*
Mr. Trout moved that the report be referred to the City Manager and any
other department of the city associated with this .matter to confer with Mr. Calvin
Bo Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. Tho motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS* ADVISORY COMMITTEE-STATE H1OIIMAYS: The Citizens' Advisory
Committee submitted a written report advising that on April 27. 1970, Resolution No.
19167 was sent to the State Highway Commission requesting acquisition of right of
way for Project V000-12§-102, RM 201 from Dale Avenue to Riverdale Road, $. E., that
to date no action has been taken by the State Highway Commission relative to this
Resolution and requesting that the Committee be informed of the progress made to
date on this project and be furnished with the priority position of Route 115 - 116
and also that Council arrange for a meeting with state officials, city officials
and members of tho Southeast Subcommittee of the Roanoke Advisory Committee relative
to the commencement of this project.
Mr. Trout ?oved that the report be referred to the City Manager and
any other department of the city associated with this matter to confer with Mr.
Calvin M. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Nhoeler and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS' ADVISORY CORMITTEE-ZONING: The Citizens* Advisory Committee
submitted a written report advisin9 that on August 28, 1966, on Ordinance was
drafted by the City Attorney and passel by Council re4uiring conformance of junk
car dealers in the City of Roanoke. that they were give~ five years to
that on the date enforcement was due, the Ordnance was declared invalid and no
further action has been taken a~! requesting that Council pro~i.le a full explana-
tion of the reason or reasons for t~is
283
284
Mr, Trout.moved that t~t~ raport be referred to the CJt~ Manager and any [
~ other department of the city associated wJtb this matter to confer ~itb Mr, Cairiol
B, Fulton, Chairman or the Citizne*s Advisory Committee, The motion was seconded
by Hr, Mheeler and unanimously adopted,
CITIZENS' ADVISORY CORRITTEE-STATE MIDBMAY$-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE~
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Citizens* Advisory Committee submitted a written report
transmitting the names of persons appointed to sub-committees to study Construction
of Route 115; the Health and Medical Melfare of Elderly Citizens'and Law Enforcement
and Police Department,
Mr, Trout moved that the report be referred to the City Manager and any
other departmemt of the city associated'with this matter to confer with Mr. Calvin
D. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens* Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
TAXES: Council having deferred action on Interim Report No. I of the
Revenue Study Commission of the City of Roanoke. Virginia. until Council could meet
as a Committee of the ~hole. the matter was again before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that the proposed'Ordinance submitted by the Reven~e Study
Commission amending Chapter 1, Current Taxes, Title VI, Taxation, of The Code of
· the City of Boanoke. 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new section thereto,
providing certain tax relief for ceTtain elderly persons, upon certain terms and
conditions; repealing Ordinance No. 16225. relating to tax credits on realty owned
by certain elderly persons, and providing for the effective date of the Ordinance
be referred back to the Revenue Study Commission for further consideration and re~
port to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Council having deferred action on a report of the Airport
Advisory Commission nnd a report of the City Manager with reference to certain bids
received by the City of Roanoke for operation of the restaurant facilities at
Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport until Council could meet as a Committee of the
Whole, the matter was again before the body,
In this connection. Or. Taylor moved that the following Ordinance accepting
the bid of [. L. Hagood, Sr.. and M. L. Hagood. Jr** for the operati'on of the Air-
port Restaurant and o f certain other concessions at Roanoke Municipal (Wood~um)
Airport under a lease from the City of Roanoke for a five year period be placed
upon its first reading:
(c19945) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of ~. L. Hagood, Sr., and W. L.
Hagoo~, Jr., for the operation of the Municipal Airport Restaurant and of certain
other concessions under a certain lease of the same ~rom the City; rejecticg other
bids made for said concession; and authorizing the execution of a fiv~ (5) year
lease Of said Airport Restaurant premises to M. L. Bagood, Sr., and ~. L. Bagood,
Jr., upon certain terms and conditions. '
I
I
I
I
I
285
WHEREAS, at the meeting of the Conncll held on August 23, 1971, and nfte~
due and proper advertisement b~d'bee~ made therefor.'five bids for the operation
of the Municipal Airport Restau~nnt'andof the Gift Shop and the'Vending Machines
at the Roanoke Municipal Airport mere opened~and read before the Council and were
thereafter referred to n committee for tbe purpose of tabulation and study and
for report thereon to the Council: nnd
MtEREAS, said committee has reported to the Council, under date of
.
August 30° lg?l. its tabulation or sai~ bids. from Uhich it appears that the bid of
M. L. Hagood, Sr., and'W. L. Hogood, Jr., is the highest and best bid received by
the City for the operation of the aforesaid concessions: and the aforesaid committeee
has recommended that the bid of said persons be accepted.
TBERRFOR£, BE IT ORBAiNRD by the Council of the City of Roanohe that the'
bid of M, L. Hsgood, Sr.. and M. L, aagood. Jr., made in ariting to the City for
the exclusive right to operate the Airport Restaurant, the Gift Shop and the
Vending Machines in the Terminal Building at Ro moke M¢nicipa! Airport for a period
of five (5) years, and to pay to the City therefor a sam equal to 14.00% of the
gross receipts therefrom, exclusive of taxes collected from consumers, be and said
bid is hereby ACCEETEO; and the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and
directed, for and on behalf of the City, to enter into Louse'Agreement with the
said bidder providing for said bidder's exclusive operation of the aforesaid
such earlier date as an orderly transfer of the Airport Restaurant business can be
made to said bidder, said lease to contain all of the City's requirements made of
the bidders for said concessions as set out in the Bidding Criteria furnished said
bidders and to be, otherwise, upon such form as is prepared and approved by the City
Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the other four (4) bids made to the City for
the operation of the aforesaid concessions be. and said bids are hereby REJECTED,
the City Clerk to so notify said other bidders and to express to their officials
the City's appreciation of said bids.
The motion was seconded by Mr.~Wheeler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................
NAYS: None .............O. (Mr. Llsk absent)
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having deferred action on the adoption
of an Ordinance providin9 for the construction of a new storm drain on Albemarle
Avenue, S. E., from 3 1/2 Street, S. E., to the intersection of South Jefferson
Street and Highland Avenue. S. W., and an Ordinance appropriating funds in connec-
tion with the project, pending a report from'the City Attorney and the City Engineer,
In this connection, the City Attsrney again requested that hction on the
adoption of the two Ordlnences be deferred until'he bus had an opportunity to confer
with representatives of the Norfolk end Western Railway Company with regard to the!
project.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the request Of the City Attor-
ney that action on the two Ordinances be de*letted pending a report from the City
Attorney and the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor end
unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CDNSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
At this point, Dr. Taylor left the meeting.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Garland presented the following communication
in connection with certain shortcomings or deficiencies at the Roanoke Civic Center
and recommended that his comments be referred to the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory
Commission and the City Manager for study, report and reocmmendation to Council:
"3 Nov 71
Mayor Roy L. Webber and
Members of Roanoke City Council '
Ra~ing attended the Civic Center on quite a few occasions in
both the auditorium and coliseum, there are certain obvious
and inherent shortcomings or deficiencies that I have per-
sonally noticed and feel should be corrected. I would ;imagine
that most of them have already-been brought to your attention.
! realize that with this new type of adventure, until we learn
ali of us want this facility to be a successful one, to attract
visitors £rom a wide radius of Virginia dud neighboring states, we
should therefore concentrate our efforts on those defects that irri-
useful and flexible asset to our City. It goes without saying that
we must have optimum patronage and maximum Occupancy or it is likely
that the City will wind up with a sizeable deficit each year in its
operation. I think it can be giarly stated that none of us expected
strive to break even and to at least make operating expenses. To do
very keen competition with other comparable centers throughout the
state and even within the Valleyitself and these conventions, sporting
offers them the most and best facility. As one who has served the
general public all his life (and I feel justly rewarded for my
efforts) ! have learned that they will patronize those who are
convenient, competitive, congenial and competent. !f these four
c*s ore accomplished, it is my opinion that our Center will be a
overwhelmin9 success and one'that all of us will be Justly proud.
It would seem that first and foremost, me must control the traffic
patterns particularly when large.crowds are to be expected. It
would appear to me that this could best be done by traffic policemen
rather than to depend on the traffic lights which do not allow for
unusual or special situations. The location of these special police
at the critical intersections for an approximate hour before the
performance and thirty minutes afterwards, would do a great deal in
motorist, it would appear that this could be done by a complement
· thorough understnnding of traffic complexities. Hen stationed
nt Organge Avenue and:Nilllnmson Road end contlnuinget each Inter-
section to Malls Avenue, would indeed, promote the flow or traffic,
It might be'necessary to supplement with · unif6rmed policeman on the
lot to help the parking attendants with that flow or traffic.
once the vehicle Is parked or passengers unloaded before parking,
there should be adequate and convenienctly available entrances'
throughout the complex rather than to attempt to channel the specta-
tors into one such entrance. This mould be particularly beneficial
to the elderly or the disabled and for everyone during periods of
inclement weather, This lack bas bt*ought us into disfavor with some
and I think Justifiably.
We definitely need a better system of announcing or by some
appropriate signal when the performance is going to begin and when
the intermission is over and the spectators ere expected back into
their seats. This has created some embarrassment for both the
performers as well as the audience. At the recent Roanoke Symphony
thio was apparent as the Conductor was awaiting for some people
to return to their seats. Host of then were not aware that the
intermission was concluded. Aside from that° when the lights
have been out, it is somewhat difficult to return to your seat
especially within the balcony with the steep steps and lack of
sufficient aisle lighting. I personally witnessed one such fall
in the upper balcony as a direct result of these aforementioned
conditions. In some theaters, the dimming of the lights is a
signal that you have so many minutes before the performance will
begin.
There is a definite lacking of female toilet facilities particularly
when the crowds exceed one thousand persons. Since the distaff
members do require more privacy as well as more time in this respect,
it would appear that their number of toilets are not in the proper
mathematical ratio. This in itself, lends to late returns to the
performance. Whether there is anything that can be done at this point
without tearing up the building, I would doubt. However, as I see it,
this need has been grossly underestimated.
The prices charged for Some of the events ned performances have been
beyond the reach of the average citizen which results in only the
affluedt being able to enjoy this facility which I feel defeats its
very purpose. When at all possible, we should ~ncourage the pro-
moters tO lower his prices to a realistic level thus enabling more
people to attend and enjoy and which in the end would probably
generate more revenue for all concerned. Would it not be more feasible
to play before 10,000 people at $~.00 per ticket, rather than 5,000
people at $10 per ticket?
A close exam~nation should be made of rates charged for the various
events, exhibits, buildings, ~tc., and to be assured that they are
competitive withother facilities or private businesses. I know of
one incident where the organization chose another site becaus~ of
the rental charge.
In the auditorium, patrons should be discouraged by means of a sign
from taking drtnhs or refreshments bacm to their seats. This is
distracting to both the performers as well as other spectators aside
from the mess by spilling that this can create.
These suggestions and/or criticisms are I~ing made only for the purpose
of improving both our public relations and efficiency ~ operation
and I would melcome any comments by the Council or the Administration.
I strongly feel that these suggestions deserve study, and consideration
and would therefore move that they be referred jointly to the Civic
Center Committee and the City Manager for report and recommendation
to the Council.
Thanhingyou fSr your attention to this matter.
I am, with warmest regards,.
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland*
In this ~onne~tion, the Assistant City Manager submitted the folloming
report of the City Manager with regard to the commeetsmade by Mr. Garland in corm~
action with the Roanoke Civic Center:
287
'288
"Roanoke, Virginia
· November 8, 1971
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
By eems accouutso I un advised of a report coming on this
Agenda of City Council criticism of aspects Of the Civic Center
and its operation, I do not plea to be in attendance ut the
Monday Council meeting, but I feel,it important to get the .
earliest possible reply to the matteras public criticism bears
on our ability to 'sell* the facility to possible tensors and
customers. The earliest matters of this type can be explaind,
cleared or determined, then the easier the public, relations rot
the Center. Thus this is written in reply on the basis of the
news accounts and without benefit, at this date of writings of
the written Agenda letter.
Palace
Police officers have been used. on n large number of occasions
following Civic Center events for traffic handling. We try to
schedule their use on the relationship Of the two combined factors
of the volume of traffic involved and the availability of police
personnel. '
Me have additionally used manual controls on these ~ights
with Center lot personnel.
Them are three exists from the parking lot onto ~illinmson
Road. Fully effective use of personnel mould involve assignment
of one officer for each exist - or three officers~ Heat control
would additionally place officers at Orange Avenue'and Yells Avenue as
traffic signals*at these points control movements along Wiiliamson
Road away from the Center.
The more from the lot under*Interstate 591 is finding increased
use as more and more people are realizing its availability and
ease of egress.
It is not felt that there is justification for assignment of
police personnel for traffic folloming all events at t~e Center.
-For the average event the time involved in getting off'the lot
is not felt to be that great. For events of'certain times,
particularly Friday and Saturday hi, Its, we have problems of
diverting personnel to traffic duty at the Center.
It is felt the procedure of judging the traffic requirements
would be the best followed; however, we will be guided, by any
direction of City Council.
Entrance to bulldl~q~
This referred to *adequate and conveniently available entrances
into the building rather than attempt to channel the spectators into
For the auditorium these is only one practical entrance area.
This is off the Center plaza. I have not observed.any particular
problem here as attendants have seemingly been able to enter without
hindrance.
For the coliseum we became aware of a situation after some
operating experience. The particular problem or customer irritation
was that when parking in the north parking urea, the customer would
see the glass doorways on the north side of the bulldtng but would
have to walk around to the plaza for entrance. Rain aggravated the
customer reactS'on. These doorways,'on the east and north'were not
the Center commenced taking tickets'from pre-purchased ticket
holders at one of the door#ays on the north side. This would
appear to have eased the functioning of the.situation.
practical or desirable arrangement under the present physical
289
It.Is presumed this refers to the auditorium ns the facilities
mJthin the coliseum are felt to be reasonable rot the si~e and design
of the building,
has been public comment that such facilities in that building are
of additional facilities becomes n very complicated matter because
of. the tightness or design of the ~uditorJum end the limits or free
We have hesitated t~ get in~o design change studies and plans
Otherwise it is believed the system is wor[ing well.
night show qbich was highly publicized,.tichets were only $2, which
29O
I realize some'of this crftlol, sm stems out Of the Nob Nope
Show. There ts a long stor~ as to all that happened with'that
whole subject, nut as to ticket prices, when'we bought what we
thought we would be getting and scaled~the seats about three
months ago. it was thought the prices were about right. We
quite frankly did not expect a full house back'then but we were
trying to get the show berm and to assure the Center of.th~ cost
and some reasonable profit'. X believe the resulting show quality
both as much as anything on the.~r~ce eritlcii~.
There was criticlsw of Tow Jones e~ $12, This was what the
promoter set for this show's best seats amd eo less. In one
situation there was criticism of n rock shoe at $6.00~ Nearly
all $6.00 tickets were sold and there were great vacancies in the
$3.50 and $4.50 s~ts.
I mould hope the City would not go in to a process of cut-
rate ticket prices. I would also, and especially, hope that the
City would not adopt a policy that the only events or activities
mould be 'full house* productions, and, that we only Judge mhut
eom es or what doesn't come or what was successful orwhat was'not
successful on mhether it was a capacity house or not. This is when
quantity takes over from quality.
We had felt that after having a full year of operation under
our belt, which includes all seasons and all events, we would be
in best evaluation position.
One of the purposes of the Center is to provide interest
and enjoyment ot all segments of community life. This means
some big houses and little houses,
If we are to try significant ticket price reductions, such
would easiest be done.with Center sponsored affairs and can be
as Council may direct. Nlth promoters it.is a matter of persua-
sion,- unless, of course, City Council specifically directs, it
is to be remembered that sports events, as the Rebel's ice hockey and
Squire*s basketball are promoter events and I have some doubt as to
how far they would cut prices. Here, again, it is my belief that
attendance relates more to community interest than it does to
ticket prices, within reasons.
There are perhaps various ways in which City Council can
approach the determination of ticket prices.
1. Before contracting for any event, we can approach City
Council on an individual event basls for a determination
and approval of ticket prices.
2. City Council can set ticket prices for the individual
groups or categories of events and the Center would be
so guided.
Ne can submit periodically to City Council a report of
events over a post period of time--month, etc., for re-
view and comment by the Counoil. ,
In order that we may not,be contrary to the Council in its
intent or concern as to tickets, we can withhold any further event
commitments or contracts pending:such gui'dance as Council may re-
quest for the futuee. Council's understanding is in'rated to the
fact that*some contracts and co~mitments,* including house 'scaling,
have already been made for the future which cannot be broken as
some of our bookings are a number of months ahead, in fact even up
into next summer.
If we can provide ldditional information or elaboration, we
would be glad to do so and I iould be ~lad to discuss in detail
before Council at your next meeting and I would also be glad to
have further benefit to review of our Civic Center Advisory
Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron g. Hamer
for JulianF. Hirst
'' City Manager~
291
Mr. Gerlnnd advised that his communion,ion was not meant to be critical
,.but uss submitted ns suggestions that might be corrected and moved thnt the
ioommunication be referred to the City Wanagev and the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory
'Commission for careful examination of some of the points mentioned.
The motion died for lack of a second.
In.reply to the motion made by #r. Gnrlnndt Hr. Thomas expressed the
opinion that he does not think it uonld be helpful to send this matter to the City
Manager or the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission, and moved that Mayor Webber
be requested to appoint a committee of possibly three Councilmen to maintain liaison
between the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commissioe end city officials and report
their findings back to Council from.time to time.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Rex T. Mitchell, Jr., Acting Director of the Roanoke Civic Center,
appeared before Council and advised that certain changes have been made during the i
30 days that he has been at the Roanoke Civic Center and explained some of the
changeshe has made daring this 30 day period.
Mro John A. Kelley, Chairman of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory
Commission, also appeared before Council and advised that he has been associated
with the Civic Center for eight years, that mucy of the work has been rewarding
and much has been frustrating, that most of the problems at the Civic Center are
due to inexperience, that the Commission makes recommendations but they cannot see
them put into effect and called attention to a list of 24 items which have been
recommended by the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission that need to be accom-
plished at the Roanoke Civic Center but have not been acted upon.
After a lengthy discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the matter
be referred to the City Manager and the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission
for study, repo~ and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wheeler.
Mr. Thomas offered a substitute motion that the communication from Mr.
Garland, the report of the City Manager end the 24 recommendations of the Roanoke
Civic Center Advisory Commission be referred to Council acting as a Committee of the
Whole. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and ueonimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
~Clty Clerk Mayor
292
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, November 15, 19TI.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Rnufcipel,Huildlego Monday, November 15, 1971, at 2 p.m,, the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton R. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Rheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Rebbev ................... ~ ................. 7.
ABSENT: None ....v ................. OD
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Hamer, Assistant City Manager; Mr.
Ben Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr° A..N. Gibson, Assistant City
Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend John
R. Fox, Pastor, Belmont Baptist Church.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ROANOKE LIFE SAVING AND FIRST AID CRER. INCORPORATED-ROANOKE VALLEY
REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL: Mr. Julian S. Rise, Founder and
President of the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew. Incorporated, appeared
before Council and presented a communication requesting an appropriation of
$10,800,00 to provide funds for 24 hour service 365 days a year for a number of
men who will serve on a temporary basis as they are available and needed at the
Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew Headquarters.
After a discussion of the request. Dr. Taylor moved that the communica-
tion be referred to the Emergency Medical Services Committee of the Health Planning
Council and the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Mr. John M. Rilson. Jr..
President of the Roanoke Bar Association, appeared before Council and presented
a Resolution requesting that the Council of the City of Roanoke forthwith provide
for removal.of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the City Of Roanoke
from its present inadequate quarters on.Rorer Avenue, So
In this connection, Mayor Mebber requested that the Assistant City
Manager give a brief summary as to where the city stands in connection with pro-
viding better facilities for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk expressed concern over the
delay in moving the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court from its present
quarters on Rorer AVenue to the old Reid and Cutshall Building.
293
Mr. Trout moved that the Resolution of the RoanoRe Bar Association be
received and filed. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Iheeler nnd ~nsnimoasly
adopted.
PETITIONS AND COHNBNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication fram the Roanoke City School Ooard,
requesting certain transfers to complete.the Capital Improvement Program for the
Lucy Addison pigb School, was before Council.
It appearing that no representative from the Roanoke City School Roard
mas present to answer certain questions raised by the members of Council, Mr.
Lisk moved that action on the request be deferred until the next regular meeting
of Council on monday, November 22, 19TI, in order for representatives of the
Roanoke City School Ooard to a~pear before Council to answer certain questions
in connection with said transfers. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: A communication from Mr. Jim Gibbons, expressing
the desire of RPYR to install an FM translator on the city-omned tower on Mill
Mountain for the purpose of transmitting a clearer, better sound to several
parts of the Roanoke.¥alle~ such as Hidden Valley, Garden City, Sugar Loaf, South
Roanoke and South Salem, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranwell. Attorney. repre-
senting Mr. and Mrs. Elmer M. Cox, requesting that property located on Greenhurst
Avenue, N. W., described as Acreaoe, Official Tax No. 2060025, Watts Land Map,
be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential
District, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
SIDEWALK. CURB AND GUTTER: The Assistant City Manager submitted the
following report of the City Manager advising that the City of Roanoke has received
a request from the High Street Baptist Church that the city participate with the
Church on an equal basis in the construction of curb and gutter for their new
church being constructed on Cove Road, N. W., that the Church has received a price
for installation of this curb and 9utter in the amount of $3.50 per linear foot,
that this price is lower than that price the city presently has under contract
with H 6 S Construction Company for the construction of curb and 9utter and
recommending that $1.300.00 be appropriated representing the share of the City of
Roanoke for this work:
:' 94
"Boanokn, Virginia
Norewber 15, 1971
Hoaornble Mayor ned City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
~Tbe City of Roasokebas received i request from Nigh
Street Baptist Church that the City participate with the
High Street Baptist Church on an equal basis In the construction
of curb and gutter for their eom church being constructed
on Cove Road, N. M. The church, through their contractor, bas
received a price for installation Of this curb and gutter In the
amount of $3.50 per linear foot. This price is lamer than that
price that the City presently has under contract with H ~ S
Construction Company for the construction of curb and gutter,
The Cltyts share for construction of this curb and gutter
would eot exceed $1,300 and aa construction of this curb ned
gutter under the unit price provided by the church contractor is
less than the City*s current price, it would be recommneded that
City Council, by budget ordinance, appropriate $1,300 to the
curb and gutter account for this purpose.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be referred back to the City Manager for
clarification with regard to the cost involved and report back to Council by the
next regular meeting of the body on Monday, November 22, 1971. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHNAYS: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City. Manager advising that the City of Roanoke bas been advised by the Vir-
ginia Department of Highways of the approval by the federal government of the pro-
ject for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Elm Avenue and
Interstate Route 591, that the installation will be made by city forces, that the
Department of Highways advises that its estimate of the cost of the work is
$46,484.00 math the share of the City of Roanoke to be $6,9?7.60.
After a discussion as to the funds invo]ved~ Dr. Taylor moved that the
report be referred back to the City Manager to ascertain the amount of funds to be
appropriated by Council for said work. The*motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY: Council having referred to the
City Manager for study, report and recommendation a communication from the Chesa-
peake and Potomac Telephone Company in connection with proposed additions to
their building on Luck Avenue, S. M., requesting an encroachment into the ten foot
setback line still in effect along part of Third Street, S. M., and permission to
have underground fuel oil storage tank~ along the Franklin Road side of the build-
log, the Assistant City Manager submitted the following report of the City
Manager recommending that the requests be granted:
295
*Roanoke, Virginia
November IS, 1971
Nonorable Mayor and City Council
Eonnoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, November 8, 1971, Mr, Bdmln H. King of' Lee,, King
and Poole Architects of Rtchmond, Virginia, appeared before City
Council with a request that City Council approve an encroachment fn
the ten-foot setback still in effect along Third Street, S. N. and
for permission to construct underground oil storage tanks along
Franklin Road, S. M. These requests are concerned with a proposed
addition to the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Building presently
located at the intersection of Third Btreet and Luck Avenue, S. #.
The C ~ P Telephone Company proposes to add a fourth and fifth
floor above the existing building and an approximatley 50 foot,
six story extension to the south end of the existing building, In*
an effort to achieve a unified appearance of the total structure it
would be desired to apply a new facing material on the Luck Avenue
and Third Street qalls of the existing building. This new facin9
materialmmld encroach on the present ten-foot setback line, a
portion of which still remains along Third Street, S. M.
By ordinance No. 17,800, dated October 23, 1967, City Council
had previously discontinued and disestablished the ten-foot setback
between Franklin Road, S, N. and the angle point in the east llne of
Third Street between Franklin'Road and Luck Avenue (approximately
midmay in the block). Mr. King in his proposal to City Council had
indicated a hope that City Council would react favorably to dis-
establishing the setback line for the other half of this block or in
approving a provision to allow encroachment at this location so as
to allow the addition of this nam facing material on the existing
building. The new facing would require an B-inch encroachment into
the ten-foot setback for the first twelve feet of height with an
additional 12 inches or a total depth of 20 laches above the 12 foot
level'.
The second portion of this request dealt with the proposed con-
struction of fuel oil storage tanks to be constructed of re-enforced
concrete with steel liners to be installed on C ~ P owned propqrty.
These tanks are needed to provide fuel storage for standby power
supply in the event of prolo~ed emergency power outages. As Mr. King
notedt when Franklin Road is widened to conform mith the arterial
highway plan, the ends of these underground tanks would extend
partially under the relocated sidewalk. These tanks would be ~esigned
so that the ends of the tanks would be at least three feet away.from
the face of the future curb line. This street sign and other such
appurtenances can still be Jqstalled.
Mr. Eing*s and C C P*s request has been reviewed i~ detail by
the City Engineer, the Building Commissioner, City Planner and the
Superintendent .of Traffic and Communications. Each concurs that
pormi~ing these encroachments poses no problem to the City mith
respect to future streets. Therefore, it is recommended that City
Council grant the requested encroachment. The City Attorney*s
office has been requested to prepare the necessary documents for
City Council*s approval.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and that the following Ordinance providing for an encroachment of eight
fncbes over the building setback line on 3rd Street, S. N., be placed upon its flrst
reading:
(m19946) AN ORDINANCE permitting an encroachment of not more than eight
inches for the first twelve feet and twenty inches over the twelve foot level of a
"296
inem facing on u building over the building setback line er Third Street, S. W., for
~o distance of opproxiwately one hundred thirty-five feet, said facing to be erected
ion the west side of u building located on Official No. 1012501, upon certain terms
~and conditions.
JHEREAS, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia, owner
of the p~oper~y hereinafter described, on whic'h the boildi'ng of said firm.is
fsi*ua*e, located at 224 Luck Avenue, S. We, requested that it be permitted to erect
a new facing extending upon but not sore than eight inches for the first twelve fee~
and twenty inches over the twelve foot level into the building setback line on Thir~
Street, S. W., said new facing to be approximately one hundred thirty-fiv~ feet in
length along inld Third Street, $. Wo~ and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported that the request of said appl~aat
as provided ~erein will pose no problem to the City in respect to future streets
and should therefore be granted, a sketch of the proposed construction having been
made and filed in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority vested in local governing bodies by
S IS.1-376 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as ame.nded, this Council is agreeable to
said applicaot*s proposal and is willin~ to permit the encroachment hereinafter
mentioned over and into not more eight inches for the first twelve feet and twenty
inches over the twelve foot level into t~e building setback line on Third Street,
S. N., abutting said appltcant*s property, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter
contained.
THEREFORE, ~E IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that per-
mission be, and is hereby granted The Chesapeake and PotOmac Telephone Company of
Virginia, owner of the lot described-as Official No. 1012501, on which the building
occupied by said company at 224 Luck Avenue, S. W., is located, on the south side of
said Luck Avenue, to erect a new facing on the side of said bui'lding, approximately
one hung/ed thirty~five feet in length along Third Street, S. W., which said new
facing may encroach westerly for a depth of not more than eight inches for the first
twelve feet and twenty inches over the twelve foot level of said new facing over
the building setback line on the east line of Third Street, S. W** abutting the
aforesaid lo~, as the said facing is indicated on a certain sketch showing the
location and height of the sase, a copy of which sketch is on file in the office of
the City Clerk, said new facing to ~e properly and safely constructed and maintained
at the expense of the aforesaid applicant, or its assigns, or successors in interest,
on permit issued therefore by the Duilding Commissioner and in accordance with such
of the City's building regulations and requirements as are applicable thereto and
subject, also, to all of the limitations contained in ~ 15.1-376 of the 1950 Code
of Virginia, abovesentioned; it to be agreed by said p~rmittee that by mahing and
maintaining such encroachment, said permittee and its assigns or successors in
297
interest agree to Indemnify and save harmless the City of Roanoke of and from all
¢lnlns for injuries or damages to persons or property that may arise by reason of
the encroachment of said facing into the building setback line on Third Street,
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the provisions of this ordinance shall not
become fully effective until such times us a mr~tten permit shall have been issued
:by the Clty*s Building Commissioner to the aforesaid applicant, or its duly
authorized contractor or representative, and until an attested copy of this urdl*
\
unnce shall have been duly signed, sealed and acknomledged by The Chesapeake and
Potomac Telephone Con,ny of Virginia. and shall have been admitted to record, at
the cost of said permittee, in the Clerh's Office of the Hustings Court of the
City of Roan*he.
EXECUTED and accepted by the undersigned this ~ day of
lgT!:
TIlE CtlESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPBONE
COBPANy OF VIRGINIA
ATTEST:
Secretary
President
STATE OF VIRGINIA §
8 Tn-mit:
CITY O~ .§
I A Notary Public in and for the City of
State of Virginia, do h~reby certify that
and President and Secretary respectively, of The Chesapeahe
and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia. m~ose names as such are signed to the
foregoing uriting hearing date the day of 1971.
have this date personally appeared before me is my City and State aforesaid and
acknowledged the same.
GIVEN under my hand this day of 1971.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Link. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Nebber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the folloming Ordinance providing for under-
ground fuel oil storage tanks be placed upon its first reading:
298
(#19947) AN ORDINANCK granting revocsblet eon transferable authority
to The Chesapeake and Poi.wac Telephone Company of Virginia to maintain underground
fuel,oil storagetanks on premises located et 224 Luck Avenue, S. W., Official
1012501 encroaching on a planned major arterial highway right-of-way, upon certain
terms and conditions.
WHRRRAS~ The Chesapeake 'and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia0 owner~
of the property or premises hereinafter described, has requested that It be per-
nftted to maintain certain underground fuel.git S~orege tanks on said property which
will encroach into the right-of-way heretofore planned and approved for Franklin
Road, S. W., as a major arterial'highway on the City's HaJor Arterial Highway Plan
adopted February 15, 1965, by ~esolution No. 16274. and which said fuel oil storage
tanks would be permitted, under certain conditions, to encroach into the right-of-
way area established on the north side of said planned major arterial highway;
and upon consideration of the request and pursuan~ ~o the authority vested in local
governing bodies by Chapter 10, Title 15,1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
this Council is agreeable to said owner's proposal and is willing to permit the
encroachment over and in said areas upon the terms and conditions herein contained.
THEREFORE, 8E IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that per-
mission be and is hereby granted The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
Virginia, Qwner of the premises located at 224 Luck Avenue, S. W., Official No.
1012501, to temporarily maintain as an encroachment certain underground fuel oil
storage tanks and related underground piping located on said property, which said
fuel oil storage tanks shall be no closer than 3 feet from the proposed north curb
line of said proposed street but may temporarily be allowed to remain within the.
proposed arterial highway right-of-way, all such construction to be maintained with
approved and permitted materials and to be properly constructed and safely main-
tained at the expense of said occupant, in accordance with such of the City*s
building, fire and other regulations and ~equirements as are applicable thereto;
the maintenance of the aforesaid encroachment to be subject to the limitations con-
tained in § 15.1-376 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, abovemeutioned, and the permit
herein granted to be non-transferable and revocable at the will of the City Council,
it to be agreed by said permittee, as evidenced by its execution of an attested
copy of this ordinance, that said permittee consents hereto and agrees to 'indemnify
and save harmless the City Of Roanoke of and from all-claims for injuries or damages
to persons or property that may in any manner arise by reason of such encroachment;
that upon notice of revocation of te within permit, mailed to said permittee or
posted on the aforesaid premises said permi~tee shall, within sixty (60) days from
the date Of mailing or posting of such notice, remove all said encroaching under-
ground fuel oil storage tanks at no cost whatever to the City; and that satd per~ttee'
'agrees that in the event of condemnation proceedings brought by the City of Roanokei
,or other public agency to obtain right-of-way necessary for constructing said Majori
Arterial Highway in accordance with the aforesaid Plant the permittee waives any
299
and all right it may have to claim reimbursement from the City or such other public!!
iagency for the cost of said fuel oil storage tanks o~ their removal.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the provisions of this ordinance shall not
,become fully effective until sncb time as a written permit shall bare been l'asned
by the Cityts Building Commissioner to the aforesaid omner or its duly authorized
contractor or repre~entativee permitting the aforesaid construction, and until an
=attested copy of this ordinance shall have teen duly signed, sealed, attested and
acknouledged by said permittee and shall have' been admitted to record, at the ex-
pense of said permittee, in the deed boots in the Clerkts Office of ~e'Uustings
Court of the City of Roanoke. '
ACCEPTED AND EKECUTED by the undersigned this day of
lg?l.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF VIRGINIA
ATTEST:
STA~ OF VIRGINIA § '
§ To-wit:
CITY OF .§
and
a Notary Public in and for the City of
State o~ Virginia, do hereby certify that
President and Secretary respectively, of The Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia, whose names as such are signed to the
foregoing writing bearing date the day or 1971,
have this.date personally appeared before me in my City and State aforesaid and
acknowledged the same.
GIVEN under my hand this day of 1971.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
T~e motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LisR, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Kheeler and Mayor
Webber ...................................... T.
NAVS: None ......................O.
CITY ENGINEER: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following re-
port of the City Manager in connection with the service center, recommending that
the City of Roanoke acquire property from the Greyhound Bus Lines and Trailway Bus
Boo
Lineso comprising 12.619 acres, said property being bounded on the north by Noble
!Avenue and on the east by Courtland Road, for the sun of $225,000.00:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November IS, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Re have continued to pursue the investigation of suitable
sites for th~ location of a service center as authorized in the
general bond issue of 1967. It bas appeared that our last
recommendation ~or the locution at Patterson Avenue and Boulevard
S. M. will not satisfactorily develop and mould best be disregarded
at this time.
Our interest has also centered on property omned by Greyhound
Bus Lines and Tra~lmay Bus Lines mhich they acquired some several
years ago for a bus terminal but nhich they do not propose to use
for this purpose. This tract of land comprtse$.12.919 acres and
is bound on the north by Noble Avenue and on the East by Courtland
R6ad. The City's No. 10 Fire Station indents this property in the
northeast corner.
This land lays well and would offer excellent grading
potential for a service center site. It abounds on its west
border Interstate 581. It ia also felt that this property would
well suit development and construction for service center purposes.
The only external need, of which we are aware, is the construction
of a storm drain to firm the property to Orange Avenue to accommodate'
drainage relief as would result in the improvement of the land.
After lengthy negotiations with both of the bus companies,
we have agreement fro~ these firms of an offering to the City of
$225,000 for the purchase of this property,
It is recommended to the City ~ouucil that this offering be
accepted and that the proper steps be taken to purchase this land.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Garland moved that Council'concur .in the report of the City Manager
*and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~1994B) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the city Manager to
make a written offer in the amount of $225,000 to Continental Trailways and The
Greyhbund Corporation for the purchase of a certain tract of land and upon
acceptance of said offer, providing for the purchaseof said tract, upon certain
terms and conditions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinagce Book No. 36, page
Mr. Garland moved the adoption 5f the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mt. Link and adopted by the followin~ vo~e:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ....... ~ .................... ~--~ ...... 7,
NAYS: None ......................O.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the following
report in connection with the sale or other disposition of property seized by the
Police Department, transmitting on Ordinance which would amend Section 3. Chapter
1, Title XI~ of the City Code by providing for publication of notice of sale of
property by general' or categorized description and a posting of a more dee
tailed description of such property at the front entrance Of the Courthouse:
"November 15, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and #embers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It has come to the attentloh of the undersigned that ther~
is an accumulation of certain miscellaneous items of~rsonal
property in the custody of the Police Department, which
property may be sold under present City Code provisions upon
the publishing in a newspaper in the City of a description
of such property together mith the date of seizure or taking
possession thereof. The present Code pro¥ision requires an
item-by-item listing of such property and, therefore, the
cost of publication of such notice is prohibitive.
Accordingly, there has been prepared and is transmitted here-
with for the Council*s recommended adoption an Ordinance which
would amend Sec. 3, Chapter 1, Title XI, of the City Code by
providing for publication of notice of sale of such property
by general or categorized description and a posting of o more
detailed description of such property at the front entrance
Of the Courthouse.
Respectfully,
S/ H. Een Jones, Jr,
Assistant City Attorney*
Hr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(elg949) AN ORDINANCE to amend Sec. 3. Sale or other disposition of
property seized by police - Generally, of Chapter 1. Title XI, of the Code of the
city of Roanoke, 19§6, as amended; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boot No. 36, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the followi~g vote: .
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None ...............~-0~
AUDITS: The Assistant City Auditor submitted the financia! report of
the City of Roanoke for the month of October, 1971.
lu this connection, Mr. Thomas requested that the cit~ Auditor furnish
sheet on the Roanoke Civic Center with his monthly financial reports in the future.
Hr. Lisk moved that the financial report be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted,
301
'302
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The Assistant City Auditor aubnlttede written report
of the City Auditor on an examination of the records or the Janes Hrech~nridge
!iJunlor High School for the school year ended Jane 30, 1971,' odvising that the
[lexawination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
iland that all the records were in order and the Statement of Receipts and Disburse-
iments reflects recorded transactions for the period and the financial condition
ilof the fund.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. Th~ motion was
Iseconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The Assistant City Auditor
submitted a monthly statement of the City Auditor of expenditures for public nelfar~
.for the month ended October 31, 1971,
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMI'VFEES:
EASEMENTS-APPALACIIIAN PORER COMPANY-WATER DEPARTMENT: Council having re-
'calved and filed a report Of the Real Estate Committee and authorized the Committee
to continue negotiations with the Appalachian Power Company in connection with their
request for a perpetua~ easement for a right of way in which to construct and
maintain a new electric transmission power line through portions of .the Carvins
Cove Ratershed property, the Real Estate Committee submitted the following report
.advising that it continues in the opinion as submitted to Council in its original
report uoder date ~ September 20, 1971, that an agreement be prepared and submitted
to the Appalachian Power Company for' their review embodying certain restrictive con-
ditions, the final document to be subject to ratification by Council:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 15, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I~ response' to a referral by the City Council, the Real
Estate Committee reviewed the request of the Appalachian Power
Company for a power line crossing along the south llne of the
City*s Carvins Cove Watershed property. The committee then
submitted proposed terms of agreement to the Appalachian Power
Company and reported to the City Council on this proposal.
The City Council took the matter under consideration and as a
committee Of the whole met with representatives of Appalachian.
Your committee advises that after hearing the presentation
and appeal of Appalachian representatives to the City Council as
a committee, that the Real Estate committee continues in the
opinion os submitted in its original report to City Council
as to the recommended terms of permission to the power company
to construct its lines upon the Carvins Cove watershed lands.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ David K. Lisk S/ J. Robert Thomas
David E. Lisk J. Robert Thomas
S/ James N. Kincanon S/ Julian F. Hirst
James N. Kincanon Julian F. Hirst"
Mr. Lish mov~d that Council concur la the reports of the ~enl Estate
~Committen under dates of September 20, 1971, nnd~Nnvnmbnr 15, 1971. The mot~on
was seconded by Mr.'Carlnn~ and un~nimousl~ adopted.
SE#ERSANO STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the Sewer Committee
for study, report and recommendation a request ~ the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County that Council waive that provision of the existing sewage treatment
contract that would require a short portion of the countyes proposed Peters Creek
Relief Interceptor Semer Line located uithin the City of Roanote to become the
property of the City Of Roanoke, the Sewer'Committee submitted the following report
recommending that Council in~ct ~be City Attorney to p~epare the appropriate
measure as would indicate the consent of the'city to this installation by Roanoke
County within the corporate limits of the city:'
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 1St 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Your Sewer Committee having reviewe~ the request as ~ub~
mitted by.the Roanoke County Boa?d of Supervisors for the County
Resolution of August 11, 1971, requesting permission to waive
a provision of.the contract between the County and the City of
Roanoke in order that the County might construct a sewer line as
a part of its overall Peters Creek Interceptor project within
the corporate limits o~ the City.
The'proposed new l~ne would generally parallel Peters Creek
in the vicinity of the Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation. It
wbuld cross the Roanoke Riverthrough a siphon and would connect
to the Roanoke River sanitary sewer interceptor upstream of the
City*s Peters Creek interceptor connection. The proposed new in-
terceptor would include a metering station for the measurememt
of all flows up to the capacity of this line. flrasings showing
the proposed routing of this line are attached.
Your committee recommends that City Council instruct the
City Attorney to prepare the appropriate instrument as would
~mdicate the consent of the City to this installation by
Roanoke County within the corpor?te limits of the City.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ tlampton N. Thomas
Hampton W. Thomas
S/ Vincent S. Nheeler
Vincent'S. Nh~eler
S/ Julian F. Hi'st
Julian F. llirst*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Seuer
Committee and offered the following Resolution:
(~19950) A RESOLUTION ~aivtng,' to th~ extent ~erein provided and upon
the terms herein contained, a stipulation contained in the contract between the
City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke m~de un'er date of September 20, 19S4.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, pa~e B1.)
303
Br. Thomas moved the od,priori of the Besolution. The motion unn seconded
by Hr, Trout nnd adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #ensrn. Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheele~ end #nyor
'Nebber- ...............................
NAYSc None ............. ~--0.
At thin point, the City Manager entered the meeting.
UNFINISflEO BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No, 19929, fez,ming property in the City of Roanoke,
described o's Lots 7 and 8, and part of an alley, Block At Panorama Beights,
Official Tax Nos. 2740202 and 2?40203, from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-I, General Residential District,.having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Trout offering
the f,Il,ming for its second reading and final adoption:
(u19929) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, and Sheet No. ~, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Ho. 36, page 74.)
Mr. Trout coved the adoption of the Ordinance'. The motion was seconded
by Dr'~ Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber- .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19930, rezoning 14.33 acres of land, more or
less, described as Official Tax Nos. 4210501 - 4210506, inclusive, 4210401 -
4210418, inclusive, 4210307 - 4210327, inclusive, 4210330, 4210331 and portions
of 4210328 and 4210329, from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RG-I, General
Residential District, having previously been before Council for its first reading,
read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Lisk offering the following for
its second reading and final adoption:
(~19930) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 421, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 75.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the f. Il.sing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None .........O. (Mr. Thomas not voting)
In thin connection, a communication from.the City of R,an,he Redevelop-
ment and B,using Authority, requesting that Council spprovet niter proper
fez,ming, the Development Program - Comprehensive Plan covering BO duelling units
of lot-rent housing for family occupancy to be situated un upproxlmately ten acres
of land on Wine Avenue, S. H., uss before Council.
Mr; Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and offered the f~llouing Resolution:
(~199S1) A RESOLUTION approving a Oeveloment Pr.gram and Comprehensive
Pins dated Augus't 9, 1971, and authorizing and approving 80 additional units of
low-rent housing for Project No. VA. 11-10 proposed to be erected by th~ City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book Ho. 36,~ge O2.)
Mr, Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion uss seconded
by Mr. Garland and ado~ted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and
Mayor Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ................O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Ordinance No. 19939, authorizing the rental
of four square feet of floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter
building atop Mill Mountain to the Blue Ridge ETV Association for use, upon
certain terms and conditions, having previously been before Council for its first
reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the
following-for its second reading and final adoption:
(~19939) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) square ~eet
of floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill
Mountain to the Blue Ridge ETV Association for use, upon certain terms and
conditions.
(PO~ full text of. Ordinance, see Ordinance Doo~ No. 36, page T7.)
Dr. Taylor moved the .adoption of the Ordinance. The motion wan second-~
ed by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Limb, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. 7.
WAYS: .Wane .............. O.
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. 19945, accepting the bid of W. L. Hag,od, Sr.,
and N. Lo Hag,od, Jr., for the operation of the Municipal Airport Restaurant of
certain other concessions under a certain lease of the same from the city;
rejecting other bids made for said concession; and authorizing the execution of a
five year lease of said Airport Restaurant premises to N. L. Hag,od, Sr., and
N. h. Hag,od, Jr** upon certain terms and provisions, having previously been befor~
Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body.
305
306
In this Connection, the City Manager requested that action on the
second reading o! the Ordinsnc~ be deferred one meek. ,
Mr. Nheeler moved that Council concur in the request or the City
Manager that action on the second reading af the Ordinance be deferred .until the
next regular meeting of Council on Monday; November.22, 1971. The motion Was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure relating to the establishment of a certain sanitary landfill
area, capable of meeting the city's short term requirements for sanitary refuse
disposal; authorizing and directing that application be made to public authorities
of Roanoke County for a s~ecial use permit authorizing use of certain city-owned
public property in Roanoke County for'the purpose of such sanitary landfill
operation, committing the City to certain assurances and undertakings in connection
therewith; and stating the urgency of the public need for establishment of said
new public sanitary landfill, he presented same; whereupon. Hr. Lisk offered the
following Resolution:
(=19952) A RESOLUTION relating to the establishment of a certain sani-ii
tary landfill area. capable of ~eeting the Cityt$ short-term requirements for
sanitary refuse disposal; authorizing ~nd directing that application be made to
public authorities of Roanoke County for a special use permit authorizing use of
certain City-owned public property in Roanoke County for the purposes of such
sanitary landfill operation; committing the city to certain assurances and under-
takings in connection therewith; and stating the urgency of the public need for
the establishment of said new public sanitary landfill.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 36, page 83.)
Mr. Link moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
Mayor Webber .....................
NAYS: None ........... O,
'DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE-BU~RELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Council having
directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure authorizing a certain con-
tract to be entered into with Burrell Memorial Hospital to provide hospitalization
and treatment of indigent or medically indigent patients; fixing the rates to be
paid said hospital for such'services for the period from November 1. 1971, to
October 31,'1972, he ~resented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following
emergency Ordinance:
(=19953) AN ORBINANCE authorizing a certain contract to be entered
with Burrell Memorial Hospital to provide hospitalization and treatment of indigent"
or medically indigent patients; fixing the rates to be paid said hospital for such
services for the period from November 1. lg?l~ to October 31. 1972; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No~ 36, page 84:)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was Seconded
by Mr, Mheeler and adopted bT the following ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland,
NAYS: None ......
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COMPLAINTS: Mr~ William W. Tab*tn appeared before Council and pre-
sented a communication from Mr. William D. Coleman, President, Board of Directors,
Hunton Life Saving and First Aid Crew, Incorporated, requesting that a permanent
cement cover be installed over a creek which is located n few feet from the rear
of the Hunton' Life Saving and First Aid Crew Headquarters at Moorman Road and 9th
Street, N.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report to ~ouncil. The motion was seconded by Mr. ~heeler and
unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mayor Webber advised that Council would
m~et as a Committee cf the Mhole on Monday, November 22, 1971t at 4 p.m., with
members of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission and certain administrative
officials of the City of Eoanohe with regard to matters concerning the Roanoke
Civic Center.
,. , REALTH DEPARTMENT: Mayor Webber pointed out that there is a vacancy on
the Dousing and Hygiene Hoard to fill the unexpired term of Mr. J. Garry Clay,
deceased, ending January 31, 1973, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Wheeler placed in nomination the mme, of Grady P. Gregory, Jr.
Trout. Wheeler and Wayor ~ebber .................... 7.
-308
DEPARTMERT OF-PUBLIC MELFAEB: Mayor Robber pointed out that tho terms
of Mrs. Arnold A. Schlossberg, Mrs. Charles S. Perkins, Jr., Mrs. Clarence Lo
Huetev, MFS. James Hi Sumpter, Jr-., Reverend Edward T. Burton, and Me*sra. Fannie
Brown. Clande D. Harrison, Jrt. Robert S. Goldsmith, JF** Curtis L. Lemon. Andrem
H. Thompson. Clyde Roland. and Herbert.H. Moore, Jr** as members of the Advisory
Board of Public #elfare expired on November 7. 19710 that Mrs'. Sumpter, Mr.
Harrison, Mr. Goldsmith. Hr?Thompson and Mr. Moore have declined to serve anotherl
term and called for nominations to fill. the vacancies.
Mr. Lisk placed in nomination the names of Mrs. Arnold A. Schlossberg.
Mrs. Charles S. Perkins, Jrt, Mrs. Clarence L. Hunter, Reverend Edward T. Burton,
Mr. Fermi* Brown, Mr. Curtis L. Lemon and Mr. Clyde Roland,
There being no further nominations, Mrs. Arnold A, Schlossberg,. Hrs.
Charles S. Perkins, Jr., Mrs. Clarence L. Hunter, Reverend Edward T. Burton, Mr.
Fennte Bt*mn, Mr. Curtis L. Lemon and Mr. Clyde Roland were reelected as members
of the Advisory Board of Public Welfare for terms of three years each ending
November ?, 1974, by the foil*ming vote: ·
,~ FOR MRS.' SCHLOSSBERO. MRS. PEREINS, MRS. HUNTER, REVEREND BURTON, MR.
BROWN, MR. LEMON AND MR. ROLAND: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout,
Nheeler and Mayor Webber ................. ?.
Mr. Lisk then moved that action on the vacancies on the Advisory Board
of Public ~elfare created by the resignations of Mrs. James H. Sumpter, Jr**
Mr. Claude H. Ilarrisoo, Jr., Mr. Robert S. Ooldsmith, Jr., Mr. Andrew H. Thompson
and Hr. Herbert H. Moore, Jr** be deferred until the next regular meeting of
Cou~llon Monday, November 22, 1971. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and
unanimously adopted. .
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Moyor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Nonday. November 22, 1971.
..
The Coancil of the City of Roanoke uetin regular meeting in the
Council Chamber In the Municipal Duilding. Mondnyo November 22, 197~. at 2 p.m.,
the regular meeting hour. with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. David K. Lish, Noel C. Taylor.
Hampton M. Thomas. Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ............. 6.
ABSENT: Councilman James O. Trout ..............................
OFFIUERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst. Gjty Manager; Mr. Byron E.
Nnne£. Assistant City Ranager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J.
Robert Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meetin9 was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Nllliam P. Combs, Pastor. Raleigh Court Rethodist Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meetin9 held on Monday.
November 8, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Link. seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
REARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council havin9 set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday,
November 22, 1971, on the request of Ressrs. James C. Charlton and Herbert Davis,
that property located in the 1700 block of Hanover Avenue, N. M., described as
Lots 5 - 8. inclusive. Block 58, ~elrose Land Company, Official Tax Non.
2220805 - 2220807. be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2,
General Residential District..the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the followinl
report recommending that the request be granted:
"October 21.
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Plannin9
Commission at its regular meetings of September IS and October
20. lqTI.
Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt. attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the property in
question consists of 4 adjacent lots. He noted that the property
is now unimproved and the zoning as it now stands is not of hiqh
character. In addition, be noted that the two 9entlemen h~ is
representin9 have been operating as contractors for a number of
years and they plan to construct a 24-unit apartment complex on
the site.
309
'310
#r. floyaton, Planning Commission member, stated that he felt
that a RG-I category wonld serve the need and mould be of
best use in this area,
Mr. Griffin, Assistant Planning Director, stated that he saw
no need to rezone the property. De noted that AG-2 bas often
times been abused in the city.
' · Hr. Laurence, Planning Commission member, stated that be felt
that the proposed site is a good place for apartments. He
noted that he would rather see AG-1 rather than AG-2.
Yr. Lemon, Planning Commission member, stated that apartments
will be the only buildings that will ever be put on the site.
At the 0ctObeF 20th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Osterhoudt
again appeared before the Planning Commission. He noted that
one of the abutting property owners, Mrs. Lorraine Franklin,
whom he contacted, was not opposed to the rezonJng petition,
but only to the fact that sba was not notified of the Planning
Commission meeting.
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved reconmending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Henry B. Boynton by LW
Henry B. Boynton
Actin9 Chairman'
Mrs. Nellie Wagner, 1715 Orange Avenue, N. W., appeared before Council
with a group of affected residents in the area, opposin9 the proposed rezoning,
and presented petitions signed by 44 property owners of the 1700 blocks of
Hanover Avenue and Orange Avenue. N. W., in opposition to the rezon}n9 on the
folloming basis:
1. The congestion that will be created by the construction of
apartments in the area; and .
2. Apartments have a tendency to depreciate property.
Also, communications from Mr. and Mrs. ¥. C. Gross and Mrs. Lorraine
Franklin, in opposition to the requested rezoning on Hanover Avenue, N. W.,
were before the body.
Reverend C. T. Green also appeared before Council in opposition to
the proposed rezooing, Reverend Green pointin9 out that the area is solely
a residential area composed of one and 1/2 story residences and that high rise
apartments would ruin the residential effect of the neighborhood.
Mr. Lisk pointed out that he usually goes along with the recommendation
of the City Planning Commission in rezoning matters, however, he agrees with the
opposition that high rise apartments in this residential area would ruin the
neighborhood and moved that the request for rezoning be denied.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Gsrland expressed the opinion that if the property is rezoned to
gG-l, General Besidentinl District, rather than RG-2, General Residential
District, it should not adversely affect surrounding residential properties,
Mr. Garland pointing out that the vacant property will probably never be
developed unless it is used as a site for an apartment complex, and moved that
consideration be given to rezonin9 the lots to RG-I, instead of RG-2.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
#r~ Thomas then moved that Council concur in the recommendation of
the City Planning Commission that the request for rezoning be granted and that th~
Ordinance providing for the recommended rezonin9 be placed upon its first
reading. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and lost by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler .............................2.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor and Mayor Mebber .........4.
(Mr. Trout absent)
Later during tho meeting, Mr. Charles II. Osterhoudt, Attorney, repro~
seating the petitioners, appeared before Council and advised that had he been
present at the beginning of the meeting when Mr. Garland moved that the property
be rezoned to RG-I instead of RG-2, he would have agreed to this amendment and
asked if there might be some way this matter could be reconsidered by Council.
~ayor Webber pointed out that anyone voting with the majority on
the motion that the rezoning be changed to RG-I instead of RG-2 could move for a
reconsideration of the matter.
Mr. Garland advised that since he made the motion to amend the request
for rezonil~ to a RG-1 classification he would be willing to make the motion that
Council reconsider its previous action in connection with rezoning said property.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Ltsk and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion Of the matter, Mr. Osterhoudt pointed out that he is not'
talking about low rent housing and that if the property in question is ever to be
developed ~ will probably have to be developed for apartment purposes.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that the area is still predominantly
residential and to construct high rise apartments would create an eye sore.
After a discussion of the request for rezoning, Mr. Garland moved that
the public hearing be continued until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, December 6, 1971, and that the City Attorney and Mr. Osterhoudt be
directed to amend the proposed Ordinance to provide for a RG-I rezoning
classification in lieu of the requested RG-2 rezoning classification. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted, Mr, Lisk voting no.
3 ,2
ZONING: Council having set n public hearing fo~ 2 p.m., Monday,
November 22, 1971, on the request of Greenbrier Associates, a partnersbip com-
prised of Mr. Nilllan J. Moody and Mr. Fred P. Bulliugton, that property
described as Lots 18, 19and 20, Section 2, Map of West Park and Lots I and
Block 20, Map of Mashi~ ton Heights, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial
Distri~, to C-l, Office and Institutional District, the matter was again before
the body.
la this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the followJngl
report recommending that the request be granted:
"October 21, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetings Of August 4 and August
lB, 1971 and subsequently sent to City Council for their
action. At the October 4 meeting of the City Council on
was again referred back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration and for the expressed purpose of permitting
specific property owners to express their views before the
City Planning Commission and provide them with adequate notice
of public hearing.
At the October 20th meeting of the City Planning Commission,
Mr. Joseph Harris expressed his Opposition to this rezonJng
petition noting the following:
(a) he lives directly across the street from the
petitioned properties.
(b) the property in question is situated on a steep
(c) the site does not afford sufficient parking and
presents a safety hazard.
('d)a petition signed by neighboring property owners
who were opposed to this rezoning request was
submitted earlier to the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Fred Hulltngton presented a plot plan of the proposed
development that delineated the proposed structures
off-street parking.
Mr. Coleman, Planning Commission member, disqualified him-
self from voting on this petition, because Of his business
affiliation with the petitioner.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Henry B. Hoynton by LM
Henry B. Boynton
Acting Chair man"
i
Hr. Joseph E. Harris, 4115 Virginia Avenue, N. W., appeared before
Council in opposition to the request for rezoning, advising that there is i00
per cent disapproval to this request by residents in the area, that there Is a
private water system which serves the citizens in this vicinity, that the water
pressure is already low and for an apartment complex to hook onto this private
water system would create further problems.
Mr. Barry L. Flora, Attorney, representin9 the petitioners, appeared
before Council in agppo~t of the request of his clients, and advised that the
proposed apartments will tie in with the city water system and not a private
water system and requested that the rezoning be approved.
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and that the folio.lng Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(~lgg54) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanohe. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 276. Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanohe. in relation to Zoning.
~EREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City Of
Roanoke to have Lots 18, 19 and 20. Section 2, Map of West Park, and Lots I and
2. Block 20. Map of Washington Heights. rezoned from C-2, Heneral Commercial
District, to C-l. Office and Institutional District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from C-2, Ceneral Commercial District. to C-l.
Office and Institutional District; and
h~EREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be
published and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of The
Code of the City of Roacohe, lgS6. as amended, relating to Zoning. have been
published and posted as required and for the tine provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the
22nd day of November, 1971. at 2 p.m.. before the Council of the City of
Roanoke. at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an
opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed resorting; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein
provided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be
rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanohe. 1956. as
amended, relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 276 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap.
City of Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no other, viz:
313
:31 4
Property located on ¥1rglala Areune, N. W. 0 described ns Lots 18o 19
and 20, Section 2, Map of West Park, and Lots I and 2, Block 20. Map of Washington
Heights. be and is hereby, changed from C-R, General Commercial District, to C-l,
Office and Institutional District. and that Sheet No. 276 of the aforesaid map be
changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follouing rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Nheeler and
Mayor Webber .....................
NAYS: None ............. O. (Mr. Trout absent)
SYREEYS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Monday, November 22, 1971. on the request of Fralin and Maldron, Incorporated, .
that a small portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., as described in a metes and
bounds description, be vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter nas before
the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follomin(
report recommending that the request be granted:
"October 21. 1971
Zhe Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council,
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request ~as considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of OCtober 20, 1971.
Mr. Heywood Fralin, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Plannin0 Commission, presented a map, and noted
the following:
(a)the petitioner plans to construct 35 structures
consistin9 of 72 units (duplexes).
(b) that the entrance to this development (according
to the City Engineer) ~as not sufficiently wide
enough and he prop osed to provide a more desirab~
width.
The Planning Director noted that the new street alignment
represents an improvement to the geometrics of the inter-
section.
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S! Henry B. Boynton
by LM
Henry B. Boynton
Actin9 Chairman"
The vieners appointed to study the matter submitted a written
report adrising that they have vieued the street in question and the neighboring
property and are unanimousl~ of the opinion that no inconvenience mould result
either to any individual or to the public from vacating, discontinuing and
closing the street.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the portion of the street. Hr. ~heeler moved that the folluwin9 Ordinance be
placed upon its first reading:
(=19955) Alt ORDINANCE approving the relocation and widening of a
portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. £.. extending northerly from Norton Avenue. N.
permanently vacating abandoning and discontinuing a portion of Bluestone Avenue.
N. £., to provide for said relocation, pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia, of 1950. as amended; and authorizing and
providing for the city's release and conveyance of all right, title and interest
Jn the vacaled portion of Bluestone Avenue, N.
b~ER£A$. Frolin C #aldron. lnc., has heretofore filed application
before the Council of the City of Roanoke requesting the Council to permanently
discontinue, abandon and vacate u portion of Bluestone Avenue. N. E., more fully :
described in said petition and in this ordinance, in order to provide for a
relocation, widening and improvement of said street and for better alignment ther~-
of with Norton Avenue and a widening of a portion of Norton Avenue between
Bluestone Avenue and Bolltns Road, N. £.; and
WHEREAS, notices of the intended application were duly posted accordingi
to law in three (3) public places in the City of Roanoke ten (10) days prior to
Council's consideration of said application: and
· !tEREAS. in accordance with the prayer contained in said application.
Resolution No. 19902 was adopted by the said City Council on the llth day of
October, 1971, pursuant to which viewers were appointed to view the said property
and to report in writing what inconvenience, if any, would result from permanently
vacating and discon tinuing the portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. £., bereJflafter
described; and further, the said City Council referred the issues raised by the
said application to the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke for the
Commission*s study of said request and a report thereon; and
MfEREAS, it appears from the report in writing filed by the viewers
with the City Clerk dated the 21st day of October, 1971. together with the
Affidavit of said vleuers, of even date therewith, that no inconvenience would
result, either to any individual or to the public, from permanently vacating.
abandoning and discontinuin9 the within described portion of Bluestone Avenue,
N. ~., to which report no exceptions have been filed; and
315
;3~.6
~HEREAS. the City Planning Commission. by.letter directed to the
Rayor of the City of Roanoke and the members of City Council dated the 21st
day of October. 1971, has recommended to the City Council that the request
contained in the application aforesaid be grunted; and
WHEREAS. after newspaper publication as by statute provided, and
the petitioner being the owner of all land alon9 the portion of Bluestone
Avenue. No E.o hereinafter described, a public hearing uaw held before the
Council on the 22nd day of November, 1971. at which hearing all Interested
parties and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question
of the proposed street closing; and
WHEREAS. upon consideration of the matter, the Council is of the
opinion that Bluestone Avenue, N. E.. should be relocated and realigned as
proposed, and that no inconvenience will result to any owner or to the public
from permanently vacating, abandoning and discontinuing the portion of Bluestone
Avenue, N. E.. hereinafter described.
THEREFORE. BE 1~ ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
(1) That said Council doth approve the relocation, widening and
S. 48° 37' W. 35.26 feet. an nrc distance of 39.27 feet to n4 as shown on the
aforesaid plat; thence N. H6° 23' W. IH.BI feet to Zl. as shown on the aforesaid
plat, the ACTUAL PLACE OF BEGINNING, all as more fully sbomn on Plat made by
Huford T. Lumsden and Associates. Certified Land Surveyors, dated September 1,
1971,
the City of Roanoke expressly reserving, however, in the above described land a
perpetual easement for the location, use. operation, maintenance, repair and
replacement of a certain existing 42-inch public storm drain and related
facilities now located in said land.
BE IT FURTUER ORDAINED that upon recordation of the plat mentio~ d in
paragraph (1), above, the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke be, and hereby
is. directed to mark #Permanently Abandoned, Vacated. Discontinued and Closed~
that portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., hereinabove described on all maps and
plats on file in the Office Of said City Engineer on which said maps and plats
said portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E.. is shown, referring to the book and
page of Ordinances and Resolutions of the Council wherein this Ordinance shall
be spread;
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they are
hereby authorized and directed for an on behalf of the City of R~noke to execute,
seal and attest~ respectively, a deed releasing, quitclaiming and conveying unto
Fralin ~ Waldron. Inc.. with Special Warranty of Title. all of the city's right,
title and interest in and to that portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E.. herelnabove '
described and herein ordered to be permanently closed, abandoned, discontinued
and vacated, said deed to contain a reservation of the city*s perpetual easement f~r
the 42-inch public storm drain provided for in paragraph (2) above, and to be
approved as to form by the City Attorney and by him delivered to the aforesaid
applicant or its attorney after recordation of the plat or map referred to in
paragraph (1), aforesaid.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that. upon delivery of the city's deed of
quitclaim and release, aforesaid, the Clerk of this Council deliver to the
Clerk of the Bustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, an attested copy
of this Ordinance in order that the said Clerk may make proper notations on all
maps or platsrecorded in his said office upon which are shown the said portion
of Bluestone Avenue. N. E., herein permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and
closed.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:'
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None ..........O. (Mr. Trout absent)
318
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUIX;ET-SCHOOLS: Council havin9 deferred action ou a request of the
Roanoke City School Board that certain ~ansfers be made to complete the Capital
Improvement Program for the Lucy Addison High School until representatives from
the School Board could be presentat the Council meeting to answer questions raised
by the members of Council, the matter was again before the 'body.
Mr. M. Do Pack, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs and Clerk
of the Roanohe City School Board. appeared before Council and advised that in
for each field house and that it was discovered iu constructing the Addison
Mr. Lls[ questioned the disposition of funds for the Jefferson Field
(Zlgg$6) A~ ORDIN~U~CE to amend and reordain Section =Bg, "Transfers
to Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and provid-i~
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, Page
seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Whee~r and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAys: None ......... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
BUDGET-MUNIcIPAL COURT: A communication from Judge Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,
requesting that the petty cash fund in the Clerk of the Municipal Court Office
be increased from $200.00 to $300.00, was before Council.
Fitzpatrick and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19957) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =91. "Non
Departmental," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Boob No. 36. Page 90.)
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
i
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
· ebber ...................... b.
NAYS: None ........ O. (Mr. Trout absent)
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Roanoke
County Roard Of Saperrisors requesting that the contract between the City of
Roanoke and the County of Roanoke, dated September 26, 1954, dealing with the
treatment of domestic and commercial wastes, be amended by adding thereto property
of Meadow Wood Estates, was before Council.
Mr, Garland moved that the Resolution be referred to the Sewer
Committee for study, report and recommendation to Council, The motion was seconded
by Mr. LIsk and unanimously adopted.
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY-INDUS'fRIRS: A communication from Mr. D. C.
Kennedy, Division Manager, Appalachian Power Company, requestinG application
Of Industrial Access Funds for construction of an access road from Ninth Street,
S. E., to their east property line in connection with the proposed R~moke
Division Service Center, sas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to the City ManaGer
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A Resolution adopted by the
Roanoke Valley Council of Community Services, requesting thatthe City of
Roanoke take immediate steps to alleviate the present deplorable condition of
the Juveni ~ Court facilities and that long range plans be forthwith prepared
and adopted for the establishment of adequate permanent facilities, was before
Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The
motion was secofl ded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A petition signed by Dg
persons attending the November 16, 1971. meeting of the Junior League of the
Roanoke Valley, Incorporated. strongly endorsing the recommendation that the
Roanoke City Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court be moved from its present
inadequate quarters on Rorer Avenue to a location where the Judge and his
staff can work under acceptable conditions and urging tbat this relocation be
done immediately, or that a firm commitment be made for such relocation within
the 60 days from November 9 as re~uested by the JudGe of the Juveni~ and
Domestic Relations Court, was before Council.
319
32O
In this connection, Mrs. J. Robert Thomas, Jr., and Mrs, Thomas T.
Lausono appeared before the body and displayed pictures of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court facilities.
Mr. Thomas moved that the petition be received and filed and that the
City Clerk be directed to express the appreciation of the Council of the City of
Roanoke for the interest of the Junior League of t~ Roanoke Valley. Incorporated.
in this matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-INSURANCE: A communication from Mr. Raymond L. loud
in connection with payroll deduction for Franchise Health and Life Insurance
for city employees through Teachers Protective Mutual Life Insurance Company.
was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
and the City Auditor for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: A communication from Mr. Richard F. Pence, Attorney. represent-
Jag ITT Consumer Services Corporation, requesting that Council constitute
itself a Committee of the Whole to meet with representatives of the APCOA Division
Of ITT in connection with their request to alter their contract with the City of
Roanoke to pay a percentage of t~ gross instead of the monthly guarantee for
operation of the automobile parking lot at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) AiFport,
was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council meet as a Cosmittee of the Whole with Mr.
Pence and representatives of the APCOA at the end of the Council meeting. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Richard F. Pence, Attorney. representin*
Dr. James C. Garst. requesting that property located on the west side of Ridgefield
Street, N. E.. described as Lot 9. Official Tax No. 3131104, E. J. Parker Map.
be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to AG-2, General Residential
District. was before Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the ~equest for rezoning be referred to the
City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report recommending
that $110.00 be transferred from Maintenance Of Machinery and Equipment to Opera-
tion and Construction Equipment - New under Section m65, *Airport** of thc lg71-T2
budget, to provide funds in connection ~ith the purchase of one electrical test
instrument to be used in locating underground lighting cable failures at Roanoke
Municipal (Woodrum) Airport,
Hr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
City Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(x19958) A~ ORD1HANCE to amend and reordaln Section a65, 'Airport,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(FOr full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob No. 36. Page 91.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..................... 6.
'NAYS: None--~---O. (Mr. Trout absent)
BUDGET-MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $1,100.00 be appropriated for the replacement of the air
conditioning tower on top of the Mater Department Office Building on Kirk Avenue
and that the amount of $2,000.00 which was previously appropriated for roof
replacement of the Mater Department Building be reduced to $900.00:
'Roanoke. Virginia
November 22. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The cooling tower on top of the Mater Oepartment office
building on Kirk Avenue has been determined to be in need
of replacement before the next summer season. A locally
estimated cost of this work is $1.100. This would be replace-
ment of the tower which funds would normally he provided from
the maintenance of building and property account
This item.of work was not'anticipated and is not in-
cluded within the current 1971-72 budget. There is however
included within the budget $2.000 in account 320-255 for
re-roofing the office structure. Although there is need
for this re-roofing work. a close inspection has indicated
that with some repairs this can be carried another year in
recognition that the cooling tower replacement is core
essential in comparison of conditions.
It is recommended that City Council by budget ordinance
amendment provide for the appropriation of $1,100 for the
replacement of the air conditioning tower and that the amount
Of $2.000 for roof replacement be reduced from $2,000 to
$900.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n1995g) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #320. *Mater -
General Expense.' of the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providin
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page g2.)
321'
322
Mr. Thomas moved the adoptlom of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ..................... 6,
NAYS: None ......O. (Mr. Troutabsent)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: The cat y Manager submitted the following report
recommending that $40,000.00 he appropriated to Refund Accounts under Section
#91, 'Non-Departmental." of the 1971-72 budget, due largely to the city paying
the telephone bills Of the Roanohe City School Board since conversion of the
school telephones to the Centrex System and because of the recent addition of
school buses:
'Roanoke. Virginia
November 22, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
City Council appropriated the sam Of $25,000 to the Non-
departmental Budget Account under Object Code S3O, Refund
Accounts. During 1969-?0, $32,000 was expended under this
account while in 1970-71, $102.000 mas spent. At the present
time. this account is overdrawn by some $$,000. Expenses
within this account have increased as a result of the city *s
paying the School Board*s telephone bills since conversion
of the school telephones to the Centrex System and because
of the recent addition of school busses. Each of these
large expenditures are refunded to the city from the
School Accounts; however, there has been little or no
experience factor available by.which we could accurately
gauge or forecast these costs.
City Council can see from the increase in these accounts
between 1969 and 1970 that expenditures within this account
flucuate. The Audit~r*s Office reports that the school's
telephone bills at this time approximate $4,200 per month
while gasoline charges from the City Garage exceed $1.000 a
month and this may be expected to increase with the expanded
school bus usage.
It would be recommended that City Council appropriate an
additional $40,000 to the Non departmental 91. Object Code
536, Refund Accounts to provide funds at this time. As
additional funds are needed we will have to come back to City
Council at that time.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=19960) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section agl, "Non
Departmental** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, Page 92.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Onl inance. The motion vas
seconded by Mr. Fneeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber .................... 6.
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
BUDGET-SIDEMALK, CURB AND GUTTER: Council having deferred action on a
report of the City Manager in connection with the request of the High Street
Baptist Church that the city participate with the Church on an equal basis in*
the construction of curb and gutter for their new church being constructed On
Cove Road, N. N., pending an additional report from the City Manager with reference
to the cost involved, the City Manager submitted the folloming report recommending
that another change order be entered into mith B ~ S Construction Company for
this work and that $2,818.6B be appropriated by Council for performance of s~ d
work, $1,G25.G5 to be reimbursed to the City of Roanoke by the High Street Raptist
Church:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 22, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
Last Monday we presented a report recommending that City
Council appropriate funds in the amount of $1,300 to provide
curb and gutter for the new High Street Baptist Church. This
figure mas determined by using a verbally quoted price of
$3.50 per linear foot for curb and gutter; however, it was
later determined that the driveway crossovers were e~ara and
the city would assume the engineering costs for staking and
setting the line and grade. The revised contractor cost was
$3,434 or $1,717 for each party mith the city providing the
engineering work and not being reimbursed for it. This
greatly exceeds the $1,300 previously quoted to City Council.
Utilizing the city's existing contract with H ~ S
Construction Company, and that firm has indicated a willing-
ness to accept another change order to their existing con-
tract to perform this work, the total costs including the
drtvemay crossovers, engineering work and overhead would be
$3,651.70. Thih computes OUt at $1,825.85 for each party and
it would reimburse the city for engineering costs and overhead.
The actual dollar outlay to the contractor is reduced
considerably by this method, and as City engineering costs
have already been funded by Council, we would only need a
$2,018.60 appropriation from City Council and the city would
be reimbursed $1,R25.85 of that by High Street Baptist Church.
It would be ashed that City Council appropriate $2,818.68
to the curb and gutter account and authorize the Ci~ Attorney
to prepare a contract amendment with H ~ S Construction
Company for this work.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
323
:324
Mr. Mheeler moved Chat'Council concur in the recommendation of the Cit~
#anager and offered the' fo'llouing emergency Ordinance appropriating funds for
said work:
(alggGl) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section z8?. "Street
Construction." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, Page 93.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion ubs
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloutng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ....
NAYS: None .......................................................O.
(Or. Taylor not voting) (Mr. Trout absent)
Mr. ~homas rhea offered the following Besolutiaa approving the issaance
of said work:
i=19962) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's issuance of
Change Order No. 3 in connection with the City's contract for the construction
of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks in various parts of the city, heretofore
authorized by Ordinance No. 19340.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 36. Page
M~ Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. ~homas, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ....5.
NAYS: None ................................... 0
(Dr. Taylor n,tv,ting) (Mr. Trout absent)
STA~E HIGHWAYS: Council having deferred action on a report of the
City Manager in connection with the installation of traffic signals at the
intersection of Elm Avenue and Interstate Route 581, pending a further report
from the City Manager with reference to the amount of funds to be appropriated
hy Council for said project, the City Manager submitted the following report
pointing out that the Highway Department advises that its estimate of the cost
of this project is $46,484.00, of which the government will reimburse the city
for 85 per cent or $39,506.40, and recommending that $46,404.00 be appropriated
hy Council to permit accomplishment of this work:
"Roanoke, Virginia
November 22,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The city is now advised by the Virginia Departmeat of
Highways of the approval Of the Federal Government of the
{!
The Bighway Department advises that its estimate of
the cost of this project is $46,484, of which the govern-
ment will reimburse the city for 85 per cent, or
It would be recommended that City Council appropriate
$46.484 to a Capital Fund Account to permit accomplishment
of this work.
· Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Nlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the rec'omme~dation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency 0rdinance appropriating funds for
said project:
(x19963) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section nog. "Transfers
to Capital ImprovementsFund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and pr,vid-
Jag for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance D,ok No. 36. Page 94.)
Mr. Lish moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Yaylor and adopted by the foll~wing vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lish. Taylor, Thomas. I~eeler and Mayor
Nebber .....................
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
Mr. Lisk then offered the following emergency Ordinance'authorizing
and providing for the installation by city forces of the traffic signal at the
intersection of Elm Avenue and Interstate Route 5BI:
(~19964) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the installation
by city forces of traffic signals at the Elm Avenue, S. E** and Interstate 581
ramp. in the city. according to certain plans and specifications, 95% of the
cost of which will be reimbursed to the city from State and Federal funds; a~
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, Page 95.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The.motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the f, Il,win9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that he has received a communication from Total Action Against
Poverty in Roanoke Valley concerning their inquiry with the federal government
as to possible financial assistance through that route in the matter of relocating~
325
'326
the commodities center, that he has not had the opportunity to fully analyze
this information as of this date, but wanted to advise Council of its receipt
and that he will he reporting as early as practical.
in this connection, Hrs. Carolyn Crowder, Chairman of the Southeast
Welfare Rights Organization, appeared before Council and read a prepared
statement requesting that the city accept the money offered by TAP for the
operation of the new commodity food center on Salem Avenue. that the center be
hept open loF longer hours and more days during tbe ueeh for general distribution'
of the food. that the city recruit nero people to take part in the commodity
food program and that the Relfare Rights Organization be involved in the planning
and operation of the new food center.
BF. Llsh moved that the FepOFt Of the City Manager and the statement
read by Rrs. CFowdeF be received and IJled. The motion was seconded by RF.
GaFland and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORY: The City Manager submitted a wFitten report in connection
with snow removal at Roanohe Municipal (M0odFum) Airport, recommending that an
aFFangement be WOFked OUt wi~ Wiley N. Jachson Company. General C0ntFactoF,
tO provide and maintain certain motorized equipment for the Femoral of snow at
Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) AirpoFt for the 1971-72 snow season for the sam
terms, conditions and unit pFices that were established last year.
Rro Lish moved that Council concur in the recommendation of tie City
ManageF and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=19965) AN ORDINANCE approving arrangements and plans proposed by the
City Ranager to accomplish necessary removal of snow at Rom noke Municipal Airport
for the 1971-1972 and providing for an
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance BookNo. 36. Page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Rt. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler a~ Rayor
Mebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ..........0. (RF. Trout absent)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting copy of a communication from.the State Department of
Melfare and Institutions of November 8, 1971. indicating the procedure of the stat~
in assuming local share of public assistance in certain designated aid categories.il
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
OODGET-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted n written report'
reguesting that $364.00 he apprnlrlated to Office Furniture and Equipment - New
Under Section S4. ,Attorney,' Of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the
purchase of two legal size filing cabinets.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City
Attorney and offered the following e~ergency Ordinance:
(=19966) AN OROINANCE to amend and reordain Section S4o 'Attorney,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(FaF full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, Page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was secondedl
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .................. 6.
NAYS: None .... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
SALE OF PROPER'fY-CITY ENGINEER: Council having previously adopted an
Ordinance authorizing and directing the City Manager to make a written offer.
in the amount of $225°000.00 to Continental Trailways and The Greyhound
Corporation for the purchase of a 12.819 acre tract of land located west of
Courtland Road and south of Noble Avenue to be used as a proposed location
the service center, the City Attorney submitted the following report proposing
and recommending that he be authorized to obtain for the city in connection with
this land purchase a title insurance policy insuring to the city the fee simple
title to the entire tract of land in the full amount of the city's purchase
price therefor and pointing out that the premium for said insurance policy will
be approximately $400.00:
"November 22~ 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Ronnoke, ¥irgihia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on November 15. 1971. authorized the pur-
chase of approximately 12.8 acres of land situate in the
northeast section of the city, to be used as the site
of the city*s proposed Service Center. and, in so doing.
authorized the City Manager to extend to the present owners
of said land the city's binding offer of a consideration of
$225.000 for the same. Following such authorization, this
office has prepared and the City Manager has executed and
delivered to agents of the property owners a proposed
contract of purchase and sale by which the aforesaid acquisi-
tion would be accomplished.
The purpose of this communication is to propose and recommend
that the undersigned be authorized to obtain for the city in
connection with this land purchase a tit~ insurance policy
insuring to the city the fee simple title to the entiie tract
of land in the full amount Of the city*s pu¥chase price there-
for, namely, $225,000.
The reason for the within proposal is two-fold, namely: (a)
A preliminary view of the matters involved in 3 complete title
search by this office shows that the 12.6 acre parcel of land
327
328
consists, in tach of some 75 odd lots or parts of lots hero-
tofore laid out as one of the older subdivisions of Roanoke
County, coming into present ownership through Some 30 odd
chains of title, and includes, also, portions or former streets
mhfch have. fo years past,' been ea~ated and closed. ?be time
Involved in making n complete search of title over the
customary period of 60 years mould alone, in my opinion, be
considerably more expensive to the city than mould be the time
necessarily spent for a search of title sufficient to obtain
for the city*s benefit the insurance of that title by a title
insurance company to the full extent of the purchase price
paid by the city for the property; and (b) the city mill,
doubtless, expend considerable sums of money in the improve-
ments nhich will be constructed on the property subsequent to
its acquisitbn, the value of which improvements mill, no
doubt, far exceed the value of the land, itself.
I am advised that the premium Of such a policy Of title
insurance, Insuring to the city a fee simple title Jn the
land, would amount to approximately $400, and. as mas directed
by the Council in connection mith the city's purchase Of the
22 l/2-acre CJyJc Center site. I recommend that similar
insurance be obtained on this most recent acqhJsition.
Mith the above in miod. I have prepared and transmit here-
with an ordinance by which the Council would approve, the with-
in recommendation and which, by separate ordinance, would
appropriate the sum of $400 for that purpose.
Respectfully,
S/ James N. Eincanoa
James N. Kincanon"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19967) AN ORDINANCE directing the acquisition of title insurance on
certain 12.Big acre site being acquired by the city adjacent to Interstate Route
581 for use as a service center; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloning vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .................... 6.
NAYS: ~ue .....O. (Rr. Trout absent)
ClT¥ ATtORNEY-COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted a written report
requesting the opportunity of a meeting with the members of Council in Executive
Mr. Mheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and un nimously a~ pred.
STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report Rod recommendation the req~st of Mrs. L. D. Brugh for
an amendment to the Arterial Hlghmay Plan. excluding therefrom the proposed
straightening of Forest Hill Avenue. the City Planning Commission submitted the
following report recommending that Council grant this request to amend the
IgRO Highway Plan by providing that the present alignment of Forest Hill Avenue
be maintained:
"November IH. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Rembers of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 17, 1971.
Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt. attorney for the petitioner, noted
the following in regard to this petition:
That the official IqHO Major Arterial Highway
Plan sho~s a realignment of a portion of
Forest Hill Avenue eliminating the existing off-
set situation of Forest Hill Avenue at ~llliam-
soo Road.
That this realignment has resulted in his
petitioner bain9 unable to utilize his four lots
for buildin9 purposes. The lots in question
ave all zoned C-2 and the petitioner is not
requesting a rezoning but an amendment to the
official lqOO Ilighway Plan to permit him to
construct a motorcycle shop.
That the Fifth Planning District Commission had
indicated to him that this matter is strictly local
in nature; requiring no prior action by the
Fifth Planning District Commission before going to
City Council. which is the normal procedure in
matters involving amendments to the Highway
Plan; and that the State Highway Department is will-
ing to waive it. and the City of Roanoke has the
power to amend the Highway Plan in this situation.
The Planning Director noted that this specific project would not
be consummated in the near future. In addition, he noted.
the proposed 19H5 Thoroughfare Plan has not delineated this
specific realignment'of Forest Hill Avenue.
After consultation with both the Engineering and Traffic De-
partments it was generally agreed that although the amendment
being proposed for Forest Hill Avenue did n6t represent the
optimum solution, that the time factor precluded the imple-
mentation of the Forest Hill Aven~ realignment as delineated
in the officially adopted IgHO Thoroughfare Plan.
Accordingly. motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request
to amend the 1960 Highway Plan by providing that the present
alignment of Forest Hill Avenue be maintained.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Vice-Chairman"
329
Nr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, representing the petitioner,
appeared before Council in support of the request of his.clien~, ~
Mr. Thomas maced that CounnJl concur Jn the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney and
Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt to work out the details. The motion mas seconded by Hr.
Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City P~anning Commission for
stndy, report and recommendation the reqoest of the lvanhoe Corporation and Mr..
Fred C. Ellis, et ux., that property described as Lots 2 through parts Of 16 and
19, inclusive, Block 9, Lincoln Court, Official Tax Nos. 2041325 - 2041341, inclu*
siva, be rezoned from 1DM, Industrial Development District, to NM, Heavy Manufactur-
ing District, the City Planning Commission submitted the following report
recommending that the request be denied:
*November IH, 1971
The Honorable Roy L.'Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 17. 1971.
Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, III, attorney for the petitioner,
appeared before the Planning Commission and presented a plot
plan delineating the ownership pattern existing in this
general area. He noted that Mr. Browles of Richmond plans
to construct a trucking terminal on this site which is not a
permitted use in an IDM zoning designation.
Mr. Doynton noted that the IDM zone is specifically geared
towards *clean* type industries and shonld not be rezoned to a
heavy manufacturing designation, particularly considering
the proximity of the Civic Center.
The Planning Director concurred wit h Mr. Boynton matin g th e
impl:tance of maintaining the present IDM zone not only to
protect the Civic Center but to prevent the further encroach-
meat of industries of this nature into this IDM zone.
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Vice-Chairman~
In this connection, a com~unicatlon from Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, III,
Attorney, representing the petitioners, requesting permission to withdraw the
request for caroming, was before the 'body.
Jl
il
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the attorney for
permission to withdraw the request for rezonin9 . The motion was seconded by
Mr. Nbeeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and.recommendation the request Of MFS. Charlene M. Sutberland that
property located un Daleton Avenue. between Ligh Street and Mayland Street.
described as Lots 3 - 13. inclusive, Section 4, Jackson Park Addition. Official
Tax Nos. 3210819 - 3210829, inclusive, be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing
District, to RG-2, General Residential District, the City Planning Commission
submitted a written report recommending that the request be 9ranted.
Mr. Thomas'moved that a public hearing on the request for resuming be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday, December 20. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler
and unanimously adopted.
ZONIKG: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Fralin ~ Waldron, Incorporated.
that a 13.33 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Salem Turnpike, i
adjoining the Fairview Cemetery Company. Incorporated, being a p~rt of Official
Tax No. 2650105. be resumed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I. General
Residential District. the City Plannin9 Commission submitted a written report re-
commending that the request be granted based upon the petitioner dedicating a
portion of the parcel of land to the city to permit the extension of 35th
Street to Salem Turnpike.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezouing be
held at 2 p.m.. Monday, December 20. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor then moved that the City Manager be requested to study the
feasibility and cost i~volved with regard to extending 35th Street to Salem
Turnpike and report back to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of riser Funeral Home, Incorporated,
that property described as Lot 11, Block 36, Map of Melrose Land Company,
Official Tax No. 2221811. be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District. to
C-l, Office and Institutional DistTict, the City Planning Commission submitted
a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for resuming he
held at 2 p.m., Monday. December 20, 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
331
33"2
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission
for study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Floyd #. Overstreeto
that Lots 6 and 36. Section I, Map of Avendale, be rezoned from RO, Duplex
Residential District. to C-2. General Comoercial District, and that Lots T, 8,
32, 23. 34 and 35, Section 1, Rap of Avondale, be rezoned from RO, Duplex
Residential District. to RG-2. Ceneral Residential Oistrict, the City Planning
Hr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezonlng be held
at 2 p,m.. Monday. December 20. 1971. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler
and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
POLICE DEPARTMENT-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: The Community Relations
Committee submitted the following report concerning the recent disturbances
in the Roanoke City Public Schools, recommending that the Roanoke City School
Board study the creation and appointment of a Citizens* Advisory Committee to be
charged with the responsibilities of dealing with the various concerns of students
teachers, and parents, both black and white, throughout the school system:
*TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL - November 22. 1971
FROM: COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: RECENT DISTURBANCES IN ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A special call meetin9 of the Community Relations Committee
was held on Wednesday. November 17. 1971 at 6:00 P. M.. for the
purpose of discussing a substantial number of telephone calls
and other communications received by members of the Committee
from interested citizens concerning the recent disturbances in
the City*s schools.
The subject communications were discussed at length by the
individual members of the Committee. The Committee voiced con-
cern about the continued presence of police officers in the schools;
particularly as to the adverse affect they have created and will
continue to create should they remain in our schools and the
u~timate effect this will have on police - community relations
in Roanoke. Additionally, the Committee voiced concern about
reported incidents of violence and threats of violence relating
to both black and white students throughout the school system.
Recognizing that the Community Relations Committee's ~es~on-
sibilities are directly related to the Council and the operatim
of the City; and, further recognizin9 that the City*s schools are
operated under the supervision of the Roanoke City School Board
and the Superintendent of Schools. the Community Relations Com-
mittee urges Roanoke City Council to recommend to the School
Board the study, creation and appointment of a Citizens* Advisory
Committee charged with the responsibilities of dealing with the
various concerns Of students, teachers and parents, both black
and white, throughout the school syste&.
The Community Relations Committee strongly supports the
Roanohe City School Board and School Superintendent. Roy A.
Alcorn. and their joint response to and handling of the recent
school disturbances. The suggestion for the formation of a
Citizens* Advisory Committee is made to the School Beaird solely
upon the basis of the experience gained by the Community Relations
Committee during the past three years. The Committee has found
that such an organization, properly structured, reg¥1arly function-
ing and strongly supported by its parent governing body can be an
extremely useful and effective source of communication for the
entire community and is in a unique position to study, evaluate end
articulate pressing problems in the community, both black and
white, in a timely and effective manner.
ldenllyo such a Citizens* Advisory Committee should be chosen
to represent the entire range of viems of the community nnd be
Hopefully, the Committee, if created, mill be given the confidence
To the Council of the City of Roanoke
333
The priority sssigued to thbmatter by the C6nmlsslon mas For
two reasons, i.e** the Council in referring the reques~ to us
asked For immediate consideration, and w~'n~e~ed t'o'knom nhut the
cost in loss of revenue mould be Jn,order~to proceed with the
remainder of your assigned tush.
Reg~rding the llmit~ 5F assets*and income e~t'abllsb~d in our
report.tO you, ne considered that the Council was tacitly committed
to granting reasonable relief For elderly persons in Ion income
brackets mith relatively meager assets. Ue believe this relief
should not be such that young people who Fall within the same degree
of affluence should be penalized. Many citizens under the age OF
65 who are buying homes and raising Families would Fall into the
economic range of income and net worth requested by the petitioners.
Under the present ordinance, the cost to the City in loss of current
revenue is estimated at $5,dOg annually. IF the relief to persons
over 65 years of age is granted, based upon our prior report, the
cost to the City in loss of current revenue is estimated to be
$250,000. However. if the relief granted were to be based upon the
limits allowed by law and as requested by the petitionFrs, the cost
is estimated to be $500.000.
The Commission did not, as suggested by Mr. Akers, lose sight
. of the question, 'how much can the lam income citizen afford to pay*
and consider'only, *how much can the City afford to lose*, but it
did take into consideration that any relief afforded this group
would inevitably hale to be borne by other citizens, many of whom
are in comparable financial circumstances.
If we are to deal in equity, we must reaffirm our recommendations
in our Interim Report No. 1.
The Commission unanimously approved the recommendations and
directed the chairman to submit this report to the Council of the
City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ James E. Carr
James E. Cart, Chairman
REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. lgq45, acceptin9 the bid of W. L. Hagood, Sr.,
and M. L. Hagood. Jr., for the operation of the Municipal Airport Restaurant and
of certain other concessions under a certain lease of the same from the city and
authorizing the execution of a five year lease of said Airport Restaurant premises
to M. L. Hagood. Sr.. and M. L. Hagood. Jr., upon certain terms and provisions,
having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over.
was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager again requested that action on the
second reading Of this Ordinance be deferred one week.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
that action on the adoption of the Ordinance on its second reading be deferred
one week. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
{{
[{
CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANy: Ordinance No, 19946, per-
mitting un encroachment of not more than eight inches for the first twelve feet
end twenty inches over the twelve foot level of a nam facing on n building over
the building setback line on Third Street, S, W,, for a distance of approximately
one hundred thirty-five feet, said facing to be erected on the mast side of a
building located on Official Tax No, 1012501, aport certain terms and conditions,
having previously been before Council for it first reading, r.ead and laid over,
was again before the body, Mr~ Wheeler offering the followie9 for its second
reading and final adoption:
(a19946) AN ORDINANCE permitting an encroachment of not more than eight
inches for the first twelve feet and tmenty inches ~ver the twelve foot level of
a new facing au a building over the building setback line on Third Street, S.
for a distance of approximately one hundred thirty-five* feet,8 said facing to be
erected on the west side of a building located on Official No. 1012501, upon
certain terms and conditions,
(For full text of Ordinance, see ~rdinance Book No. ab, page 85.)
Mr, Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas second-
ed by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas,' Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ......... ~ ..............
NAYS: None ..........O. (Mr. Trout absent)
Mith reference to 'the matter, Ordinance No. 19947, 9ranting revocable,
non transferable authority to The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
Virginia to maintain underground fuel oil storage tanks on premises located at
224 Luck Avenue, $. W., Official Tax No. 1012501 encroaching upon a planned major
arterial highway right of way, upon certain terms and conditions, having previous-
ly been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before
the body, Mr. Thomas offering ~he following for its second reading and final
adoption:
(~19947) AN ORDINANCE granting revocable, non transferable authority
to The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia to maintain under-
9round fuel oil storage tanks on premises located at 224 Luck Avenue, S.
Official No. 1012501 encroaching on a planned major arterial highway riobt-of-way,
upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 68.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None ...... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
335
'336
ROTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
BRIDGBS: The City Manager submitted the following report ia connection
with a ceremony recognizing the opening of the new Norwich Bridge, advising that
said ceremony will take place at 12 noon, November 30, 1971:
"aoanohe, Virginia
November 22, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Rosnohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Ne have been seeking an appropriate opportunity to recognize
the opening of the Norwich Bridge because of its significance
as a total City project and as a significant accomplishment on
the part of the City. Due to construction arrangements it has
been necessary to permit traffic to move over the bridge this
past week or so and the situation involved did not seem appro-
priate for any ceremony.
According to the contractor's present schedule, the job
should be complete on November 30, 1971, and the old bridge will
be approximately 75 per cent dismantled. The contractor would be
ready on this date to lower one of the existing trusses from the
old bridge into the river. This we feel would be an excellent
opportunity for the ceremony.
If this would be acceptable and convenient with the members
of the City Council. who can be present, we would like to
schedule the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new bridge and the
lo,erin9 of the trusses of the old bridge to take place at 12 noon.
November 30. 1971.
1 would anticipate just a brief but important event.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Ilirst
City Manager"
SEWERS AND 5'fORM DRAINS: Mr. Co Richard Cranwell, Attorney. representingl
the James E. Long Construction Company. Incorporated. appeared before Council and
requested information as to the status of the Hampden Hills request for sewer
service.
The City Manager replied that the matter is pending awaiting official
~ approval of it as an added area to the sewage treatment contract between the City
ilof Roanoke and the CountI of Roanoke.
! SENERS AND 5~fORM DRAINS: The City Attorney called to the attention of
;;Councilthat on November B, 1971. Council had on its agenda an Ordinance providing
i!for the construction of a new storm drain on Albemarle Avenue, S. E., from 3 1/2
Street. S. E.. to the intersection of South Jefferson Street and Highland Avenue.
S. #., that at that time he requested that action on the adoption of the Ordinance
ibm deferred until he could mork out certain arrangments with the Norfolk and
i Nestern Railway Company, relating thereto, and advis~g thatthe~ arrangements have been
iworked out and it mould be in order for Council to proceedmith adoption of the
Ordinance.
Wayor Mebber pointed out that it was bis understanding the City Attorney
would furnish the members of Council with a report as to what the arrangements to
be worked out with the Norfolk and Western Railway Company consisted of prior to
adoption of the Ordinance and expressed the opinion that the matter should be
deferred until the next regular meeting of Council pending receipt of said report
from the City Attorney.
Mr. Mheeler moved that action on the matter be deferred until the next
regular meeting of Council pending receipt of said report from the City Attorney.
with regard to the arrangements which were worked out with the Norfolk ~ Western
Railway Company. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: It appearing that four members of Council would be attending
a convention of the National League of Cities during the week of November 29. 1971.{
in Honolulu. Hawaii. the City Clerk was instructed that it would not he necessary
to prepare an agenda for the week of November 29. 1971.
SIREET LICIITS: Dr. Taylor read the following communication in connection
with street lighting for the 1800 block of Crayson Avenue. N. R.. known os
"To,ers Heights":
"November 19, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Building
Gentlemen:
More than two (2) years ago a new area for developing homes
came into being in the IGO0 block of Crayson Avenue. N. M. known
or are presently in the process of being completed. Only three
(3) lots remain vacant in the 1800 block of Grayson Avenue. N. M.
The property value of t~newly constructed homes start at
~23,000.00 and continue to a maximum of $31.500.00. A new Church
has, also, been erected at a total cost of $32H.000.00o
AS a result of numerous requests from home owners in the area
and officials of the Greater Mount Zion Baptist Church for instal-
lation of street lights at the earliest possible date and since the
area is completely void of street lights even at the corners where
the 1HO0 block of Crayson Avenue. N. W. intersects adjoining streets.
I respectfully request that the Council of the City of Roanoke
will ask the City Manager*s Office to expedite the lighting of the
1800 block of Crayson Avenue. N. ~. as rapidly as possible without
seriously interrupting the present schedule for installing street
lights.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor"
Dr. Taylor moved that the City Manager be requested to expedite the
lighting of the 1600 block of Grayson Avenue. N. #.. as rapidly as possible
without seriously interrupting the present schedule for installing street lights.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
337
~338
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
; City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, November 29, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, November 29, lq?l, at 2 p.m., the
regular meeting hour, uith Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Webber .......................................... 3.
ABSENT: Councilmen David I(. Limit, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton W, Thomas,
and Vincent S. Rheeler .......................... 4.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Illrst, City Manager: Mr. Byron E. BarterS,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. A. N. Gibson, Assistant City Auditor; and Mr. James
Rincanon, City Attorney.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. Robert A.
Garland, Member of Roanoke City Council.
A quorum failing to appear, Mayor Webber declared the meeting adjourned.!
APPROVED
ATTEST:
~/ City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, December 6, 1971'~
The Council of the City of Roanohe met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, December 6, 1971, nt 2 p.m** the
regular meeting hour, mith Mayor Roy Lo Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A° Garland, Noel Co Taylor, James O. Trout,
Vincent S, Nheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber ......................................
ABSENT: Councilmen David K. Lisk and Hampton N. Thomas ............... 2.;
Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager; Mr. H, Den Jones,
OFFICERS
PRESENT:
Mr.
Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by Dr. NoeZ C. Taylor,~
Member of Roanohe City Council.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
November 15, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, On motion of
Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Oarland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof
was dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having continued until 2 p.m., Monday, December 6, 1971;
a public hearing on the request of Messrs. James C. Charlton and Herbert Davis,
that property located in the 1700 block of llanover Avenue, N. W., described as
Lots 5 - H, inclusive, Block 59, Melrose Land Company, Official Tax Nos. 2220805 -~
2220B07, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, Ueneral
Residential District, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, Council having previously directed that the proposedI
Ordinance be amended to provide for a RG-1 rezoning classification in lieu of the
R0-2 rezoning classification, said Ordinance, as amended, was also before the
body.
Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, representing the petitioners,
appeared before Council in support of the request of his clients.
With regard to the matter, a communication from Mrs. Lorraine Franklin,
1718 Hanover Avenue, N. W., in opposition to the proposed rezoning, advising that
the property owners in the area would like for the property to remain RD, Duplex
Residential District, was before Council.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney
be directed to render an opinion as to the legality of the advertisement of
Notice of Public Bearing mhich was published in The World-News on November 5, 1971!
and providing for a R~-2 rezoning classification instead of the amended request for
a RO-I rezoning classification and that the City Attorney also be requested to
render a legal opinion as to the number of votes required for adoption of the
amended Ordinance on its first rending since there ia opposition to said request
from surrounding property ouners. The motion was seconded by Mr. #heeler and
unanimously adopted.
ZOHING: Council having set a public ~hearing for 2 p.m., Monday,
December 6. 1971, on the request of Mr. Raymond D. Naif, that property described
as the easterly halt of Lot 15 and nil Of Lot 16, Map of Park Square, Official
Tax Nos. 1561136, be Fez,ned from R$-3, Single-Family Residential District, to
RD, Duplex Residential District, the matter was before the body.
Zn thin connection~ the City Planning Commission submitted the foil,win
report recommending that the request be granted:
*November 4, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 3, 1971.
Mr. Raymond B. Naif, the petitioner, appeared before the
Planning Commission and noted that he also ouns the contiguous
lots which were recently fez,ned for a RH designation, He
noted that he plans to construct a total Of three duplexes,
tomnbouse-type, mith rental at approximately $150per month.
Mr. Naif pointed out that there was no local opposition to thi~
rezoning petition and that the area presently contains s number
of duplexes which existed prior to the adoption Of the 1966
concerning the parhing provisions. The petitioner noted that
adequate parking mould be provided in the front yard.
retaining wall xould have to be constructed on this parcel.
The Planning Director noted that the use ia compatible
with the contiguous RD designation.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John O. Parr, ti by LM
John H. Parr, it
moved that the foil,ming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(ffigq6H) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 156. Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke in relation to Zoning.
341
342
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of R,an,he
to have that certain property described ns the easterly one-half of Lot 15, nnd all
or Lot 16, Hap of Path Square, Official Tax No. 1561136, fez,ned from RS-3, Single-
Family Residential Oidstrlct to RD, Duplex Residential District; and
MHERRAS, the City Planning Commission bas recommended that the herein-
after described land be fez,ned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to
RD, Duplex Residential District: and
WHEREAS, the written notice and ~he posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XVt of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted ns required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 6th
day of December, lO?l, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be
heard, both for and against the proposed Fez,ming: and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence os herein provided,~i
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should berezoned.
YHEREFORE, DE IT ORDAINED by the Council Of the City Of R,an,he that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
!!amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 156 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City~
~of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Brambleton Avenue, S. W., described as the easterly
one-half of Lot 15 and all of Lot 16, Map of Park Square, designated on Sheet 156
of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City Of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 1561136, be,
and is hereby changed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex
Residential District, and that Sheet No. 156 of the aforesaid map be changed in
this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ........5.
NAYS: None ............................................................O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday,
"December 6, 19T1, on the request of Mr. J. Calvin Garnand, Jr., that 8.309 acres
of land, described as Official Tax Nos. 4350602 and 4350604, be fez,ned from LM,
Light Manufacturing District, and RD, Duplex Residential Distric t, to R~I,
Ceneral Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In thin connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloulng
report recommending that the request be granted:
"November 4. 19TI
The Honorable Soy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 3, 1971.
Mr. Jack Place, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission and presented a plot plan. He noted that
the petitioner plans to construct ten or eleven apartment struc-
tures. Mr. Place noted that the Jamestown Place public housing
development ia contiguous to this pa rcel, is zoned RG-I, and
that therefore, the present rezoning petition would be in keepin9
with the general character of the area. Finally, he noted that
the petitioner has a contract to sell predicated on this rezoning.
Mr. John Parrott, Commission Chairman, noted that the area
is presently heavily wooded.
Mr. Lawrence, Planning Commission member, inquired if this
entire parcel was owned by one owner; Mr. Place noted that this
was the case.
A local resident inquired about the rentals. Mr. Place
noted that the development was to be completely privately
financed.
Accordingly, motion nas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request,
Sincerely,
S! John Hi Parrott by LM
John Il. Parrott
Chairman"
Mr. Jack V. Place. Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its ~irst reading:
(=19969) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanohe, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 435, Sectional
~one Map, City of Roanohe, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have a certain 8.309 acre tract lying to the north of Virginia Secondary Route
· 658 also known as Rutrough Road and being comprised of n 3.309 acre parcel
bearing Official n4350602 and a 5.00 acre parcel bearing Official =4350604 rezoned
"from LM, Light Manufacturing District, and HO, Duplex Residential District, to
~ RG-1 General Residential Distric t; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, and RD,
il Duplex Residential District, to RG-*I, general Residential District; and,
I
343
344
WHEREAS. the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
nnd posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1. Title XV. of The Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1955. ns amended, relating to Zoning. have been published and
~osted as required nnd for the time provided by said section; and.
WHEREAS. the hearing ns provided for in said notice was held on the
*th day of December. 1971. at 2:00 p.m. before the Council of the City of Roanoke.
at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity
to be heard, both for and against the proposed fez,ming; and.
WHEREAS. this Council. ~f~r considering th~ evidence was herein
provided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described aldn should be rezoned~
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 435 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map.
City of Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Virginia Secondary Route a658 described as:
BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Va. Sec. Route
~558 at the southeasterly corner of the five (5) acre tract conveyed
to John Galvin Carnand, Jr. by deed dated March 10, 1957 from
Jack Harris, Inc., Of record in the Office of the Clerk of the
tlusting$ Court of the City of Roanoke; thence N. 49° 07* E. 452.3
feet to a point; thence N. 36° OD' W. 620.5 feet to a point; thence
S. 41o00* W. 260.00 feet to a point; thence S. 43o08' W. 424.3D
feet to a point; thence S. 15° 35* I. 40.5 feet to a point; thence
S. 11035* E. 31.0 feet to a point; thence S. 75° 25* E. 41.50 feet
to a point; thence S, 11o55' E, 82,50 feet to a point on the
northerly side of VA. State Secondary Route n 559, N. 72° 40'
W. 44g,5 feet to the place of Beginning, and containing 8.309
acres, more or less. which is comprlesed of a 3.309 acre tract
Official n4350502, and a 5.0 acre tract Official ~4350504;
ildesignated on Sheet 435 of the Sectional 1956 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, aa Officia
,Tax Nos. 4350602 and 4350604, be, and is hereby, changed from LM. Light Manufactur-~i
~lng District, and RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-1. General Residential
i!District, and that Sheet No. 435 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .... ~-5.
NAYS: None 0
(Nessrs. Lash and Thomas absent)
WATER DEPARTMENT: Council having previously adopted an Ordinance
~modifying to an extent the operation and effect of Ordinance No. lg?50 from
September 1, 1971, to December 31, 1971, which Ordinance set the rate at which
!!the City of Roanoke would sell its surplus water to other incorporated municipal-
ities at fifty cents per one hundred cubic feet, and establishing the rate of
~thirty-nine cents per one hundred cubic feet as the rate to be charged other
iilncorporated municipalities for surplus water for the period from September 1, 1971,
to December 31, 1971. Hr. Go l. Nicks, Mayor of the Town of Vintono Virginia,
appeared before Council and requested information with regard'to thn mater rates
being cba~ged the Town of Vlnton as to whether they will remain at the present
thirty-nine cent rate or if they alii go back to the fifty cent rate.
It appearing that two m~mbers of Council mere absent fr~e the meeting.
Mr. Trout moved tha~ action on the matter be deferred until a full Council is
present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nheeler and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET ~IGHTS: Copy of a communucation from the Appalachian Power
Company, transmitting a list of street lights installed and~or removed' durln9
the month of November, 1971o was before' Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the communication and list' be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REgOVAL: Copy of a communication from HFS. Elizabeth M. Stokes,
Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in connection with the application
of the City of Roanoke for a special use permit to operate a sanitary landfill in
the north clear zone of Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport in Roanoke County, was
before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SHERIFF: A communication from Mr. Joseph S. James, Auditor of
i!Public Accounts, transmitting an audit of the accounts and records of Mr. Kermit
i!E. Allman, Sheriff, for the period from January 1, 1971, through September 30,
1971, advisin9 that the examination disclosed that proper accounting had been made
for all funds of record comin~ into the custody of the Sheriff durin9 the period
under review and that the records had been prepared in an excellent manner, was
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication and audit be'received, and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-CITY TREASURER: A communication from Mr. Joseph S. James. Auditorl
' of Public Accounts, transmittin9 an audit of the accounts and records of Rt. J. H.
Johnson. City Treasurer. as related to the revenuescollected for the Commonwealth
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1971, advising that the examination disclosed
that proper accounting had been made for all recorded receipts and that the
records had been prepared in'an excellent manner, vas before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication and audit'be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout an~ unanimously adopted.
MUSEUMS: A communication from Mr. Roscoe D. Hughes, Chairman. The
Science Museum of Virginia, in connection with the statemide Science Ruseum Program
advising that it is his understanding the Mayor will appoint a Museum Advisory
345
~346
Committee for the Roanoke area and that he is loohJn~ f~rm~rd ~o marking with the
Mayor and all interested citizens In tho Roanohe area. uaw before Council.
of said committee. The motion nas aqconded by Mr. Gar'land and unanimously adopted.
SCBOOLS-ELECTIONS: A communication from Mr. Andrew H. Thompson, Chair-
man of the Electoral Board, transmitting a comminlcation from Br. Roy A. Alcorno
Superintendent of Schools, requesting that the voting precinct at Flshburn Path
Elementary School be moved to other quarters, was before Couucil.
Dr. Taylor moved that the matter be referred to the Electoral Board for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion sas seconded bI Mr. Trout
land unanimously adopted.
SF..~ER5 AND STORM DRAINS: The following communication from t~e Roanoke
!!County Public Service Authority. transmitting two requests in connection with the
construction of the Tinker Creek Interceptor Sewer Line, was before Council.:
"November 29, 1971
The lfonorable Roy L. Webber,
Mayor. City of Roanoke,
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Webber:
Jimmy Beavers has contacted me with reference to the above ~entioned
line and bas requested that I write to you pertaining to the 36 inch
relief sewer that would he parallel to the 15 inch interceptor line
that I understand now exists along Tieker Creek.
· It is ny understanding that the reason for this squid be the
serious overloading of the Tinker Creek line which serves both
the City and County in this general area.
I am enclosing several maps which I hope sill be self-explanatory
and will show that the easement would extend along the Mater
Department Tract for a distance of approximately SO0 feet, parallel
to and approximately 30 feet away from the creek bank. Rr.
Beavers has advised that he has discussed this construction llne
and easement with Rt. Kit B. Eiser, manager of the City Mater Depart-
ment as well as with Hill Clark, with neither noting awl serious
objections. I also understand that detailed engineering plans have
been submitted to Mr. Clark and will be submitted to Mr. £iser
for their approval and a legal description of the easement requested
will be furnished to them.
In order that the Authority be able to take bids and proceed with
the construction of this very much needed semer line, se are, by
means of this letter, requesting the City Council of Roanoke to grant
a 20 foot side, 10 feet on either side of the center line, sanitary
sewer line easement, to the Public Service Authority. Me also. re-
quest that the City Council agree to waive the terms of the City-
County Sewer Treatment Contract with regard to the requirement that
the lines constructed within the City by the County be deeded to the
City. Roy, if there is any major objection to this and if there is
any way that I can make whatever adjustments are aecessff y with our
bondholders, I feel that this last item can be waived if you deem
it necessary. As you know. all we would request is that me would
have a perpetual right to the use of the line, meeting whatever
legal requirements are necessary.
If there are any further questions coucerni~ this proposal, please
do not hesitate to.call or write.
~haokiag you iff advance, I am
Sincerely yours,
S/ Luke
L. ~. #aldrop, Chairman"
II
Hr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the Semer Committee
~ror study, report nnd recommendntion to Council. The motion was seconded by
iGarland and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS-DEPARTMENT OF PUOLIC NELFARE: A communication from Hr. Cecil
Simmons, complaining because he has to purchas~ his clothing from the Goodmill
Industries since he is a recipient of public welfare, was before Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the communication be received and filed. Yhe
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A Resolution adopted by the
tRounoke Jaycees supporting the plea of Judge Lsmrence L. Koontz, Jr** that hem
, facilities for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court be found immediately and
!deploring its continued use in its present condition for location of any city
offices or personnel, was before Council.
Mr. ~rout moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Nheeler and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMES~IC RELATIONS COURT: A communication from Mrs.
Robert H. Haoan, President, James Madison P. T. A., supporting the request of Judge!
Lawrence L. Koontz. Jr., for better working conditions for his staff and himself
at the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, mas before Council.
Mr. Nheeler moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Copy of a communication from Mr. and Mrs. E. L. Montgomery,
Presidents, Forest Park School P. T. A., addressed to Dr. Roy A. Alcorn, Super-
intendent of Schools, expressing their thanks and congratulatlons for all he has
done for the Roanoke City Public Schools since his appointment, was before Council.
Mr. Nheeler moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Jack V. Place, Attorney. representing
Messrs. Donald G. Sink, F. Earl Frith and James D. Fralin, requesting that a 2.467
acre parcel of land situate on tho southeast corner of the Hershberger Road
Cove Road intersection, described as Official Tax No. 2770301, be rezoned from
C-l, Office and Institutional District. to C-2, General Commercial District, was
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezonlng be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Hr. Nheeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGETLASSESSOR OF REAL ESTATE: The City Manager submitted the followin
report recommending that $690.00 be transferred from Printing and Office Supplies
347
348
to Office Furniture and Eq~ipaen? - Hew.~nder Section my, 'Assessment.of Real
Estate,' of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the purchase of two calcula-
tors to be used in the Office of the Meal Estate Assessor:
'Roanoke, Virginia
December 6. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
~entlenen:
Mr. McNulty', Assessor, has requested n trahsfer of funds
within the Assessor's Office budget from Account 300 to Account 380
had been requested in the department's budget in each of the past
two years but hav~ been deleted Jn the suspension of capital
purchases. Each unit is priced at $345.
Mr. RcNulty advises that his work is suffering as a result of
not having access to this needed equipment and that he is prepared
to forego certain supplies and printing in order to acquire the two
items of equipment. Re further advises that he feels that man hours
will be considerably saved in staff work and that there is now
avail'able discounted prices which convince him that the equipment
would pay for itself before the end of the current fiscal year.
Accordingly upon the recommendation of Mr. McNulty, it is
these two accounts of $690 with authorization tu purchase the two
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(mlggyO) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section sT. ~Assessment
of Real Estate,~ of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 102.)
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Trout, Mbeeler and Mayor Webber ...... 5.
........ ~ ................................................
NAYS: None O
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
RUDGET-AUDITOMI~a-COLI££I~: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that ~3,73~.bb be appropriated to Vehicular Equipment - New
under Section #??, "Civic Center,~ of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for
the purchase of a four-wheel drive, three quarter ton pickup truck, equipped with
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 6, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
We have, even back before the completion and occupancy of
the building, given consideration to the need for an additional
vehicle on specific assignment to the Civic Center. The only
vehicle now directly available to the Civic Center is a station
wagon used for. a variety of purposes, The need which is Judged
to exist is for a vehicle of pickup truck type which could be
used as a maintenance vehicle for the center for the handling
of small quantities of materials mhich is essential in the
operation of the facility and particularly for snow handling
and clearing the parking lot and walk areas.
As to snow, our dependence at the Civic Center is on the
Street Department which in the event of snow is completely
obligated to street work with considerable limitations on our
ability to assign equipment and personnel into the Civic Center
without detriment to scheduled street work.
The recommendation is for the purchase for the Center of a
fonr=mheel drive, three quarter ton pickup truck, equipped
with a six-foot snom blade. This could not. of course, handle
large snow emergencies or completely clear the entire Civic Center
parking lot in a short period of time. But for snow handling it
wonld he an excellent vehicle for routine clearing and under
normal circumstances would enable us to clear the lot in an
orderly and pr*apt basis.
In order to make this report to Council, me have invited
bids on such a vehicle mith a Iow bid having been received on
November 15, from International Harvester Company, the bid
break down being as follows:
Pickup Truck, International Model 1210 $3,1B2.72
Additional Accessories (spare tire with
tube, jack and fire extinguisher) 91.94
Snow Plow, Myer Model ST-84, with
7 ft. blade avd electronic lift 458~00
$3,732.6~
It is recommended that City Council by budget ordinance
amendment provide for the appropriation of this sum for the pur-
chase of this vehicle.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19971) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~77. "Civic Center.~
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text.of Ordinance, see Ordinance'Book No. 36, page 103.)
Mr. TrOut moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Nebber ....
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
349
35O
BUDGET-pARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $1,125.00 be appropriated to JaCk'on Park Athletic Field
under Section #69, 'Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72
budget, to provide additional funds in connection with the construction of the
Jackson Park AthleticField:
'Roanoke. Virginia
December 6. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia .
Gentlemen:
The contractor has finished work on this project and the
City Engineering Department has now determined the quantities of
materials involved in the project as actually constructed. It
has been found that the actual excavation was 716 cubic yards
in excess Of the contract amount and that it was required that
there be laid 56 additional feet of 15-inch storm drain pipe.
These increases in unit guantities amount to an increase of
$1.125 in the contract amount.
The original appropriation for this athletic field. April
12, 1971. was $13,000 based on a very preliminary estimate at
that time. Rhea the contract was awarded on August 17, 1971.
it was in the amount of $16.009.25. The above additional amount
of $1.125 would carry the total contract to ~17.134.25 and it is
recommended that City Council appropriate the amount u~ ~1.125.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=19972) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section SBg, "Transfers
to Capital Improvements Fund." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 103.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion ~as seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, #heeler and Mayor Webber .....
NAYS: None ....................................................... O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
BUDGET-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the folloming
report recommending ~hat $75.00 be appropriated to Communications under Section
~14, "Personnel." of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds representing the cost
of installation and operation of on additional telephone in the Personnel Depart-
'1
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 6, 1971
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
There has recently been assigned to the Personnel Department
an employee procured under the Public Employment Program of the
Federal government and the development of this position and
its value Is materially benefiting the operation of the Personnel
Deportment. In order to assist in the functioning it is con-
sidered desirable to establish an additionalMlephone in this
office.
The 1971-72 budget provides $550 to the Personnel Department
14 - 220. This had been a reduction of $100 under the previous
budget year appropriation.
It is recommended that there be appropriated an additional
$75 which Hill represent the cost of installation and operation
of the~ additional telephone unit for the remainder of the current
fiscal year.
Respectfully submitted.'
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Dirst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloHing emergency Ordinance:
(~19973) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~14, *Personnel**
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providiog for an emergency.
IFor full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, pa~e 101.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of thc Ordinance. Th motion Has seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Mebber ......5.
NAYS: None ..........................................................O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Citl Manager submitted a Hritten report
i requesting that $500.00 be transferred from Other Equipment - NeH to Printing and
;iOfftce Supplies under Section z47, *Fire Department," of the 1971-72 budget, to
!iprovide fonds for additional printing needed in the Fire Prevention Bureau and
for supplies being required in the routine operation of the department.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur ~ the request of the City Manager
and offered thc folloHing emergency Ordinance:
(~19974) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #47, "Fire Depart-
ment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and provMing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 104.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Has seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Mebber .....
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
(Messrs. Lish and Thomas absent)
351
352
DEPARYMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Manager submitted the fei lowing
report ia connection with current matters relating to the proposed relocation of
the Commodity Food Distribution Center:
'Roanoke, VlrgJmia
December 6, 1971
Honorable Hayor and CltT Council
Roanoke. Virginia
The followin9 is submitted as a report on current matters
relating to the proposed relocation of the Commodities Pood
Center.
Several preliminary comments to this report would be thus.
The building on Salem Avenue. S. M., is temporarily in use but
will become available January 1, 1972. The recommendation con-
tinues that the City operate only one center. A second or multi-
centers cannot be justified at this time either by economics or
need. The money assistance offered by Total Action Against Poverty
is appreciated. It is not as beneficial as mould have been the
Department of Agriculture proposal made earlier this year and that
is not stated critically but rather mathematically. It is not
felt that the operation of the present Commodities Center by the
City is quite as bad as has been described or inferred by those
appearing before the Council. Based on experience here and
program or on7 similar or reIated program will almost always
be receiving criticism.
Pinancial participation by TAP will not be a continuous
or on-9olng program due to their funding limitations. It will
For the relocation to Salem Ayenue
1. Estimated cost of equipping the new location (freezers, con-
veyors, pallets, chairs, desks, etc.) is $3.478.0H. This
will be one-time funded by TAP. The City will order and have
installed and TAP will reimburse the City. All equipment
must carry 0£0 property tags.
2. New monthly costs of operation at the new location will be,
on the below indicated items:
Transportation of food from warehouse to center $ 340,00
Mileage for certification of users 13.50
Miscellaneous supplies and expenses 30.00
Extermination services D,O0
Rental ...~50,00
Total $ 941.50
TAP will pay this for the four months, Jan. - Apr,,
1972 4 x $941.50 $3,766.00
For this budget year the City will need to add for
two months: May and June 2 x $941.50 SI.DH3.00
Rental of the present Campbell Avenue location is $195.00
per month.
The above items would reflect the following increase to the
City budget in annual operating cost - 1972-73
12 x ($941.50 - lg5.00) $8.958.00
3. The City is obligated to rent at the present - Campbell
Avenue - center thru June, 1972, unless the owners would'agree
otherwise. Thus this $195.00 monthly rental could continue
and cannot be reduced during January - June, 1972.
4. Estimated cost to set up In the new locollon, including
labor and materials. City Cost $ 1,000,00
5. It is tentatively anticipated that one additional employee
of laborer classification will be required in operation of the
new locution. This is subject to review after month or two
of experience. If not needed it would be discontinued.
City cost 1971-72 6 months 8 $352.00 $ 2,112.00
Annual cost 1972-73 12 months 4,224.00
6. A very broad estimate is made of increase in utility costs
at $30 per month.
For 1971-72 increase - 6 months
For full year 1972-73
Summary
TAP participation
1. Equipment
2. Operations
City additional cost 6 months 1971-72
2. Opeations
4. SetTup
5. Personnel
6. Utilities
The current City annual budget for the Center is
Additional projected cost on annual basis
2. Operations
5. Personnel
6. Utilities
Plus present budget
O. Appropriations
If the relocation is approved then appropriation for
1971-72 would be needed of: TAP
City
Total
$ 160.00
360.00
3,478.00
3.766.00
7,244.00
1.883.00
1.000.00
2.112.00
180.00
5,175.00
$30,534.00
8,958.00
4,224.00
360.00
$13,542.00
.30,534,00
$44,076.00
$ 7,244.00
5.175.00
$12,419.00
· itb TAP to reimburse 7,244.00
9. If relocation is not approved it would be recommended the
following appropriations:
For enlargement of present building with additional covered
waiting area, painting, etc. ~ 5,000.00
Plus and extended lease.
Monthly cost
Food transportation $ 340.00
Mileage for certification of users 13.50
Miscellaneous 30.00
Extermination services , ~,00
$ 391.50
For 6 months $ 2,349.00
For 12 months $ 4,698.00
10. For information, present .use of the Center is
4,235 persons served in October, 1971
of ~ese 2,991 - Public Assistance
1,244 - Non Public Assistance
In addition 294 persons supplemental feeding from Health
Department referral
If ne can furnish sdditionnl information, ue will be glad
to so do. I~
Respectfully submitted, :
S! Julian F. HJrst
Jnlian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Trout moved that the City Manager be authorized to move the Commodity.
Food Distribution Center from its present location on Campbell Avenue, S. E.. to
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and ~
a nam location on Salem Avenue. S. M.
unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted
the full,ming report in connection with improvements which have taken place at the
Grandin Court Recreation Center and listing certain people and organizations who
have had an active part in this worh:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 6. lg71
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Ray I note for the information and observance of the City
Council the outstanding transformation that has taken place at the
Grandin Court Recreation Center. Some of the things that have
taken place are as full,ms:
1. ~rking lot was graded and a crusher run put on surface.
2. Painted complete inside of Center.
3. Painted and fixed all playground equipment.
4. Roved basketball area and installed basketball backboard.
5. Cut down trees and trimmed those that were left.
6. Put in a new picnic oven with tables.
7. Put in a new mater line.
8. Flower beds and shrubbery were placed in front of center
building.
g. Fixed fence in front of playground lot.
The major significance yo this is that this work represents
the civic interests and contributions on the part of many who direc-
ted. on u project basis, their efforts toward work at this center.
The results are fine but perhaps even more especial is the fact that
groups and businesses saw the need and set about at their own initi-
ative and with their own organization and effort to the program of
community betterment.
Those. to my knomledge, who had an active part in this work
include the following: the Laburnum Garden Club through its
Beautification and Civic Improvement Committee. Mrs. C. B. Doibel.
Chairman; the Deb Council, sponsored by S, H. Heironimus and led
by Mrs. Polly Ayers; Bears, Roebuck and Company; Sherwin-Williams
Company; K-Mart; Norfolk and Western Railway Company; and the City
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Rirst
City Manager~
In this connection, the CitI Ranager verbally included the Grandin
Court Rome Demonstration Club as another organization who had an active part in
this work.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion nas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously asopted.
M(~dlCIPAL RClLDING-CAPITAL IMPROYEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager sub-
mitted a written report in connection math the courthouse building, the Third
Street building and related facilities, advising that he has been requested by
the Judge of the Dustings Court to ravia, the material with tho Court prior to
the presentation to Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion nas
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the
following report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire
Department as of October 31, 1971:
"Roanoke. Virginia
December 6. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire
Departments as of October 31. 1971.
'Fire Department
During the month of October 1971, there were no changes in
personnel in the Fire Department.
Police Department
Officer Barney T. Arthur, Jr.
Officer Frank L. Mright, Jr.
(Airport Police)
Officer James Clingenpeel
Officer Cra~ford E. Gray
Officer Charles N. Martin
Officer Lynn G. Frith
Officer Michael T. Campbell
Hired Resioned
Oct. d, 1971
Oct 4, 1971
Oct. 11, 1971 -
Feb. 1, 1971 Oct. 13, 1971
Oct. 26. 1957 . Oct. 28. 1971
Oct. 19, 1971 -
June 7, *1971 Oct. lB, 1971
Ending October 31, 1971-(16 vacancies).'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst,
City Manager.*
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The mot/off
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
FIRE DEpARTMENT-MATER DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-CITY ENGINEER-
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a
mritten report concurring in the following report of a committee accepting certain
proposals for several truck units to be used by various departments of the city?
*December 6, 1971
To the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
355
Gentlemen:
Hlds hare previously been recelved and opened before the committee
mhose names appear below for several truch units to be used by
various departments of the City. Attached please find copies 6f
two bid tabulations showing the proposals mhich were received.
Also attached is a summary of the finances pertaining to the
various bid items. While two of the items exceed available funds.
overall there will remain a surplus of monies. The only unit which
significantly exceeds the budget estimate is n 2~ tun damp truck
to be used in street repair operations, The low bid is considered
a fair, competitive proposal for this vehicle and the difference
can only be explained as an inadequate estimate. The accessory
items include such equipment as fire extinguishers, tire chains, etc.,
which will be purchased separately by the city and are not included
in the basic vehicle specifications.
The proposals have been studied by your committee and the low bids
found to.meet the City*s specifications,
It is recommended that the City accept the low bid proposals for
each of the several vehicles and award contracts as folloms:
A. To International Harvester Company
Item No. I - (1) 2~ ton cab & chassis w/dump body: $g,793,05
Item No. 2 - (1) 2 ton cab & chassis w/lO' dump body: 4,400.79
Item No. 3 - (1) 2 ton cab ~ chassis 2/12' fiat dump
body: 4.558.82
Item No. 5 - (1) I ton cab ~ chassis only: 2,893.89
Item No. 6 - (1) 2 ton cab ~ chassis w/platform dump
body: 0,~39,28
Item No. 9 - (3) ~ ton pickup trucks: 6,945.19
Item No. 10 - (1) 3/4 ton cab & chassis w/ service
body: 3,357'.33
Item No. 11 - (1) 3/4 ton pickup truck: 2,676.56
$39,972.91
To Antrim Motors, Inc.
Item No. 4 - (1) 1~ ton cab & chassis only: $ 4.161.27
Item No. 7 - (2) ~ ton pickups w/utility bodies: 4,550.20
Item No. 8 - (2) ~ ton pickups w/utility bodies: 5,502.80
Item No. 12 - (1) compact panel van: 3.022.22
~17,316.49
C. To Baker Equipment Engineering Company
(1) utility body & hydraulic lift w/platform: including options
(to be mounted on I ton cab. ~ chassis - item No. 5)
The City Auditor has been asked to investigate the entent of fund
transfers which will be necessary to cover items that exceeded
appropriations.
RECOMMENDED: SI Byron E. Haner
Byron E. Haner
Assistant City Manager
Sf William F. Clark
Nilliam F. Clark
Director of Public #orks
Bueford B. Thompson '
Purchasing Agent"
$ 8,090.00
ti
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $3.442.80 from
Vehicular Equipment - Replacement under Section n?5, *R~cre~tion. Parks and
Recreational Areas,' to Vehiclular Equipment - Replacement under Section
"Street Repair," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds In connection with the
purchase of the truck units:
(~19~?$) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n?5, *Recreation,
Parks and Recreational Areas," and Section u58, "Street Repair," of the 1g?1-72
Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ocdinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 3b, page 105.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion sas seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the follosing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Rarland, Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber ......
NAYS: None 0
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the pro-
posals of International Harvester Company and Antrim Motors, Incorporated, for
furnishing and delivering tselve new vehicles to the City of Roanoke:
(nlg97b) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of twelve (12) new
vehicles for use by various departments of the City, upon certain terms and con-
ditions; accepting certain bids made to the City for furnishing and delivering
said vehicles; rejecting certain other bids made to the City; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 36. page lob.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion sas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted b~ the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor Mebber .....
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
Dr. Taylor offered the folloming emergency Ordinance accepting the pro-
posal of Baker Equipment Engineering Company for furnishing and delivering one
new utility body aod hydraulic lift for use in the Traffic Engineering and
Communications Division:
(~19977) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of one new utility bod~i
and hydraulic lift for use by the City's Traffic Engineering and Communications
Division, upon certain terms and conditions; accepting a certain bid made to the
City for furnishing and delivering said equipment; rejecting a certain other bid
made therefor; and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance 8ook No. 36, page 108.)
357
358
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~y Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. G~rland. Taylor. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .......
NAYS: None .......................................................... O,
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Attorney submitted a writte!
report advising that on Noveuber lo 1971, Council adopted an Ordinance mhich defined
and regulated the removal of certain noxious weeds by the addition of a new chapter,!
ierroneously referred to in said Ordinance as Chapter la, Title XIII. Health of the
i!City Code, and transmitting a Resolution which would provide for the codification
said new chapter' as Chapter 16,
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution:
(a19970) A R£SOLI~ION relating to the codification of Ordinance No.
19926, which added a hem chapter dealing with noxious weeds to Title XIII. Health,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, IGC6, as amended.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. ~6. page 109.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion mas second-:
ed by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Mebber ........
NAYS: None ........................................................... O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
STATE HIGHMAYS: The City Attorney submitted a written report advisin9
that on February 1, lg?l, Council adopted an Ordinance authorizing the city*s sale
and conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a triangular shoped parcel of
land located at the southwest corner of Elm Avenue, S. E., and 4th Street, $. E..
that by letter of September 10, 1971, the District Right of Way Engineer of the
¥irginia Department of Highmays points out that the Commonwealth is no longer inter~
ested in acquiring this parcel of land and transmittin9 an Ordinance repealing
q
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~199~g) AN ORDINANCE repealing Ordinance No. 1950~. adopted February
1971, authorizing the sale and conveyance to the Commonwealth of ¥irginia of a
triangular shaped parcel of lnnd containing 500 square feet, more or less, situate
at the southwest corner of Elm Avenue, S. E., and Fourth Street, S, E., being the
southerly residue of Official No. 4020319.
WHEREAS, the Council, by Ordinance No. 19505° adopted February 1,
authorized the sale and conveyance to the Commonmealth of ¥irginia o£ the herein-
after described property; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated September ~0. 1971, the District Right-of-Way
Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highmays advised the City that the Common-
mealth no longer desires to purchase the property hereinafter described.
THEREFORE, OK IT O~DA1NKD by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Ordinance No. 19505, adopted February 1. 1971, authorizing the sale and conveyance
to the Comnonmealth of ¥1rginia of a triangular shaped parcel of land containin9
SO0 square feet. more or less. situate at the southwest corner of Elm Avenue.
S. E. and Fourth Street. S. K., being the southerly residue of Official No.
4020319. be, and the same is hereby REPEALED.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor Webber .....
NAYS: None .........................................................O.
(Ressrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Auditor submitted a written report
trasmitting an Ordinance appropriating $16,220.00 to the Fire Department covering
the cost of pay corrections pursuatn to the report of the City Manager under date
of October 18. 1971, advising that he has concluded that these payments are not
precluded by the federal price and wage control directives and requesting that the
appropriation be made so the payments.may be made to the individual firemen.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor
and offered the following emergency
Ordinance:
(~199B0) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =47. "Fire
!! Department." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 109.)
~r. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor Mebber- .....5.
NAYS: None ..........................................................OD
(Messrs. Lish and Thomas absent)
AUDITS-SCDOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmittingll
an examination of the records of the ¥irginia Heights Elementary School for the
school year ended June 30, 1971, advising that the examination was made in accord-
ance with generally accepted auditing standards and that all the records were
in order and the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded trans-
actions for the period and the financial condition of the fund.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUOITS-SUHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
an examination of the records of the Fairview Elementary School for the school
year ~nded June 30, 1971. advising that the examination was made in accordance
359'
'3.6O
with generally accepted auditing Standards and that nil the records were In order
and the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements reflects recorded transactions
for the period and the financial condition of the fund.
Mr. W~eeler moved that the report and audit be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Elmer R. Cox,.et ux., that
property located on Greenhurst Avenue, N. W., described as Acreage, Official Tax
No. 2060825, Watts Land Map, be resoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to
iRG-I, General 8esidentiul District, the City Planning Commission submitted a
written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be heldi!
at 2 p.m., Monday. January 3, 1972. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
~unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Franklin L. Angell, that Lot
!1. T. R. Fugate Map, Official Tax No. 1440506, be reaoned from RG-I, General Resi-
dential District. to C-I, Office and Institutional District, the City Planning
!Commission submitted a ~ritten report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be heldll
[at 2 p.m** Monday, January 3, 1972. ~he motion Has seconded by Dr. ~aylor and
iCouncil for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body.
!!
mending the award of the concession at Roanoke
~R. L, Hagood. Sr.. and ¥, L. Hagood. Jr,:
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report recon
Runlaipal (Moodrum) Airport to
#Roanoke. YJrginia
December 6. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. ¥irginia
Gent lemen:
1. It is recommended that the City Council. by proper
instrument, authorize the award of concession at the Roanoke
Municipal Airport of the restaurant, gift shop, etc.. to #. L.
Hagood. Sr. and M. L. Ilagood, Jr., the high bidders in the bids
received before City Council in August. 1971. This recommenda-
tion would include that the lease be the five-year period as pro-
vided to commence January 1. 1972. This has been discussed with
the bidders and they are agreeable thereto.
2. The bidders and their attorney advise that they are
considering incorporation. If this is done and when we are so
informed, if all matters appear in order, we would then be recom-
mending to the Council an amendment to the lease agreement to pro-
vide for this fact. I advise you of this, at this time. so that
the City Council might not be unaware and so that all will under-
stand that we have. at this point, been informed by the bidders
of this consideration.
3. As City Council will recall, in the discussions of the
award Of the bid in the matter of enlargement Of the Airport,
questions arose as to the intended definition of the phrase in the
lease agreement reading 'improvement or enlargement of any part
or parts of the leased premises*. To clarify this, the City
Attorney has prepared a paragraph for inclusion in the lease
agreement. That is submitted herewith to the City Council with
a recommendation for the Council's approval of its inclusion.
We have contacted the bidders on this and have a preliminary indi-
cation of their agreement and, at this writing, are awaiting their
formal concurrence, I believe that it would be in order for Coun-
cil to approve this, if you so agree, and then .if found agreeable
to the bidders, the final lease document would contain this
paragraph.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F, Hirst
Julian Fo ltirst
City Manager*
~Ir, Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Ordinance on its second reading:
(mlg945) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of M. L, Hagood. Sr,, and W. L.
Ragood. Jr., for the operation of the Municipal Airport Restaurant and of certain
other concessions under a certain lease of the same from the City; rejecting other
bids made for said concession; and authorizing t'he execution of a five (5) year
lease of said Airport Restaurant premises to W. L. Nagood, Sr., and I~. L. Nagood.
Jr., upon certain terms and provisions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3(,. page 99.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ........
NAYS: None
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
· ZONING: ~Ord~agnn~Noo 19954, rezoning property described gs!Lots'lB~ 19
nad 20, Se~tibn ~,:Msp?of Nest Park and'Lots I and 2, Block 20. Map of Washington
Heights. from C-21 General Commercial District. to C-l, Office and Institutional
District. having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
laid over, was again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the follouing for its
second reading and final adoption:
(~19954) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the
ilCode of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 2?6, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roa~okeo in relation to ZonJn~
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 113.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Wheeler and Mayor Webber ...........4.
NAYS: Mr. Trout .................................................. 1.
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
Later during the meeting, question was raised as to whether or not a
sufficient number of votes was received for adoption of the Ordinance on its
second reading since there appears to be opposition to the request for rezoning.
Mr. Trout then moved that the question of the number of votes required
for adoption of Ordinance No. 19954 on its second reading be referred to the City
Attorney for a legal opinion in view of the fact that there is opposition to the
request for rezoning by surrounding property owners. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19955. vacating, discontinuing and closing a
small portion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., as d~scrlbed iua metes and bounds
description, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Trout offering the following for its
second reading and final adoption:
(~19955) AN ORDINANCE approving the relocation and widening of a
iportion of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., extending northerly from Norton Avenue, N. E.;
permanently vacating abandoning and discontinuing a portion of Bluestone Avenue,
iN. E.. to provide for said relocation, pursuant to.the provisions of Section 15.1-
1364 of the Code of ¥irginia, of 1950 as amended; and authorizing and providing
for the City's releas~ and conveyance of all right, title and interest in the
ivacated portioo of Bluestone Avenue, N.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 100.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!iby Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Wessrs, Garland, Taylor, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor Webber ......
NAYS: None ..........................................................O.
(Messrs. Ltsk and Thomas absent)
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having deferred action on an Ordinance
~rovJding for the construction of a new storm drain on Albemarle Avenue, S. E**
from 3 1/2 Street, S. E., to the intersection of South Jefferson Stree~ and High-
laud Avenue, S. #.. upon certain terms and conditions, by accepting a certain bid
~made to the city. pending a report from the City Attorney with regard to certain
~arrangements which were to be worked out with the Norfolk and Western Railway
i!Company pertaining thereto, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection', the City Attorney submitted the following report
!i#ith regard to the arrangements which were worked out with the Norfolk and Nestern
Railway Company relative thereto:
'December 6, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Rembers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
You have before you on the Council agenda the consideration
of bids for the construction of a new 54-inch storm drain on
Albemarle Avenue. S. £.. across which street exists a portion
of Norfolk ~ Western Railway trackage. At my suggestion, you
have delayed formal award of a construction contract pending
certain arrangements to be worked out with Norfolk ~ Western
Railway Company. I now recommend that the Council proceed to
consider the aforesaid bids and to award, as it sees fit, an
appropriate contract.
Research in the matter reveals to the writer's satisfaction
that the railway company's facilities cross and occupy a
portion of Albemarle Avenue. east of Hollidny Street. by
authority Of an ordinance of the City Council adopted October
9. 1690. wherein the Roanoke ~ Southern Railway Company was
granted conditional permission by the Council to occupy the
above and other streets and alleys designated in that ordinance
or shown on a certain map accompanying the ordinance, it being
expressly provided that such consent on the part of the Council
not be considered as parting with any power or Charter privilege
Of the City of Roanoke.
Norfolk ~ Western Railway Company, successor-in-interest to the
railway company named in the 1690.ordinance. is being and will
he kept fully advised of the City's construction'of the new
storm drain in Albemarle Avenue under the tracks of said company,
all of which will be done in accordance with approved standards
and requirements for such construction. Provision is made that
the City's contractor will carry full liability insurance, in-
cluding railroad protective liability insurance, and the work
under said railway crossing will be required to be performed
under such general conditions as are satisfactory to and
approved by its Chief Engineer, and all of the same shall be
performed at the sole fish and expense of the City and its
contractor, which expense shall include the cost of uny watch-
men or inspection services by the railway company. The railway
company is further being advised that the City will be responsible
for any claim or loss mhich the railway may suffer or sustain
caused mholly or in part by reason of any negligent act or
omission of the City in connection with the location, construction,
maintenance, use or performance of the aforesaid storm drain.
363
'364
Accordinly, the Council is advised that its action on the construc-
tion bids now before the Council is in order.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney ami
offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the proposal of Wiley N.
Jackson Company for the construction of a new storm drain on Albemarle Avenue,
(~19981) AN ORDINANCE providing for the construction of a new storm
drain on Albemarle Avenue. S, E., from 3 1/2 Street, S. E.. to the intersection
of South Jefferson Street and Highland Avenue, S. W., upon certain terms and con-
ditions, by accepting u certain bid made to the City; rejecting certain other
bids; and providing for an emergency,
(For full text Of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 36, page 110.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Nr~ Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
ALES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber ........ 5.:
None ...........................................................0
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
Mr. Wheeler then offered tho following emergency Ordinance authorizing
certain transfers to provide additional funds in connection with the Albemarle
Avenue Storm Drain Project:
(~199R2) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #89, "Transfers
to Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and provid-
ing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 111.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion wasseconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the iollowing vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .... 5.
NAYS: None 0
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
INDUSTRIES: Council having previously reappointed Messrs. John Jo Rutler
and Jack C. Smith as Directors of the Industrial Development Authority of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, for terms of four years, each. ending October 20, 1975,
Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(~19983) A RESOLLrrlON appointing two (2) direct ~$ of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia to fill four-year terms
of office on its board of directors.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Rook No. 36, page 112.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Webber ......
NAYS: None 0
(Messrs. Lisk and Thomas absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Roy L, Webber requesting an Executive
!iSession at the end of the Council meeting to discuss a personnel matter and a real
estate question, was before Council,
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mayor Webber for an
IExecutlve Session. The motion uss Seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meetin9
:!adjourned,
ATTE ST:
APPROVED
Mayor
365
'366
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, December 13, 1971,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, December 13, 1971, at 2 p,m., the regu~
meeting hour, mlth Mayor Boy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
~Bamptoo M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Rabbet---7.
ABSENT: None .........................................................O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E.
Honer, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney: and Mr. J.
Robert Thomas, City Auditor.
INVOCATI(~4: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Ned W.
Crumpacker, Pastor, Ninth Street Church of the Drethren,
REARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having continued a publi~ hearing on the request of
Messrs, James C. Charlton and Herbert Davis. that property located in the 1700
block of Hanover Avenue, N. M,, described as Lots S - B, inclusive, Block 59,
Melrose Land Company. Official Tax Nos. 2220805 - 2220807. be rezoned from RD.
Duplex Residential District, to RB-2. General Residential District, pending a
report from the City Attorney as tothe legality of the advertisement of Notice of
Public Hearing which was published in The World-News and provided for a RB-2
rezoning classification instead of the amended request for a BG-I classification
and further pending a report from the City Attorney as to the number of votes
required for adoption of the amended Ordinance on its first reading, the City
Attorney submitted the following report advising that Council, baying once con-
ducted a public hearing after notice on a proposal to reclassify specified pro-
perty from RD to RG-2 classification, may decide upon and order reclassification
to'a RB-1 classification, should that be deemed by Council to be its proper
classification and that it will take an affirmative vote of five sevenths of the
members of Council for adoption of this Ordinance since twenty per cent of the
affected property owners are opposed to the rezoning:
"December 13. 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members of
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council. considering nnddeciding against a proposed
reclassification of certain property in the 1700 block of
Hanover Avenue, N. Wo. from its present RD. Duplex Residential
District calssification to a RG-2, General Residential District
classification, has asked whether it may, as a part of the same
proceeding but without requirement of additional publication
of notice of public hearing, decide upon and order reclassifi-
cation Of subject property to RG-1, General Residential District.
!1
367
Subject to the oplnibn hereinafter expressed with.reference to
registered opposition to nny such reclassification, I nm of the
opinion end, accordingly, advise the Council that the Council
may make any appropriate change or correction In a proposed
amendment of the zoning regulations or of the district classi-
fications without an additional oubllc hearing after notice;
which is to say that the Council, having once conducted a public
hearing after notice on a proposal to reclassify specified
property from RD to RG-2 classification, may decide upon and
order reclassification to gG-I classification, should that be
deemed by the Council to be its proper classification.
The only l~mitation on the Council in this respect is that it
may not pass on amendatory ordinance that rezones or reclassifies
more laud than that described in the original public notice,
without first giving statutory notice of the proposal to rezone
the large area of land and holding an additional public hearing.
(See § 15.1-493, 1950 Code of Virginia.)
#lth'respect to the second question directed to me with refer-
ence to the proposal for reclassification of the abovementioned
property, an examination of the City Clerk's file kept in
connection with the proposal discloses written statement of
the opposition of a number of persons within the immediate
area of subject property to any proposed reclassification.
Mith regard to opposition to a proposed amendment of the
zoning regulations, Sec. 62. Zoning, Subsection (5) of the
City Charter provides, in part, as follows:
** . . la case, however, of a protest against
such change signed by the owners of twenty per
centum OF more either Of the area of the lots
included In each proposed change, or of those
immediately adjacent in the rear thereof, or
of those directly opposite thereto, such amend-
ment shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of. five-sevenths of all the
members of the council .... '
Assuming that those persons who have registered written objec-
tion to a proposed reclassification of subject property are
the owners of the property at the locations given by them as
their addresses, reference to an official map of the area dis-
closes that the 20% rule is met by the objectors so as to require,
under the Charter, an affirmative vote by five-sevenths of the
members of the Council on any ordinance which ~ould change the
present zoning classification of subject property.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
James N. Kincanon'
Reverend Charles T. Green appeared before Council in opposition to the
irezoning request.
Mr. Charles Ho Osterhoudt, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appea-il
red before Council in support of the request of his clients and requested that
Council take action on the request for rezoning as soon as possible.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that Council has the responsibility to
;represent all the people who will be affected by the rezoning, that it would not
!!be proper to change the zoning classification since the proposed rezoning is not
!consistent with the area and moved that the request for rezoning be denied. The
ilmotion was seconded by Mr. Trout and lost by the following vote:
368
AYES: Messrs. LJah and Trout ...................................... 2.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Mayer Mebber ....5.
Mr. Garland then noted that Council concur in the amended request of the
petitioners foe a RG-I zoning classification and that the following Ordinance be
iplaced upon its first reading:
(m19984) AN ORGINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 222. Sectional 1966
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MH£REAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to hare that property located Jn the 1700 block of Hanover Avenue, N. M., described
!las Lots 5 - 8, inclusive. Block 58. Melrose Land Company, Official Tax Nos.
ii2220805 - 2220807, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, ta RG-2.
General Residential District; and
RREREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2
General Residential District; and
Mit£REAS, the sritten notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of
the City of Roanoke. 1955, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
RHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice sas held on the 22nd
day of November. 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council Of the City of Roanoke. at
shich hearing all parties in interest and citizens sere given an opportunity to be
heard, both for and against the proposed resorting; and
MREREAS. this Council. after considering the evidence herein provided,
sas of the opinion that the hereinafter described land located in the City of
Roanoke should not be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District to RG-2, General~
Residential District; and
#HEREAS, the Petitioners by Council did then request that the matter
be reconsidered by Council as a rezofling from District RD. Duplex Residential
District to RG-1, Residential District; and
WHEREAS. on motion duly made and seconded, by Councilmen voting with the
majority on the previous ordinance voted upon at the same meeting, and carried.
tho matter is now before the Council on a reconsideration of the Petition for rezon
lng to change the classification of the hereinafter described property from RD.
Duplex Residential District to RG-1, General Residential District; and
RHEREAS. this Council, after considering the evidence as provided herein
and after hegring all parties in interest and citizens both for and against the
proposed rezoning, is Of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should
be rezoned as requested.
ti
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Tltl
XV, Chapter 4,1, Section 2, ~f The Code Of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
irelating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 222 of the Sect-ional 1966 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, be mended iht'he following particular and no other, viz,:
Property located on the 1700 block of Hanover Avenue, N. M.. described
~as Lots 5 - 8, inclusive, Dlock 56, Melrose Land Company, designated on Sheet 222
~of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 2220605 -
2220807, be, and is hereby, chanRed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I,
ICeneral Residential District, and that Sheet No, 222 of Ne aforesaid map be
chanRed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler an~ adopted by the following vote::
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber .......5.
NAYS: Messrs. Lisk and Trout ..........................................
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday. December!
13, 1971, on the request of Mr. George H. Ashmell, et ux., that property located
in the 1BO0 block of Chapman Avenue, S. M., ~escribed as Lots 13 - 16, inclusive,
Block 27, Map of Riverview Land and ~anufacturing Company, Official Tax Nos.
1313609 - 1313b12, be rezoned from R0-2, General' Residential District, to C-l,
Office and Institutional District, the matter was before the body,
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be denied:
"October 7. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of October 6, 1971.
Mr. Benton O. Dillard, attorney for the petitioners, appear-
ed before the Planning Commission and noted that the petitioners
propose to convert the exJstlng structure on this site into a home
for the aged° Also, the petitioner appeared before the Planning
Commission and noted the size of the new structure and di.scussed
its future use.
The Plannin9 Director noted that the petitioned site area is
approximately .6 acres and does not meet the 2-acre minimum required
for commercial rezoniug. Be also stated that this type of use is
permitted in a RG-2 zone as a special excepti m, but however
a minimum site area of 5 acres is required. Finally, he noted that
the proposed use is not compatible with the neighboring industrial
uses.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded aod unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.,
Vice-Chairman"
369
'370
Br. Benton OD Dillard. Attorney. representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients,
It appearing that the property in question does not meet the two acre
minimum requirement for connercial zoning, and after a discussion as to how the
request could be granted nithout being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, Or.
Taylor moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney and to Mr. Benton
i0. Dillard, Attorney, representing th~ petitioners, for the purpose of finding
a uny to allon the construction of the proposed convalescent home in the 1800
'!block of Chapman Avenue, $. M., and still comply nith the Zoning Ordinance in
!iregard thereto. The motion nas seconded by. Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION-POLICE DEPARTMENT-COMMONMEALTBtS ATTORNEYi
!iReveredn Charles T. Green. President, Roanoke Chapter. N. A. A. C. P., appeared
!!before Council andread a prepared statement in connection with the arrest of a
iblack girl on the night of December 6, 1971. due to an incident nhich happened
at Patrick Henry High School, requesting that discipline of school pupils be
administered by the school administration, not the Commonwealth*s Attorneys Office
that all police personnel be removed from school property and buildings and that
the charges against the four black students and the white student who was involved
Jn the incident at Patrick Henry High School be dropped and that the matter be
settled by the school administration.
In this connection Mr. AD Byron Smith and Mr. David V. Dutch appeared
before Council and expressed the opinion that all people in the City of Roanoke
and elsewhere must have fair dignity and fair rights, that the blacks and whites
have not been honest with each other, that we must face issues in relating to
one another and that the black community is alerted to stay on guard from here on
out.
In a discussion of the matter, Dr. Taylor expressed the opinion that the
iimembers of Council and the members of the community should commit themselves to the
iltask of correcting the past in Roanoke and adopt positive methods to preserve the
iibest in our community.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that thepublic needs to know if Council
llsupports or condones this type of treatment, that Council is accountable to the
ilpeople for leadership and that it is time to let the people in this community
Jiknow that this valley has a great potential.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that this has been a very unfortunate
affair for everyone concerned and that he hopes the people who had the warrants
taken out mill reconsider, that Council has limited authority as far as the
Commonwealth*s Attorney is concerned, honever, Council does have the prerogative
~Ito question the procedure in which the arrests were made, that Council is entitled
ito an investigation as to how this situation came about and moved that the matter
!1
~e referred to the City Manager for investigation and report to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted,
In a further discussion of ~e matter. Messrs. Thomas. Trout and Wheeler
concern over the incident and that they are in complete accord mith the
imotion made by Mr. Garland.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SCHOOLS-PARKS AND PLAYCROL~DS: Copy of'a Resolution adopted by the Board!
ilof Supervisors of Roanoke County on Tuesday, November 30. 1971, respectfully
isuggestlng to the Roanoke City School Board and to the 9overnln9 bodies of the
Roanoke Valley local Jurisdiction that the Fifth Planning District Commission be
requested to make a Preliminary investigation of the feasibility of constructing
a regional planetarium as p separate project or in conjunction uith a branch of the
Virginia Science Museum, uss before Council.
Mr, Thomas moved that the Resolution be referred to the Roanoke City
School Board for their consideration, The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and
unanimously adopted,
ZONING: A petition from Mr, Douglas W, Kielkopf, Attorney, representin9
Suburban Realty Corporation, requesting that property located on the corner of
Beech Street and Barberry Avenue, N. M,, described as. Lots 5 - 9 inclusive,
Section 3, Map of Westwood Annex, Official Tax Nos, 2630512 - 2630515, inclusive,
be rezoned from RS-3. Single - Family Residential District. to C-2, General
Commercial District. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Plannin9 Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE HIGHWAYS-INDUSTRIES: The City Manager
s~bmitted a written report advising that the City of Roanoke has a purchase option
agreement between Mr, and Mrs. Richard M, Nott and Mr. and Mrs. Rarren G. Reece,
;for a strip of land approximately ,i0,905 square feet in area and a temporary
easement over 540 square feet plus a temporary easement over an additional 750
square feet in connection with the Industrial Access Rond from 10th Street north
into the Macke Vending Company and other properties, in the amount of $3.310.00,
and recommending the adoption of the necessary instrument to exercise this option
and acquisition of property.
Mr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
371
'372
(m19985) AN ORDINANCE exercising the rightto purchase in fee simple a
parcel of land containing approximately 0.939 acre situate in the City of Roanoke,
being the southwesterly portion of Official Tax No, 2130418, and to purchase cer-
tain other interests in other portions of said property, and needed for the City's
Industrial Access Road Project 9999-120=103, C-502, upon certain terms and provi-
sions; providing for notice of the City*s exercise of a written purchase option
for said land; providing for payment of the purchase price thereof upon delivery
of a deed to the City and for recordation of said deed; and providing for an emer-
gency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .........................
NAYS: None .......... O.
5ALE OF pROPERTy-ZONING-STATE B1CHMAYS~INDUSTRIES: The City Manager
Submitted a written report advi$in~ that the City of Roanoke has been unable to
negotiate with Mr. Clarence C. Craig for acquisition of 6,650 square feet of pro-
perty needed for the Industrial Access Road from lOth Street to the Racke Vending
Company. for the sum of $1,370.00. that all reasonable negotiations have been
ipursued and it b felt that Mr. Craig's verbal counteroffer exceeds other purchases
in the area and recommending the adoption of an Ordinance authorizing purchase or
condemnation proceedings.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a further reportadvisin9
tho tho option bas now been signed, that action for condemnation proceedings is not
!:
necessary and recommending that Council adopt an Ordinance to exercise said option.
Mr. Thomas moved that Couecil concur in the recommendation of the City
Ranager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#19986) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase a parcel of land
containing approximately 0.153 acre situate in the CitI of Roanoke/ being the
isouthwesterly portion of Official Tax No. 2130422, and needed for the City's
Industrial Access Road Project 9999-12B-I03, C-501. C-502, upon certain terms and
!iprovisions; providing for notice of the Clty*s exercise of a mritten purchase option
ilfor said land; providing for payment purchase price
of
tho
thereof
upon
delivery
iof a deed to the City and for recordation of said deed; and providing for an
;!emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, pagellB.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Link, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Hayer
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-LEGISLATION: The City Manager submitted the
~followin9 report in connection with housing relocation and replacement costs:
"Roanoke, Virginia
Oecember 13. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥1rgJnia
Gentlemen:
A matter of growing concern to us here, and of which the
City Council should be aware, is that as the Federal law now
stands, effective July 1, 1972. the relocation costs, de, moving
cost, adjustment cost to tenants and replacement housing payments
to owners, would be shared one third by the City and two thirds
by the Federal government. Previously, all such costs have been
under a direct grant mith IOO percent payment by the Federal
government. Perhaps the best summary of the situation and the
attention that has been given to it. primarily the seeking of
amendments to the Federal law through the Congress, is a bulletin
of November 11, 1971, from the National Association of Housing
and Redevelopment officials, a copy of which I attach.
Our concern here is as to the impact that this can have on
future federal participation renewal and redevelopment programs
both as to the persons directly involved and as to the capability
Of the local government and its resources to financially be able
to participate in such programs. An upcomin9 program, which will
shortly, be coming before City Council. is the Gajnsboro Neighbor-
hood Development Program in which this act of the Federal govern-
ment would have a conspicious bearin9.
As an example of the situation, a rough estimate by the City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority of the activity in
the Kimball project would mean. that under tho new circumstances,
the City would have paid some $200,000. This significance is even
stronger when it is noted that this figure is based on the $5,000
replacement housing grant which has since been increased to
$15,000.
The much discussed revenue sharing program may make funds
available to the City from which it could pay the required amount
of its participation in this situation; however, this potential
would carry the obvious implication that revenue sharing mould
begin to have direct strings attached to it as to the funds
received by the localities and such funds would have new commit-
ments leaving perhaps little to the benefit of the general govern-
ment.
This situation merits serious consideration and the making use
of every opportunity to encourage that such relocation costs be
retained as a IOO percent payment by the Federal government.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
Ipreparation of the proper measure protesting the proposed federal law with regard
to relocation and replacement costs and that said measure be forwarded to the pro-
per authorities in Washington, D. C. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nheeler and
ilunanimously adopted.
373
~,74
AMBULANCES-ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL HEALTH ~ERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL.
INCORPORATED: Council having referred to the City Manager ~nd the Emergency Hedi-
cai Services Advisory Committee of the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services
Planning Council, Incorporated for study, report ~nd recommendatJmt the request
of the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Cram, Incorporated. for authorization by
Council of the employment by the City of Roanoke of personnel to provide that there!
be an Individual on duty at the life saving crew headquarters on a continuous
'24-hour basis, the City Manager submitted the folloming report advising that he
~!would have to question that the recommendation of the Roanoke Life Saving First
;Aid Crew. Incorporated, should he accepted by the city and he mould not be in a
ilposJtion to recommend it to Council at this time:
"Roanoke. Virginia
December 13. 1971
Ilonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council on November 15. 1971. received n request from
the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Cram, Inc.. for the authoriza-
tion by the City of the employment by the City of personnel to pro-
vide that there be an individual on duty at this crew headquarters
on a continuous 24-hour basis. This request is prompted by the
consolidation by the City of communications into a central communi-
cations center which will have the result of dispatching first aid
and life saving crews from this center and thereby discontinuing
the need of the assignment of dispatchers at this crew headquarters.
In providing an arrangement of this type with full time duty
it is generally estimated that the salary equivalent to five person-
nel are needed. Nithout a precise determination of job qualifications
it would generally be construed at this point that the individual
would fit into the watchman's classification insofar as salary.
At the current Step 2 rate of $352 per month, this would be $1.760
for five positions per month; $21.120 per year; $IO,SbO for the re-
maining six months of the current fiscal year. This does not include
additional costs Of retirement, social security and other benefits.
The City Council referred this to the Emergency Medical Services
Committee of the Health Planning Council and to me for report.
It is presumed that the Emergency Medical Services Committee
will be reporting back to the City Council at an early date.
I recognize, with what I hope is some depth of background of
understanding, the nature of the operation of the Roanoke Life
Saving and First Aid Crew and the vital service that it renders
to the City and the surrounding community. It is also recognized
that this crew has u very consideruble investment in equipment
and building facilities as well as an investment in the high
degree of skilled training to its membership, all of which serves
to result in a highly refined and precisely organized and operated
agency. For these reasons the crew must obviously give considera-
tion to the best means of meeting a situation such as is being
brought about by the consolidating of the dispatching operations
into a central headquarters and the resulting removal of personnel
who have been on hand at the headquarters building and therefore
available for v~rious purposes.
It would seem to me that the City 9overnment has two principle
questions that must be faced in this particular matter. The first
is that the assignment of personnel, as proposed by the crcm. would
constitute a change in policy and an acceptance of responsibility
on the part of the City which it has not heretofore assumed. I
realize that the City assumes a certain portion of the cost of
operation of the crews. I realize also that the City in the past
has provided dispatchers at the Roanoke Life Saving Crew head-
quarters and that these dispatchers have performed the principal
functions that are now being proposed in this new arrangement,
#berber or not these past positions have been correct is beside the
point in tbe fact that they bare existed and have been provided,
The personnel that were assigned to the Roanoke tree, and emplnyed
by the City, were on the basis of the City*s recognition, some years
ago, that it should assume expense of dispatching f~ the Roanoke
crew, The new change does not revise that policy in that the City
is so continuing with the accumulation of dispatching into the
communications center and the expansion to have this dispatching
include all of the life saving crews.
~hat would be proposed now though, would be that the City. in
what I feel is a policy deviation, would be assuming matchman
service,' and perhaps custodial service along with that, over a
building or facilities and over equipment, of which it has no
ownership or control and perhaps limited Jurisdiction.
The public service value ~f ~h'e life saving crew, again, is
certainly recognized. Whether though this feature of an agency
is sufficient within itself to justify the assumptionby the City
government of certain paid services directly under the operation
and responsibility of the City is. it would seem to me. questionable.
The second point deals with the fact that there are three life
saving and first aid cre~s in the City. each with their own head-
quarters building. The ~]llJomson Road crew. though baying the
benefit of the City Fire Station facilities, does not have person-
nel as herein proposed. The Hunton Life Saving and First Aid Crew
would have to be taken into account any policy change of this type
and considered as to the provision Of similar services also.
Recognizing the other two companies, the matter of policy and cost
becomes even more significant.
In view of the above, I would have to question that the recom-
mendation of the Roanoke crew should be accepted by the City mod I
would not be able to recommend it to the Council at this time.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement pending a
report from the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. The motion was
seconded by Mr. ~heeler and unanimously adopted.
AIR PoLLuTION CONTROL: The City ~anager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of a statement of action as received from the State Air Pollution
Control Board as to a public hearing held in Richmond. Virginia, on November 12.
1971, on the requests of the various railroads for variance from the state rule
on open burning.
Rr. Thomas moved that the reportbe received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Lisk moved that the City Manager be requested to
consider updating the Air Pollution Control Ordinance of the City of Roanoke if
necessary. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-INSURANCE: Council having refe,rred to the City Manager
and the City Auditor for study, report acd recommendation a communication from Rr.
Raymond L. ~ood in connection with payroll deduction for Franchise Health and Life
Insurance for city employees through Teachers Protective Mutual Life Insurance
375
'376
fair uith all persons mbo are interested end in order to assure the best quality
and fulle'st and most adequate benefit insurance to city employees mould be to drufl
general specifications and invite, by public notice, invitations for proposals
from companies and agencies aha might be interested in providing such a program for
city employees and that it is hoped to proceed at an early date to prepare this
material.
Mr, Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout end unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke C~unty has set u public hearing,
iljointly with the County Planning Commission, on December 21. 1971, at 7:30 p.m.,
in the Community Room of the Salem Civic Center. on the petition of the City of
Roanoke to use the north clear zone at Roanoke Municipal (ffoodrum) Airport for a
temporary sanitary landfill and that he plans to have a presentation
for said hearing and to participate in the proceedings to the extent that appears
best appropriate.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUm-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that on Thursday. December 9, 1971. he conferred with the Roanoke Civic
Center Advisory Commission at considerable length on what he would term an amicable
basis.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REBOVAL-CLAIMS: 'The City Attorney submitted a written report
advising that the suit of A. Lynn Thomas, Incorporated. v. Citl of Roanoke. brough?
against the city as an outgrowth of repairs made in 1968 to the Municipal Incin-
erator, for the principal amount of $15.286.00, has, upon trial in the Hustings
Court of the City of Roanoke, been dismissed.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
requesting that Council meet with him in Executive Session on Thursday, December
lb. lgYl. at 10:00 a.m** in the Executive Session Conference Room.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in therequest of the City Attorney.
The motion mas seconded by Mr~ Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
I! study, report and recommendation the request of Mrs. Grace N. Densmore, that Lots
7, 8. 9. 10, and 17, Section 3. Map of Nashinqton Club Land Company., and a closed
alley extending between Gilbert Road and Mestside Boulevard, Official Tax Nos.
26TO30T. 2670300, 2670309, 2670310 and R670317. be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family
iResidential District. to RG-2, General Residential District. the City Planning
iCommission submitted the following report recommending that a RG-I rezonlng classi-
fication be approved in lieu of the requested RG-R rezoning calssificatJon:
'December. R,
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of December 1. 1971o
Mr. Frank Ko Sounders, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and noted that he mas representing
Mrs. Grace M, Densmore. He noted that the petitioner plans to
construct either duplexes or apartment units or both on the
proposed sites. Mr. Sounders stated that the area mould be better
utilized if it was rezoned for apartment uses; he noted that the
parcel immediately north of this parcel in question was rezoned
recently for a R6-2.
Mr. Laurence, Planning Commission member, inquired about the
plot plan and its importance particularly mhen requesting a RG-R
rezoning designation.
Mr. Sounders noted that he did not have a plot plan but could
bring one in if the need arose, tie stated that the petitioner
would accept a RG-I rezoning if he could not 9et the RG-2 rezoning.
Mr. Moynton+ Planning Commission member, noted that this area
is suited for multi-family development but expressed concern for
the quality and design of the development. In this respect he
noted that the parcel which was rezoned EG-R, immediately north
of this parcel, did not meet the criteria of a good development.
Accordingly. motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to approve this request
modifying it. however, to a EG-I rezonin9 designation in lleu of the
original EG-2 petition.
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L.M.
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
¥ice-Chairman~
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Frank K. Sounders. Attorney,
representing the petitioner, requesting that the request for rezoning be withdro#n,~
was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the petitioner
and that the request for rezoning be withdrawn. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SALE OF PROPERTY: Council having referred to the Real Estate Committee
for study, report and recommendation a communication from the Ridge Rifle Associ-
ation to purchase a tract of land owned by the City of Roanoke Mater Department
along State Route 1404, west of Carvins Cove. for the purpose of constructing a
rifle and pistol range and access road, the committee submitted the following
report recommending that the offer be declined:
377
~378
*Roanoke, Vlrginln December 6, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Rouuoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council referred to the Real Estate Committee gu
April 19, 1971, a letter from Mr, Samuel L. Johnson, President,
Ridge Rifle Association, making an offer to'purchase a tract of
land along State Route 1404, nest of Carvins Cove, as omned by
the City of Roanoke Mater Department, for the purpose of con-
structJng a rifle and pistol range and access road.
Your committee has reviewed this on several occasions and in
a meeting on November 23, 1971. concluded this report to the
City Council.
It is the opinion of the committee, and its recommendation
to the City Council. th~ this offer of purchase be declined.
The committee feels there to be several reasons involved in this
recommendation.
First is that this mould constitute the sale of a portion
of property owned by the City in Its total Cnrvifls Cove Mater-
shed lands. Sale of any of this property is not felt to be an
appropriate action for the City.
The second reasoning applies to either the sale or the lease
of such of this property for the purpose requested. This
particular land lies within the area which the City is hopeful
for development us a regional landfill area, the lands Of the
watershed should be maintained suitable as a wildlife refuge
and any situations should be avoided that would constitute
potential fire hazards.
It is uccordingly recommended that Mr. Johnson*s offer be
acknowledged with the assurance of the interest of the City in
the association and its program but with the conclusion that it
would not be appropriate for the City to make available these
particular lands for the purpose proposed.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ David K. Lisk.
David K. Lisk, Chairman
S/ J. Robert Thomas
J. Robert Thomas
S/ James N. Kincunon
James N. Kincanon
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Rirst'
Rayor Webber advised that Nr. Wyatt K. Metts, a member of the Ridge
Rifle Association, telephoned him and requested that action on the report of
the Real Estate Committee be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, January 3, 1972.
Rt. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Matts that
action on the report of the Real Estate Committee be deferred until the regular
meeting of Council on Monday, January 3, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY: The Real Estate Committee submitted n written report
in connection with proposals which have been made to the City of Roanoke for the
ipurchase from the city of a small triangle of property lying in the point of the
intersection of Sherwood Avenue and Brandon Avenue. S. ~., advising that for the
!i~formation of the members of Council who might have been or may be approached.
it has been the continuous position of the Real Estate Committee that this small
parcel of land should not be disposed of by the city but should be retained as
essential to the total open space area in this heavily traveled intersectlon.
i Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the Real Estate
%Committee. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council havin9 referred to the
i:Landfill Committee for study, report and recommendation a report of the City
Heuley. Executive Director of the City of Roauoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, with regard to the possible acquisitiou by the Authority of the city's
incinerator property situated within the Kimball Redevelopmeut Project. the
Landfill Committee submitted the following report:
"Roanoke. Virginia
December 13, 1971
Ronorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council referred to the undersigned committee the
letter of September 16. 1971. from the Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority regarding the acquisition by the Authority
of the City*s incinerator in the Kimball project area. ~hile
the committee is not enthusiastic about the details of either of
the alternative proposals of the Authority, it is the committee's
judgment that the better of the two would be the conveyance of
the incinerator and property to the Authority in the form of a
donation with the resulting generation of $120,000 in Federal
9rants to application to other projects.
The ShO,O00 appraisal which the Authority advises is felt
to be below value but it additionally is understood from the
Authority that payment in cash presents a procedural and funding
complication and delay.
Attention is noted that the present 1971-72 budget was pre-
pared anticipating $90,000 in cash revenue from this sale in the
current fiscal year. Grants in lieu of cash mill produce this
amouut of revenue deficiency in the year's fiscal operation of the
City.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ James O. Trout
James O. Trout
S! David K. Llsk
David K. Lisk
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be discussed in Executive Session. The
imotion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
379
:380
TAXES: The Revenue Study Commission of the City of Roanoke submitted
the following Interim Report No. 3, advising that they hare concluded that in
order to maintain equity in the distribution of the business tax burden and to
assure that all businesses be licensed where lawfully possible, certain changes
should be made in the License Tax Cede:
"INTERIM REPORT NO. 3
OF THE
REVENb~ STUDY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
Submitted December 13. 1971
To the Council of the City of Roanoke:
In our study of the present City License Tax Code, me have
concluded that in order to maintain equity in the distribution of
ed where lawfully possible, the following changes in the Code
should be made.
This license tax was recommended to the Council by the
Roanoke Tax Study Commission in its report dated October 22,
1964. At that time no such tax levied by Alexandria, Arling-
ton County, Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church,
Lynchburg. Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth. Richmond,
Yirginiu Beach and Roanoke County.
be $55.00 plus .55 on each $100.00 of gross receipts derived
from all such property as defined in the attached ordinance.
This item has been the subject of p~blic hearings in
An ordinance providing for this tax is submitted for
This is a relatively new type of business which is
We recommend that the tax on this type of business shall
be $110.00 per seek or $550.00 per year in lieu of the weekly
An ordinance providing for this tax is Submitted here-
of $55.00 plus..55 per $100.00 of gross commissions, In
order to maintain equity within this calss of agents, the
commission recommends a tax rate of $20.00 plus $1o10 per
$100.00 gross commissions in excess of the first $4,000.00.
Commission in 1964.
An ordinance providing for this change is submitted for
4. Aircraft FliGht Trainina Schools:
The Commission recommends a base license tax of $30,00
plus .75 on each $100.00 of gross receipts derived from
operation of a flight school.
An' ordinance providing for this tax is submitted for your
5. Communication Eoulomenq:
This type of service which was formerly handled only
by public service corporations and now is available throogh
other types of busineses and is not currently covered by
the license tax code.
The commission recommends a tax of $55.00 plus .55
per $100,00 of gross receipts.
An ordinance providing for this tax is submitted for
your consideration,
6, Aircraft Haintenance:
The commission recommends that Section 99, R~DaiF busi-
nesses, miscellaneous, be amended to Include 'aircraft'.
The tax under this section is $55,00 plus ,55 for each $100.00
of gross receipts.
An ordinance providing for this tax is submitted for
your consideration,
For lack of time, we did not hold a public hearing in
connection with recommendations, The commission is presently
engaged in a study of the complete license tax structure and
will submitits report thereon at a later date, however, this
report deals with items which have long been pending before
the Council or which are new to the business filed in the
City. It is our recommendation that they should ~e e[£ective
on January 1. 1972.
The commission unanimously approved the recommendations
and directed the chairman to submit this report to the Council
of the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ James E. Carr
James E. Carr, Chairman
REVENUE STCDy COMMISSION~
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the question of increasing
certain license taxes be held at 2 p.m., Tuesday, December 20. 1971. at 2 p.m.
382
C0NSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19954, rezoning property described aa Lots lB,
19 and 20, Section 2, Map of Meat Park, and Lot~ I and 2, Block 20, Map of Mashing-
ton Heights, frsn C-2, 6~neral Commercial District, to C-I, Office and Institutiona
District, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
laid over, mas again before the body.
In this connection, Council at its last regular meeting on Monday,
i!December 6, 1971, having requested City Attorney a legal opinion
that
the
i!as to the number of votes required for adoption of said Ordinance on its second
l!reading, the City Attorney submitted the follomiag report advising that it will
ilreqnire a favorable vote of five sevenths of the members of Council:
"December 13, 1971
~he Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the meeting of the City Council held on December 6, 1971.
Ordinance No. 19954 came before the Council on second reading,
and when put to vote. obtained the affirmative vote of four
members Of the Council and the negative vote of one Council
member, two of the seven Council members not being present at
the meeting. The ordinance acted upon related to the reclassi-
fication of Lots 1H, 19 and 20, Section 2, Map of Mest Park.
and Lots I and 2. Block 20, Map of Mashington Heights, from a
C-2, General Commercial District classification to a C-I, Office
and Institutional District classification. I understand that
X have been requested to express opinion as to the effective-
ness of that ordinance as acted upon at the December 6th meeting.
A review of the City Clerk's file in the matter reveals that.
following a public hearing before the Council held on September
20. 1971. an identical ordinance, dealing with the same properties
and subject 'matter, was brought up on its second reading at the
September 2?th Council meeting, receiving at the time four
affirmative votes and three negative votes. Property owners oppos-
ed to the proposed zoning reclassification and representing
approximately one-third of the owners of the lots directly opposite
to those proposed to be rezoned, had filed Mritten opposition to
the proposed change with the Council. At the request of the pre-
siding officer directed to the undersigned for an opinion as to the
effective nature of that ordinance, (Ordinance No. 19855), the
undersigned advised the Council under date of October 4, 1971,
that under Charter provisions and in vies of the stated opposition
of such other property owners Ordinance No. 19855 would have
required a favorable vote Of five-sevenths of all the members of
City Council in order to be considered to have been effectively
passed at its second reading on September 27th.
The same proposal having been re-referred to the City Planning
Commission, the Council conducted a second public hearing, after
notice, on the same proposal at its meeting held November 22nd, at
which meeting Ordinance No. 19954, for all intents and purposes
identical to Ordinance No. 19855, sas passed on its first reading
by six affirmative votes, one member of the Council being absent
at the time. No written opposition of adjacent property owners
other than that filed with the Council during the earlier proceed-
ings is noted in the City Clerk's file and I am unadvised as to
whether or not oral opposition was expressed at that or the follow-
ing Council meetings. No action on the matter having been taken at
the November 29th Council meeting, Ordinance No. 19954 was brought
up on its second reading at the December 6th meeting of the Council
and Mas acted upon as hereinabove stated.
Sec, 67, Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of the City Code. relating to
Zoning, and that sectfon relating, specifically, to amendments
of the zoning regulations, provides, in part. as follows:
** . . Having once considered a petition.
city council will not reconsider substantially
the same petition for one year**
Subsection (5) of Sec. 62, of the City Charter provides, in
part, as follows:
', . . In case, however, of a protest against
such change signed by the owners of twenty per
centum or more either of the area of the lots
included in each proposed change, or of those
immediately adjacent in the rear thereof, or
of those directly opposite thereto, such amend-
ment shall not become effective except by the
favorable vote of five-sevenths of all the
members of the council. , . .'
The matter contained in Ordinance No. 19954 appears to have been
considered and dealt with by the Council as a new matter, rather
than in reconsideration of the matter contained Jn Ordinance No..
19955, albeit the substance Of each ordinance is substantially
identical. To that extent, an inconsistency with the quoted provis-
ion from Sec. 67 Of the Zoning Ordinance would seem to exist.
From all of the above, I arrive at the considered opinion that
the written opposition filed with the Council relative to the
zoning reclassification proposed by Ordinance No. 19855 which came
before the Council in September. 1971. carried over and bad
the effect of written opposition to the amendment proposed in
Ordinance No. 19954. handled by the Council in November. and Dec-
ember. 1971, two months later: and that, therefore, in order for
the amendment contained in Ordinance No. 19954 to become effective
as an ordinance, a favorable vote of five-sevenths of the members
of City Council was required at the time of its second reading
before the Council.
The opinion stated herein is offered to assist the Chair in ruling
upon the result of the vote taken on Ordinance No. 19954 and not
as being conclusive of the question of the passage of the ordinance,
Respectfully.
S/ J. N. Eincanon
James N. Kincanon"
Council having previously taken a roll call vote of 4-1 on the second
:reading of the Ordinance with two members of Council being absent, Mr. Nheeler
iimoved for a reconsideration of the Ordinance on its second reading. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted, Mr. Trout voting no.
Mr. Nheeler then offered the following Ordinance for its second reading
iiand final adoption:
(~19954) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
lithe Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 276. Sectional
ii1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 113.)
Mr. #heeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, #heeler and Rayor Nebber--6
NAYS: Mr. Trout ....................................................... 1
383
384
ZONING: Ordinance No, 19968, rezonin9 the easterly bali of Lot 15 and
all of Lot 16, Rap of Park Square, Official Tax No. 1561136, from RS-3, Single-
Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex Resident'iai Oistric't, having preiously
been before Council for Its first reading, read and laid over, mas again before
ithe body, Hr. Wheeler offering the following for its second reading and final
i adoption:
(~19968) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of Ihe
!iCode of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 156, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning,
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 36, page 114.)
Mr. Rheeler moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Robber ..............................
NAYS: None ...............
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19969, rezoning 8.309 acres of land, described
as Official Tax Nos. 4350602 and 4350604, from LM, Light Manufacturing District.
and RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District, having
previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was
again before the body, Mr. Trout offering the following for its second reading
and final adoption:
(#19959) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 195b, as amended, and Sheet No. 435, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 56, page 115.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Rebber--6.
NAYS: None ........................................................ 0
(Mr. Thomas not voting)
SALE OF PROPERTY-STATE HIGHWAYS: Ordinance No, 19979, repealing
Ordinance No. 19505, adopted February 1, 1971. authorizing the sale and conveyance
to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a triangular shaped parcel of land containing
500 square feet, more or less, situate at the southwest corner of Elm Avenue, S,
and Fourth Street, S. E., being the southerly residue of,Official Tax No. 4020319,"
having previously been. before Council for its first reading, read and laid over,
was again before the body, Mr. Mheeler offering the following for its second
reading and final adoption:
(~lgg?g) AN ORDINANCE repealing Ordinance No. 19505, adopted February
1971, authorizing the sale and conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a
II
triangular shaped parcel of land containing SOO square feet, ogre or less, situate
at the southwest corner of Elm Avenue. S, E** and Fourth Street, S. E., being the
southerly residue of Official No. 4020319.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 36. page 116,)
NFo Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uss seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folldwing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................ T.
NAYS: None .......... O.
BUDGET-WELFARE DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure appropriating funds to provide for the relocation
of the Commodity Food Distribution Center to a new location on Salem Avenue. S. M..
Mr. LJsk offered the following emeroency Ordinance:
(nlgg87) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u40, "Food Distri-
bution," and Section n64, *Maintenance of City Property,' of the 1971-72 Appropri-
ation Ordinance, and providin9 for an emeroency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 119.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by gr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............. O,
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
~ MUSEUMS: Mayor Webber advised that he is appointing Mr.
:Jack Goodykoontz~ Chairman, Dr. Robert Haynes. Mr. Robert Fishburu. Mr. Lothar
Mermelstein. Mr. Don C. Kunze. Mr. Willis M. Anderson and Mr. James Ford as members
iof a sub-committee to be known as the Museum Advisory Committee for the Roanoke
lares in accordance with a communication from Mr. Roscoe Hughes. Chairman. The
ilScience Museum of Virginia.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Garland moved that Mayor Mebber be requested
to appoint two members of Council to serve as additional members of the Roanoke
i~Civic Center Advisory Commission to maintain proper liaison between Council and
the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adop{ed, Mr. Wheeler
ilvoting no.
Mayor Webber appointed Mr. Robert Ag Garland and Mr. David K. Lisk as
additional members of the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission.
COMMITTEES-COMMUNITY YOUTH RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM: Dr. Taylor presented
the following communication recommending the establishment of a Community Youth
Responsibility Program mhich will operate under the guidance of a Community Youth
Responsibility Committee or Board of Directors composed of community residents,
and suggesting that the Community Youth Responsibility Program serve the entire
City of Roanohe and that the Committee consist of a minimum of twelve members:
385
386
"December 13, 1971
The Honorable Roy Lo Webber
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
One of the questions frequently asked is whether our City
Government has the Imagination to plan for the needs of all our
Citizens? In the 20th Century the entire concept of cities and
the responsibilities of their governments have changed. One of
additional responsibilities we face in Roanoke is the matter of
Youth Services. I believe the City of Roanoke can lead the
Nation by instituting a program that will involve new approaches
to juvenile problems.
1. therefore, recommend the establishment of a Community
Youth Resnonstbilitv Proaram that will operate under the guidance
of a Community Youth Responsibility Committee or Board of Directors
composed of Community residents. This Committee or Board should
be appointed by the Mayor ~ City Council and mould function under
the authority assigned to it by the City Council,
I further suggest that the Community Responsibility Program
serve the entire City and that the Committee mill consist of a
minimum of twelve (12) members: 6 adults (3 Black and 3 White) and
6 Youths or teenagers (3 Black and 3 White).
Permit me to mention briefly three (3) aspects of work that
may be considered in this Community Responsibility Program:
1. Young people could be referred to the C. Y. R. P. by our
Juvenile Court Judge mbo have been charged with committing
a misdemeanor but the crime is not sufficient to bechan-
nelled through the City Juvenile Court System. A five (5)
man subcommittee composed of three (3) adults and two (2)
teenagers could meet with the Youth and if be is found
responsible for a harmful act, his *punishment' could be
the assignment to a community project--such as, clearing
a vacant lot or working on a beautification program. If
a youth is guilty of breaking a windom in a building, he
may be asked to wash windows in that building. In this
way the community is giving an assisting hand to the
Court with the Court having the final authority in each
case.
2. In-depth counseling should be a strong aspect of the C, Y.
R.P. Many young people who are referred to the C. Y. R.
P. will not have committed a crime, but maybe headed for
problems unless help is received.
3. The third component of the C. Y. R. P. is crime prevention
through a block ~olunteer oroiect. The b~ock volunteers
will murk to halt burglaries through education of home
owners and surveillance of their neighborhoods. With
burglaries averaging 124 a month in Roanoke, the City
Council should be determined to draw on all its resources
to combat this problem which makes every citizen a
potential victim. An ambitious program to declare an
all-out war on the burglary program could be initiated
to 'Stop the Stealers.* This progrum should include
everyone who may be involved with the problem, from home
owner to insurance company to legal system. Neighborhood
meetings could be held in which neighbors would meet and
talk generally with one another about how surveillance can
be maintained on a block to block basis.
Finally, this C. Y. R. P. would include all segments of the
community; the rich and the poor; the learned and the unlearned;
Black and White; old and young. These individuals may assist by
identifying needs, developing priorities and assisting to make our
dreams of an ideal community a reality. Many of us will agree that
too much heat and not enough light has been shed on many of our
problems, especially those relating to young people. Citizens
and Elected Officials have both come to realize that if they work
together as a team, all will benefit--the City and the Neighborhood.
Ii
-!
It is my personal hope that the formation of the C. Y. R. P. would
stimulate individuals to exercise their responsibility es · citizen
in working rot the improvement of our community.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor"
Mr. Mheeler moved that the communication he referred to the City #anager
end the City Attorney to confer with DF. Taylor for study and report to Council
during the month of January, 1972. The motion mas seconded by NFo Trout and
unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-CITY ERPLOyEES: Mr. Thomas moved that Council meet in Executive
Session for a reviem of the status of certain Council appointed officers and
retirement matters related thereto. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Mayor 4ebher called to the attention of Council that the
three year terms of Messrs. Sydnor 4. Brizendine0 Jr., Richard R. Snedegar, L.
Elwood Norris, Leroy Moran and John 4. Chappelear. Jr.. as members of the Board
of Zoning Appeals will expire on December 31. lgTl. and called for nominations to
fill the vacancies.
Mr. Nheeler placed in nomination the names of Sydnor 4. Brizendine, Jr..
Richard R. Snedegar. L. Elwood Norris, Leroy Moron and John 4. Chappelear, Jr.
There being no further nominations, Messrs. Sydnor 4. Brizendine, Jr..
Richard R. Snedegar. L. Elwood Norris. Leroy Moron and John R. Chappelear. Jr.,
mere reelected as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals for terms of three years
each beginning January 1, 1972. by the following vote:
FOR MESSRS. BRIZEND1NE. SNEDEGAR. NORRIS, MORAN AND CHAPPELEAR: Messrs.
Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Nheeler and Mayor 4ebber ..............
There being no further business. Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTE ST:
APPROVED
Mayor
387
~388
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING,
Thursday, December 16, 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Thursday, December lb, 1971. at 9:30 a.m** with
Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councllme~ Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk. Noel C. Taylor,
,;Rampton M. Thoman, James O. Trout, Vincent $. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber---7.
ABSENT: None 0
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. James N. Kimcanon, City Attorney; and Mr. J.
Robert Thomas. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
' Member of Roanoke City Council.
Mayor t/ebber advised that the special meeting of Council was called for
the purpose of considering the resignation of Mr. J. Robert Thomas. City Auditor.
effective January 1, 1972.
Mr. Garland moved that Council consider the resignation in Executive
Session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
After meeting in Executive Session on the matter, Council returned to
the Council Chamber and requested that the City Clerk read the resignation of Mr.
J. Robert Thomas in full; ~hereupon. the City Clerk read the following:
"December 14, 1971
The Honorable Mayor and Members of
the Council of the City of Roanoke
Gentlemen:
On September 14, 1970, 1 was elected by. the Council, under
the City Charter, as City Auditor for a term of tho years begin-
ning October 1. 1970, amd subsequently accepted and qualified
for that term of office and until a successor has been elected
and qualified.
Ilaving reached the normal retirement age in the City and
having served in my present and in other capacities in the City
government for a period of some 46 years, it is my desire to
retire. Accordingly, and so that an orderly transfer of papers
and responsibilities may be accomplished between the undersigned
and a successor. I hereby submit my resignation, effective
January 1, 1972, or as soon thereafter as a successor has been
elected and qualified.
Respect fu 1 ly,
S/ J. Robert Thomas
City Auditor"
Mr. Trout moved that Council accept the resignation of Mr. J. Robert
Thomas. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland.
Mr. Lisk questioned whether or not Council will be allowing itself enoughi!
time to select a new City Auditor if it accepts the resignation of Mr. Thomas
itu be effective January 1, 1972, that in accepting the resignation now, Council
![could not possibly consider any outside applicants during this short period of time
i! that he wants to be fair to employees of the City of Roanoke but he also wants
to
be fair to the City of Roanoke in selecting a new City Auditor and offered a sub-
stitute motion that Council take the resignation under advisement until it decides
what course of action it is going to take. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Thomas,
Mr, Hampton M, Thomas expressed the opinion that the Office of tbs City
Auditor is the nerve center of the city. that in taking the resignation under
advisement It ulll give Council enough time to revlem and evaluate the situation
'and that he does not feel Council is in a position to accept the resignation or
llappolntment of a successor without thoroughly studying the mutter.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that every member of Council was auare
,~of the fact that the City Auditor mas approaching compulsory retirement age, tm t
:whenever possible we must promote within the ranks of city government, otherwise.
the morale of city employees will he greatly deteriorated.
Mayor Mebber pointed out that he knows of no office in city government
where there is a more experienced man to take over a position than there is in
the City Auditor*s Office, that as far as he is concerned the Assistant to the
City Auditor is in a position to carry out the functions of the office in a very
efficient manner.
Dr. Taylor advised that he is of tbs same opinion as Mr. Lisk and Mr.
Thomas. that he feels Council needs more tine to study the appointment of a
successor to the City Auditor.
Mayor Webber then requested that the City Clerk call the roll on the
substitute motion made by Mr. Lisk, seconded by Mr. Thomas, that the resignation
be taken under advisement:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk. Taylor and Thomas ............................3.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber ...........4.
The substitute motion having failed for an insufficient number of votes,
Mayor Webber requested that the City Clerk call the roll on the original motion
imade by Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Garland, that the resignation of Mr. J. Robert
!ilhomas. City Auditor, be accepted:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor Webber ...........4.
NAYS: Messrs. Lisk, Taylor and Thomas ............................3.
In this connection, Mr. Thomas submitted the following statement summartz~
lng his feelings on the matter:
"TO: RM. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL December 13, 1971
I have requested an Executive Session of the Council for the
purpose of 'reviewing the status of certain Council appointed per-
sonnel and retirement matters related thereto.*
The matter of retirement pertainin9 to any department head is
always the topic of much speculation, conjecture and interest
especially in City 9overnment. lhis is especially true as it per-
tains to the office of the City Auditor. Such was the case at the
time of Mr. Harry Yates* retirement and such is the case at the time
of Mr. J. Robert Thomas' retirement regardless of the actual effec-
tive date of the retirement.
389
390
Each of the members of the Council have been *unofficially*
amare that Hr. Thomas was approaching retirement for quite some time,
· Personally I have malted with some disappointment to be *officially*
told the exact date nn employee for mhich I had direct responsibility
us a Councilman mas retiring. To date such information has not
been forthcoming. Usually when such complaints are made, we get the
answer: 'Well - nobody embed for the informationl* I do not tbinh
that is sufficient in this case; nor do I feel it is incumbent upon
me as a member of this Council to have to ask for such information
especially in this instance. I resent the fact that I was put in
a position of having to place the item on the agenda; homever, I
felt compnlled to do so Jn order to assure that me have an efficient
and effective transition ut mhatever time the Council may decide the
retirement to be effective.
I expected this mould be one of the items covered at Salary
reviem in the budget and ashed for Council to review salaries as
a Committee of the whole rather than by the usual Salary Committee.
I was disappointed that it mas not a part of the Retirement Board*s
recent audit report. Earlier I bad proposed it as a part of an
administrative review to no avail, all of which leads to my main
point. The issue is not Hr. Thomas* retirement but how this Council
will approach it responsibly for selecting a successor.
If Mr. Thomas is to retire on or about mid-December then by not
havin9 adequate notification of the fact this Council has been
deprived on the benefit of his experience and talent in having him
thoroughly review his department with Council prior to his departure.
which if effectively done would cover a period of at least 6 months.
His replacement is not like that of a normal department head where
the City Manager can supervise in the interim due to the complexity
and responsibility of the office. There are many matters to be
considered while we have the benefit of Mr. Thomas' advice;
(1) Do we have a clear job description of this office and
the man we seek? Should he be professionally trained such
as a C. P. A.?
(2) Do we want to review the structure of our operation and
consider a Department of Finance supervised by a Controller
similar to what this Council approved in the Consolidation
Charter and has been installed in several ¥irginia cities
since the odvent of computerization?
(3) Do we need a full independent audit - especially in light
of the Civic Center operati'ons - and, if so, how long will it
take and what will it cost?
Anticipatin9 that these questions and others mould have to be
answered and anticipating that Council would be advised of its duty
and responsibility in a timely fashion. I secured copies of Ports-
mouth's Finance Department Ordinance on June 10, 19?l and Lynch-
burg's on June 21. 1971. llopefully the Council will review these
matters in due course, and I will present my thoughts as to proposed
Department structure and the qualifications of n successor at that
time.
I wish to mahe it clear that I do not desire to hasten Mr.
Thomas' retirement nor do I wish to prolong it, I want to make it
equally clear that 1 consider the matter of his leaving quite import-
ant to the City nnd its citizens and consequently feel that every
measure should be tahen to see that the transition is not just
'change for the sake o~ change* but a change which will continue
to build upon the foundation which we now have. Personally I feel
Mr. Thomas has done an excellent job; however, during his service
we have grown significantly. We have added computerization, added
the complex Civic Center and enlarged our budget in excess of $40
million. Certainly this is the juncture where it mould make goad
sense to review our operations in detail before moving forward.
I strongly urge the Council to completely review this Department
in detail and the requirements thereof at the earliest possible date
in order that the members of Council will havb sufficient data to
make an informal decision as to a successor.
I am willing to abide by Council's decision as to'the effective
date of Mr. Thomas' retirement as my main concern is that the operation
of the office be conducted as efficiently and capably as possible in
the future. This can only be accomplished after thorough study,
thought and deliberation.
I personally am of the opinion that the servicms of a Certified
Public Accountant, troJned in'ma~ters of #unJcipal Finance, mill be
required for the position in the future.
Sincerely,
S/ Hampton M. Thomas
Hampton M. Thomas. Councilman'
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be made part of the records. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper
measure in recognition of the outstanding services performed by Mr. J. Robert
Thomas. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted,
Mayor Mebber p.oJ.nted out that the floor was open for nominations to fill
the unexpired term of Mr. J. Robert Thomas, City Auditor, for a term ending
September 30, 1972.
Mr. LAsh moved that the matter be taken under adivsement. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and lost by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. LAsh. Taylor and Thomas ............................
NAYS: Messrs. Garland. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor Webber ....~ ...... 4.
Mr. Trout then placed in nomination the name of A. N. Gibson.
There being no further nominations. Mr. A. N. Gibson was elected City
Auditor to fill the unexpired term Of Mr. J. Robert Thomas endin9 September 30,
1972, by the following vote:
FOR MR. GIBSON: Messrs. Garland. Lisko Taylor. Trout. Wheeler and
Mayor Mebber ................................................................
AGAINST: Mr, Thomas ..............................................1o
(In explanation of his vote, Mr. Thomas advised that he was not voting against
Mr. Gibson but the manner in which the successor was elected.)
Mr. Garland then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure requesting that legislation be considered by the 1972 Session of
the General Assembly which would allow for the appointment of an Acting City
Manager, City Clerk, City Auditor, City Attorney or Municipal 3udoe to held such
office for such lesser term and for such compensation as Council shall then
determine and that any person so elected shall have, during the term for which he
was elected all the authority and shall be charged with all the duties and res-
ponsibilities of the office for which he mas elected and if a department head
is appointed for a term of tmo years and his bbth birthday falls within this two
year period~ the appointment would automatically terminate on his 65th birthday.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Tr'out and unanimously adopted.
At this time the City Attorney briefed the members of Council on various
Charter amendmentsto be initiated for consideration by the 1972 Session of the
General Assembly.
After a discussion of the proposed amendments, Mr. Garland moved that
th~ City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure to be considered by
391
,392
the General Asseubly of Virginia mhereby the Vice-mayor of the city will be the
member of Council receiving the largest number of votes in each regular council-
manic election and provided that he mill serve for a term of two years to commence
on the first day of July next folloming the date of such election and qualified;
provided, however, that in the years 1972 and 1974 such term shall commence on
the first day of September next following said regular councilmanic election;
and provided, further, that the term of the vice-mayor so elected in the regular
councilmanic election held in 1974 shall be for one year and ten months. Yhe
motion Mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then offered the following Resolution providing for a public
i. hearing to be held on Tuesday. December 2§. 1971, at 2 p.m., to consider various
proposals that the 1972 General Assembly of Virginia amend the Roanoke Charter
of 1952. as amended:
(~19988) A RESOLUTION relating to certain proposed amendments to the
Roanoke Charter of 1952. as amended.
(For full text of Resoluton, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 120.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .................................. 7.
NAYS: Noee ...................O.
There being no further business, Rayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mayor
i
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
Monday, December'20. 1971.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, MOnday. December 20, 1971, at 2 p.m.. the
regular meeting hour. with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor.
?Hampton M. Thomas, James OD Trout, Vincent S. Nheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber---?.
~ ABSENT: None .........................................................Oo
i OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. flirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Ilaner,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. A. N, Gibson. Assistant City Auditor; Mr, James N.
iKincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. Robert P. Geacy, Assistant City Attorney.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Lewis
Sates, Pastor. Vinton Baptist Church.
MINt~£S: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
November 22, 1971, havin9 been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
inclusive, Section 4, Jackson Park Addition, Official Tax Nos. 3210819 - 3210829,
Roanoke, Virginia.
393
Mr. Culdmell Butler. attorney for the petitioner, oppeared
- before the Planning Commission requesting that this property be
rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RC-2, General
Residential District, Be noted that the property is unused, of u
marginal nature, and a portion of it lies in the tomn of Vinton.
Further, he statedthat this development mould not destroy the
neighborhood character,
The Planning Director then presented a report concerning the
validity of the existing manufacturing zone in this area and the
feasibility of rezoning both the parcels in question and the
larger areas to-a residential designation. He noted the follouing:
That the larger study area generally.bounded by
Eastern Avenue, Tuck Street, Daleton Avenge and
13th Street is zoned for Heavy and Light Manufactur-
ing,
Except for the industrial frontages along Eastern
Avenue, the remaining portion of the study area is
vacant, except for a scattering of residential uses.
That the steep slopes of this area are not condusive
to industrial development.
That tho southern portion of this area located in the
Town of Vlnton is zoned for residential.
Based on these above noted considerations the Planning Director
stoted that this general area is more condusive to a residential-
type use. He recommended that the parcel in question should be
rezoned to either a duplex designation, which would constitute
an extension of the existing zoning, or a RG-I designation.
Re noted, however, that this area ~as not ready at this time for
a RB-2 designation owing to the absence of adequate public
facilities such os parks and schools to support the additional
population generated by a RG-2 rezoning.
A resident of the area appeared before the Planning Commis-
sion and.stated that he owns several lots in the area and he would
like to see it go to residential.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, stated that he does
not like the idea of a RB-2 zoning designation ~hen you got Out
into the fringes of the Cjtyo lie noted that he would be more
satisfied with a RB-I zoning.
Mr, Lawrence, Plannin9 Commission member, inquired about the
densities on this parcel resulting from a RG-1 and RG-2 designationo
The Planning Director noted that under RG-I, it is 24 units and
for a RG-2, 44 units.
Accordingly. motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to 9rant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L.M.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.,
Vice-Chairman"
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearin9 in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(U19989) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 321. Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
RHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
l!to have property located on Daleton Avenue between Light Street and Mayland Street.!
in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
!
BEING Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, R, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13,
Section 4, of Jackson Park Addition to the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, recorded in the Clerkts. Office
of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Plat Book 1, pages 2?0 and 271; and
also shoma on the Bowling Land Company, Incorporated
Map of Lilly View, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk*s
Office in Plat Rook 1, pages 322 and 323; and
BEING Rounoke City Official #3210RIg, a3210820,
#3210821. m3210822. =3210823, =3210824, =3210825,
a3210826, #3210827. =3210828 and =3210829.
~rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RG-2, General Residential District
iand
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
~iafter described land he resumed from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RG-2,
General Residential District; and
WilEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to he published
iland posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1~ Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 20th
day of December, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be
heard, both for and against the proposed rezontng; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein provided,
:is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No, 321 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map, City
of Roanoke, be amended in the followin9 particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Daleton Avenue between Light Street and Wayland Street.
in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, described as Lots 3. 4, 5, 6, 7. R. 9. 10, 11,
!12, and 13, Section 4, Jackson Park Addition to the City of Roanoke, designated on
i!Sheet 321 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos.
';3210819, 3210820, 3210821, 3210822, 3210823.3210824, 3210825, 3210827, 3210828 and
113210829. be. and is hereby, changed from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RG-2,
~General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 321 of the aforesaid map be
iichanged in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
i!Webber ................................7.
!~ NAYS: None ................. O.
i ZONING: Council havin9 set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday,
~iDecember 20, 1971, on the request of Fralin C Waldron, Incorporated, that a 13.33
395
396
acre parcel of land located on the north side of Salem Turnpike, adjoining Falrviem
Cemetery Company, Incorporated, being a part of Official Tax Nos. 26~0105, be
rezoned from RD, Duplex. Residential District, to RG-I. General Residential District
the matter mas before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloming
report recommending that the request be 9ranted based upon the petitioner dedica-
ting a portion of the parcel of land to the city to permit the extension of 35th
Street to Salem Turnpike:
"November Iff, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 17. 1971.
Mr. M. D. Fralin, Attorney for the petitioner presented a
plot plan delineating the petitioner*s proposed housing develop-
ment. He noted the following factors relating to this petition:
that the proposed development, which is zoned for
duplex residential is in general harmony mith the
surrounding area.
that the petitioner plans to construct lb structures,
each with 6 units considting of 4 two-bedroom units,
with average rentals Of $150.OO per month. There
would be 255 parking spaces provided for this development.
Additionally. a swimming pool and lounge area would be
provided.
that the petitioner is willing to dedicate to the City a
portion Of this parcel for street purpose to permit the
extension of 35th Street to Salem Turnpike.
that the proposed housing density is low - 9.845
units per acre.
that the Engineering and Mater Department commented
favorably on the water and utility situation relative to
this development.
Mr. Lemon, Planning Commission member, expressed concern
about the importance of extending ~Sth Street to Salem Turnpike.
Mr. Elmar Morton. a local resident, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission and expressed his concern with the effect of this
development on the presently overutilized school system such as the
Mashington Heights school which is scheduled for demolition.
The Planning Director supported the petition based on the
dedication of a portion of bis parcel for the extension of the
35th Street right-of-way to Salem Turnpike. This, he noted, would
relieve the traffic situation on Melrose Avenue; a situation
aggravated by the new Caru Apartments located immediate to the north
of this rezoning parcel.
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to 9rant this petition based
on the petitioner dedicating a portion Of the parcel to the City
topermit the extension of 35th Street to Salem Turnpike.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon. Jr;
Vice-Chairman"
I
Mr. ~. Heymood Fralin, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients and presented sketches
of the proposed apartment complex,
Mr, Elmer Morton a~ Mr. R. L. Belcher, appeared before Council in
opposition to the request ~r resorting, advising that they are opposed to the
construction of the apartments because of the tratflc congestion the~ mill create.
that the apartments mill depreciate the value of their propert~ and that children
living in the apartments mill attend the already over-crowded Fairviem Elementary
School.
Approximately nine persons in the vicinity of 35th Street and Salem
Turnpike appeared before Council in opposition to the proposed resorting.
After a discussion of the request for reznning, there appearing to be a
considerable amount of opposition to said resorting, Br. Taylor moved that the
public hasting he continued until the regular meeting of Council on Ronday.
January 10. 1972, to allow ample time for persons in the area opposed to the rezon-i
lng to present a formal petition to Council. 7he motion mas seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously adopted,
In this connection, the City Hanager submitted a written report with
regard to the midening of 35th Street.
Dr. Taylor moved that action on the report of the City Manager be
deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday. January 10. 1972. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council havin9 set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday.
December 20. 1971. on the request of Fizer Funeral Home, Incorporated. that pro-
'perry described as Lot 11, Block 36, Map of Melrose Land Company, Official Tax No.
2221011. be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District, to C-l, Office and
Institutional District. the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follouing
report recommending that the request be 9ranted:
"November 1~o 1971
The Honorable Roy L, #ebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 17, 1971.
Mr. Philip H. Lemon, attorney for the petition, noted the
follomin9 in regard to this item:
(a) that the petitioner plans to construct a funeral home
and requires a rezoning to consummate this project.
(b) that the petitioner wishes to have only one lot
rezoned to a C-I designation; this lot being contiguous
to a commercial zone.
(c) that the petitioner plans to construct a brick building
with attractive design features.
(d) that the general area is zoned predomlnutely for commer-
cial uses,
(e) that the petitioner mould lihe'the Plnnning Commission
to consider this request so ns to permit him time to
complete his construction of this funeral home by the
first of the year.
Mr. Boynton. Planning Commission member, inquired about the
chapel and the number of seats it mould contain. Mr. Lemon,
attorney for the petitioner, noted that there ~ould be a chapel
constructed consisting of 2§0 seats, mith 2B parking spaces
developed on this lot for this purpose.
The Planning Director noted that the use mas in generally
keepin9 uith the overall character of the area.
Accordingly, motion vas made, duly seconded and unanimousl
approved recommending to City Council to 9rant this request.
Sincerely.
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Vice-Chairman"
Mr. Philip H. Lemon. Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Thomas
moved that the follouin9 Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(c19990) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke+ 19S6, as amended, and Sheet No. 222, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have Lot 11. Block 36, Map of Melrose Land Company, being Roanoke City
Official Tax No. 2221Bll, and being located at 1423 Relrose Avenue. N. W., rezoned
from RG-I, General Residential District. to C-1. Office and Institutional District;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RG-1, General Residential District. to C-l, Office
and Institutional District; and
MItEREAS. the ~ritten notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1. Chapter 4.1, Title X¥. of The Code of
the City of Roanoke, lgSB. as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published
and posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
~HEREAS. the hearing as provided for in said notice ~as held on the 20th
day of December, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearing all parties in interest and citizens Here given an opportunity to be
heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council. after considering the evidence as herein provided.i
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4,1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. lgSb, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet Mo, 222 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended ia the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at 1423 Melrose Avenue, N. R., described as Lot 11,
iOlock 35, Map of Melrose Land Company, designated as Sheet No. 222 of the Sectional
11955 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No, 2221811, be, and is hereby,
ichanged from RD-I, General Residential District, to C-I, Office and Institutional
iDistrict, and that Sheet No. 222 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
i The motion was seconded by Mr. Nheeler and adopted by the following vote:
ii AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
· ebber--L ................................. 7 .
NAYS: None ....................O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, December'
20, 1971, on the request Of Mr. Floyd ~. Overstreet, that Lots 5 and 36, Section 1,
Map of Avendale. be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, and that Lots 7, B, 9, 32, 33, 3.1 and 35, Section !. Map of
Avendale, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to RD-2. General
Residential District. the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
'November 18, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by ~he City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of November 17. 1971o
lng in pertaining to this petition:
(a) that the properties in question are relatively close to
~illiamson Road.
(b) that the petitioner plans to construct 3 structures, two
of them uill have 12 apartment units each; one unit will
have 5 two-bedroom apartments which would generally serve
as a buffer for the adjoining duplex area.
(c) that adequateparking would be provided for this develop-
ment.
(d) that the petitioner is requesting the commercial zone
because a portion of the existing commercial uses on
Williamson Road encroach into these lots,specifically
Lots 6 and 35.
Mr. Lawrence, Planning Commission member, inquired why the peti
tioner is requesting the RD-2 zone. Mr. Carter noted that
square feet are involved in this apartment resuming and he proposed
to construct 30 units.
399
..oo-
Wt. Boynton Inquired about the drainage situatio~ in this area,
A local resident noted thst no utility problem existed in the area
and she mos not afraid of any adverse situation resulting with
respect to this petJtiono
Accordingly, motion was mode, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request,
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon Jr. by L. H.
Creed K, Lemon. Jr.
Vice-Chairman'
Mr, Claude D, Carter, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
ibefore Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in oppositionto the request for rezoning, Mr. Thomas
imoved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first rea ding:
(~19991) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 309, Sectional 1966
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have Lets 6 and 36, of Section No. I of the Revised Wap of Avondale. located
on Avendale Avenue and Laconia Avenue, being Roanoke City Official Tax Numbers
3090920 and 3090904, respectively, rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District,
to C-2. General Commercial District; and to hare Lots 7, 8, 9. 32. 33, 34. and 35,
of Section No, I of the Revised Rap of Avondale located on Avondale Avenue and
Laconia Avenue, and being Roanoke City Official Tax Numbers 3090921, 3090922.
3090923, 3090908, 3090907, 3090906, and 3090905, respectively, rezoned from RD,
Duplex Residential District, to RG~2, General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafte~
described land, being Lots 6 and 36, of Section No. I of the Revised Rap of
Avondale be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District to C-2, General Commer-
cial District. and that Lots. ?, 8, 9. 32, 33. 34, and 35 of Section No. I of the
Revised Nap of Avendale be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District to RG-2,
General Residential District; and
~HEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1. Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of
~=tbe City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have be~n published
land posted as required and for the time provided I~ said section; and
WHEREAS. the hearing as provided for in said notice was hel~ on the 20th
i!day of December, 1971, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the CitI of Roanoke, at
!which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to
ilbe heard, both for ard against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considerin9 the evidence as herein provided,![
ilis of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezonod.
TBSREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Couocll of the City of Roanoke that
Title X¥. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. ns
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet Bo. 30g, of the Sectional lqbb Zone Map,
City of Roanoke. be amended in the follouing particular and no other, viz,:
iProperty located on Avendale Avenue and Laconia Avenue described as Lots
h mud 36 of Section No. I of the Revised Hap of Avendale, designated on Sheet
IND. 309 of the Section 1966 Zone Nap, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos.
2090920 and 3090904, be. and is from
hereby.
changed
RD,
Duplex
Residential
i!District to C-2, General Commercial District and the property located on Avendale
!iAvenoe and Laconia Avenue described as Lots ?, 8, 9, 32, 33, 34, and 35, of
Section NO. I of the Revised Map of Avendale, designated on Sheet No. 309 of the
~::Secti°nal 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke. as Official Tax Nos. 3090921. 3090922.
,30909230 30gOg08. 3090907. 3090g06. and 3090g05. be. and is hereby changed from
RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, and that
Sheet No. 309 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Behher ........................ 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCGOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
ilrequesting that $15,723.00 be appropriated to Section ~70000, "Bin Program -
iNurses Aides," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to continue the Nurses
Aide Program now funded through the Manpower Training Act, the School Board to
be reimbursed 100 per cent of actual expenditures for this project by the Virginia
~Employment Commission, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(419992) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sectional ~?BO00, "Schools
!iNin Program - Nurse Aides." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providin9
i!for an emergency.
il (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 122.)
I~ Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
ilby adopted by the following vote:
Lisk
i!Webber ............................ 7.
401
402
and Office Equipment,' of the 1971-72 budget, advising that an insurance chech
in the amount of $2.gg3.15 will be deposited as revenue with the City Treasurer
and that an appropriation for this amount is necessary in order for the School
Board to use the insurance funds to repal~ fire damage at Addlsqn High School and
to replace equipment destroyed, was before Council.
Mr, Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
~School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance~
(#lggg3) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n?400, "Schools -
iiMaintenance of Buildings," and Section ~7500. "Schools - Maimtenance of Instruction£
~al and Office Equipment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 1~2.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. LJsk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeier and Mayor
Mebber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
BUDGET-SIIERIFF: A communicatiofl from Mr. Paul J.'Puckett, Sheriff,
requestinR that $6,O00.O0 be appropriated to Fees f~r Professional and Special
Services under Section #26, "Jail," of the 1971-72 budget, to cover anticipated
expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of Sheriff Puckett
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~19994) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~26, "Jail," of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 123.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adopt ~n of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................................. 7.
NAYS: None ..................O.
TAXES: The followiog communication from Mr, A. A, Akers, Chairman,
Joint Committee of the American Association of Retired Persons and the Association
of Retired Railroad Employees. transmittin9 a suggested idea which he believes
should be considered with regard to tax relief for the elderly, was before Council:
"December 13, 1971
Honorable Roy L. Me'bber, Mayor
City of Roanoke Virginia
Ail Members of City Council
Gentlemen:
A few days ago I was talking with a prominent Roanoke Citizen
about tax relief for the elderly home owner. ~his citizen
suggested an idea that I had not considered, I believe this is
the best and most feasible Idea that has been proposed yet.
This is the idea:
That City Council adopt un Ordinance which provides tax relief
for the hone emmet who qualifies and meets the following
criteria, Upon application the ordinance will grant exemption
of real estate tax that exceeds the amount of taxes paid for the
year 1970 on homes omned and lived in by citizens not less than
65 years old whose total income from all sources during the year
immediately preceding the application is not more than.$?$O0oO0
and whose total worth, not counting thR home and one acre of
land on mhich it is located is not more than $20,000.00, and '
that the ordinance further provide the citizen who ate eligible
for the above exemption but whose total income from all sources
does not exceed $3.000o00 shall be exempt from paying real
estate taxes on the home which he owns and lives in.
Me feel an ordinance based on this idea would not cost the city
too much. We believe it is feasible. That while not giving
immediate tax relief to those with incomes above $3,000.00, but
by exempting the ones with incomes above $3,000.00 from tax
increase, we believe this would satisfy the, and mould be much
more in line with the suggestion of the General Assembly, and
will give a worth mhile exemption to the citizens that need it
most.
This citizen to whom I was talking told me further, that he
had talked math Mr. Miller about tax relief for the elderly
home owner in general and discussed this idea with him. The
citizen said that from the Attorney General's talk, he felt
absolutely certain that Jf you would have the Commissioner of
Revenue ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the idea,
he will tell you that this ordinance does not conflict either
in word or intent with Section 6, par. bB, in Article 10 of the
Constitution of Virginia, nor does it conflict with the General
Assembly*s implementation of this portion ef the Constitution.
We, the Joint Committee of the American Association of Retired
Persons and the Association of Retired Railroad Employees, urge
City Council to give this idea careful and serious consideration.
We feel that if you would pass an ordinance based on this idea.
Sincerely,
S/ A. A. Akers
Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ii!Gilbert Rood aad Westside Boulevard, designated as Official Tax Nos.
2670307,
!2670308, 2b~0309, 2670310, 2670317, 267031B, 2670319, and 2670320. be rezoned from
i?S-3. Single-Family Residential District. to RO-2, General Residential District,
Iwas before Couucil.
Mr. Lisk moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
403
:404
ZONING= A communication from Mr. J. Thouas Engleby, III, Attorney', repro
senting Mr. Fred C. Ellis, et ux., and Ivanhoe Corporation, requesting that proper-
ti described as Lots 2 through parts of 18 and 19, inclhsive, Bloch 9, Lincoln
Court, Official Tax Nos. 2o41325 - 2041341, inclusive, be rezoned from
Industrial Development District, tO C-4, Central Business District Expansion Area,
uss before Council.
Dr. Taylor.moved that the request for retorting be referred to the City
llPlonning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by My. Lish and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
RUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written
report recommending that $1,200.00 be transferred from Operating Supplies and
Materials to Printing and Office Supplies under Section ~90, "Sewage Treatment
Fund," of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance. due to
expenditures with respect to the recent bond referendum for expanding and upgrading
the Sewage Treatment Plant.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council c'oncur in the recommendation of the City
Ranager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~lgggS) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section nqo, "Semaqe Treat-
ilment Fund." of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance. and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 124.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None ................O.
BUDGET-PLANNING: The City Ranager submitted the following report recom-
i:nending that an additional position of Planning Technician. Range 19. Step l,
$610.00 per month, be established in the Planning Department, effective December
16, 1971, for the balance of the current fiscal year and that an appropriation
of $3,965.00 will be required for th{s purpose:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Nonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
hack in the very earl! part of this calendar year we employed
a Mr. Dennis Couture in the City Planning Department on a somewhat
unusual but beneficial basis. He was attending school and because
of his particular abilities and interest in education in planning
was employed tmo days u week during the school year on un extra
help buslu, Then during the summer noeths we used him oe an Intern
status full time within the department. Mr. Couture was a highly
competent landscape architect, familiar with Roanoke and played.
a major role in the updating of the general plan of the City and
in addition enabled the Planning Department to handle much needed
detail parks studies.
Mr. Couture Was initially plunning to return to Massachusetts
in September to complete hfs schooling. However. due to financial
circumstances, he dound it necessary to defer his schooling for a
year. It was mutually beneficial and he did continue and has
continued working within the Planning Department. He had been and
still is carried in the extra help account.
Me would very much like to retain him for the remainder of
the time prior to his returning to school next fall which would be
up to September. 1972. on the basis that he is a valuable a~set
in the Planning Department. Ne are anticipating n major require-
ment in the recertificntion of the City*s workable program which
must occur by April, 1972, and which will involve updating of
of the City*s planning elements and to this we feel he can give a
significant role due to his specialized skills.
Our time is beginning to run out as far as the maintenance of
this individual under the extra help account and we do not wish to
prolong the situation in his behalf personally if we cannot continue.
Additionally he 'is interested in obtaining permanent employee status
as long as he is a temporary employee he is not eligible to parti-
cipate in the City's health and life insurance programs. The
medical coverage which he carried at VPI under his educational
program has expired and he is interested in taking benefit of
the City*s medical program. Me feel the need of this additional
individual plus the positive benefits of his particular talents.
A good deal of his work has been seen by members of City Council
from time to time in various presentations.
It is recommended that an additional position of Planning
Technician, Range 19, Step 1, $610 per month be established in the
Planning Department effective December 16. 1971. for the balance of
the current fiscal year. This would require an appropriation of
$~.965 and I feel that this is a justified amendment of the budget
ordinance.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. ltirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur ~ the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $3,965.00 for
(=19996) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section 3D.3. "Planning
Commission." of the 1971=72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emer§ency~
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36. page 124.)
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
#ebber .............................
NAYS: None .............. O.
Mr.' Lish then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
405
:406
CITY EMPLOYEES-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM-PAY PLAN: The City Manager submitted
the following report in connection'with the payment of overtime to employees at
the Roanoke Civic Center:
*December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke°' ¥1rginJa
Gentlemen:
In the early stages of the operation of the Civic Center, prior
to its actual opening, situations of long hours and extended work
schedules began to develop among the Cjty*s employees at the build-
ing. This mas attributable to several things, the primary one
being the great pressure that the center*s operating personnel
were under to get the Clty*s side of the facility going especially
within the limited time that me had because of the contractor*s
situation Jn continued occupancy and work. This resulted in the
commencement of the accumulation of overtime hours among many of
the employees. Such continued in the form of additional or over-
time hours beyond customary 40-hour per week for a number of the
personnel through the months after the Center opened and on up to
fairly recently.
Several factors bearing upon this should be noted as causing
the condition. One was that in the measurement of total employees
required at the Center it was felt that the staffing was reason-
ably accurate for average or normal operations once the shake-down
was over but such staffing was not fully adequate for the special
circumstances that were being experienced. A second cause was
'that the activities at the Center have greatly exceeded those that
had been initially anticipated for the some several months after
opening of the facility. A third cause has been that each new
type of activity has required special concentration and particular
attention ~ work scheduling. This has been true of such things
as early auditorium usage, special constructions for special
events, the inauguration of the use of ice. the installation of
the first circus event and the such. A fourth cause has been the
occupancy of the building by the contractor itself and this during
the early months after opening was especially involved as we did
not have a free and clear building and one in which all equipment,
facilities, etc.. were clear, well defined and well informed.
The end result of all of this has been that a number of the
employees having accumulated considerable overtime hours. It has
been impossible within the functioning of the facility and the
limits of personnel numbers to offset this by compensatory time,
although to some extent and in some instances this has been possible
to a small degree with various of the personnel. As time has
progressed~and particularly within the past month when some adminis-
trative adjustments in work scheduling have been established and
in addition there has been added permanent personnel positions in
liew of use of extra help and overtime, the degree of overtime has
sharply reduced.
We desire to promptly conform to customarily accepted work
standards, including the 40-hour per week as well as conformed to
the City's overtime policy Ordinance No. 17865, which was adopted
on November 27, 1967. Along with this is a desire to function on
a fair basis with employees of the Center.
There are two needs: One i$ to bring ourselves up to date with
the employees of the Center, including several who have left mith
an overtime question.pending, to make the proper compensation to
them so that we can even the records to the present time and be
generally clear in that mhich has accumulated up to the first of
the coming calendar year. Secondly. it is felt necessary to make
a revision in the overtime policy ordinance to recognize the
peculiar circumstances of the Civic Center which, insofar as over-
time is concerned, are deemed to require special provisions.
Attached to this report is a draft of a suggested amendment to
the overtime ordinance. It is believed that this ordinance is
generally self explanatory so I will not go into detail in ~s regard.
!l
A couple of points though should be noted. This Cityvs overtime
ordinance provides payment for overtime only in those pay ranges
below 23. This would continue and would be applicable to the Civic
Center with compensatory time being applicable for tho~in range
23 and over. The special circumstances of the Civic Center are
noted, the intent of which is to recogniae that overtime cnn accrue
in this facility more frequently than perhaps in other functions
of the City because of'the difficulty in totally establishing u
firm work schedule fo~ all employees and because work schedules
at the center are frequently dependent upon the varying requirements
of the useof facilities by others, necause of this frequency and
the special circumstances, overtime rot the Civic Center is set at
straight tine rather than the time-and-a-half for other City depart-
ments wherein overtime is much noFe on an emergency basis rather
than a matter of routine activity functions.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment generally as proposed
and that this Serve as a guide for the future for the updating and
settlement of past overtime accumulations.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted the following report
with regard to the widening of 3Sth Street near and at its intersection with the
south side of Melrose Avenue:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This is something of a necessary status report in regard to
the matter of the widening of 35th Street near and at its inter-
section with the south side of Melrose Avenue. The Council sill
recall that the City Obtained an option for the purchase of a narrow
strip of property in front of a dwelling on the east side of 35th
Street. This was one of two strips required if the widening is to
proceed with the widening being, in actuality, the establishment
of a straight alignment of both the east and west right of way
lines of 35th Street.
The second portion of property from which the additional widen-
lng would have to be obtained was and is that parcel situated within
the southeast corner of the intersection of 35th Street with Melrose.
Our contact with this owner has been designated through-an attorney
for the owner and we have been having considerable difficulty in
obtaining a firm reply or position from the attorney for the owner.
The option which the City has for the first above mentioned par-
cel will expire on December 21. As this is written we are seekin9
with the owner for an extension to this option. There is a question
of how best to proceed'if the extension is not given, that is whether
to let the option drop and figure on approaching later should the
project continue or the City going ahead and excerctstng the option.
The latter involves a policy decision which has ngt yet been made
as towhether the City will itself acquire these additional right
of way widths and handle for the widening of the road. I would
continue in my suggestion to City Council that this decision not
be made until there is more definite advice as to just how the
business property on the southeast corner will become further
involved in this situation.
407
408
If the City Council has any suggestions with respect to this
I would be glad to be advised.
Respectfully ~ubmitted~
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. Th~ motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted the following report in
connection with the widening of a portion of Cardem City Roulevard, advising that
the city has acquired all properties needed for this purpose with the exception
of a portion of Official Tax No~ 4260401 o~ned by Mr. and Mrs. G. fl. Cyphers, that
the city offered Mr. and Mrs. Cyphers $600.00 for this trip of land, that the
owners have made a counteroffer of $2,000.00 for sa'id land. that he can find no
basis of justification in going beyond the 9600.00 as offered and recommending
that Council institute condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of this strip
of land:
'Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Honor'able ~ayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
In the proposed and funded project for the widening of a pot-
$228 on the fee asking from the Cyphers property. The City first
of $300. Then as difficulties continued the offering w~ iacreased
Ii
The counteroffer made by the omners in approximately the
latter part of 1969, was $2.000, As best I can evaluate the further
discussions that have taken place, this amount still continues as
the omners ashing and counteroffer. 1, nor we, can find any basis
of Justification in going beyond the $600 as offered and certainly
we feel that the counteroffer is mithout reason. Theowners raise
various Issues including their claim to ounership of one-half
of the roadmay of Garden City Boulevard. other negotiations made with
goners in the urea, destruction of the remainder of their property.
none of uhlch are considered to hare merit.
It is, again, recommended to the City Council that authorization
be given by a proper ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to
lnstifltote condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of this
strip of laud; I discussed the matter by telephone withRr. Dillard
on December 15, 1971. and advised him of what I felt to be the
necessity of turning to Council with this recommendation.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Ilirst
City Manager*
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the folloming Ordinance providing for said condemnation proceedings:
(~19997) AN ORDINANCE directing and providing for the acquisition
of a certain parcel of land in fee simple and of a certain temporary easement in
laud needed by the City for the widening and improvement of Garden City Boulevard,
S. E.; fixing the consideration to be offered to be paid by the City for said
parcel Of land and easement and the other terms and provisions of such acquisition;
providing for the City*s acquisition of said land and easement by condemnation,
under certain circumstances; authorizing that the City make motion for the award
of improvement; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 125.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded~
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ......... ~ .....................7.
NAYS: None ............... O.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report with
iiregard to staffing changes within the Fire Department primarily directed to
iladdittonal personnel for the purpose of overcoming certain personnel operating
~:deficiencies within the Department:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
For several years consideration, in varying degrees, has been
given to staffing changes within the Fire Department primarily
directed to additional personnel for the purpose of overcoming
certain personnel operating deficiencies within the department.
4O9
These deficiencies principally relate to the staffing of stations
or company complements. During the preparation work 9n the 1971-72
budget.review uss given, ln'cookdinntion with personnel o! the
department, to one possible plan. As noted to the City Council in
the budget message which accompanied the recommended 19T1-72
budget, this plan was dropped because of the additional funds that
would be required, approximately $154,600, and the Inability to
find sufficient money within the budget to provide additional monies.
Somewhat recently the City Council has requested that ! report
back to you on this hatter. Such is done as follows.
As to station personnel the department now operates on an
average 62 1/2 hours per wan per week. A nan Is now on 24 hours
then off 24 hours. This is repeated three times then the man is
off for three days then the repeat begins again. In addition to
this schedule and the normal vacation and sick leave days off,
the Fire Department has what are known as Kelly days. This Kelly
day system uaw started in 1949 mith three step ups in number of
days to the point that in 1964, as it is at present, the total
days reached 46 per year or 12 days per quarter. Under the Kelly
day system, it is calculated that 24 men are off per day due to
this one factor alone.
Klthout going into extensive detail as to breakdomns with
respect to engine companies, ladder companies and squad company,
essentially the situation Is that there are an average of five men
per company and under the days off system, this narroms damn
generally to an average of three men per crew. Out of 105 fire
fighters authorized and employed, the average On duty is about 50.
The present system results in considerable shuffling of personnel
from day to day in order to maintain minimum company strength
plus certain inadequacies that occur when total crew or company
complement is three on a particular shift.
The objective of theproposed plan has been to reduce number
of hours on duty and at the same time provide additional personnel.
The plan would propose a 560hour week, would eliminate the Kelly
day system, would provide three shifts instead of two and instead
of five-man companies would establish four-man companies, but which
four men would be regularly assigned to each company and mould be
stalilized to the extent of having an average consistency of four
men for each company shift.
Such a plan would require an approximate 11 percent increase
in personnel and would produce new companies to accommodate the
third shift requirement. Detailed breakdown of each shift and
enqine, ladder and squad companies have been morked out.
The data related to this plan is as follows:
Present Fire Department complement:
Chief 1
Assistant Chief 2
Drill Master 1
Fire Marshal 1
Department Assistant
Dispatcher ll 4
Equipment Specialists 3
Captains 28
Lieutenants 32
Fire fighters 105
Inspectors
Total 180
Additional personnel required by
plan 22 fire fighters
present
new complement 202 total
In addition Plan would provide promotion of 16 fire fighters to
Lieutenants and 14 Lieutenants to Captains.
Following is cost breakdown if Plan effective March l, 1972, using
following factors:
1971-72 Pay Plan Fire Fighter Step I 9554 per month
'' Step 2 582 per month
Step 6 ?OS per'month
Lieutenant Step 6 ?44 per month
Captain Step 5 760 per month
Captain Step 6 620 per month
Fringe benefit value 10~ approximately
Uniform allowance 9100 per man per 7ear
March - June 1972 4 months
Step I Pay Plan 6 months
For Fiscal 1971-72
#arch - June 1972
$554 x 22 personnel x 4 months
Fringe
New personnel
Promoted positions
Firemen to Lieutenant
936 x 16 personnel x 4 months
Fringe
Lieutenant to Captain
$76 x 14 personnel x 4 months
Fringe
$48.752
4.B75
953,b27
2,304
2,534
4,256
4~5
4,681
Uniform allowance
4/12 x $100 x 22 9 T34
Total Additional Budget Cost 1971-72 961,5Th
For Fiscal 1972-75
Full 12 months
9554 x 2 months plus
9582 x 10 months x 22 personnel 9152,416
Fringe 15.241
New personnel 9167,657
Promoted Positions
Firemen to Lieutenant
936 x 16 personnel x 12 months 9 h,912
Fringe 691
$ 7,603
Lieutenant to Captain
9T6 x 14 personnel X 12 months
Fringe
Unifor~ allowance
22 x 9100 x 12
Increased cost full year of Plan
$ 10,944
1.094
9 12,030
$ 2.200
$109,498
Note: If in promotion of Lieutenants to Captain it should be
determined that advancement be to Step 5 rather than
Step 6, this mould reduce above total for 19T1-72 by
$2,464 and for 1972-73 by $4.928.
This plan is functional and would be of benefit to the department
in stabliztng and, in some instances° increasing personnel assignments
to the individual companies. It mould also be of individual benefit
to the members of the department in their personal scheduling. I have
felt that at some point there ~ould have been or still would be ad-
vantage to a thorough in d~pth analysis of the Fire Department duty
assignment and personnel schedulin9 as to various alternatives that
may be possible. There has not been the time for this nor do I see
the immediate foreseeable opportunity.
. If the three shift plan were to be adopted by city council, as
indicated above, it mould be proposed that it be set to be effective
March I which mould allom approximately sixty days for necessary
411
'452
promotional adjustments.
I am not in a position to recommend this revision at this time.
primarily because of budget obligations carried by this office. Not
having had funds to introduce the plan at the outset of the 1971-72
year, I feel a question of additional funds at this time being
avallable*or of the prospective availability of the necessary monies
in the 1972-73 budget to carr~ the nddltional coat of the plan for a
full year. I mould have to further note that mithin the next rem
weehs me mill be before Council on several funding considerations,
one being the physical facilities in the courthouse complex. Again,
1 am not opposed to the proposed plan but must recognize these
latter timing points.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager"
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the report be
ireferred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure providing for
isaid staffing changes mithin the Fire Department. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Lisk and adopted, Mr. Mheeler voting no.
Mr. Trout then moved that the City Manager be requested to study the
possibility of establishing a training program for members of the Fire Department,
and report back to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
SE~ERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
~recommeudiug that Council authorize the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance pro-
~viding that the Hampden Hills area be included az an additional resolution area in
ithe semage treatment contract between the City of Roanoke and the County of
!Roanoke.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
ipreparatlon of the proper measure accordingly. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ~ELFARE-CITy PIIYSICIAN-JAIL: The City Manager sub-
imitted the following report requesting that Council give consideration toward
modifying the City Code to permit physicians, other than the City Physician. to
iprovide surgical and medical services to persons in the City Jail:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
For approximately 15 years, Dr. John G. McComn has performed
the function of City Physician as outlined under Title 10, Uhapter
2 of the Roanoke City Code, Section 5 of this Chapter outlines
the City Physician's duties and mentions that among other things
he will render needed medical nnd surgical attention to City
prisoners. Dr. McUown has recently mritten to Sheriff Paul Puckett
and requested that as of January 1, 1972. he be relieved of the
duties mhich pertain to the City Jail and City prisoners. He has
not requested to be relieved of the duties mhich apply to the City
Home (Coyner Springs) and the Juvenile Detention Home.
As · result of Dr, #cCown*s letter to Sheriff Puckett, Hiss
Jones, the Director of Public Porks and the CityHansger!s orrtce
have analyzed this request with respect to the remainder of Or.
HcComnts responsibilities as City Physician, Since DF. HcCown
has not requested to be relieved of those duties which pertain
to the City Home and the Juvenile Detention Dome and because of
the remoteness of these facilities, it mould seem prudent to retain
DF. HcCown*s services for these tmo facilities.
Several doctors have been considered as.a replacement for
Dr, HcCown with respect to the duties as they pertain to tbs City
Jail; however, after consideration and several meeti~s with repre-
sentatives of Lewis Gale Hospital. it has been determined that it
would be advantagous to both the City and to.Lemis Gale Clinic
that an agreement be drawn up between the City and Lewis Gale
Clinic that their physicians could perform the services previously
provided by Dr. HcCoun. In our discussions it was determined that
these services would be performed by the Lewis Gale Clinic at the
same figure as previously paid to Dr. HcCowe ($300 per month). To
permit the consummation of an agreement between the City and Lewis
Gale Clinic mould require that Title 10, Chapter 2 of the City
Code be revised so as to provide authority for agreement to be
negotiated with other sources for City Jail services where neces-
sary. The City Attorney has been requested to provide the necessary
amendments and it would be asked that'City Council give consideration
to modify the City Code to permit physicians other than the City
Physician to provide surgical and medical services to the City
Jail.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. llirst
City Manager*
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following joint report of the
City Manager and the Airport Advisory Commission in connection mith the lease of
the automobile parking lot at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport, recommending
that Council authorize an amendment to the concession agreement uith ITT Consumer
Services Corporation mhich would delete the monthly guarantee provision of the
agreement to be effective December 1, .lgYl, and further recommending that a
parking control gate be installed at the entrance to the employee parking lot at
the expense of ITT:
~Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The public parking lot at Roanoke Municipal Airport is operat-
ed by ITT Consumer Services Corporation under a Lease or concession
agreement mith the City dated June 26, 1969. The company is now
in its third year performance under the lot operation. For about
a year to this date, the company has.been approaching the City
advising as to the inability of revenue to the lot, reporting the
compony*s contractual payment commitments to the City under the
terms of its bid for the five-year concession privilege.
The lease commitment provides as folloms:
418
4 .4
Honthly
Guornnlee
1st Yr. $
2nd Yr. $ 9,000.00
3rd Yr. $10,417.00
4th Yr. $12,500.00
5th Yr. $15,000.00
Or percent of monthly gross (whichever is greate~)
?0~ of gross exceeding $O but not exceeding
$14,000;plus
80~ of gross exceeding $14,oo6 but not ex-
ceeding $16,000; plus
90~ of gross exceeding $16.000.
Sane es first year.
Same as first year.
Same as first year.
Same as first year.
The issue presented by the company is that the documented
experience to date under the above termshas produced a continuing
and accumulating loss, in relationship to gross receipts and guar-
anteed payments, and that this loss will continue and will escalate
as the guarantee increases through the remaining term of the conces-
sion agreement. Incorporated within their financial presentations
of their situation is the expenditure of approximately $60,000 for
capital reconstruction of the parking lot which was a condition of
bidding at the tine that the present five-year tern concessions
were advertised in 1969.
There is considerable difference between the number of cars
parked per month on this public lot under the previous lot operator,
Carolina Parking Company, and those that have been parked per month
since the assumption by ITT. Data as to members of vehicles were
included as an informational addendum to the bidding advertisement.
The variation or difference, which is a reduction, was and has
been a result of policy changes which occurred at the time that th
new lease was entered into and the new lot constructed. Primarily
these changes were the relocation of all employee parking from
this public parking lot to another area constructed by the City.
the construction of an open parking lot primarily for fixed base
operations, the discontinuance of short-term, example 20-minute.
free parking on the public lot and the discontinuance of several
free parking privilege arrangements or procedures. Each of these
bore heavily to reduce total number of cars parked and as available
for revenue purposes to the current concession operator.
Representatives of the company have met with the City Council,
with the Airport committee and with various persons and committees
of the City government on a number of occasions over recent months
in regard to this situation.
The experience of the City with ITT in the operation of the
parking lot and the association, particularly during the construction
of the new facility, has been satisfactory. It is a matter of
interest to the City that it be possible for the present concession
operator to be able to continue under the present contract Jn such
a manner as would be reasonably beneficial to the company recogniz-
ing at the same time the City's equity Jn lot revenue.
An additional point requiring consideration is that there was
a wide difference in the bids received by the City Council on
May 12, lg6g, under which the present concession has been awarded,
between the bid of the successful company, ITT, and the second com-
pany, and then, of course, the other two further low bidders. The
proposal as herein made does not. within itself, trespass upon the
scope of payments as the City might have received had the second
bidder been the successful award.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize an amendment
to the concession agreement which would delete t~ monthly guarantee
provision of the agreement. This deletion would be proposed to he
effective for that remaining portion of the agreement for which
payments bare not yet been made to the City and thereby would be
effective December 1, lg71, This would serve to put the concession
agreement totally on a percentage basis.
As.a further amendment to the lease, it is recommended that there
be provided, and the ITT Company has agreed to the same, that a park-
ing control gate be installed at the entrance to the employee park-
ing lot, fullI at the expense of the company, and that the company
provide, by such system as is mutually agreed upon by the City and
the company, the necessary cards or other method of identification
as will be available to employees at the Airport in order to have
access to the employee lot.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Vincent S. Rheeler
Vincent S, Mheeler, Chairman
Airport Advisory Commission
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, ,irst
City #anager#
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and the Airport Advisory Commission and that the matter be referred to the City
Attorney for preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr.
LisK and adopted, Mr. Garland voting
SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City
Manager submitted the following report in connection with possible conveyance to
the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Bousin9 Authority of the former Municipal
Incinerator property and land to be a part of the Kimball Redevelopment Project:
~Roanoke. Virginia
December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
There is returned herewith to the Agenda for such con-
sideration as City Council might wish to give to the matter, the
item of possible conveyance to the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority of the City's incincerntor plant and laud to
be a part of the Kimball Redevelopment project. By review it is
to be reminded that the Authority informed the City that on
the basis of its appraisals, it had established a value of
$60,000 for the property as a net figure considering demolition
costs which are estimated to be $15.000 or more. The Authority
advised that it could not purchase the property at this time but
would have to proceed with amending its project through the
Federal government to include the incinerator*s site and would
need the indication of the City government before taking this
direction. They further stated, in their letter as submitted
to the Council On November G, 1971, that if this were a cash
transaction that additional funding by the Federal 9overnment
would be necessary, that funds are currently limited and that
further delay would be involved in the processing of the amend-
ment to the project. They then noted that all City properties in
the area had been donated as a part of the project financin9 and
that if the incinerator and its land were donated, that this
would generate $120,000 in Federal grants to apply to other
projects.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the followin9 Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~19998) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the sale and
conveyance of the City*s former Municipal Incinerator property, now unused, to
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Bousing Authority. upon certain terms and
conditions.
415.
RHEREAS, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority did, under
date of September 15, 1971. request 'that the City sell and convey to said Authorit
the property hereinafter ment.iooed, needed by said Authority in assembling the
necessary land for its Kimball R~development Project .(Project No, Va,
lsaid Authority advising the City that it would offer, in consideration for such
conveyance, to credit the City math the sun of $120,000.00 toward othe'r redevelop-
ment or housing project's; and '
MHEREAS, a committee appoi'nted by purpose by
the
the
Council
for
has,
I letter dated December 13, 1911, recommended that the hereinafter described land
be conveyed to said Authority, it not being held by the City for any of its
public purposes, for the nominal consideration of one dollar cash plus credit
to the City of the sum of $120,000.00 tomard ether redevelopment or housing pro-
Jects, upon the terms and conditions herein provided; in all of which this Council
concurs.
TIIEREFORE. HE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
said City does hereby offer to sell and convey to City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority all that certain property of the City situate west of the
intersection of Shenandoah Avenue and Gilmer Avenue, N. E., and lying between
each said street, formerly used and employed by the City as the site of its
Municipal Incinerator. said parcel of land consisting of Official Nos. 3013404,
3013405 and 3013405, as shown on the City*s Tax Appraisal Map, with special
warranty of title for the nominal consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), cash,
payable to the City upon delivery of its deed of conveyance thereto, and for the
additional consideration that the City be credited in the sum of $120,000.00 toward
other redevelopment or housing projects within the City, such conveyance to be
made subject to any and all easements, conditions and restrictions Of record
affecting the title to said parcels of land.
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, the proper City officials be, and they
are hereby authorized an~ directed to execute such deed on behalf of the City
as is necessary to transfer and convey to said Authority the title to the afore-
said property, such deed to be made upon such form as is approved by the City
Attorney and, upon its execution and acknowledgment the City Attorney shall be and
is hereby authorized to deliver said deed to City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
i!Housin9 Authority or its authorized attorney or representative.
!i BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that the City Clerk do forthwith transmit to
!! City of R .... ke Redevelopment and Housing Authority an attested copy of this
i~ordinance as evidence of the offer herein contained.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Nebber ................................. 7.
~: NAYS: None ................ O.
CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a written report transwittis
a Resolution recommending that Council authorize the closing of city business
offices and activities, other than those necessary to the essential functions,
ion Christmas Eve. Friday, December 24, lgYl, at 1:00 p,m.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution:
(~19999) A RESOLUTION authorizing a shortening of the working hoars of
certain City employees on December 24, 1971.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No, 36. page 127.)
Dr. Yaylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Rayor
· ebber ................................... 7.
NAYS: None ....................O.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting the annual report of the City of Roanoke Mater Department for the fiscal
year 1970-71.
Mr. Rheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted a written report concurring
in the following recommendation of a committee that the low bid of Adams Construc-
tion Company for supplying asphalt and tar to the City of Roanoke for the period
beginnin9 January 1, 1972. and endin9 December 31, 1972, be accepted:
"December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
On Nednesday, December 1st, bids were received and opened before
the Committee whose names appear belo~ for supplyin9 asphalt
and tar to the City of Roanoke for the period beginning January
1. 1972 and ending December 31, 1972.
As shown on the attached tabulation, bids were received from two
firms with the low bid being submitted by Adams Construction
Company as follows:
ii ITEM NO. I $.2199 per 9al.
ITEM NO. 2 $.2077 per gal.
ITEM NO. 3 $.35 per gal.
Purchase orders will be issued by the City ns the material is
needed in the Street. Division of the Department of Public Marks.
It is the recommendation of the Committee that the bid of Adams
Construction Company be accepted.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron E. Hamer
COMMITTEE: Byron E. Hamer
Assistant City Manager
S/ Milliam F. Clark S/ B. B. Thompson
Milliam F. Clark Bueford B. Thompson
Director of Public Marks Purchasing Agent"
4~7
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following &uergency Ordinsnce:
(n20000) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Adams Construction Com-
pany. Inc.. for furnishingS, heating, hauling and applying certain asphalt and tar
for the period from January 1. 1972. through December 31, 1972. upon certain terms
and provisions; authorizlagthe Purchasing Agent to issue the requisite purchase
orders therefor; rejecting a certain other bid; and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Door No, 36° page 128.)
Mr. Wheele'r moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uas seconded
~by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the folloming vote:
!! AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
i;Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
CITY GARAGE-FIRE DEPARTMENT-MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted
a written report concurring in the following recommendation of a committee that
the bids of Gulf Oil Company and Texaco. Incorporated, for furnishing regular
and premium gasoline to the City Garage, the Fire Department and the Mater Depart-
meat be accepted:
'December 20, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Wednesday, December lsto bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for furnishing and deliver-
ing automotive gasoline to the CAtI of Roanoke for the period
beginning January 1, 1972 and ending December 31. 1972.
As shomn on the attached tabulation, bids were received from eight
firms with the low bids being submitted as listed below.
Gulf 0il Company - U. S. for supplying regular gasoline to the
Garage in transport truck deliveries and premiumgasoline to the
Fire Department in tank wagon deliveries:
Regular Premium
(GaraGe) (Fire Deot.)
Tank ~agon Price $.1970 gal. $.2320 gal.
Less Discount .0821 9al. .0796 gal.
Net Price $.1149 gal. $.1524 gal.
Texaco. Incorporated for supplying premium gasoline to the Garage
and regular gasoline to the Water Department in tank wagon deliver-
ies:
Premium Regular
(Garage) (Mater Door.)
Tank Wagon Price $.2330 gal. $.1980 gal.
Less Discount .0813 gal. .0663 gal.
Net Price $.1517 gal. $.131~ gal.
The tank wagon prices are based on current *Posted Consumer Tank
Wagon Prices' at Roanoke. Virginia, and are to be adjusted to any
increase or decrease of the 'Posted Consumer Tank Wagon Prices'
in effect at Roanoke. Virginia on day of delivery, but the above
discounts will remain unchanged throughout the contract period.
It is the recommendation of the Committee that the lam bids be
accepted as outlined herein,
.Respectfully submitted,
COMMITTEE: $/ Byron E. Haner
Byron K. Hamer
Assistant City Manager
$/ William F. Clark
William F, Clark
Director of Public Marks
S/ B. B. Thompson
Bueford B, Thompson
Purchasing Agent"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation bf the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20001) AN ORDINANCE accepting certain proposals for furnishin9 regular
and premium 9rude gasoline to the City Garage. for furnishing regular ~rade gasolhe
to the City*s Water Department. and for furnishing premium grade gasoline to the
City's Fire Department for the calendar year 1972. upon certain terms and condi-
tions; rejecting certain other bids received for furnishing the City's aforesaid
gasoline requirements; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 129.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follo~ing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUILDINGS-FIRE DEPARYMENT: The City Attorney submitted a written report
!itransmitting a Resolution providing for approval by Council of a settlement, in
!!the amount of $3,269.00. from Paul Jo Pearsall for monies mhich the city claimed
!:were owned under a demolition contract with Mr. Pearsall. said Resolution also
~!directing that his office have the case dismissed from the court docket.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
!and offered the follouing Resolution:
(#20002) A RESOLUTION approving the compromise and settlement of a claim
iof the City of Roanoke against Paul J. Pearsall.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 130.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Wessrs, Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
iWebber ........................7.
NAYS: None .......... Oo
STATE CORPORATION COMRISSION: The City Attorney submitted a mritteu
ireport advisin9 that a bearing has been set before the State Corporation Commission
ion January 18. 1972, on the application of ¥1rginia Stage Lines. Incorporated, for
419
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate ua a common carrier
by motor vehicle for the handling of passengers, baggage, mail. light express and
newspapers over u designated route from Roanoke to Christiansburg serving all
intermediate points and certain access routes.
Mr. LIsk moved, that the report be received and filed, The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously odopted.
AUDITS: The Assistant City Auditor ,submitted a financial report of the
City of Roanoke for the year ended June 30, 1971.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
~seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The Assistant City Auditor submitted a monthly financial report
!!of the City of Roanoke for the month of November. 1971.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
'seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC I~ELFARE: The Assistant City Auditor submitted
a monthly statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended
November 30, 1971.
!was seconded by Mr. Barland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
ROANOKE LIFE SAVING AND FIRST AID CREW, INCORPORATED-ROANOKE VALLEY
iREGIONAL DEALTD SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED: Council having referred
:to the City Manager and to the Emergency Medical Services Committee of the Roanoke
Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council, Incorporated, for study, report
land recommendation a request of the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew,
Incorporated, for an appropriation of $10.DO0.O0 to provide funds for 24 hour
~service 355 days a year for a number of men who mill serve on a temporary basis
,as they are available and needed, the Emergency MedicalServices Committee submitted
i'the following report listing various factors relative to this request and making
certain recommendations relating thereto:
'December 16. 1971
Hr. Roy Mebber, Mayor of Roanoke
Mr. James O. Trout, Vice Mayor of Roanoke
Mr. Vincent Wheeler, Roanoke City Council
Mr. David Lisk, Roanoke City Council
Mr. Hampton Thomas, Roanoke City Council
Rev. Noel Taylor, Roanoke City Council
Mr. Robert Garland, Roanoke City Council
Mr. Julian HJrst, City Manager of Roanoke
Gentlemen:
Our Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee and the
Board of Directors have reviewed the request of Roanoke Life
Saving and First Aid Crew, Inc. for an appropriation of
$10,800 in the budget to Department Code mai. This matter was
referred to us on November 23, 1971 by City Council for study.
report and recommendation.
Various factors relative to this request have been consid-
ered smd our understanding of the problem is as follows:
A. A crisis or emergency situation is imminent with the
Rescue Squad uhich has operated as a volunteer community
service since Ray, I920. llth radio dispatchers being
moved from the creu headquarters to the City*s
Communication Center. a problem of no full-time security
of the building arises. We understand that the
appropriation requested would be used primarily for
building security but also for housekeeping maintenance
of building, vehicles and grounds. The crew would use
the funds to pay for temporary part-time'personnel
as needed to provide the necessary services.
D. It is difficult to ask volunteer rescue squadsmen to
provide such stand-by services in addition to taking
calls for emergency assistance such as that provided
by rescue squads. For the most part, they have homes
and families, and family problems could conceivably
develop if they were away from home very muck during
times when they were off from their regular employment.
C. The funds would not be used to pay rescue squad members
for typical rescue squad services provided to citizens;
only for temporary help for security and maintenance
purposes.
D. The lack of building security represents an immediate
problem requiring quick action. The request was made
to City Council because it would be the most immediate
source for obtaining needed funds for building security.
Our recommendation is that City Council act favorably on this
request because an emergency does exist requiring immediate action.
If there are other city rescue squads experiencing difficulties
in the matter of building security, their needs should also he
considered, because the investments made in buildings and rescue
squad equipment represent community assets and, as such. should be
protected.
We would also recommend that alternatives to city financing
of this activity be thoroughly explored during the coming year
with a cooperative effort of the Roanoke Life Saving and First
Aid Crew. the city government, and the Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Committee sponsored by our agency. (A listing of the
present membership of this Committee is attached.)
A final planning report on the overall emergency medical
services system in the City of Roanoke and surrounding areas
will be presented within the next month. The recommendations
made here will also be incorporated in that report.
Sincerely,
S/ Frank H. Rays
Frank H. Mays,
Executive Director*
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be taken-under advisement. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
coNSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19984, rezoning property located in the 1700
block of Hanover Avenue, No M., described as Lots 5 - fl, inclusive, Block 58,
Melrose Land Company, Official Tax Nos. 2220805 - 2220807, from RD, Duplex
Residential District, to RG-1, General Residential District, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again before
the body, Mr. Mheeler offering the following for its second reading and final
adoption:
421
422
(n19984) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title Z¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No, 222, Sectional 1966
Zone Rap. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For fail text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 120.)
Mr. Yheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Thomas and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Yhonos, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .....
NAYS: Messrs. Lisk and Trout ........................................2.
LEGISLATION-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure protestln9 the untoward cost placed on
localities by the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970 in
the matter of relocation costs and payments in federally-assisted programs and
offered the folloming Resolution:
(~20003) A RESOLUTION protesting the untomard cost placed on localities
by the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970 in the matter
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 36. page 131.)
~r. Lisk moved the adoption of the ~esolotion. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .................................. 7,
NAys: None ...................
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CHARTER-LEGISLATION: The City Attorney submitted a written report sug-
gestinR that Council meet mith the delegatioo from the City of Roanoke to the
t/on which are considered important to be acted upon by the forthcoming General
Assembly.
Mr. Trout moved that Council meet mith the delegation from the City of
Mayor Webber then advised that Couocil would meet mlth the delegation
from the City of Roanoke to the General Assembly and representatives from the
Roanoke City School Board to discuss said Charter amendments and legislation at
i10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 30, 1971, ia the Executive Session Conference Room
i;of the Council Chamber.
There being no further business, Hayor lebber declared the meeting
a4Journed,
APPROVED
423
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Tuesday. December 28, lqTl.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Tuesday, December 28, 1971, at 2 p. m., the
tregular meeting hour. with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor.
IBampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Jheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ................................... ? *
ABSENT: None ................. O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E.
iRaner, Assistant City Manager; Mr. A. N. Gibson, Assistant City Auditor; Mr.
:James N. Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr. Edl~ard A. Natt, Assistant City Attorney.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
LICENSES-TAXES: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Tuesday,
December 28, 1971, to consider the imposition of a license tax of $55.00 plus
55 cents on each $100.00 of gross receipts on the business of renting land, houses.
apartments or commercial property, effective January 1, 1972; on the imposition
of a license tax of $110.00 per week or part thereof or $550.00 per lear on the
business of operating a mobile repair unit, effective January 1, 1972; on the
imposition of a license tax of $30.00 plus 75 cents on each $100.00 of gross
receipts on the business of operating an aircraft flight training school, effective
'January 1, 1972; on a change in the rate of license tax imposed on real estate
land rental agents and appraisers, the new rate to be $20.00 plus $1.10 on each
$100.00 of gross receipts or commission in excess of the first $4.000.00 of gross
receipts or commissions derived from such business, effective January 1, 1972; on
the imposition of a license tax of $55.00 plus 55 cents on each $100.00 of gross
ireceipts on the business of renting, leasing, lending or otherwise temporarily
idisposing of any communication equipment, effective January 1. 1~72; and on the
;~imposition of a license tax of $55.00 plus 55 cents on each $100.O0 of gross
;receipts on the business of repairing, overhauling, rebuilding, renovating and/or
iservicing any aircraft, effective January 1. 1972. the matter was before the body.
MAth reference to Title VI, Taxation, Chapter 8, Section 98.1. Renting
of land. houses, apartments or commercial property, Mr. John I~. Boswell. Real
!Estate Agent, appeared before Council in opposition to increasing the. license tax
to $55.00 plus 55 cents on each $100.00 of gross receipts, expressing the opinion
ithat while this tax is called a license tax, it is not a license tax at all, but
an income tax and pointing out that if this proposed Ordinance is adopted, it
create a festering resentment in the City of Roanoke.
Mr. Horace Frelin, Real Estate Agent, uppeured before Council, in
opposition to said tu~ increase nnd requested that Council refuse to enact this
levy on rental property'.
Mr. R. R. Quick. Real Estate Agent, also appeared before Council in
opposition to the proposed tax and urged that Council not udopt such an Ordinance
since it will drive property owners out of the City of Roanoke,
Communications from Mrs. Alma Lex; Mr, Charles E. Dunn, Vice President.
Stone Printing and Manufacturing Company; Mr. L. R. Holyfield; Mrs. Charles C.
Ridenour; Mr. M. L. Foley; Hr. Fred Gray. President. MilliuM P. Swartz, Jr** ~
Company; Mrs. Made H. Saunders; Mr. Edward G. Frye, Ill, Partner, Frye Building
Company; Mr. James L. Trinkle. President. C. N. Francis ~ Son, Incorporated; Hr,
R. W. Cashdan; Hr. J. H. Turner, President, J. M. Turner and Company, incorporated,!
General Contractors; Mr. N. N, McCathern, President. The Colonial-American
National Bank; Mr. Ralph L. Austin and Downtowu Roanoke, Incorporated. expressin9
opposition to the increase in said t~x, were also before the body,
Mr. Trout advised that this proposed tax ~as before Council several mont~
ago, that Council has not been furnished with any further information since that
time and moved that Section 98.1 be rejected. The motion was seconded by Hr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then offered the following emergency Ordinance amending
Chapter 6, License Tax Code. Title VI. Taxation, of The Code of the City of
Roanoke. 1956. as amended, by the addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec.
99.1, Re~air businesses; mo~ile, by providing for a license tax of $110.00
per ~eek or part thereof or $550.00 per year on the business of operating a mobile
repair unit, effective January I, 1972:
(n20004) AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter H. Licens~ Tax Code, of Title
VI. Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the
addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 99.1. Repair businesses; mobile,
providing certain definitions and classifications and imposing an annual license
tax upon the business classified in said section; and providing for an emergency.
(Forfuli text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 137.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was secondedi:
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garlaud. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and ~ayor
N~bber ........................... ?.
NAVS: None ............ O.
Mr. Garland offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Sec. 99,
i[Repair businesses, miscellaneous. Chapter O, License Tax Code. Title VI, Taxation,
of The Cbde of the city of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by providing for a license
tax of $55.00 plus 55 cen{s on each $100.00 o'f gross receipts, effecti{e January
1972:
425
426
(n20005) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 99. Repair business-
es, miscellaneous, Chapter 8, License Tax Code, of Title VI. Taxation, of the Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, in ce.rtain particulars., providing for
and emergency; and providing an effective date of this ordinance.
(For full tax*of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3h, page 136,)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
~Mebber ....................................
NAYS: None .....................O.
Mr. Garland offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Chapter
"D, License Tax Code, Title VI, Taxation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956.
as amended, by the addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 35.1, Aircraft
flight training schools, by providing for a license tax of $30.00 plus 75 cents
on each $100.00 of gross receipts, effective January i, 1972:
(=20006) AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter O. License Tax Code, of Title
VI. Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, by the
addition of a new section, to be numbered Sec. 35.1. Aircraft flight training
schools; providing certain definitions and classifications and imposing an annual
license tax upon the business classified in said section; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 140.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the followiog vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................
, NAYS: None .............. O.
Mr. Garland offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Chapter 8,
,.License Tax Code, Title VI. Taxation. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956.
as amended, by the addition of a hem section, to be numbered Sec. 59.1. Conmunica-
'tion equipment, by providing for a license tax of $55.00 plus 55 cents on each
$100.00 of gro§s receipts, effective January 1, 1972:
(#20007) AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter O. License Tax Code, of Title
,'VI. Taxation, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, by the addition
of a nam section, to be numbered Sec. 59.1. Communication equipment; providing
::certain definitions and classifications and imposing an annual license tax upon
,the business classified in said section; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No.
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
ilby Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................... ?,
NAYS: None .............
Mlth reference tn Sen. 3S, relating to a change in the rate of license
tax imposed on reel estate and rental agents and appraisers, the nem rate to be
$20.00 plus $1.10 on each $100.00 of gross receipts or commission In excess of
the first $4,000.O0 of 9ross receipts or commissions derived from such business,
effective January 1, 1972. Mr. John ¥. Boswell. Real EstateAgent, appeared
,:before Council in opposition to said license increase and expressed the opinion
that such an increase cannot be justified,
Mr. Benjamin Morris. representing the Roanoke Real Estate Board. also
appeared before Council in opposition to the proposed increase and advised that
the Roanoke Real Estate Board considers this to be an inequitable tax.
Dr. Taylor expressed the opinion that additional study needs to be given
to this matter in order to find the fairest possible way to divide the tax burden
among all citizens and moved that Sec. 35 be rejected at this time. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CHARTER: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Tuesday,
December 28, 1971, on the question of certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter
of 1952o to be considered by the 1972 Session of the General Assembly, the matter
#as before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that Sec. 4. Composition of Council; vacancies, of the
!City Charter, relating to the periodic election and terms of office of the Mayor
and members of City Council; and providing that the member of Council receivin9
the largest number of votes in each Councilmanic election shall be the ¥ice-
!iBayor of the city be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimous
ly adopted.
Mith reference to Sec. b. Compensation of the Bayor and,of Councilmen,
relating to the salaries of the Nayor, ¥ice-Mayor and other Councilmen, raising
the salary of the Mayor from $6,000.00 per year to $?,200.00, raising the salary
of the ¥ice-Mayor from $3.000.00 per year to $5.400.00 per year and raising the
salary of the Councilmen from $3,000.00 per year to $4,B00.00 per year., Br. Trout
expressed his opposition to this amendment, advising that he is quite satisfied
with the salary he was awarded when he was elected ¥ice-Mayor and moved that the
salaries remain the same. The motion was seconded by Br. Nheeler.
Messrs. Garland, Lisk and Thomas spoke in opposition to the motion
made by Br. Trout. advising that the Mayor and Members of Council have not had an
~increase in salary since 1966, that everything they gain as members of Council
!~is spent back into city government in someway, that if you are to get people to
run for the office of Councilmen, the salary must be somewhat compensate and they
not feel these salaries ar~ out of line.
427
Dr. Taylor expressed the opinion that he wished this decision could be
made by the citizens of the City of Roanoke and'not the Councilmen themselves,
however, this is not possible under the City Charter provisions.
Mr. Thomss made a substitute motion that Sec. 6 relating to the increase
in the salaries of the Mayor. VJce-#ayor and Members Of Council be approved. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messts. Garland. Lisk, Taylor and Thomas ......................4.
NAYS: Messrs. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Webber .......................
t In this connection. NF. James Glanville, appeared before Council and
ilrequested that the matter be considered further before final action is taken and
iexpressed the opinion that the increases are way out of line.
MAth refereac~ l~ Sec. 6. Officers elective by council; rules, of the
iCity Charter. providing for the appointment by Council of an acting City Clerk.
ilan acting City Auditor, an acting City Attorney and an acting Municipal Judge.
iopon vacancy occurring in any of such offices, Dr. Taylor moved that the proposed
section be referred to the City Attorney forproper clarification as to ho# this
section will effect the Deputy City Clerk. Yhe motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
~r. Trout moved that Sec. 9, Elections by Council, of the City Charter,
making mandatory the retirement of the City Clerk, the City Auditor and the City
Attorney upon reaching the a9e of sixty-five years, notwithstandin9 that such
iretirement may foreshorten the term for which such officer was elected by Council,
,be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Sec. 10, Meetings of Council. of the City Charter,
~irelating to the times at which the Council shall meet, following Councilmanic
!elections, and subsequent thereto, be approved. The motion was seconded by Dr.
ilTaylor and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor moved that Sec. 16, Time of holding municipal elections, of
:the City Charter. relating to the time of holding regular elections in the city
for the election of Councilmen. he approved. The motion Was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout moved that Sec. 18. Elections of other officers, of the City
!iCharter providing for the times at which the Attorney for the Commonwealth, the
!Commissioner of Revenue, the City Treasurer, the Sheriff and the Clerk of the
iHustings Court of. the City of Roanoke shall be elected, and for their respective
/terms of office, be approved. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimous-:
II adopted.
Mr. Lisk moved that Sec. 27. Municipal Court - Generally, of The City
iCharter relating to the Municipal Court of the City of Roanoke, its jurisdiction
iand its judges, clerks, deputy clerks and other personnel, be approved. The
~motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout moved that Sec, 28, Clerk of the Municipal Court, of the City
Charter, relating to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the Municipal Court of the
City of Roanoke, b~ approved. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimous
I~y adopted.
I Mr. Thomas then offered the followln9 Resolution adopting all of the
abovedescribed City Charter amendments to be considered by the General Assembly
lof Virginia, at its lg?2 Session:
(#20008) A RESOLUTION requesting certain amendments to the Roanoke
City Charter of 1952, as presently amended.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 142.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas second-
ed by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas and Wheeler ..........
NAYS: Mr. Trout and Mayor Webber ...............................
TAXES: Mr. W. Bruce Overstreet, Jr., President of The Virginia Society
of Certified Public Accountants, appeared before Co'uucil and requested that the
failure to file penalty assessed on personal property on March I not apply provided~
filing and payment is made on or before May 5.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request be referred to a committee composed
iof Messrs. J. Robert Thomas. Ja~es N. Kincanon, J. S. Howard, Jr., and J. H.
iJohnson for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and Unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SChOOLS: Copy of a communication from Mrs. H. D. McTier, and
NFS. L. E. Mawyer, co-Presidents of the Stonewall Jackson Junior Iligh School,
iiurging the Roanoke City School Board, the Roanoke City Council. the Central
i!Council of Parents and Teachers and the general public to support the request
for public address systems for all junior and senior high schools, was before
Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: A communication from Dr. Thomas B. Stage, Chairman,
Mental Health Services Board, advising that the terms of Dr. James H. Fagan and
Mr. Andrem H. Thompson as members of the Mental Health Services Board will expire
on December 31, 1971. and that reappointments or new appointments should be made
for three year terms to conform to the state law and regulations of the Department
Of Mental Dygiene and Hospitals, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Mebber then called for nominations to fill the vacancies on the
Mental Health Services Board.
429
430
Mr. Lisk placed in nominationthe names of Dr. James H. Fagsn and Hr.
Andrem H. Thompson.
There being no further nomination the names of Dr. Janes H. Fagan and Mr.
Andrem H. Thompson were reelected as members of the Mental Health Services Board
rot terms of three years each ending December 31, 1974, by the folloming vote:
FOR DR. FAGAN AND MR. THONPSON: Messrs. Garland. Link, Taylor, Thomas,
Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Mebber .....................
I ZONING: A communication from Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr.. Attorney, repre-
i senting Mr. John £. ~hornhill, requesting that property located at the Southwest
i'corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth Street, S. M., described as Lot 11 and all of Lots
i!12 and 13, Block 12, LamAs Addition Rap, Official Tax No. 1120813, be rezoned from
iiC-l, Office and Institutional District, to C-2. General Commercial District, mas
before Counc il.
Mr. Lisk moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONI'NG: A communication from Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr., Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. Jo M. lnqe, III, Stanford ~ Inqe, Incorporated, and Mr. C. F. Kefauver,
requesting that property located on the easterly side of Ninth Street, S. £., south
ilof ~oodrow Avenue, described as Lots I - 5, inclusive, Block 5, Official Tax Nos.
i4141B01 - 4141805, inclusive, be fez*ned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
iC-2, General Commercial District, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
ilwas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr., Attorney, repre-
isenting the Church of God, requesting that property located on the westerly side
~of Compton Street, south of Noble Avenue, N. E., described as Lots 16, 17 and 18,
!iBlock 3, Oakland Map, Official Tax Nos. 3110217, 3110218 and 3110219, be rezoned
!!from ,
RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, Oeneral Residential District was
Mr. Lisk moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
!iPlanniug Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr., Attorney, repre-
isenting Mr. James L. Mayhew, et ux., requesting that property located on the
~!southerly sl~e of Panorama Avenue, N. M., described as Lots
the rear or southerly portion of Lot 16, Block 0, Official Tax Nos. 2740302, 274030~,
2740313, 2740314, 2740315 and 2740316, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-I, General Residential District, was before Council.
Br. Llsk moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded'by Dr, Taylor end unanimously adopted.
REPORT OF OFFICERS:
BUDbET-SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: IRe City Banager submitted a mrltten
~report recommending that $$00.000.00 be appropriated to the Semage Treatment
Plant expansion fund in order to provide funds for certain phases and obligations
iof the program as are now initially required.
#r. Thomas moved that Cooncil concur in the recommendation of the City
'Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20009) AN ORDINANCE to amend and ~eordain Section ~550, "Semage
Treatment Bond Funds." of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page 152.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adoped by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber ...............................
NAYS: None ................0'.
DOGS-ANIMALS-TAXES: Council having directed the City Reneger to study
the feasibility of combining the City Do9 Pound with the operations of the Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the City Reneger submitted the following
report advising that this is not an inconveivable idea but it would have to be
remembered that there are two completely different functions taking place, that
without the benefit of a detailed study and on the basis solely of an overview Of
the situation, it mould be felt that much combination would be best handled by the
city constructing a unit such as a dog pound adjacent to or near the
shelter with the city operating this pound area at city expense enabling a separa-
tion of fun~ but permitting some joint supervision and perhaps benefiting animal
owners who are in search of their dogs, etc.:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 28, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On August 23, 1971, representatives of ~e Roanoke Valley
SPCA appeared before the City Council on behalf of a number of
matters relating to the handling of dogs and cats. tho benefits
of the SPCA facility to the City of Roanoke, the operation by
the City of its dog pound and dog warden and a request for
financial assistance by the City to the SPCA. The City Council
referred the matter to me along with the proposal that the city
pound be combined with the operations of the SPCA;
The various matters presented by the SPCA representatives
were somemhat extensive and they covered a number of aspecta of
animal ha~ ling, etc., within the City. Over some several years,
the SPCA has come before the City Council by communications or
personal appearance in somewhat related matters but principally
431
;~32
directed to the City contributing to or financially assisting '
the operations of the SPCA. The combination of this variety of
items in a response report to City Council becomes slightly diffi-
cult in the effort to be sure that nil points are covered and
that adequate Information and reply is made to each of the numerous
items. This as follows is an effort to he as concise as practical.
If ~ny significant points are felt to have been omitted Or have
been referred to in an incomplete manner, supplemental informatic~
can be furnished.
The Roanoke Valley SPCA is operated and financed by a group
of highly dedicated people aha devote much interest and time to
the worh of this Society. There is no doubt but that the organiza-
tion renders a valuable and effective service. The Society owns
and operates Its shelter In the eastern section of the City and
is in the process of completing the construction of an addition
necessitated by growing activities.
This office was very kindly furnished, upon request, a copy
of the audit of the Society for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1971. The receipts for the year totaled $27,000 (figures are in
thousands) and of this $13,000 was derived, from animal placement,
$9,000 from donations and gifts, $3,000 from dues and the remainder
from miscellaneous items. Of the $28,000 expended, salaries
at $16.000 represented the major outlay with the next largest
single expenditure being $2.000 for architects' fees. The Society
assumes the expenses, out of its operating budget, of animal food,
shelter supplies, taxes, utilities, veterinarian services and other
operational necessities.
The shelter, from a layman*s observation, is a well-maintained
and well-operated facility, staffed by full-time and part-time per-
sonnnel, with volunteer assistance. In addition to the shelter,
the SPCA also conducts certain aspects of humane work in behalf
of animals in the area.
There is no doubt, also. that the Society is operating on a
close budget. Any additional monies that could be available would
be beneficial to increasing the levels of operation and perhaps also
the scope. Additionally, the obligations incurred by the construc-
tion of the new addition are weighed against the Society and would
appear to represent a commitment that is producing and will continue
to produce strains on the finances of the Society and its present
and potential membership.
It is my impression that the shelter and its associated services
serve the entire Valley. as the name implies, though perhaps the
greater volume of work is within the City. lhe directors of the
Society are. I believe, representative of both City of Roanoke
and non-City of Roanoke areas.
~here are a multiplicity of statistics as to the operation of
the shelter and many of these were included in the letter request
to the Council on August 23. As primary data, the SPCA advised
that from January through July, 1971, it had received 2.fiRS cats
and kittens of which 639 were-placed and 1,510 were put to sleep.
It had also received 1,698 dogs of which 1,359 sere placed and
623 were put to sleep.
The City's activity in the area of animals, and to which the
SPCA has made reference, is to the purpose of enforcement of Chapter
2. Title XXI, of the City Code entitled *Dogs'. The primary per-
formance is under the direction of the Police Department through
a position titled Animal Control Officer. The City operates a
pound in the City Garage area on East Campbell Avenue,
In addition to the Codq, more specific duties of the Animal
Control Officer and his assistant are outlined in Rules and
Regulations of the Police Department. In certain aspects relating
to animals within the City, there can be also involvement by the
City Health Department amd from time to time certain conditions
are handled by that department either separately or in conjunction
with the Animal Control Officer. The present Animal Control Officer
has been in this capacity for approximately sixteen years. Some
idea as to the scope of work of this function is in the following
data for the period of six months fram February 1. 1971, to July
31, 1971:
Total calls answered 1,069
Animals put to sleep 472
Average number of daily calls 5.9
Approximate cost for dog food
for impounded animals $ 500.00
Total number of dogs impounded 2,590
Between one hundred and one hundred ten dogs are normally
taken into the City Pound in an average month. This is not a
constant average of intake through the month and will vary depen-
dent upon the particular concentration of activity by the Animal
Narden. For example, during the above six months period on one
particular day forty-seven dogs were apprehended, forty-four on
another day and forty on another day. On other days there are
statistics of only one or two. The result is that at times the
pound is heavily populated and at other times sparsely,
Approximately 20 percent of the dogs impounded are picked
up by their owners within five days. Normally seventy to seventy-
five dogs are put to sleep per month after bein9 held the five
days required by State law plus an additional two days granting
a grace period for the owner. 5ometimebetween the eigh~ and
normally the tenth day, the dogs are put to sleep. The only
exception to the waiting period is an injured animal that cannot
be successfully treated or identified or located as to owner or
a contaminated animal that presents a clear present danger to
all dogs in the pound.
Several questions have been raised by representatives of the
SPCA before the City Council as to the City's operational proced-
ures with respect to dogs and in a letter dated November 30. 1971,
Chief of Police Hooper replied to Mr. R. P. Barnes who also raised
questions to the Chief and I attach a copy of Chief Hooper's letter
as I believe that it responds to most, if not all of these particular
questions,
Comments and proposals were made by the SPCA in the categories
of the handling of cats. the licensing of cats and certain inequities
felt by the SPCA to prevail in the City's dog license ordinance as
to fees. The City in its pound takes in some cats although it is
acknowledged that they are very few in number. The scope of
responsibility of the Animal Control Officer does not primarily di-
rect tomard the activities of cats. On the question of licensin9
of cats. it would seem to me that this should be presented to the
City or to its City Council by a completely separate proposal to be
dealt with individually rather than involved in the complications
of these other matters. As to the recommendation for adjustments
in the do9 license ordinance and its fees, I believe ~at there is
merit to this although that is stated without intent to reflect
any question upon the present fees. There are some points made
by SPCA in this regard that are worthy of consideration and it was
felt that this would perhaps be best a separate matter taken up
at a later time.
My opinion is that we have an effective administration of the
do9 lams within the limits'of reasonable compliance requirements
and time capability of personnel. There are complaints received
concerning the City*s dog apprehension activities but from my
best information, if the numbers of these complaints are reduced
to figures, they are extremely small in comparison to the total
amount of work handled. Traditionally, one of the most unpopular
local government jobs has been that which used to be termed the
'Dog Catcher' and since has graduated to title such as Animal
Control Officer.
There is almostno way to be completely popular and to avoid
complaints. Do9 and animal problems often are related to compli-
cations arranging from neighborhood feuds on down and these, mhen
the control officer pursues his duties, frequently bring on com-
plaints as to his actions. A call by school authorities at any
one of the elementary schools asking assistance in removingunwanted
dogs from the school property, produces the animal control officer.
then produces many young upset animal owners which in turn produce,
and have done so, complaints by parents. This type of function.
as with most local government jobs. does admittedly require
continuin9 emphasis not only on job skill but on public relations.
433'
There is u considerable difference in the function and
responsibility Of the City in its relationship to dogs and animals
in contrast to that or the SPCA. The purpose of the City function
must he more aggressive and is the enforcement of law und this
within itself frequently creates u particular atmosphere amongst
the animal owners, On the other hand the SPCA wovesin · somemhat
different field, obtains, receives and handles animals under
different circumstances, Therefore, the two activities cannot
be compared on identical basis,
Mhen the City constructs its new service center facilities
and converts the present garage area to other possible purpose,
it is quite possible that the dog pound will have to he resitusted,
At that time I think an evaluation should he made as to the best
procedure to be followed as to a different location or whatever
other arrangement may be determined,
In the consideration 'of several past budgets, the City
Council has turned down the reque'sts of the SPCA for funds, If
I may judge the reasoning, it would seem that this has been on
both principle and money. It would not seem to me that the money
factor has changed any since the adoption of the last budget,
If funds were to be granted' to the SPCA, I do not know of any mall
established criteria upon which such should be based and would
assume that it would be an arbitrary amount that would be recon-
sidered each .year. No doubt as an'suing budgets Occur and continu-
in§ cost rise with the SPCA, as well as the City, these appropria-
tions would have to be increased to aid in meeting their operating
expenses.
On the matter of principle. I would have to question at this
tine the advisability of granting funds to the organization. With
this position, as I endeavored to state at the outset of this re-
port. is in no way intended as a reflection upon the SPCA or the
work that it does. It would seem to me. however, that this organi-
zation is a citizens'* group with a particular interest and a parti-
cular effort to meet that interest. No doubt but that they are
rendering a service that if they did not exist, some of which would
perhaps fall to the City. This however is a situati~n that prevails
with a large number of community activities that are privately
sponsored and supported, ranging through the United Fund. the Red
Cross and many others. If these particular groups did not exist.
then no doubt, recognizing the trend of tho times, some aspect
of that which they are doing would fall to the City. 7his is
though a difficult criteria upon which to judge and base the
assignment of City monies.
7he possibility has been considered, as proposed, that the
City's dog pound operation combine with the SPCA shelter. This
is not an inconceivable idea but it would have to be remembered
that there are two completely different 'functions taking place.
Nithout the benefit of a detailed study end on the basis solely
of an overview of the situation, it would be felt that such a .
combination would be best handled by the City cons. tructing a unit
as a dog pound adjacent to or near to th~ SPCA shelter with the
City operating this pound area at City expense enabling a separation
of funds but perhaps permitting some joint supervision and perhaps
benefltin9 animal owners who are in search of their dogs, cats,
et cetera. I would feel that this might be best approached when
the City reaches the point of making a decision as to the reloca-
tion of the dog pound from its present situation, at which time
it would be hoped that necessary capital monies might be obtainable.
If we can furnish additional information we would be glad to
do so.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be ~eferred to 1972-73 budget study.
7he motion was seconded by Mr. ~heeler.
.!
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that the city should offer some flnancia
laidto the S. P. C..A. and offered a substitute motion that the be
City
Attorney
directed to prepare the proper'measure appropriating $3,000.00 to the Society for
the PrmrentJon of Croelty to Animals. Tbe motion was seconded by Mr. Llsh and
unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that Mayor Webber be requested to appoint a committee
to study the feasibility of merging the animal control programs of the City of
~Roanoke mith the operations of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
iThe motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Mayor ~ebber advised that he Would appoint the members of sa'id committee
iat the next regular meeting of Council.
SCIIOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY 1N ROANOKE VALLEY: The City Manager
i!submitted a written report transmitting an Ordinance which will authorize the
execution by the city of a lease with Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke
Valley for use of the former Harrison Elementary School for Day Care Center
purposes.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the followin9 Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~20010) AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 and providing for the lease by the
City of the former Harrison Elementary School site to Total Action Against Poverty
in Roanoke Valley; upon certain terms and conditions .
NHEREAS, by report dated December 2D. 1971. the City Manager has recom-
mended that the City lense to Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley
the former Harrison Elementary School site to be used as a Day Care Cent'er upon
the terms hereinafter provided, in which recommendation Council concurs.
THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the C'ity of Roanoke that
the City Manager be, and he is hereby authorized to enter into written lease
agreement on behalf of the City with Total ac'tion Agalnst Poverty in Roanoke Valley~
leasing to said organization certain area in the former Harrison Elementary School
building to be used for a'Day Care Center, including the kitchen, rest rooms and
playgrounds, between the hours of 6:o0 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
for a term of one year commencing on January 1, 1972, the fair rental value of
said premises to be waived by the City as a charitable donat'im . the City reserv-
ing the riiht to use the building at nil other times durin9 the term of such
lease; such lease to contain such other reasonable terms and provisions as may be
and approved by the City Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the fallowing
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Rayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O.
435
'436
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report advlai'ng that
approximately one year ago the city signed a Memorandum of Under'standi'ng with the
316th Tactical Airlift ~ing. based et Lanfley Air Force Base. for provision of the
facilities atRoanoke Municipal (Noodrum) Airport in the event of national emergenc
or disaster, tbat the #ayor is advised by the Commander of the '316th Tactical
Airlift Ming of their wish to continue this agreement by a new agreement for a
five year period and recommending that Council authorize the signing of said
agreement.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the folioming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
{#20011) AN ORDINANCE authorizing' the execution of a memorandum of
understanding with the 316th Tactical Airlift Ming. Langley AFB. YJrginia, relat-
ing to certain use of the Roanoke Municipal Airport in event of national energency.i
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City
Manager be, and he is hereby authorized and empowered, for and on behalf of the
City, to execute and enter into a certain memorandum agreement, entitled Letter
of Agreement. effective for a period of five (S) years commencing January l, 1972.
nith the 31bth Tactical Airlift Wing. at Langley AFB. Virginia, providing fOP said
unit's use of certain of the facilities at Roanoke Municipal Airport in the e~ent
of national emergency, reimbursement to the City for actual SeF¥ices reedered
to be provided by subsequent separate service contract; sech agreement to be on
form submitted by said unit. a copy of which is on file in the Office of the
City Clerk.
The motion nas seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
Webber ..............................
NAYS: None ............... O.
BUDGET-REGISTRAR: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitt-
ing copy of the following communication written by him to the Chairman of the
Electoral Board with regard to the salary of the City Registrar:
"September 29, 1971
Br. Andrew R. Thompson
Chairman
Roanoke City Electoral Board
Equitable Life Assurance Society
416 South Jefferson Street
Po O. Box 1021
Roanoke. Virginia. 24011
Dear Mr. Thompson:
You and the members of the City El~ctronl Board met with
me to discuss several matters pertaining to the election pro-
ceedings and facilities of the City. In the meeting you gentlemen
noted the attention which has been given over a period of several
years to the matter of the salary of the City Registrar, Mrs.
Nell Irvin. I advised you that we would attempt· a review of
the sequence of events and endeavor to submit to you of the Board
an analysis of the salary situation as it nom stands.
There have been really two chains of events over approximately
the past five years with regard to ars, lrvln's salaries. One
chain has been the actual salaries as determined, budgeted and paid.
The other chain would be the very considerable interplay or con-
versationso correspondence, inferences amd opinions as have taken
place, within approximately the same time, involving, apparentlTo
a various number of people within the City government. 1 think
that the comments of this letter shonld, in an effort of clarity.
make a division of these two chains of events.
The factual sequence of salaries becomes somewhat clear when
the second chain Js omitted.
Attached is a listing, starting with January 1. 1964, of the
salaries and effective dates, for Mrs. Irvln up to and including
the current fiscal year. July 1, 19TI. I would suggest, reference
to that in the following comments.
In 1964o Mrs, lrvin mas in that which nas the then Pay Plan
of the City. As of January 1, of that year, her salary mas $375
per month. For simplicity all figures as follow will be in monthly
amounts,
In 1966. the City Council adopted a classification plan and
a new pay plan. Nearly all of the City employees were placed in
the so-called classified pay plan. Held out by City Council*s
specific decision Mere department heads and a certain other few
employees. These particular employees were termed as unclassified
and thereby made subject to the City Council:s decisions annually
as to individual salaries. The City Registrar was selected by the
City Council to be in the unclassified group and accordingly when
the overall personnel assignments were made as of June 28, 1966o
this position was designated unclassified and assigned for the
budget year 1966-67, a salary of $4?5.
On July 1, 1967, still as an unclassified position, the
salary was increased to $500. This Mas a 5.2% increase in com-
parison with the 2~4_% overall increase 9ranted that year by the
City Council for the classified personnel.
On July 1, 1960, for the 1968-69 budget, City Council increased
the position still unclassified to a salary of $503. This was a
16.b% increase to Rrs. Irvin for this budget year.
In the budget action for 1969-70, the City Council reached the
decision to transfer several of the unclassified positions into the
classified pay plan. Approximately 5 positions, to best recollection.
were involved. One of these was the City's General Registrar and
this change became effective JulI 1, 1969.
The City Council granted an across-the-board increase to City
personnel of 105 to be effective July 1, 1969, for the 1969-70 fis-
cal year. ~his meant that all employees received a 105 increase.
In the shift of the unclassified positions to the classified pay
plan, these positions were reviewed jointly with City Council to
determine their best placement in the classified plan taking all
customary factors into consideration. It was determined to place
the Registrar into Range 17. Step 6. This placement accommodated
the 10% increase in salary granted all personnel.
There was a variation of the percentages applicable to the
some 5 po$itionsthat were transferred. For example one was 11%
increase, one 14%, once 16% and one 20%. This variance resulted
from a review of these positions and the determined placement in the
pay plan. Simultaneously, as takes place each year, there were some
adjustments made in other positions already in the pay plan. This
meant that in a few instances employees or positions could have
received more than the 10% based on position review, recognizing
that the numbers were few.
Those other personnel transferred from unclassified to classi-
fied'were not involved in a matter of 10% plus a step or any such
situation, rather, to repeat, it was the determination of placement
within the classified plan, assuring the minimum accommodation of
~e overall 10%.
The City Council, for the 1970-71 budget, effective July 1.
1970, established an across-the-board increase to all personnel
of approximately $5. They specifically directed that no employee
receive more than 5% irrespective of any anniversary dates, range or
437
grade changes or any other factors, This specific direction result-
ed in several Individual problems mlthin our personnel organization,
However, us, of coursee adhered to the direction,
In several instances, one of which was the General Registrar,
It hsd been determined either by survey, change tn position require-
ments or various other factors that upgrading in range would be in
ordor. Thus tho several positions mere moved from one range to
another higher range. In the case of HFS. IrvJn, it uss from Hange
17 to Hange lg, Nevertheless, me wore under Councilts direction
as to the maximum and the only way in which this could be handled
mas to drop the individual back a certain necessary number of steps
as a part of tho advancement.
For the Registrar this meant going from Range 17 in Step 6 at
$642 to Range 19, Step 4 at $674, Thus she advanced by Job range
or grade but dropped by steps in order to bold to the 5~, The
position additionally picked up future advancement by making available
steps 5 and 6,
Considerable discussions took place at various times and by
various people in the early part of the lg?O-?l budget year in
response to inquiries by the Registrar concerning her salary, At
au point did we administratively have any direct.instructions to do
otherwise than to comply withthe budget as above described, Then
in generally January 1971, the City Council instructed me to bring
in a report and budget ordinance amendment to provide for a 5%
increase for the Registrar, This mas done and effective February
1. 1971, she was advanced from Range lg, Step 4 at $674 to Range
Step 5 at $708, Thus was a mid-year salary change for one employee,
The last and most recent change has occurred with the adoption
of the 1971-72 budget, effective July 1, 1971, wherein this position
receiveda 5~ increase as applicable to all employees, bringing the
salary to Range lq, Step 5 at $?44,
The above constitutes the fullest of my knomledge and our
search of the records as to the circumstances Of this position and
its calssification and salary at this particular point, As to
the first of the two referred to chain Of events, I am satisfied
that the actual salaries as determined, budgeted and paid are fair
with relation to treatment to other City employees and are completely
in accordance with instructions and authority as 9ranted by the City
Council.
As to the second of the two chain of events, it would be impos-
sible, in my judgment, to reach any factual clarity of determination
as to the interplay of conversations, opinion, etc., as have occurred.
Again, I would have to go back to the actual salary processes in the
belief that these reliably determine what has occurred and its reasons.
It is hoped that this properly responds to your Board. If we
can 9o into this farther or meet with you or others we would be
pleased to do so upon your request, I enclose several copies of
this letter for any distribution as you might wish to make.
Sincerely,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Juliaa F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Andrew H..Thompson, Chair-
:man of the Electoral Board, requesting the opportunity of meeting mith the members
~of Council with regard to compensation involving the City Registrar, was before
lithe body.
il Mr. Frank N. Jr., Mrs. Nell C. Irvin,
Perhinson,
Attorney,
representing
iiCity Registrar, appeared before Council with regard to said salary.
Hr, Trout moved that the matter be referred to the Personnel Hoard for
l[study, report and recommendation to Council, The motion mas seconded by Mr, Thomas
iand unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PDDLIC NELFARE: Council having authorized the City Manager
to relocate the commodity food distribution center from Its location on Campbell
Avenue, 5, E** to a new location et 534 Salem Avenue. S. M,. theCity Manager sub-
mitted the following report recommending that he be authorized to enter into a
llease with Mr. and Mrs. Forrest S. Mllliams for rentai of property located at
534 Salem Avenue, S. M** at a monthly rate of $450.00 commencing January 1, 1972~
iand expiring December 31. 1972. for use as the Commodity Food Distribution Center:
'Roanoke, Virginia
December 28, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday. December b, 1971. City Council received a report
from the City Manager related to the proposed relocation of the
Commodity Food Distribution Center to 534 Salem Avenue. S. M.
City Council approved the relocation and revised the Commodity
Food Distribution Center budget accordingll.
One item as contained in this report and approved by City Council
was the leasin9 of the new facility at 534 Salem Avenue, S. M.
Mith the assistance of the City Attorney*s office a lease has been
prepared which is mutually agreeable to the property owners, Mr.
Fattest S, Milliams and Mrs. Jean D, Williams, and to the City.
This lease provides for the rental of this facility at the monthly
rate of $450.00, commencin9 January 1, 1972, and expirin9 at
midnight December 31, 1972. At the termination of this lease, if the
initial term of the lease expires without'the lease being terminated
by either the lessor or lessee giving notice, it shall automatically
continue in force and effect on a year to year basis with a sixty
day written notice.
It would be recommended that City Council by ordinance authorize
the City Manager to enter into this lease.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
!Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20012) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for lease by the City
iof property located at 534 Salem Avenue, S. W., in the City of Roanoke, from
!Fattest S, Williams and Jean B. Williams, to be used as a surplus commodities
i'food center; upon certain terms and conditions; and providing for an'emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 152.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion ~as seconded
ilby gr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
;Mebber ............................
~i NAYS: None ..............O.
i HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: The City Manager submitted the following report
i~ln connection with putting the electric and telephone facilities and establishments
i!that will go into this area:
439
'Roanoke, Virginia
December 28. 1971
Honorable Mayor nnd City Council
iounohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
From time to time there have been some comments, end I believe
mentioned on un occasion or so before City Council, ns to the Inter-
est of putting the electric and telephone facilities underground
in the Kimball Redevelopment Project for the nem facilities and
establishments'that would go into this area, The Redevelopment-
and Housing Authority has reviewed this with the Appalachian Power
Company end the Chesapeake end Potomac Telephone Company. Figures
are mom available from the Power Company nnd general estimates have
been developed math the Telephone Company. The estimated cost.
as advised by the Power Company. to put their facilities underground
in the Minball area 1s'$356.400. The estimated cost for overhead
facilities uould be $22.600.
These estimates do not include cost for electric service to
individual customers in the project area. These jobs would be
worked out with the customer when service was requested.
The policy or position of the Power Cempany is that any expense
of going underground, over and above overhead facilities would be
at the expense of others than the Power Company. This means
that the difference between the above tmo figures. $333,800. would
have to be assumed by others which would tufa tO be the Housing
Authority. Such an expense is allomed as a project cost; however.
as with other project costs, one-third would have to be provided
bythe City. This means that the expense to the City of under-
9round for electric facilities would be $111.266.
For the Telephone Company. the costs are generally as above and
if necessary, we cnn provide the details on this.
I do not know whether the City Council wants to make a deter-
mination on this and if not I would feel inclined to advise the
Authority to disregard the prospector the City being in a position
to assume this expense and to request of both the Power Company
and the Telephone Company to minimize their overbnsd wiring to
every extent possible.
There is no doubt but that it would be advanlageous, principally
as to appearance, to have these facilities underground but it mould
seem that the question of cost is a fairly considerable item. I
will be guided by any request the City Council might make.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. HiFSt
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that the report be referred back to the City Manager for
more information in connectien with the financial aspects. The motion was seconded
by Mr. £isk and unanimously adopted.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having requested that the City Manager study
the possibility of establishing a tFainin9 program for members of the Fire
!Department and report back to Council. the City Manager submitted the following
ii report requesting the consideration of Council to not press for an early reply
i' in the study nnd development of the material in connection with such facilities
il due to certain reasoning: ·
~Roanoke. Virginia
December 2~. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your City Council meeting this past Monday. December 20,
you requested a study and report back as to the provision and
construction of fire training facilitieso The idea and possibility
e£ such facilities is heartily COncurred in. As I mentioned before
the Council on December 20, such an idea has been considered for a
series of budgets but had to be set aside because of the absence of
capital funds and the idea mas in fact considered for the 19b? bond
issue program but there also set aside in view of what were then
considered to be 9renter needs.
My mrJtin9 is to ash the consideration of Council to not
press for sa early reply in the study and development of the
material in connection with such facilities, The reasoning being
that'we have somenhst of a backlog of already authorized matters
that we would.like to try to be able at this time to fully con-
centrate on and get into motion, several of which have been long
time pending but to which we have not been able to devote the tine
that should have been given, uitb three hem fire stations being
significant among these. If ue could get these out of the may,
for mhich funds are in hand, I would like to then get to these
facilities, Your consideration of this would be appreciated,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted,
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted
~the following report in connection with lighting the Preston Park Elementary
School recreation area:
"Roanoke, Virginia
December 20, 1971
Itonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On November 23, 1970, City Council referred to me a pro-
posal for relocating lights in the Transportation Museum area
to the recreation facility at the Preston Park Elementary School.
A report followed advising of the limited usefulness of these
lights in the Museum area, the need to retain many of them at
that site and that only a few were considered satisfactory
for relocation and reuse. On August lg. 1971, the City Council
again requested information as to the lighting of this area
indicating consideration by the City Council that this area ·
would be used for sandlot team activity. A report was made to
the Council on August 30 and this was rereferred to me for more
detailed information as to the cost of lighting this recreation
area. In response I am 91ad to advise as follows.
There are three different field uses with related lighting
systems that would be available and from which a selection may
be made as to the intended use. of the field. There respective
costs are indicated and these costs are indicated and these
costs include the items of fixtures, poles, lamps, pole hardnare.
lumber, steel and miscellaneous hardware, wiring and switches
and fittings, lhese costs do not include labor which would be
provided from the City*s budgeted personnel.
A. A night-lighted baseball field only
60 lighting units at $77.00 = $4,620.00
B, A night-lighted football field only
64 lighting units at $83.75 =
C. A combination football and baseball field
100 lighting units at $83.75 = $8,375.00
All three of the above quotations are based on entirely
new fixtures and miscellaneous equipment. Any fixtures that
could be used from the Museum area would reduce the price
accordingly. Mhile we have some doubts as to the satisfactory
condition of these reflectors there may be possibly ten that
could be relocated mhich at a unit cost in the above quotations
of $32.00 each would reduce any of the above figures by $320.00.
For cost comparison basis, it is to be noted that in recent
work the following were the per light unit cost:
441
Strauss Park football-baseball field $69.66
Eureka Park baseball field 61.83
Eureka Park tennis court 93.07
Eureka Park basketball court 93.24
The reason for the higher per light cost for tennis'and
basketball lights as compared to baseball end football lights
is that the tennis and basketball light~ operate automatically
whereas baseball and football lights are manually operated. The
slightly higher per light cost at Strauss Park over Eureka in
baseball Is due primarily to the greater distances involved
at Strauss.
In developing for budgeting and construction purposes the
cost of field and area lighting, the standard now being used is
to base cost on the per.fixture estimate times the number of
fixtures involved. Some of the above recent work carries a lower
per unit than the figures noted for Preston Park and this is
due to two factors. All of the materials for the seven parks
in the 1970-71 budget were purchased at one time and this totaled
250 light fixtures and equipment. Quantity discount figures
were available which would not be materially offered for purchase
as to, one field at a time. In addition price increases of these
materials have generally trended at six percent since the last
purchase. Me also got very good prices on the fixture units at
$21.60 in comparison to the $32.00 figure as noted above and as
being currently used. It might be possible to obtain lower
figures and of course, as always, this would be to the advantage
of the City.
An additional cost, to be provided and added to the above,
is fencing that would be needed down the first and third base
side of the baseball field. This cost would be $640.00 and
would include two=inch mesh, nine gauge wire, 10 feet high;
poles and fittings, et cetera. This figure does not include labor
which would be performed by budgeted personnel.
In my report of August 30, 1971. I indicated some hesitancy
as to the use of the Preston Park area because of the difficulty
in maintaining adequ5te or reasonable grass stand due to experi-
ence in that particular type of area soil and the extent to which
the area is used for school recreation to which would be added
the sandlot activities.
One other point in the City Council's consideration of a
baseball field is that from home plate down the first base line,
there is only 175 feet available until a steep bank is reached.
To go up on the bank would require a 9god deal of grading at
additional cost. One hundred seventy-five feet is not considered
sufficient to make a field fully adequate for game play.
Perhaps the major need in the Rilliamson Road area is the
availability of more practice fields rather than night-lighted
fields.
The Department of Parks and Recreation advises that within
their scheduling there are sufficient fields at the present time
to meet the needs of league play, Mith daylight saving time.
and in some instances according to the age of boys using the
fieldo lights are not really too necessary. The effort in the
1972 sandlot football program will be to continue the scheduling
efforts to reduce even further the playing of sandlot football
under lights. This would be accomplished by using more field
during daylight hours,
A suggestion as to an alternative to lighting, should the
City Council wish to take this into consideration, would be to
combine the following four units:
A. Construct another backstop in Preston Park with the
necessary fencing in the north end of the park. This
would create another field for teams to practice.
The cost would be $1,500 for backstop and fencing.
D. Erect the necessary fencing down the lines of the
existing field-~estimated cost
C, Seed and disc the area of the football field at Preston
Park~seedin9 and fertilizing $2?5,
D. Disc and seed the BrechinrJdge field and seeh an arrange-
ment with the officials at Drechinridge Junior Nigh
School of the availnbJlity of the field for practice 8nd
game play--seed and fertilizer $27s.
Labor is not included in the above as it uould be provided
by the Oepartment of Parks and Recreation personnel. The total
cost of the above items is $2,6go.
If me can furnish any additional information at the request
of the City Council. we uould be glad to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. fliest
Julian F. flits,
City'Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper
measure appropriating $8.3?5.00 to provide for the combination field. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-CITY GOVERNRENT: The Assistant City Auditor submitted a written
report of the City Auditor advising that under the authority granted the City
Auditor by Resolution No, 19Ggb, he has negotiated a short term loan in the total
amount of $2,000,000.00, at the rate of 2.45% per annum and that an appropriation
of $2,000,000.00 will'be needed for repayment of the loan and $24,500,00 for inter-!
est on the loan.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20013) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #93. "Temporary
Loans,' and Section ~95, "Interest on Indebtedness,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation
~Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Oook No. 36, page 153.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iiby Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None .............. O.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19909. rezoning property located on Dale,on
Avenue between Light Street and Waylaud Street, described as Lots ~ - 13, inclusive
Section 4, Jackson Park Addition. Official Tax Nos. 3210819 - 3210029, inclusive,
~from LM, Light Manufacturing Uistrict, to RG-2, General Residential District,
having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over,
was again before the body, Mr. Lisk offering the following for its second reading
and final adoption:
443
'444
(z19989) AN ORDINANCE to naend Title XY, Chapt'er 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 321, Sectional
1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook No. 36. page 132.)
Hr. Link moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Rayor
~Webber ..........................
~ NAYS: None .............. O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 19990, rezoning property described as Lot 11,
!Block 36, Rap of Melrose Land Company, Official Tax No. 2221611. from RG-I. 6amoral
ilResidential District. to C-I, Office and Institutional District. having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again before
the body, Mr. Thomas offering the following for its secondreading and final
adoption:
(~19990) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 222, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 134.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
~by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
!i AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Rebber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None ............. O.
i; ZONING: Ordinance No. 19991, rezoning property described as Lots 6 and
;36, Section 1, Map of Avondale. from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2,
General Commercial District, and Lots ?, 6, 9, 32, 33, 34 and 35, Section 1, Map
of Avondale, fro~ RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential
iiDistrict, havin9 previously been before Council for its first reading, read and
i:laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the followin~ for its
!!second readin9 and final adoption:
(g19991) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of The
i:Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 309, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. girl of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 135.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas; Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
#ebber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None O.
I
SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING-SLUM CLE~RANCE--~ARBAGE REMOVAL: Ordinance No.
19999o authorizing and providing for the sale and conveyance of the city*s former
Municipal incinerator property, mom unused, to the City of Roanohe Redevelopment
and Rousing Authority, upon certain terms and conditions, having previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mas again before the
body, Mr. Lisk offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~1999fl) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the sale and con-
~veyance of the City*a former Municipal Incinerator property, now unused, to City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. ab, page lab.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, hheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ............... O,
SEM£RS AND STORM DRAINS: Council havin9 directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure offering to amend the city's contract of September
1954, with the County of Roanoke relative to the transmission and treatment of
certain sewage and acceptable wastes, by adding thereto a certain 12.B55-acre
area of land. situate east of Bandy Road, (Va. State Route b65). in Roanoke
County. owned by Cardem Develc@ment Corporation, upon certain terms and conditinns,
he presented same: whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(=20014) A RESOLUTION offering to amend the City*s contract of September
20, 1954, with the County of Roanoke, relative to the transmission and treatment
of certain sewage and acceptable wastes, by adding thereto a certain 12.055-acre
area of land. situate east of Bandy Road, (Va. State Route 665), in Roanoke County,
owned by Garden Development Corporation, upon certain terms and conditions,.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36. page 154.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by gr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
AIRPORT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure authorizing and providing for an amendment to the city*s concession agree-
ment dated June 26. 1969. with ITT Consumer Services Corporation for the operation
~of the city*s automobile parking lot at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport in
Roanoke County, relating to the quaranteed fees payable to the city for such con-
cession privileges, he presented same; whereupon, Or. Taylor offered the following
~emergency Ordinance:
44§
'446
(n2001S) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for an amenment to the
Cl{y*s concession agreement dated June 26, 1969. with ITT Consumer Services Cor-
~oratiou for the operation Of the city*s automobile parking lot ut Roanoke
Municipal Airport in Roanoke County, relating to the guaranteed fe~s payable to tile
City for such concession privileges; and provid lng for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35° page lSb,)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas Seconded
by Mr. Mhceler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber--5.
NAYS: Mr. Garland .................................................... 1.
PAY pLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-PLANNING: Council having directed the City
~Attorney to prepare the proper measure amending Ordinance No. iR?51, providing
i~a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan, by adding to said Pay Plan
"the position of Planning Technician, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Llsk offered
ithe following emergency Ordinance:
(u20015) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19751, heretofore adopted
on June, 28, lgTl, providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan,
i'by adding to said Pay Plan a new position of employment; and providing for an
ilemergency.
(For'full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 157.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption'of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr,. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Link, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, and Mayor
iWebber ................................................6.
NAYS: Mr. Mheeler ...........................1.
FIRE OEPARTRENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure expressing the approval of Council for certain staffing changes
in the structure of the Fire Department for the purpose of overcoming certain
iiupon, Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(~20017) a RESOLUTION expressing Council*s approval for certain staffing
certain personnel operating deficiencies within the department.
ii (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35. page 158.)
!! Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
ilby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
NAYS: Rt. Wheeler ....................... 1.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the followin9 report
in connection with the Lick Run Sanitary Sewer Line:
'Roanoke, Virginia
December 26, 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:.
Because of the circumstances relating to. this matter, I will
submit it on the Agenda under Hearing of Citizens for any guidance
that Council might give.
It will be recalled that we hare had under handling for some
number of months the condition of the sanitary sewer line in Lick
Run. In the construction by the Corps of Engineers this line was
found to be in a seriously deteriorated condition and needed
replacement. Me went to bids on replacement, which bids came
before the Council, and the low bid was $108,000. This covered
l,SO0 linear feet. The bids were set aside because of the amount
of money and to try to find out if it could be handled by initially
doin9 only a short section and doing the remainder later. About
the time we were prepared to try to take bids on the shorter sec-
tion, the Corps of Engineers, who is responsible for the drainage
channel Job. requested that the City leave the matter alone and
not replace the line at that time, which was about two month~
ago, because it'would interfere with their construction. They
asked that the City hold up until they+ were ready.
Now the Corps of Engineers has advised us that they are
immediately ready to do a section of the channel wall and before
they can do that it is important that the City replace the
temporary sanitary sewer line. The situation constitutes an
emergency insofar as we are concerned. One reason bain9 that the
scheduling of the Corps of Engineers' project is such that if
the sanitary sewer line cannot be replaced starting promptly.
then their contractor will be held up which in turn will brin9
additional cost back to City. A second reason is that because
of the temporary line. the City is functioning on a thin balance
margin in the transmission of sanitary sewage throw9h this area.
The meanin9 of this is that the slightest increase or change in
pressure in this general area can cause backage in portions of
the domntown section. This is, a pressure head difficulty.
The necessity is to put back in approximately 800 feet of
permanent pipe. Size 24-inch. To do this some 22T feet of wall
will need to be removed. Me tentatively estimate cost at
approximately $15,000 to $20,000.
To take the normal bid procedure will create too long a
delay in getting to the work. If we started now this would
mean we would be in to February before a contractor could be
authorized to proceed and on top of that the successful contractor
would have to obtain pipe which would require a couple of weeks.
This delay is disturbin9 in present winter weather under the
pressure head situation and also as to the hold up on the Corps
of Engineers contractor.
I would like to proceed under Section 41 of the City Code.
enabling the City to negotiate with a contractor, if one can be
obtained, who is capable o~ this particular work. Me can either
nrgotiate with a contractor on a unit price or on a cost plus
basis. Me are also proceeding to determine if the City can obtain
the pipe readily which would be of benefit in any contractor
arrangement.
If the City Council has no disagreement with this. I would
like to proceed under this basis and will additionally need to
come to the Council for an appropriation as soon as cost is
determined.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manoger"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution establishing
~ilH°nday' January 3, 1972, as a legal holiday for the current year only for city
i!employ ....
447
4.48
(a20016) A RESOLUTlONestablJshing" Monday. January 3, 1972, as a legal
holiday for the current year only.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No, 36, page 159.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
I AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
~Webber ............................ 7.
i NAYS: None .............. O,
Mr. Lisk then offered the following Resolution changing the date of the
~regular weekly meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke from January 3. 1972,
ito January 4. 1972, at 2 p.m,:
(s2OOlq) A RESOLUTION changing the date of a regular weekly meeting of
!Jtbe Council of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text.of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36. page 160.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ................................. ?,
NAYS: None .................. O.
There beis9 uo further business, Mayor Webber declared the meetin9
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
/ City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
Tuesday, January 4, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Tuesday, January 4. 1972. at 2 p.a.. the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Rebber presiding.
PRESEftT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. LJsk. Noel C. Taylor.
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Nheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber---~ ............................. 7.
t ABSENT: None ................
~ OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Rirst. City Manager; Mr. Byron E. tlaner.,
Assistant City Manager: Mr. James N. Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr. A.
IGlbson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
!Roland C. Bailey, Pastor. Cave Spring Baptist Church.
MINI~IE$: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
{iDecember 6, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
,iTh°mas* seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof mas
idispensed with and the minutes approved us recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing on the request of Mr.
iElmerG..Cox, et ux., that located Greenhurst
property
on
Avenue,
described
insAcreage, Official Tax No. 2060625, Rails Land Rap, be rezoned from
RD,
Duplex
~Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District, the matter was before
the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"December 2. 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of December 1, 1971.
Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission. presented a plot plan, and noted
the following concerning this petition:
that this property is located on Creenhurst Avenue
and has been vacant for some time.
that his client wishes to construct o 5-unit apartment
building with a 20-foot driveway, ample parking and play
areas.
that the lot is 250 feet deep and each unit will rent
from $110 to $120 per month.
The Planning Commission members generally lobbed favorably
upon the plan.
449
450
The Planning Director noted that a RG-I zoning designation
would serve as a good buffer-strip betmeen l-SOl and the
neighboring duplex-zoned area.
Accordingly, notion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L.M.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.,
Vice-Chairman"
Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a20020) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XY, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 206. Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
[HEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property described as acreage on Greenhurst Avenue, N. #., Official
Tax Number 2060825, Watts Land Map rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District,
to RG-I. General Residential District; and
WHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-1.
General Residential District; and
RDEREAS. the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4ol, Title XV. of The Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published
and posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
RREREAS. the bearing as provided for in said notice was held on the
3rd day of January. 1972, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke.
at shich hearing all parties in interest and citizens mere given an opportunity
to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
RHEREAS. this Council. after considering the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned. ,
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2. of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as
!.
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 206 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the.following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Greenhurst Avenue. N. R., described as acreage,
designated on Sheet 205 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke, as Officiai'
Tax No. 2060825, Watts Land Rap, be, and is hereby, changed from RD, Duplex
Residential District, to RG-I. General Residential District, and that Sheet No.
11206 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Mheeler nnd adopted by the following
!vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .................................... T.
NAYS: None .....................O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Tuesday,
January 4, 1972, on the request of Mr. Franklin L. Angell, that property located
at the southwest corner of Grandin Road and Windsor Avenue. So M., described as
Lot 1. T. M. Fugate Map, Official Tax No. 1440606. be rezoned from RG-I.' General
~iResidential District. to C-I. Office and Institutional District, the matter was
before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request for rezoning be granted:
'December 2, 1971
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetings of November 3. November 17 and
December 1. 1971.
Mr. Caldwell Butler, attorney for the petitioner, appeared be-
fore the Planning Commission and stated that this item had been
presented before this Commission before and they were therefore
familiar with it. In addition, he noted again that his client is
requestin9 to have this property rezoned from a RG-I to a C-1
designation so as to expand the existing medical offices in order
to provide for adequate medical care throughout the neighborhood.
Doctor Johnson, the petitioner, presented a photograph of the
property in question, located on Grandin Road, and pointed out the
area he plans to expand, lie stated that he would gladly do whatever
the neighbors wanted, and he was not going to change the appearance
of the building.
Mr. Coleman, Planning Commission member, raised the question of
whether he could meet the parking requirements. Mr. Johnson noted
that the back yard portion could easily be converted into a parking
lot. Mr. Parrott, Planning Commission Chairman. raised a question
concerning the exact use of the remainder of the building.
A local resident appeared before the Planning Commission and
noted that he lives across the street from the property and his
only concern is with the parking situation. Be stated that the
residents now have problems getting in and out of their driveway.
The Planning Commission members generally noted and agreed that
the petitioner should present a plot plan clearly delineating both
the expansion and parking areas (including ingress and egress).
At the December 1, 1971 meeting, the plot plan was presented to the
members of the Planning Commission delineating the parking area
and related elements. The plan was then reviewed and found to be
acceptable to all the members of the Commission.
Accordingly. motion was made. duly seconded'and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr. by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Vice-Chairman~
451.
452
No one sppemvln9 in opposition to the request for rezonlng, Mr, Nheeler
moved that'the following Ordinance be placed upon its first, reading:
(a20021) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 144. Sectional 1966
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke. in relation to zoning.
· ~HEREAS. upplicution has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have the property loc~ted on the southwest corner of Ninduo¥ Avenue and GrandJn
Road. S. W.. in the City of Roanoke. State of ¥irginla. more particularly ~es-
cribed us follows:
BEGINNING at the southwest corner of Grandin
Road and ~indsor Avenue; thence with Grundin
Road S. 40o 20' #. 100 feet to a point; thence
N. 59° 57' ~. 207.30 feet to a point; thence
N. 39o O* 19' E. 65.3 feet to Nindsor Avenue;
thence with ~indsor Avenue S. 6G° 54' E. 210 feet
to the Beginning; and known as Lot 1. accordin9
to survey made for T. ~. Fugate, map of which is
recorded in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court of
Roanoke County. Virginia; and
BEING Roanoke City Official #1440606.
rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District. to E-l. Office an'd Institutional
District; and
RHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RG-1, General Residential District, to C-l,
Office and Institutional District: and
RHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required.to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section TI. Chapter 4.1, Title XY, of The Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published
and posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the
3rd day of January, 1972, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke,
at which hearing all parties in intere, st and citizens were 91yen un opportunity
to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
RHEREAS. this Council. after considerin9 the evidence as herein pro-
vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should he rezoned.
THEREFORE, DE 11 ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, Id56, as
amended, relatin9 to Zonin9, and Sheet No. 144 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Nap, Cit
of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the snuthuest corner of #indsor Avenue and Grandin
Road, 5. W., in the City of Roanoke, described as Lot 1, T. W. Fugate Map, des-
ignated on Sheet No. 144 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke, as
Official Tax No. 1440606, be, and is hereby, changed from RG-1, General Residential
:District, to C-l, Office and Institutional District, and that Sheet No. 144 of the
aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................... T.
NAYS: None ................ O.
PETITIONS AND COKKLr~ICATIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. John L. Hart, Attorney. represen
ting the East Gate Church of the Nazarene, requesting that a certain alley 12 feet
wide running from Kessler Road to East Gate Avenue between 20th Street and 21st
Street, N. E.. and a certain alley 12 feet wide running from 20th Street to 21st
Street, N. E., between Kessler Road and East Gate Avenue, being all of the alleys
sbown in block ? of the Map of East Gate Addition, be vacated, discontinued and
closed, was before Council.
Rt. Trout offered the folloming Resolution appointing viewers in connec-
tion with vacating, discontinuing and closing said alleys:
(g20022) A RESOLUTION providin9 for the appointment of five (5) free-
holders, and three (3) of whom may act, as viewers in connection with the appli-
Ication or petition of the East Gate Church of the Nazarene to permanently vacate,
~!discontinue and close a certain alley 12 feet wide runnln9 from Kessler Road to
East Gate Avenue between 20th Street and 21st Street, N. E., and a certain alley
ii12 feet mide running from 20th Street to 21st Street. N. E. between Kessler Road
and East Gate Avenue, being all of the alleys shown in Block 7 of the Map of East
Gate Addition to the City of Roanoke, Virginia, recorded in Deed Book 126, page
ii453, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution.Book No. 36, page 151.)
Ur. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion ms seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
#ebber ........................
NAYS: None ......... O.
Ur. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconde*
by Br. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
b~FREEYS AND ALLEYS: A communication from Mr. Allen Wa Staples, Attorney, l
representing the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, requesting
that certain streets, avenues and alleys within or bordering the area of the
Kimball Redevelopment Project Va. R-46 in the northeast section of the City of
Roanoke be vacated, discontinued and closed, was before Council.
Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in connec-
tion with vacating, discontinuing and closing said streets, avenues, and alleys:
(g20023) A RESOLUTION relating to permanent vacation, discontinuance and
closing of certain streets, avenues and alleys within the boundary of or bordering
the Kimball Redevelopment Project VA R-46 of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
~ousing Authority as hereafter more fully described, appointing viewers in the
tremises, and referring the proposed closing to the City Planning Commission.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 162.)
Rt. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
~y Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Hessrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomaso Trout, Wheeler and Hoyor
Nebber 7
NAYS: None ................ O,
Mr. Trout then moved thatthe matter be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report aud recommendation to Council. The motion was Second-!
~ed by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection. Mr. Frank K, Sounders, Attorney, representing the
~!Roanohe Gas Company, appeared before Council and presented u communication advisingI
~ithat Roanoke Gas Company is opposed to certain of the street closings, that the
iiobJections by the Company to the closings are based on the facts that these closings,
mill materially affect the ingress and egress of the Gas.Company to its facilities
as now in use and Hill seriously affect future development of the lands owned by
*the Roan,he Gas Company by denying proper access thereto and in addition the clos-
ings will render inaccessible a small portion of the lands owned by the Gas Com-
the Gas Company from access to a public street and further requesting that he be
notified of all hearings and proceedings in connection with the street closings.
STR£ET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power Com-
pany, transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of December. 1971. Has before Council.
REPORT5 OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COL~T: The City Manager submitted
a written report recommending that $800.00 be appropriated to provide funds for
a new ice making machine: that $1,100.00 be appropriated to provide funds for a hem
ten horsepower mower; and that $271.50 be appropriated to provide funds for an
ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section a27, "Juvenile De-
(=20024)
AN
tention Home." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emerRency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 165.)
Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the foil.win9 vote:
ilWebber .................................. 7.
NAYS: None ..................O.
ANIMALS-DOGS-TAXES: Council having directed the CitI Attorney to prepare
ithe proper measure appropriating $3,000.00 to the Society for the Prevention of
!:
!Cruelty to Animals, the City Manager submitted a written report advising that he
:ifeels an obligation to again express to Council his anxiety in the matter of the
::that this writing is iu part particularly, prompted by the proposed contribution
i~to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and that he is again express-
,ing his objection as stated in his report with regard to the SPCA of December 28,1c~1.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed, The motion
was seconded ,by Dr. Taylor and nnanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$30000,00'to the Roanoke Chapter - S. P. C. A. under Section #91, *Non-Departmental,
lof the 1971-72 budget:
(n20025) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section egl, *Non-Department*
al.'~ of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
~ (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No, 36, page 165.)
i Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
! AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
iWebber .............................
NAYS: None .............. O.
Hr. Lisk then moved that Mayor Rebber be requested to appoint a committee
~to study the feasibility of merging the animal control programs of the City Of
;Roanoke with the operations of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Mebber advised that he would appoint said committee at the next
regular meetin9 of Council on Monday. January 10. 1972.'
HEALTII DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the f,Il,win9 r~ortrecom-
mending that Council. by Resolution, indicate its approval to the kental Health
Services of the Roanoke Valley addenda budget dated December. 1971. for budget
additions which the Ilealth Services is submitting to the State Department of Mental
Ilygiene and Hospitals for additional state funds for program expansion at the
Jerome Hart School and for funds to send 135 mentally retarded children from the
Roanoke Valley area to Camp Virginia Jaycee:
"Roanoke. Virginia
January 4, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Me are in receipt of copies of two addenda budget requests
which the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley is submit-
ting to the State Department of Rental Hygiene and Hospitals for
Sta~e funds. One addendum is to provide full day basis day-care
service to eight additional mentally retarded children through the
Jerome Matt School. The second addendum is to provide to send 135
mentally retarded children from the Roanoke ValIey to Camp Virginia
Jaycee.
I am enclosin9 copies of the significant financial data sheets
being portions of the total 18 pages that were forwarded by Mental
Health Services. The complete documentation is available if the
City Council or its members would wish to review it. No local
government tax funds are involved but approval by the local govern-
mental jurisdiction is necessary.
It is recommended that the City Council by resolution indicate
its approval to Rental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley addenda
dated December. 1971. for budget additions which the Health Ser-
vices is submitting to the State Department of Mental Hygiene
and Hospitals for additional State funds for program expansion at
Jerome Natt School and with Camp Virginia Jaycee.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Hr. #heeler moved that action on the recommendation of the Clt7 Manager
C M
be deferred Until the next regular meeting of Council in order for the Sty annge~
to furnish the members of Council with copies of the addends bud§et as submitted by
the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley. The motion was seconded by Hr.
iTrout and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Hanager submitted a written report
!!transmitting copy Of a communication from the staff of the State Water Control
iBoard, indicating the concurrence of the Board's staff, at this point, to the
iiexpansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant ~ 35 million gallons per day mhlch was
the recommendation of the city in the earlier stages of the program.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS: Council having referred to the City Manager for investiga-
tion and report a communication from Mrs. Juanita Lynch, transmitting a complaint
of residents in the 900 block of Fnirfax Avenue, N. M., that said block is being
taken over by rats and requesting that something be done to correct the situation,
'the City Manager submitted a written report transmitting the following report from
the Health Director with regard to the matter:
*Date: October I0. 1971
To: Dr, James H. ragas, M.D., Health Director
From: J. B. Kennerly. R. S.
Through: L. A. Huff. Supervisor. Environmental Health Division
Subject: Rats in 900 Block of FaJrfsx Avenue Northwest
An investigation of the complaint made to Roanoke City Council
on September 28, 1971, by HFS. JuanJta Lynch, 9lO Fairfax
Avenue Northwest was made on October 13, 1971. At that time. I
inspected the residence of Mrs. Lynch and the house directly
across the street at 919 Fairfax Avenue Northmest and found evidence
of rat infestation at both properties. Both dmellings are in good.
repair, however, they have unfinished cellars with dirt floors
and foundation walls which are easily burrowed under by rats.
The owners Of both properties were advised as to methods to im-
prove rat-proofing of their dwellings and safe means of extermin-
ation of rats therein. They were also advised as to our efforts
in enforcing local ordinances relating to weeds on vacant property
ia the area and the fact that we would bait sewer manholes and
other City property where feasible.
Summonses have been issued for the owners of vacant lots (two on
Moorman Road and one on Fairfax Avenue in the 800 block) for
violations of the weed ordinance.
A court case was held on a failure to eliminate a rat harborage
at the rear of premises at 626 Gilmer Avenue Northwest, omned by
Rebecca Minor, located in the vicinity of this rat complaint; in
that case we had been attempting to obtain compliance since March
10. 1971 without success. The case mas tried in Municipal Court
by Judge Fitzpatrick on August 13. 1971 after our records were
reviewed by Mr. Ryder of the Commonwealth*s Attorney*s office.
The case was dismissed with a warning to the defendant. This
property ~as visited on October 13, 1971. and at that time. the
violation was corrected. However, the alley mas badly littered,
A work order was sent on this date to Mr. Shomalter, Sanitation
Department Supervisor, to clean the alley of this accumulation.
Our records indicate that this is the first complaint received
specifically on rats from anyone in the 900 block of Fairfax
Avenue Northwest. A complaint on the weeds on Moorman Road in
the 900 block was received on June 10, 1971.
A house at 831Fairfax has recently become vacant and has been
posted by Mr. Luther Light, Sanitarian. and the owner notified
to clean the premises.
It is hoped that the above steps mill improve the general sanita-
tion in the area and make it easier for those persons having
problems to better control the rats on their own property."
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted the following report trans-
mitting information as to those units of the city governmental organization that
are proposed to be included within the Service Center and also trznsuitting un
outline of facilities proposed in the Service Center at this singe:
"Roanohe, Virginia
January 4. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roznohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council requested a few weeks ego information as to
those units of the City governmental organization that it is propos-
ed would be included within the Service Center. Those operations
and their present location are ns follows:
Garage (Campbell Ave'uae)
Maintenance of Property (Campbell Avenue)
Sign Shop (Campbell Avenue)
Sanitation (Carver Avenue)
Traffic Engineering (MillJamson Road)*
Radio Shop (Crystal Spring)
Street Division (Salem Avenue)
Park Maintenance (Highland Park, etc.)
Me are presuming at this time that the Mater Department opera-
tigris will remain on Hollins Road.
Sewer and Drain Raintenanco is still under consideration for
the Service Center; however, we have been giving some thought to
possible reorganization with respect to this operation and as yet
have not a definite recommendation for its inclusion within the
Service Center.
Up until recently it had generally been proposed that the
maintenance og school vehicles would be handled through the Ser-
vice Center. In fact, this was one of the original ideas in the
proposition when it was considered in the 1967 referendum. However,
the scope of vehicles for the school System has considerably
expanded this fall and we do not feel there is a practical possibil-
ity of storage or maintenance of the buses at the Service Center.
~e will be better able to evaluate this after we get into prelim-
inary plans. The normal operating vehicles of the school system
could be maintained through this Service Center. Any storage
requirements or large bus activity would be extremely difficult
and inadvisable.
I also attach a copy of an outline of facilities proposed in
the Service Center at this stage. Me are now solicitin9 inquiries
from architects and will anticipate coming back to Council with
respect to this.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
:seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYDROUNDS-STADIU~-~ATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager sub-
i~mitted a written report concurring in the following report of a committee recommend-
iiing that the proposal of Reese C. Shanks ~ Harold A. Francisco for operating Se
concession at the National Guard Armory, the proposal of Dalton's Concessionaire
ilfor operating the concession at the Rill Mountain Children's Zoo, the proposal of
Stone Enterprises for operating the concession at Masena Park and the proposal of
i!C. B. Clemmer for operating the concession at Carvins Cove. be accepted:
"January 3, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Tuesdoy. December 21, bids were received and opened before
the committee whose names appear below for the operating of cer-
tain concessions for the calendar year 1972. with options to
renew for tug additional years under the conditions set forth in
detail in the bid forms.
457
458
As may be seen on the attached tabalatlouo alternate bids on an
annual lump sum basis mere requested and received on concessions
for the National-Guard Armory and Mill Mauntulu Children~ Zoo,
although in the past bids mere requested only on the basts of
percentage of gross sales. It mas felt that in taking bids in
tbfs manner it mould enable the City to determine the best method
to accept by reviewing the revenue received from each location
during the past three 'ears. Dads uere requested on an annual
lump sum basis only fQV Uasena Parh end Carvlns Cove as bed been
the procedure for mahy years,
After revieuing the revenue received by the City during the past
three ye3rs from the four concessions, the committee is of the
opinion that it would be to the best interest of the City to accept
the bid received on aa annual lump sum basis for each of the
locations as folloms:
Reuse C~ Shanks ~ DoFold A. Francisco
National Guard Armory $50,00 per year
Dalton's Concessionaire
Mill Mt, CbJldren*s Zoo Food $3,200,00 per year
Concession
C. B. Clemer
Carvin$ Cove Area $200.00 per year
Stone Enterorises
#amana Park Softball Area $200.00 per year
As may be seen from the attached tabulation, the bid recommended
is the highest bid for each area with the exception of the Carvins
Core Area. The bid of C. B. Clemer is recommended since Mr,
Clemer performs-other services in the Carvins Cove area mhile in
the employment of the Parks and Recreation Department. If Mr.
Clemer continues to operate the concession, he is physically in
the area to perform maintenance duties which would othermise
necessitate man and vehicle travel time from the City to travel
to and from the Carvins Cove Area, Mr. Clermer has also proven
willing to assist the patrolman in the Carvins Cove area in
emergency situations by checking routine docking and boating
procedures mhen the patrolman has to visit other sections of the
Carvins Cove area.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the committee that the bids
be accepted as listed herein, and all other bids be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Nilliam F, Clark S/ Kit B, Kiser S/ B, B, Thompson
Nilliam F, Clark Kit D, Kiser Rueford D. Thompson
Oirector of Public Works Manager, Mater Purchasing Agent"
Department
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the following Ordinance be placed,upon its first reading:
(n20026) AN ORDINANCE accepting bids for certain concession privileges
to be exercised on certain City-owned properties; directin9 the execution of
requisite contracts therefor; and rejecting all other bids made ~r the
award of said privileges.
MIIEREAS. on December 21. 1971. and after due and proper advertise-
meat had been made there£or certain bids for certain concession privileges to be
exercised on certain City-owned properties were opened in the office of the City*s
Purchasing Agent by three members of a committee appointed for the_ purpose, and
thereafter mere tabulated and studied by the committee which has made mritten
report and recommendation to the Council through the City Managerl and
MHEREAS, the City Manager concurs in the committee*s report and has
directed the same to Council recommending award of the concession privileges us
hereinafter provided; and the Council considering all the same, has determined
that the bids hereinafter accepted are the highest and best bids meeting the
CJty°s specifications wade for the award of such privileges0 and should be
accepted.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
follouiog bids .or proposals for the following specified con~ession privileges.
;as said bids and proposals were opened and read before the committee at its
!meeting on December 21, 1971, and are now on file in the Office of the City
~Clerk, be, and they are hereby ACCEPTED. viz:
i! ,~HER CONCESSION LOCATION AMOUNT PAYABLE
TO CITY
iDalton*s Concessionaire Food Concessions at
; Children's Zoo $3,200.00 per year
Stone Enterprises Masena Park $ 200.00 per year
C. B. Clemmer Carvins Cove Area $ 200.00 per year
Reese C. Shanks ~ Ilarold
A. Francisco National Guard Armory $ 50.00 per year
land the City Manager be, and is hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf
ilof the City, to execute requisite contracts ~Jth each of the aforesaid bidders
~respecttng the concessing privileges to be exercised by each said bidder, such
contracts to be made upon such forw as is approved by the City Attorney.
.;
BE IT FURTIIER ORDAINED that all other bids received by the City for the
i:award of the aforesaid concession privileges be, and said other bids are
ilREJECTED; the City Clerk to so notify each said other bidder and to express to
ileach bidder the City's appreciation for the submission of the respective proposals.~
The notion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Uessrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Webber .............. 7 ...............
NAYS: None .................... O.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
TAXES: Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs. J.
!iRobert Thomas. James N. Kincanon, J. S. Howard, Jr., and J. D. Johnson fur study,
report and recommendation a communication from the Virginia Society of Certified
Public Accountants, requesting that the failure to file penalty assessed on
personal property on March 1 not apply provided filing and payment is made on or.
~fore May 5. the committee submitted the following report recommending an addition!
to the Ordinance governing the personal property tax which will permit the
Commissioner of Revenue. in his discretion and for justifiable cause, to extend
the filing date to March 31 of the tax year without penalty:
459
460
'December 30, 1971
Honorable Rsyor and City Council
Roanoke, Viroiniu
Gentlemen:
At its regular meeting the Council instructed the City
Auditor, City Attorney, Commissioner of Revenue and City
Treasurer to consider the possibility of extending the deadline
for filing personal property returns.
This action mas precipitated by the appearance before the
Council of the President of the Roanoke Area Chapter of the
Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants, Mr. M. Bruce
Overstreet.
Mr. Overstreet requested waiving of the panalty provision
for filing personal property tax returns provided filing and
payment was made on or before May 5 of the tax year.
Me recommend an addition to the ordinance governing the
personal property tax which mill permit the Commissioner
of Revenue in his discretion and for justifiable cause to extend
the filing date to garch 31 of the tax year without penalty. An
ordinance has been prepared to accomplish this.
Tangible Personal Property Taxes are payable un later than
May S. Tangible personal property returns speak as of January 1
of the tax year and report taxable personal property owned by
the taxpayer on that date. The amendment proposed would appear
to the majority of the committee to still allow ample time be-
tween the filing of a return and the later assessment and payment
of the tax assessable on the individual making the returns and.
at the same time create no great confusion among taxpayers by
reason of the printed notifications already sent out by tke
Commissioner of Revenue on the basis of the ordinance as it now
stands.
Me recommend an appropriation of $500.00 for advertising
to the budget of the Commissioner of Revenue in order to properly
advise the taxpayers of the new procedures, filing dates and
penalties attached thereto.
to accomplish this.
S! A. N. Cibso~
Assistant City Auditor
S/ Jerome S. Howard. Jr,
Commissioner of Revenue
An ordinance has been prepared
Respectfully submitted,
SI J. N. Kincnnon
City Attorney
S/ J. H. Jo~q$on
City Treasurer'
In this connection, a communication from Mr. #. Bruce Overstreet, Jr.,
IPresident, The Virginia Society of Certified Publlc Accountants, suggesting that,
ilfor at least one year. the second paragraph of Section 5.1, Chapter 1. Current
Taxes. Title ¥I. Taxation. of The Code of the CltI of Roanoke, 1956. be deleted.
was before Council.
Mr. ~/heeler moved that the report of the committee and the communication
from The Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants be referred back to the
!committee for further consideration and report to Council by the next regular
imeettng of the body on Monday. January 10. 1972. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
SALE OF PROPERTY: Council having deferred action on a report of the
iReal Estate Committee in connection with the request of the Ridge Rifle Association
to purchase a tract of land owned by the City of Roanoke tinter Department along
State Route 1404, west of Carvins Cove. for the purpos~ of constructing a rifle and
pistol range and access road, recommending that the offer be declined, the matter
was again before the body.
Mayor Rebber advised that Mr. Mo K. Metts, Member of the Ridge Rifle
Association,. telephoned him and requested that this matter be mlthdramn for the
time being,
Mr, Llsk moved that Council concur in the request that the matter he
mithdrawn for the time being. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POYERTV 1N ROANONE VALLEY: Ordinance No,
!20010 authorizing and providing for the lease by the city of the former Harrisou
i!Elemeutary School site to Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley; upon
certain terms and conditions, having previously been before Council for its first
ireading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the
'followiog for its second reading and final adoption:
(g20010) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the lease by the
City of the former Harrison Elementary School site to Total Action Against Poverty
in Roanoke Valley; upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 35, page 160.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler nod Mayor
· ebber ............................. 7.
NAYS: None ...............Oo
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. EO011 authorizing the execution of a memorandum
~of understanding with the 316th Tactical Airlift Ming, Langley AFB, Virginia. relat~
lng to certain use of the Roanoke Municipal Airport in event of national emergency,
having previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over.
was again before the body, Mr. Lisk offering the following for /ts second reading
~iand final adoption:
I:20011l AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of a memorandum of
iunderstanding with the 316th Tactical Airlift ~ing, Langley AFB. Virginia, relating
:~to certaio use of the Roanoke Municipal Airport in event of national emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36, page 161.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
A~ES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Rayor
!Mebber ................................ 7.
Ii NAVS: None ................O.
}{ BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Council having
ildirected the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure concurring in an alter-
native proposal of the City Manager for providing night lighting for the recrea-
tional area at the Preston Park Elementary School, he presented same; whereupon
iDr. Taylor offered the folloming Resolution:
461
462
(n20027) A RESOLUTION concurring in an alternative proposal of the City
Manager for providfog night lighting f~r the recreational area ut the Preston Perk
Elementary School.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Boob No. 36, page' 166.)
Dr. Ta?lor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion uss seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Rayor
Mebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ................ O.
Mr. Trout the, offered the fall.ming emergency Ordinance appropriating
~$0,375.00 to Maintenance of Duildings and Property under Section =64. "Maintenance
i;of City Property," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds ia connection with
said night lighting for the recreational area at*the Preston Park Elementary School~
(=20028) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =64. "Maintenance
of City Property.* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 167.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. L~sk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk0 Taylor. Yhomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
~ebber .............................. 7o
! NAYS: None ............... O.
i' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE-CITY PIIYSICIAN-JAIL: Council having direc-
~ited the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure approving and authorizing
ilthe employment of Lewis Gale Clinic, Incorporated, of Roanoke, ¥irginiu, to
]render medical and surgical attention to persons committed to the city jail, said
"firm to be compensated for such services at the rate of $300.00 per month, he
!
i~presented same; whereupon. Dr. Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20029) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 5, of Chapter 2.
City Physician, of Title X, Public Melfare. of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
1g$5, as amended, by providing for the appointment by the City Manager, with the
approval of the Council, of a physician or group of physicians to render medical
and surgical attention to persons committed to the city jail; and providing for
the effective date of this ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No.
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
BUDGET-AMBULANCES-ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING
COL~CIL, INCORPORATED: Mr, Garland advised that at the regular meeting of Council
on Monday, December 20, 1971, Council took under advisement u report from the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee and the Hoard of Directors of the
Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council, Incorporated, in
connection with the request of the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew,
ilncorporated, for an appropriation of $10oHO0.O0, that to date no action has been
~taken nor bas the request been discussed, that he is of the opinion that the Roanoke'
;Life Saving and First Aid Crew, Incorporated, deserves the support of the City
iof Roanoke and moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper
'measure appropriating $3,000.00 to the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew,
~Incorpotated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
The. City Manager verbally registered bis objection to this appropriation
and advised that be would put his objection in the form of a written report to be
included on the Council agenda for the regular eeeting of the body on Monday,
January 10, 1972.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
iadjourned' -
~ APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
'463
'464
COU~C1L. REGULAR MEETING,
Monday. January 10, 1972.
The Council of theCity of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, f~onday. January 10, 1972, at 2 p.m.. the
!regular meeting hour. Mith Mayor Roy L. Mebher presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. David K. Lisk. Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Rayor Roy L.
Mebber ............................ T.
ABSENT: Nooe ........... O.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst. City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Honer,
Assistant City Manager: Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney~ and Mr. A. N.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting Mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend Harold
S. Mayer. Pastor, Milliamson Road Church of the Brethren.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having continued a public hearing on the request of
Fralin and Naldron, Incorporated, that a 13.33 acre parcel of land located on the
north side of Salem Turnpike, adjoining FairvieM Cemetery Company, Incorporated.
being a part of Officinl Tax Nos. 2650105, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-l, General Residential District, the matter ~tas again before the
body.
Mr. Elmer F. Norton, 651 I~estside Boulevard, N. M.. ~ppeared before
Council in opposition to the request for rezoning and presented a petition signed
by 562 residents in the area also opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. M. M. Grant, 3602 Lilac Avenue. N. M., appeared before Council in
opposition to the request for rezoning, advising that Salem Turnpike and Shenandoah
Avenue. N. #.. already have a higher traffic floM than they were designed to carry
and the construction of apartments Mould only generate more traffic, that it will
create a storm drain problem and that Fairviem Elementary School is operating over
its capacity at the present time and cannot accommodate more children Mbo sill
come into the area from the proposed apartment complex.
Ur. James Stringfield, 3822 Red Fox Drive, N. N,, appeared before Councili
and read a prepared statement advising that the proposed apartments will be low
income federally subsidized and will house a great number of the black citizens,
that most of this type of housing is located in northwest Roanoke, that if Fralin
and Maldron, had asked for this type of housing in southwest Roanoke, there Mould
not have been a public hearing in order for it to be turned doMn. expressing the
opinion that the apartments should be built in southMest Roanoke in order to cut
flout some of the bussing and pointing out that until people accept open housing, Me
are going to have to nse the zoning lairs to segregate them.
Dr. Taylor registered his feeling against the ascertion that all black
people are low Jmcome people, and expressed the opJ~Jom that there ore sore
income white people than blanks because there are more white people and that the
presence of a black family is not a curse upon u neighborhood.
Mr, W. Heywood Frails. Attorney, representing Frails and #aldron. Incor-
porated, appeared before Council and presented sketches of the proposed apartments.
advising that the apartments will consist of 128 units, will rent for approximately
!$1S0.00 each per month and that the children living in these apartments will go
to Washington Heights Elementary School, Ronroe Junior High School and #illiam
Fleming Illgh School.
Mr. Lisk pointed out that the property in question has been vacant since
1900 and moved that the following Ordinance rezoning said property be placed upon
its first reading:
(=20030) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2 of The
:Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 255. Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
WHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have:
BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Salem
Turnpike. said point being common corner with the
westerly line of the property owned by Fairview Cemetery
Company. Inc.; thence leaving Salem Turnpike and with
the line of Fairview Cemetery Company. Inc. property.
N. 11° 19' W. approximately 1056.b3 feet to a point
on the line of the property conveyed by St. Andrews
Cemetery to Nor-Mel Construction CO.. Inc.; thence
with the line of the property conveyed to Hor-Mel
Construction Co.. Inc., N. 790 530 W, 550 ft. to a
point; thence with a new line through the property
of St. Andrews Cemetery, S. 11° 19' W. approximately
105b.63 feet to a point on the northerly side of Salem
Turnpike; thence with the northerly side of Salem
Turnpike. approximately 550 ft. to the place of BEGINNING.
containing approximately 13.33 acres, being a part of
Offic'ial No. 2650105.
fez,ned from RD. Duplex Residential District. to RG-I. General Residential District
and
HHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
i:after described land be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District. to RG-I.
ilCeneral Residential District; and
WHEREAS. the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
?nd posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1. Title X¥. of The Code of
!ithe City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published
!land posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS. the hearing a~ provided for in said notice was held on the
!i20th day of December, 1971. at 2 p,m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke,
lot which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to
iibe heard, bath for and against the proposed rezoning; and
465
NHEREAS, this Councll, after considering the evidence ms herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned,
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XVo Chapter 4.1~ Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1g$6, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 265. of the Sectional 19~6 2one Map.
City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located un Salem Turnpike and described as follows:
D£G1NNING at a point on the northerly side of
Salem Turnpike. said point being common corner with
the westerly line of the property owned by Falrview
Cemetery Company, Inc.: thence leaving Salem Turnpike
and with the line of Fairview Cemetery Company,
Inc. property, N. I1° 19' W. approximately
feet to a point on the line of the property conveyed
by St. Andrews Cemetery to Nor-Mel Construction Co.,
Inc.; thence with the line of the property conveyed
to Nor-Mel Construction Co., Inc., N. 79° 53' N. 550
ft. to a point; thence with a new line through the
property of St, Andrews Cemetery. S. 11° 19' N.
approximately 1056.63 feet to a point on the northerly
side of Salem Turnpike; thence with the northerly side .
of Salem Turnpike, approximately 550 ft. to the place
of BEGINNING, containing approximately 13.33 acres, being
a part of Official No. 2650105.
designated on Sheet No. 265 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Mop, City of Roanoke, as
Official Tax No(s). (part of) 2650105. be, and is hereby, changed from RD. Duplex
;Residential Oistrlct, to RG-I, General Reaidential District, and that Sheet No.
265 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was ~econded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9 vote:!i
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas and Wheeler .............5.
NAYS: Mr. Trout and Mayor Webber ..................................
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report in
~connection with the proposal of Fralin and Waldron, Incorporated, for the extensioni
!of 35th Street from the area of the Caru Apartment development southward to
iSalem Turnpike, advisin9 that the matter has been reviewed with the Engineering
!~Department and with a representative of Fralin and Waldron, Incorporated, that this:!
extension is feasible as to design and construction, that extension of 35th Street
ltd Salem Turnpike should be of considerable relief and recommending said extension
!itl it can be accomplished by Fralin and Maldrono Incorporated, assuming the cost
i!of the construction of the extension as a part of the total development of their
:proposed towubouse project:
'Roanoke, Virginia
December 20. 1971
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The City Council on November 22, 1971, referred to me a proposal
that had been received for the extension of 35th Street from the
area of the Caru apartment development Southward to Salem Turnpike.
This has been reviewed with the City Engineering Department and with
a representative of Fraliu and Maldron who are proposing to develop
for townhouse units the vacant area lying between the Caru develop-
ment on the north and Salem Turnpike on the south and Fair View
Cemetery on the east ned St. Andrews Cemetery on the west. The pro-
posed development would extend 3Sth Street, in accordance with
City design Standards so as to provide a through street from
Melrose Avenue to Salem Turnpike. The intersection at Salem Turn-
pike would be opposite the Mestwood 8oulevnrd intersection,
This extension is feasible as to d~sign and construction, It
would provide a considerable benefit to the Improvement of the
situation of considerable concern which prevails with respect to
access to the Care development and the propoaed additional derelop-
ment by those parties east of the existing buildings. This ingress
and egress is Inadequate, and has previously been noted es such, by
the FOetus of 3Sth and 3bth Streets. Extension of 3Sth Stre~ to
Salem Turnpike would be of considerable relief. Additionally
under the proposed development uf Fralin and Ma~dvon, it is con-
sJdeFed that such a through street would be more desirable as to
ingress end egress to their new and proposed development and more
beneficial as to service through routine and emergency needs as
a through street rather than a dead end street intersecting only
with Salem Turnpike.
The City Council in its referral inquired as to a report on
cost and I am advised by Fralln and Maldron that that firm would
assume the cost of the construction of this extension as a part
of the total development of their proposed townhouse project.
I recommend this extension if it can be accomplished by
the above.described method.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Dr. Harold Il. Hopper, President. Virginia Mestern
iCommunity College, appeared before Council and presented the proposed local budget
for the fiscal year 1972-73 mf Virginia Mestern Community College. advising that
out of a total budget of $25,000.00. the share of the City of Roanoke is
$10,976.43.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Judge L. L. Koontz,
Jr** appeared before Council and requested that a definite date be set at which
time the City Manager would be instructed to present his proposals, including archi-=
tectural and engineering diagrams and cost estimates, for the relocation of the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court into the old Reid & Cutsbail Building.
In a discussion of the matter, the City Manager advised that he plans to
present the proposed plans for relocatin9 said facilities to the members of Council!
#ithin two meeks.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the City Manager be requested to meet with the
judges of the courts not of record to review the architectural and engineering
diagrams relating to the relocation of said courts before said diagrams are pre-
snored tO Council. Th~ motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING-JAIL-POLICE DEPARTMENT-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Mr. Ray L. Garland appeared before COuncil and presented petitions signed[
by 692 citizen~ of the City of Roanoke, petitions signed by 544 citizens of RoanokeIj
!
County and petitions signed by 384 citizens of the City os Salem strongly opposing ~
467
468
the construction of a regional Jell on the Veterans Administration Hospital site in
Roanohe County, that it is the consensus of the citizens that formulation of this
proposed plan mas without duc consideration for the residents of the densely
populated areas sorroonding the V. A. Hospital and that such · regional Jail mould
adversely affect property values and be extremely detrimental to the environment
in mhich these people have selected as their homes end chosen to rear their
children, that it is their feeling that it is incongruous that a place to house
criminals and violators of.the leas should be situated adjacent to a hospital for
disabled veterans mho have served our country or that facilities of such a jail
and the hospital should be made interchangeable and therefor, requesting that the
~proposed site on the Y. A. Hospital property, recommended by the Fifth Planning
~District Commission for erection of a regional jail be rejected. Mr. Garland
~suggesting that the Downtown East Area be considered as this site since it will
ilprovJde easier access and requesting that Council go on record expressing their
iiopposition to the Veterans Administration Hospital site as such,
Mr. Thomas moved that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the
~iproper measure to be transmitted to the Fifth Planning District Commission reaffirm-
iing the interest of the Council of the City of Roanoke in the regional jail.
~expressing opposition to the Veterans Administration Hospital site as such and
isnggesting that the Commission consider other sites mentioned in their report.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC-S~ATE HIGHNAYS: Mr. J. D. Sink, Chairman of the Roanoke Highway
!iSafety Commission, appeared before Council and presented the Annual Roanoke Ilighway
iiSafety Mork Program for the fiscal year 1972-73 as prepared by the Roanoke Highnay
ilSafety Commission.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for pre-
::paration of the proper measure of intent to the State Highway Safety Division and
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-ELECTIONS-REGIStRAR: A communication from Mr. Andrew H. Thompson.~!
ilChairman, Electoral Board, requesting that $2,500.00 be transferred from Printing
and Office Supplies to Extra Help under Section z85, "Electorul Hoard.* of the
lilgTI-T2 budget, to provide funds for part-time help needed due to computerization
~!of the local records and installation of new forms as required by the State Hoard
i:of Elections under the new election code, was before Council.
Hoard and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20031) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~65. ~Electoral
i!Hoard** of the lgTl-T2 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36. page 172.)
Hr. Trout noted the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Hr. Thomas and adopted by the following rote:
AYES: aessrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Hayer
Webber ................................ ?,
NAYS: Noue ............~ .... O.
SCBOOLS-ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: Couucil having referred to the Electoral
Board for study, report and reconmeudatioa a communication from Dr. Roy A. Alcorn,
~Superlntendent o~ Schools, requBsting that the voting place at Fishburn Park
~Elementary School be moved to other quarters, the Electoral Board submitted a
i!written report recommending that the voting place currently being used in the
Fishburn Park Elementary School, Fishburn Park Precinct, be changed to the Janes
iMadison Junior High School which is in the same general location.
Dr. T~ylor moved that Council concur in the report of the Electoral
~Board and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mrs. Ruth C. Armstrong, Secretary, Board
of Zoning Appeals, transmitting the Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
for the year 1971. Was before Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Bousing Authority, requesting that Council approve the
Redevelopment Plan of the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program, Program No.
.¥A. A-b, was before Council.
Approximately thirty persons appeared before Council in connection with
!ithu Bainsboro Neighborhood Development Program.
HFS. Irene Savage. 15 Gregory Avenue. N. E., appeared before Council and
i'advised that there are six families who live on Gregory Avenue and Walker Avenue,
!:ranging in age from 05 to 80 years old who were not contacted about the Bainsboro
Mr. Russell R. Henley, Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevel-
opment and Housing Authority, advised that the Authority is trying to reach every-
i~one who will be affected by this project.
Mrs. Zenobia E. Ferguson, resident of Gainsboro, appeared before the body
i'and urged that Council get the project underway as soon as possible.
Reverend R. a. Whilkinson appeared before Council and urged that Council
i. cooperate with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority in order
:it: get the project underway as seem as possible.
469
470
Mr. Trout offered the follomin9 Resolution approving the Redevelopment
Plea of the GaJnsboro Neighborhood Development Program:
(#20032) A RESOLUTION approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Gains-
bore Neighborhood Development Program, Program No. VA. A-B.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Rook No. 36, page 172.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messre. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
~AYS: ~oue ............ O.
Rt. A. Byron Smith appeared before Council and directed various questions
to Rt. Henley with rag,rd to the groups or organizations mbo will be contacted
regarding the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program.
In this connection, the City Plannin9 Commission submitted the f,Il,ming
report mith regard to the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
ill,using Authority in respect to the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Gaiasboro Redevelopment Area NDP mith the 1964 Roanok~ General Development Plan
and transmitting a Resolution attesting to the conformity thereof as a whole:
*'January b. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webbe. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia.
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of January 5. 1972o
Mr. Roy Henley. Executive Director of the Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority made a general presentation of the Neighbor-
hood Development Program (NDP) and discussed the Redevelopment
Plan for Hainsboro noting that in the first budget year 94
vacant parcels would be acquired and IS to 25 housing structures
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-AUOITORIL~I-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted n written report
recommending that $4b,000o00 be appropriated to Utilities, $3,000,00 to Maintenance
of Nachfnery 6 Equipment and $9,000.00 to Operating Supplies nad Materials under
Section aT7, *Civic Center," of the 1971-?~ budget, to provide necessary funds for
continued operation of the Civic Center,
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20033) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section mT?, "Civic Center,-
~;of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 175.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Mr. Garland and adopted by the folio#lng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
'Mebber .............................
NAYS: None .............. Oo
SUDUET-COMMONMEALTII*$ ATTORNEy: The City Manager submitted a mritten
;'report recommending that $225.00 be appropriated to Maintenance of Machinery ~
~Equipment and $3.325°00 to Office Furniture ~ Equipment - New under Section n22.
i*Commonwealth*s Attorney,* of the 1971-72 budget, in connection with a Federal
iLaw Enforcement Grant in the amount of $3,550.00 to the Commonwealth's Attorney*s
:Office for the purchase of equipment.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(=20034) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m22. 'Cemmonwealth*s
~.Attorney,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3b, page 175.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
iiby Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Ltsk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
!!Webber .......................
NAYS: None ............ O.
BUDGET-ROANOKE LIFE SAVING AND FIRST AID CREM, INCORPORATED-ROANOKE VALLEY
:iREGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED:Council having directed
!the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure appropriating $3,000.00 to the
Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew. Incorporated. the City Manager submitted
the following report listing various reasons why he would not recommend said
'appropriation to Council at this time:
'472
'Roanoke, Virginia
January 10, 1972
Honorable aayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemqn:
In response to the request of the City Council ia connec-
tion with the matter discussed ut your meeting of January 4, 1972,
I attach a copy of my report to you of December 13. 1971, uith
respect to the request of the Roanoke Life Savi~g and First Aid
Cren, Incorporated, for the contribution from the City to the
operation of their headquarters building. I would restate, as 1
have previously, that this position on my part, no doubt, would in
some instances be interpreted ss a reflection of opposition or
disagreement mith the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew but
I would emphasize that such is not so. In fact my feeling to this
organization is completely to the contrary. The matter very
simply is one of whether or not, and the extent, the City should
contribute in the form that has been proposed to their building
operation and should contribute at this particular time.
The reasons of my recommendation to the Council, as stated in
the attached, are briefly summarized as'follows:
1. The question of availability of funds at this time in the
current budget year for appropriation.
2. The anticipated limit d funds within the forthcoming
1972-73 budget.
3. A matter of this type could but be judged in an overall
budget review.
4. question of the City providing personnel to a facility which
would not be under City supervision, control or jurisdic-
tion.
5. Assumption by the City, in this manner, of certain maintenance
responsibilities for the building of a private organization.
h. The position in which the City is placed of providing similar
contributions and operational participation in the other two
life saving crews and within the City.
It would appear to me that mhat the Life Saving Crew isseeki~
might best be accomplished by an alternative means, Instead of
incurring the full time obligation and cost of five able bodied
employe-es to act as watchmen and custodian of their building, why
could not the cron locate an individual, perhaps someone on retired
status, who could live in at the headquarters building? There
quite likely are people mbo would welcome the opportunity in life
that such a chance as this would offer of a place to live and things
to do in exchange for the fairly easy tasks of being on the premises
and limited clean up duties. This would be much less expensire,
perhaps no cost at all. would give the crew someone over whom they
would have complete control and would offer a more stable and better
continuity of services for them.
Respectfully submitted,
.S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
In this connection, Mr. S. A. Long, Jr., Captain of the #illiamsoo Road
!Life Savio9 Crew. appeared before Council and advised that since Council is provid-
ing assistance 'to the Roanoke Life Saving Crew. it is only fair to say that the
Rilliamsoa Road Life Saving Crew will be asking for the same assistance in the
future.
Mr. William F. Taborn. representing the Hunton Life Saving Crew. appeared
before Council and advised that he is in accord with the comments made by Mr. Long
'and that the Hunton Life Saving Crew will also he making the same request for
/assistance in the near future.
Mr. Link expressed the opinion that Council should be aware that in
adopting the proposed Ordinance it will be setting a precedent for future requests.
Nr. Garland then offered the foliowin9 emergency Ordinance appropriating
$3.000.00 to the Roanoke Life Saving and First Aid Crew. Incorporated:
'(n20035) AN oRDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #51, 'Life Saving
Crews," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For.full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 177.)
Hr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber .................................... 7.
NAYS: None .....................O.
BUDGET-SEMER$ AND b-'fORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
:~report requesting that Council approve certain actions taken to provide emergency
repairs to the Lick Ran Sanitary Sewer Line located in Campbell Arenue, S. E.,
within the Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company right of way. and that $10.068.21
be appropriated to Fees for Professional and Special Services and $3,650.00 be
appropriated to Operating Supplies and Materials under Section #67. "Sewer
Maintenance," of the 1971-72 budoet, to provide funds for payment of the total
estimated cost of the project:
"Roanoke. Virginia
January 10, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Viroinia
On Monday, January 3. 1972, I submitted to City Council
under Hearing of Citizens a verbal report aa to actions in pro-
§ross to provide emergency repairs to the Lick Run sanitary
sewer line located in Campbell Avenue, S.E. These actions to
institute reparJs by contract were implemented under the emer-
gency provisions of Section 41 of the City Charter and provided
for the replacement of a 227 foot section of the Lick Run
sanitary sewer.
Since my report to City Council the City has entered into
a written agreement with Hudgins and Pace Contractors for the
construction of that section of sanitary sewer. Our agreement
stipulates that Hudgins and Pace shall provide all labor, equip-
ment and insurance necessary to complete the work. It is
estimated that it will take 15 working days to complete the
job. It is further estimated that the payment to Hudgins and
Pace for providing the above items will be approximately $10.068.21;
however, actual payment will be based on the actual cost of mobil-
project of $13,718.21.
473
474
The contractor. Hudgins and Pace. moved their equipment onto
the site on Monday, January 3, 1972, and actual construction'started
on Mednesday, January 5, 1972~
The City Attorney has been provided with copies of the executed
agreement betmeen the City of Roanoke and fludgins and Pace and
between the City of Roanoke and the Norfolk and Western Railway
Company and he has been reguested to prepare the necessary
resolution to authorize the continuance of these improvements.
Additionally the City Auditor has been requested to prepare
a budget ordinance appropriating funds to the Seuer Maintenance
Account 67; $10.06B.21 under ObJect Code 210. Fees for Special
Services and $3,6§0 to ObJect Code 320. Operating Supplies and
Materials.
These actions are prescnted to City Council for their approval.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City ManagerH
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the requester the City Manager
~and offered the following Resolution approving certain action of'the City Manager
i, taken to meet the failure of a portion of the city's 24-inch Lick Run sanitary
sewer line:
(~2003b) A RESOLUTION approving certain action of the City Manager taken
!ltd meet the failure of a portion of the City's 24-inch Lick Run sanitary sewer
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 36, page 177.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded;
iby Mr. Trout and adopted by the following bore:
q AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None ............... O. :
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
i:$10,068.21 to Fees for Professional and Special Services and $3,650.00 to Operating!i
i!Supplies and Materials under Section :6?, 'Sewer Maintenance,~ of the 1971-72 budge~
ilto provide funds for payment of the total estimated cost of the project:
(~2003T) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =67, "Sewer Mainte-
!!nance," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 179.)
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
fbi Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................
NAYS: None O.
HEALTH DEPARTRRNT: Council having deferred action on a report of the
City Manager recommending that Council, by Resolution. indicate its approval to the
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley addenda budget dated December, 1971.
for budget additions which the Health Service ia submitting to the State Department
of Mental Hygiene and Hospitals for additional state funds for program expansion
at the Jerome Natt School and for funds to send 135 mentally retarded children from
the Roanoke Valley area to Camp Virginia Jaycee, the City Manager submitted a
written report transmitting the two addenda budget requests and the complete
documentation as provided with the communication from the Mental Health Services
of Roanoke Valley.
In this connection, the following communication from Mr. Fred P. Roessel,i!
!Jr., Executive Director of the Rental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley,
transmitting a general explanation of the process of obtaining state aid for
~community mental health and mental retardation service programs uhich might clarifyi!
the abovedescribed matter and future requests from the Mental Health Services for
Council approval:
"January 6, 1972.
Mr. Julian F. tlirst, City Manager
Roanoke Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hirst:
one from Mental Health Services be present at the City Council
meetieg on Monday. January lOth. Hr. Stage. our Chairman, is out
of town, but I will be happy to attend the meeting to aasmer any
questions Council might have.
As a preface to this meeting. I felt that some general explanation
of the process of obtaining State aid for community mental health
and mental retardation service programs might clarify this and
future requests from the RentalHealth Services Hoard for Council
approval.
The Mental Health Services Hoard is the primary funding channel
in the community for State funds ia the areas of mental health
and mental retardation. The initiutive for providing the services
must come from within the community. Local matching funds must
be available on a 50/50 basis to obtain State funds. These local
matching funds are procured in part from the three participating
local governments and the local tax money is primarily applied to
the core staff of professionals employed directly by ~he Rental
Health Services Board which functions as the administrative and
coordinative body for the entire program, as well as providing
direct services to clients.
Other'local matchin9 funds are obtained from privately funded
community service agencies delivering and/or proposing to deliver
new or expanded mental health or mental retardation services. An
initial broad-scaled effort was made, and we continue to make an
effort, to acquaint agencies of this opportunity. It should be
noted that the initiative has nearly always come from the agency for
the Board to consider a program for funding. These agencies submit
to the Board through its Executive Director a proposal coverin9
program of services, method of delivery, what it oxpe~ts to accom-
plish, how many persons will benefit directly or indirectly from
the service, fee policy or schedule, job descriptions, etc.
In the instance before Couocil at this time. the Roanoke Area
Association for Retarded Children, by its initiative, presented
a specific proposal to provide partial and/or total camperships
(based on need) for retarded children in the Roanoke Valley to have
a therapeutic camping experience in a facility specificially
designed and staffed for the needs of retarded individuals. The
Board reviemed a similar proposal last year and submitted it to
the local governments and the StateDepurtmeut for approval which
was g~anted. This lead to funding that made this therapeutic
camping experience available to sixty-seven retarded children from
'475
-'476
the Roanoke Valley. The current proposal is essentially n renewal
nnd expansion or the previously funded progrnm for one hundred
thirty-five retarded individuals.
Should the Virginia Baster Seal Society for Crippled Children.
nnd Adults bare available locally derived sufficient matching funds
end wish to be considered in order to provide u mental health or
mental retardation service under this funding mechanism, the Mental
Health Services Hoard and its stuff nra available to work with
them in developing appropriate plans and in preparing n specific
proJect for review of the Board, the local governing bodies, end
the Department of Mental Hygiene and Hospitals.
Hearing in mind that State matching funds for Chapter IO community
mental health and mental retardation programs are allocated to
twenty-one such Boards throughout the State and availability of
matching funds to the Roanoke Valley Board Is governed by the
amount of funds appropriated to the State Department by the legisla-
ture for such programs, the Board has to establish priorities
for services which will be most beneficial to the entire Valley
and base its approval thereon.
Upon receipt of Board approval, a narrative description of the
service, accompanied by a budget specifying the sources of funds,
is prepared for approval by the three local governments and sub-
mitted, subsequently, to the Department of Mental Hygiene and
Hospitals for approval.
If an allocation of State funds is made for a particular service
agency, the appropriation is received by the Treasurer of the City
of Salem, who is the local government fiscal agent selected by
the three 9overnments to receive and disburse all funds for Mental
Ilealth Services accordin9 to the State law. An affiliatory
agreement between the Board and the agency is executed which
indicates that the State funds will be made available to them on
a quarterly basis for that fiscal year to match funds provided by
~e agency. The Services Agency administers the program, accounts
to the Hoard quarterly ns to expenditure of the funds, The entire
program is subject to review and evaluation by not only the Mental
Health Services Board, but by the Department of Mental Bygiene
and Hospitals as well.
To summarize, any agency that provides a service in the area of
mental health and mental retardation is eleigible to submit a
request for matching State funds to the Mental Health Services
Board through its Executive Director and will he given full
consideration in the development of the total program of services.
Appropriations are governed by priorities and availability of State
funds and subject to approval by the Board, the three local govern-
in9 bodies, and the Department of Mental Hygiene and Hospitals.
The Board's goal is to provide mental health and mental retardation
services to,meet the needs of the Roanoke Valley community. This
involves the coordination of existing services, expansion of
services according to need, and development of new services where
indicated. Since funding began in July 1970, many steps have been
taken toward reaching the goal of providing comprehensive community
mental health and retardation services for the Roanoke Valley. The
Staff and the Board sincerely appreciate the continued cooperation
and interest of the local governing bodies in this effort.
Me would welcome personal visits to our offices and be glad to
answer any questions members of the local 9overning bodies might
have.
Sincerely,
S/ Fred P. Roessel. Jr.
FREH P. ROESSEL, JR., PHD.
Executive Director"
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
!ipreparation of the proper measure approving the addenda budgets as submitted by
ithe Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley. The motion was seconded by Mr.
iiThomas and unanimously adopted.
'!
477
I
I
S~REET LIGHTS: The City Manager submitted a uritten report transmitting
a communication from Mr. H. A. #asea,'2304 Melrose Avenue, N. M** expressing
etlon on behalf of the business people in the area for new street lights installed
[~ that area,
#r. Mheeler moved that the report be received and filed.' The motion
iseconded by Mr. Thomas end'unanimously adopted.
PLANNING-JAIL~POLICE DEPARTU~'NT-MUN1CIFAL flOILDI~G-'CAP1TAL
ROGRAM: 7he City Manager submitted'a written report requestin9 to include on
!the agenda a report regardin9 municipal facilities.
In this connection; the City Manager verbally advised that his complete
!report regarding the municipal facilities wJlI be presented to Council within
!approximately two weeks.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. 7he motion was
!seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DgPARTMENT-FIR£ DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the
ifollowin9 report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire
Department as of November 30. 1971:
~Roanoke. Virginia
January 10, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire
Departments as of November 30, 1971.
*Fire Department
During the month of November, 1971. there was one change in
personnel in the Fire Department.
RESIGNED
Charles Albert Harris. Jr.. (Employed Oct. 1. 1970i
assigned to Life Saving Crew as Dispatcher I. Resignation
was effective 11[9/71 mlthout notice.
This man will not be replaced due to the switch-over in
Communication/Fire Dept.
Police Department
Hired Resigned
Michael A. Lester, Patrolman Ngv. H, 1971 -
Edward Jackson girk, Patrolman Nov. 16, 1971 -
Ho~ard K. Spangler, Patrolman Jan. 1, 1958 Nov. 19. 1971
John M. Hughes, Patrolman Nov. 30. 1971 -
Ending November 30, 1971 - (16) vacancies**
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst'
City Manager"
478
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-CITY MANAGER; The City Manager Submitted a written report
requesting the opportunity of meeting informally math the Members of Council on a
personnel matter.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING; The Assistant City Attorney submitted the fei.losing report
in connection with the of Mr. Charles M. that Council relie~
request
fledges
91ye
him
Ifrom a problem of a lot diviaion on lmlay Avenue, S. E., recommending that Council
!refer the matter of a proposed amendment of the general subdivision regulations,
iSection 2, Chapter 2.1, Title XVI, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
to the City Planning'Commission- for study, report and recommendation to
'iCouncil:
"January 10, 1972
ifonorable Mayor and Members .
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Mr. Charles M. Hedges has heretofore petitioned City Council
for a' waiver of certain regulations of the City*s Land Sub-
division Ordinance in order that Mr. Hedges might be able to
subdivide certain property owned by him being situate on the
northeast line of lmlay Avenue. S. E.
Mr. Hedges purchased this property in 1955 and Obtained a survey
thereof at that time. which survey included a proposed new sub-
division into two building lots. He did not pursue this matter
until rather recently and after the City*$ adoption of the 19bB
Subdivision Ordinance.
The existing Hedges lot has dimensions of 95.55 feet on the side
lot lines, and frontage on Imlay Avenue, S. E. of 145.7 feet.
Present zoning reoulatlons contain, among other thinos, a require-
ment that standard lots in RD Duplex Residential Districts shall
contain no less than 7000 square feet, shall have a minimum of
60 feet of frontage upon a public street and a depth of 100 feet.
Mr. Hedges' proposed re-subdivision would result in two lots.
each havin9 frontage on Imlay Avenue of approximately 71 feet,
a depth of approximately 97 feet and approximately ~950 square
feet of area.
Sen. 2. of Chapter 2.1. Title XVI, of the City Code presently
provides· among other things, that the Planning Director may,
in certain cases, waive any one or more of the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance provided that the proposed Subdt-
district regulations. It i's the opinion Of the undersigned
that the requirements of the Zoning and Land Subdivision
regulations should not be waived in the single instance of
the request of Mr. Hodges.
ment of the general subdivision regulations, specifically, of
Sec. 2, Chapter 2.1. of Title XVI of the City Code. by granting
authority, in addition to that presently existing, to the agent
located in the City.
!
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council refer the matter
of the proposed amendment of the Land Subdivision regulations
to the Planning Commission fo~ study, report and recommendation,
Respectfully,.
S/ R. Ben Jones. Jr,
fl. Ben Jones. Jr,,
Assistant City Attorney'-
Mr, Trout moved that a public hearing be'held on the matter on Monday,
January 2-1, 1972, and that the matter also be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Co~Acll at that time, The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted, .
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request Of Messrs. Donald C. Sink, F. Earl
Frith and James D. Fralin that a 2.467 acre parcel of land situate on the southeast
corner of the ~ershberger Road - PetersCreek Road intersection, described as
Official Tax No. 2770301, be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District,
to C-2, General Commercial District,. the City Planning Commission submitted a
written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezonin9 be
held at 2 p.m., Monday, February ?, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council havin9 referred to the City Planning Commission for
hoe Corporation, that property described as Lots 2 through parts of 10 and 19,
inclusive, Block 9, Lincoln Court, Official Tax Nos. 2041325 - 2041341, inclusive,
District Expansion Area, the City'Planning Commission submitted n written report
Mr. Trout moved thai a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held ut 2 p.m., Monday, February 7, .1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: The City Planning Commission submitted the followin9 report
recommondin9 that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit the City Planning
"January 6, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Robber, Mayor
and Members of City COuncil
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of January ~, 1972,
insure that additionnl restrictions imposed by Council on resum-
ing petitions as recommended by the City Planning Commission are
udhered to.
479
'480
The Planning Commission members generally agreed that the
· issue of follom-up on Council-approved rezoning petitions to
insure adherence to Planning Commission stipulated conditions is
an important one; for example, when landscaping and screening
elements are recommended by the Planning Commission as a condi-
tion to approving a rezoning petition,
The Planning Director noted that enforcement is the critical
element in this situation with the Duilding Commissioner and the
City Engineer reviewing alt site and building plans ~rior to
the lssurance of a building permit, to insure conformity with the
Zoning and Building codes. Presently the City Planning Commission
may not recommend nor the City Council legally impose any additional
conditions, not so stated in the Zoning Ordinance. in matters
pertaining to rezoning even though these restrictions would serve
to enhance the area. Restrictions of this nature are not binding
on the petitioner.
Baaed on the above-noted factors the Planning Commission
permit both the City Planning Commission to recommend and the
City Council to impose such necessary additional restrictions and
conditions in rezoning matters so as to enhance and protect the
to the Zoning Ordina ace was recommended:
Amend Article XII. Sec. 67. Chanaes and Amendmeqts by the
addition of the folloming paragraph:
The City Planning Commission may recommend and the
City Council to impose such necessary additional restrictions
and conditions in specific resorting petitions so as to
enhance and protect the surrounding area.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council the granting of this amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance.
Sincerely,
S/ John D. Parrott by L.M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman"
Mr, Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
TAXES: Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs. J,
Robert Thomas, James S. Kincanon, J. S. Howard, Jr.. and J. H. Johnson for study,
report and recommendation o request from the Virginia Society of Certified Public
Accountants, requesting that the failure to file penalty assessed on personal pro-
perty on March I not apply provided filing and payment is made on or before May 5,
the committee submitted the following report recommending that the penalty shall
~not be assessed against any taxpayer who shall have £iled w/th the Commissioner of
!Revenue no later than May 5th of such year a tangible personal property tax return
!accompanied by payment to the City Treasurer of the full amount of the true tax
~assessable on all such tangible personal property and also recommending that $$00.00
be appropriated to Advertising under Section =6, "Commissioner of the Revenue," of
[the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to properly advertise the changes submitted:
,i
*January b, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At its regular meeting, the Council retnrnedthe report
concerning granting an extension for filing Personal Property
Tax returns for reconsideration by the Committee. The Commit-
tee met mith a group of accountants from the local chapter
of the Virginia Certified Public Accountants, along with its
President. M. flruce Overstreet. After considerable discussion
among the Committee members and the accountants, the Committee
agreed on the following recommendation concerning the penalty
provision, tn-mit:
The aforesaid penalty shall not be assessed against any
taxpayer who shall have filed with the commisslonev of revenue
no later than May 5th of such year a. tangible personal property
tax return accompanied by payment to the city treasurer of the
full amount of the true tax assessable on all such tangible
personal property.
Ye also recommend an appropriation of $500.00 for advertising
to the Commissioner of Revenue budget in order to properly advertise
the changes submitted herewith.
An ordinance has been prepared to accomplish this.
Respectfully submitted.
S~ A, N. Gibson S/ J. N. Kincanon
City Auditor City Attorney
S! Jerome S. Howard. Jv, S! J. H. Johnson
Commissioner of Revenue City Treasurer"
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the committee and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~2003H) AN ORDINANCEto amend and reordain Ordinance No. 197d0,
amending Chapter 1. Current Taxe~, Title VI, Taxation, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke, 1956, aa amended, by the addition of a new section to be numbered
Section 5.1, requiring every person omnin9 taxable tangible personal property
in the City of Roanoke to file a tangible personal property tax return with the
Commissioner of Revenue on or.before March I of each year; prescribing penalties
for the failure to file timely return; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 179.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded!
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Rheeler and Uayor
:;
!i~ebber .............................. 7.
NAYS: None .................Oo
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the request for an appropriation of
:i;500.00 be deferred until the next regular meeting of Councl on Monday. January 17,
L972. in order for the Commissioner of the Revenue to appear before Council to
!ianswer certain questions relating thereto. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler
land unanimously adopted.
481
482
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20020, rezonlng property located on Greenhurst
Avenue. N. N.. described as Acreage, O~fictal Tax No, 2060825. Matts Land Rap.
from RD, Duplex Residential District. to RG-1. General Residential District. havin
previouslT been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was
again before the body. Mr. Mheeler offering the following for its second reading
and final adoption:
iu20020) AN ORDINANCE to a~end Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 19§6o ns amended, and Sheet No. 2Ob, Sectional 19bb
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 3b, page 1bB.)
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and MaTer
~ebber ....................... ?-
NAYS: None ........ O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20021, rezonlng property located at the southwest
;~corner of Grandin Road and Mindsor Arenue. S. M., described as Lot 1. T. ~. Fugate
!Map, Official Tax No. ]440b06, from RG-], Unmoral Residential District. to C-l.
i!Office and Institutional District, having previously been before Council for its
ifirst reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Nheeler offering
Ithe following for its second reading and final adoption:
(#20021) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
ilthe Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 144, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No, 36. page lbS.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
!i AYES: MessrS. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mo{or
{iWebber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-STADIUM-MATER DEPARTMENT: Ordinance No. 20026,
accepting bids for certain concession privileges to be exercised on certain city-
~reviousiy been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. wes
!again before the body, Dr. Tuylor offering the following for its second reading
and final adoption:
(a2002§) AN OROINANC£ accepting bids for certain concession privileges
to be exercised on certain City-owned properties; directing the execution of
requisite contracts therefor; and rejecting all other bids made for the award of
said privileges.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance D.oh No. ab, page 171.)
Ur. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
;Webber ............................
NAYS: None .............
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having directed
!the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure amending Resolution No. 17865
i!establishJng certain rules and regulations relating to the administration of
i!overtime work by personnel in the city's classified services, and to the compen-
sation to be paid as overtime pay for authorized overtime work performed by employees
at tbe Roanoke Civic Center, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the
!f. Il.wing Resolution:
(~20039) A RESOLUTION amending Resolution No. 17065 establishing certain
!rules nnd regulations relating to the administration of overtime work by personnel
~in the City*s classified service and to the compensation to be paid as overtime pay
for authorized overtime work performed by such employees, by making special pr,vis-.
ion as to employees in the Civic Center Oepartment.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 36. page IUO.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
!by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................... 7,
NAYS: None .......... O.
DEPARTRENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE~ITY PHYSICIAN-JAIL: Council having directed
the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure approving and authorizing the
~employme~t of Lewis Gale Clinic. Incorporated, to render medical and surgical
attention to persons committed to the city jail. upon certain terms and conditions.
ihe presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20040) AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing the employment of Lewis
Gale Clinic, Inc., of Roanoke, Virginia, to render medical and surgical attention
LtO persons committed to the city jail, upon certain terms and provisions; providing
Ifor the effective date of this ordinance and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No, 36, page 181.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the. following vote:
'483
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................... 7.
MAYS: Mone ............ O.
BUDGET-CITY AUDITOR: Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinanc,
establishing the salary of Sr. A. N. Gibson. City Auditor. at $17,508.00 per annum:
(a20041) AN oRDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #lO,~City Auditor,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and proving for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Mo. ab, page IG2.)
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................................. 6.
MAYS: Mr. Thomas .........................1.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ANIMALS-DOGS-TAXES: Mayor Mebber advised that he is appointing Mr.
feasibility of merging the animal control programs of the City of Roanoke with
CITY AUDITOR: The Deputy City Clerk reported that Mr. Alfred N. Gibson
has qualified as City Auditor to fill the unexpired term of Mr. J. Robert Thomas,
resigned, beginning January 1, 1972, and ending September 30, 1972.
ZOMINC: The Deputy City Clerk reported that Messrs. Sydnor W. Brizendine)
Jr., Leroy Moran, John W. Chappelear, Jr., L. Elwood Norris and Richard R. Snedegar
have qualified as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals for terms of three years
each ending December 31, 1974.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE ST:
City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
Monday, January 17, 1972.
Tbe Council Of the City of Roanoke met in regular meetin9 in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Monday, January 17o 19T2, at 2 p.m., the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor [toy L. Mebber presiding..
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Ltsk, Noel C, Taylor,
James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L, Mebber ...........
ABSENT: Councilman Hampton If. Thomas ...................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst. City Manager; Mr. Byron E. Haner.~
Assistant City ManaRer; Mr. James N, Klncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. An N.
Gibson. Clty Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C, Taylor,
Member o£ Roanoke City Council.
MINLffES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
Decemb er 13, 1971, and the special meetin9 held on Thursday, December 16. 1971,
having been furnished each member of Council on motion of Mr. Trust, seconded by
Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed mith and the
minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING' OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Jack M. Goo~ykooutz, President of The
Science Museum Association of the Roanoke Valley, appeared before Council and
advised that the City of Roanoke, by Resolution No. 19578. invited the Board of
iiTrustees of the Science Museum of Virginia to consider Roanoke as a location for
~,i'a State Science Museum, that the city suggested that Mill Mountain might be an
i appropriate location, that' the State Board visited the area and made an initial
determination that Mill Mountain bad the most favorable attributes of a valley
site, that the State Board has requested state funds to develop a master plan for
four units including one in the Roanoke area, that inasmuch as Council did not
delineate any specific location or acreage in Mill Mountain, the State Board has
requested authorization from Council to investigate the entire park for the purpose
of selecting a suitable location for the Museum and auxiliary land use, that such
an investigation and master plan study will form the basis of any specific pro- ;
posal for Council's consideration and determination of assistances available to the~
Museum's location, that the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee concurs with the
Science Museum Advisory Committee, that the freedom to study the entire park is
appropriate, however, it should be pointed out that there exists a master plan of
development of the crest of the mountain and certain specific uses of the mountain-
top land were written into the deed when conveyed to the city as a 9irt by the
~Flshburn family and that a State Science Museum located in Mill Mountain Park will
'486
be very compllmentery to the enturol park setting, will provide for the fullest
use of the park by all people and will provide a tremendous cultural asset to nil
of Western Virginia.
Hr. R. Carl Andrews, Chairman of the Mill Mountain Development Committee,
appeared before Council and advised that the Committee is in accord mlth the
recommendation as presented by Mr. Goodykoontz.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure concurring in the request of The Science Museum
Association of Roanoke Vulley. The notion was seconded by Mr. #heeler and unani-
mously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $547.96 be appropriated to Section m7500, "Schools - Replacement
of Instructional Equipment," of the 1971-72 budoet, advising that an insurance
check for the amount of $547.96 will be deposited as revenue with the City Treasurer
and that said appropriation is needed in order for the School Board to use said
insurance funds to replace stolen musical instruments, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20042) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~7000, "Maintenance
of Plant," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 184.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption og the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor Webber--6.!!
NAYS: None ........................................................... 0.!!
(Mr. Thom s absent)
BUDGET-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from Mr. J. H. Johnson,
!!City Treasurer. advising that an employee in his office was seleted from the pay-
!iroll, effective November 1. 1971. at a monthly salary of $502.9R and requesting thati
iltbe salary which was appropriated for this employee for the months of November.
;December and January, totaling $1,508.76, be transferred to temporary employment
ilia order that he may be able to retain the services of a temporary employee who
i!before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Treasurer,
isubjectto the approval of the State Compensation and offered
Board,
following
ilemeFgeucy Ordinance:
(~2OO43) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section #8, 'Treasurer.#
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for nn emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Oook ~o. 36. page 104.)
Hr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Kheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
NAYS: None ..................O. (Mr. Thomas absent)
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Mr. Charles F. Klein, representing
iiTeleVision Communications Corporation, adivisin9 that TeleVision Communications
iCorporetion will be plea~ed to submit a proposal for a cable television franchise
~for the City of Roanoke if invited to do so. was before Council,
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be referred to Mr. Vincent S.
ilMheeler for his information in connection with his study of the question of permit-I
~tJng the construction of a community antenna television system in the City of
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: A communication from Mr. Marner N. Dalhouse,
;leaded June 30. 1971, was before Council.
!iand closed, was before Council.
Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in
![connection with the request for vacating, discontinuing and closing the alley:
!
!described below.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page lOS.)
487
~t88
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ljsk, Taylor, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................... 6.
NAYS: None ................. O. (Mr, Thomas sbsent)
Mr. Trout then moved that the request be referred to the City Planning
Commission and the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. G. Marshall Mundy, Attorney,
representing Roanoke Distributing Company, Incorporated. requesting that a portion
of a certain 30 foot street, known as 24th Street, running ia a north-south
direction and bounded on the north by the Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company
right of way property and on the south by Patterson Avenue, S. M.. be vacated.
discontinued and closed, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in connect-
ion with the request for vacating, discontinuing and closin9 said street:
(#20045) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five (5) free-
~holders, any three (3) of whom may act, as viewers in connection uith the applica-
that portion of 24th Street running in a north-south direction through the property!i
of Roanoke Distributin9 Co., Inc.. and bounded on the north by the Norfolk and
~iWestern Railway Co. right-of-way property, and on the south by Patterson Avenue,
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36. page 186.)
~by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:. Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
i~Webber ............................ 6.
Mr. Trout then moved that the request be referred to the City Planning
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk ami unanimously adopted.
and llth Street, N. M.. described as Lots 8. 9 and 10, Section 6, Map of Melrose
~Land Company. Official Tax Nc~ 2222907 and 2222909, be rezoued fro~ RG-I, General
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
i!was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGKT-RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City #anager
submitted a written report requesting that $300.00 be appropriated to Operating
Supplies and Materials under Section z?5. *Recreation. Parks and Recreational
Areas," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the purchase of trophies to be
amarded champion basketball teams participating Under the direction of the
Department of Parks and Recreation, said funds having been contributed by the city
basketball league teams.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the follo~ing emergency Ordinance:
(~20016) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~?S, "Recreation,
Parks and Recreational Areas,# of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and provid-
ing for aa emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page IDB.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
'i Mebber ................................. 6.
NAYS: None ..................O. (Mr. Thomas absent)
CITY MANAGER: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
officially informing the members of Council of his decision to accept the position
of City Manager of the City of Colonial Heights. Virginia, and transmitting his
resignation as Assistant City Manager of the City of Roanoke, effective March 15,
1972.
Mr. garland moved that the resignation be received and filed with regret.'~
'The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS-~'rATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that the Director of Public ¥orks is in receipt of approral from
the State Highway Department that an additional 22.02 miles of secondary streets
hare been accepted for maintenance payments by the Highway Department, that this
approval is ns of October 1, 1971, that this will mean an additional $24,222.00
per year in state rebates to the oitl and that this brings the total number of
secondary streets approved to 328.07 miles for which the citI receives 51,100.00
per mile per year of state funds.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-STATE HIGHWAYS-MATER DEpARTMENT-BRIDGES: The City
Manager submitted the following report in connection with an agreement between
~the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, the Virginia Department of Olghways and
ilthe City of Roanoke as to a variety of terms and conditions regarding the construc-
tion of the new Tenth Street Bridge:
'489
"Roan*he, Virginia
Jonuary 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Room*he, Virginia ·
Gentlemen:
The appropriate agreement has been prepared'to be executed
between the Norfolh and Western Railmay Company, the Virginia
Department of Highways and the City of Roan*he. as to a variety
of terms and conditions regarding the construction of the new Tenth
StYeet flridge. This agreement has been signed by the Railway
Company. Its terms are acceptable to the Highway Department.
The wain provisions in it have from time to time.been separately
approved by the City Council.
The formal approval by the City Js mom needed. A resolution
ha~ been prepared by the City Attorney and is submitted with
recommendation, in order to meet a particular situation of enabling
the Highway Department to advertise this project, I signed this
agreement; however, if Council is not acceptable, it can be withdrawn.
There is only one item not fully cleared, (Paragraph 12l in
the agreement. However this need not delay agreement approval.
This item reads, *upon completion of the project, the bridge and
approaches shall be maintained by City and Railway in accordance
with understandings and agreements now in effect between City and
Railway with respect to ~aintenance of the existing bridge, or as
may be hereafter agreed upon. All drainage and appurtenances for
said project shall he maintained by City**
The Council will recall our appearance before you and your
authorizatign for the use of what is known as weathering steel
on this structure. This is steel, slightly more expensive th~n
normal bridge structure steel but of a material and treatment that
considerably aides in the long term durability of the metal and
reducing maintenance. The total cost of redesign for this steel
was $5,348.
The N. ~ ~. indicated their agreement to bear one-halE of
the cost of the redesign if they are relieved of all future main-
tenance responsibilities on the new structure. The present bridge,
the company bas been bearing 50 percent of the maintenance cost.
As the uaw agreement is written, it would continue this 50
percent arrangement.
Me have given a great deal of thought as to which is the
better direction in which to go; either accept the N ~ W*s one-
half of the redesign cost, which nonld be $3,174. and relieve them
of future maintenance, or the City pay the full redesign cost and
continue with the 50 percent mainteaauce. It is difficult to deter-
mine the proper answer because of the question of future maintenance
costs on this particular structure. Certainly they will be very
S/ Julian F. Hirst
~and offered the following Resolution:
(~20047) A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution on behalf of the City
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, List and adopted by the follomlug vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................... h.
NAYS: None ................O. (Mr. Thomas obseut)
BUILDiNGS-PLUMBERS-ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS: The City Manager submitted
the folloming report expressing the desire to rerise and update both the City
Electrical Code and the City Plumbing Code. advising that after study over a
iperiod of time it has been concluded that the best approach mould be for the
icJty to adopt the National Electrical Code and the Plumbing Code of the Southern
:iHuildiag Code Congress and to thereby make these, by reference, the codes of the
~City Of Roanoke:
"Roanoke. Virginia
January 17. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It is desired to revise and update both the City Electrical
Code, Title 15, Chapter 2. and the City Plumbing Code, Title 15,
Chapter 3. Hoth of these codes are in need of revisions in order
to bring them current with procedures and materials. After study
over some period of time it has been concluded that the best approach
would be for the City to adopt the National Electrical Code and the
Plumbing Code of the Southern Building Code Congress and to thereby
make these, by reference, the codes of the City.
Yhis study and revision is a part of the continuln9 process of
maintaining codes on an up-to-date basis.
It will bo recalled by City Conncil that in September. 1970,
the most recent code revision ~tas authorized and at that time the
1969 edition of the Southern Standard Building Code was adopted by
reference. After that action we felt that the next revision should
take place w/th the Electrical and Plumbing Codes and it is that
mhich is mom being proposed.
The changes made in the National Electrical Code and the
Southern Plumbing Code, as proposed, are to adapt the administra-
tive provisions to our own code provisions. Some changes in fees
are proposed and a comparative listing mill be provided.
The City Attorney has prepared ordinances which ~tould accomplish
these revisions and these ordinances are so recommended to the City
Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Si Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing be held on the question of amending
tthe City Plumbing Code and the City Electrical Code at 2 pom., Monday, January 31,
1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. l/heeler and unanimously adopted.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted the following report
itrausmitting a ~Memorandum of Understanding" in connection mith Public Service
!,Eeployees Local Union No. 12bl;
491
'492
"Roanoke, Virginia
January 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roaaohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council by Resolution No. 19350, October 12, 1970.
authorized the Public Service Employees Union of the AFL-CIO
to conduct a voting on City property of certain employees.
voting nas held in early February 1971. Following this the Union
appeared before the City Council with a report on the voting and
advising City Council of the desire of the Union to represent
certain employees of the City.
The City Council directed the matter to the City Manager.
As a result of that direction I, along with an administrative
staff committee, and with the particular assistance of Mr. Craham,
Director of Personnel. have held a series of a number of meetings
with Mr. R. E. Myers, AFL-CIO representative. The obJectire
has been to determine if some form of arrangement can be uorked
out to be returned tQ City Council. Submitted with this report
is that which bas been termed*a *Memorandum of Understanding.*
If a form of agreement or arrangement is to be arrived with, with
this Union. then it is felt that this as attached would be the
better Of any alternatives.
Also attached, and on a separate page, is a paragraph making
reference to the voting. Mr. Myers strongly feels that this
paragraph should be included in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Me differ and do not agree to its inclusion. Accordingly this
particular point is also submitted to the City Council. Other-
wise I believe I am accurate in stating that the wording in the
Memorandum itself is mutually acceptable.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that action on the report of the City Manager be deferred
il the regular meeting of Council on Ronday, January 31. 1972. Zhe motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CIY¥,MANAGEE: The City Manager submitted a written report requesting
the opportunity of meeting mith themembers of Council on a personnel matter.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested that the report
be withdrawn.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
that the report be withdrawn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
PAY ~L~N-CIT¥ EMELOYEES-C1TY AUDITOR: The City Auditor submitted a
written report proposing an additional position of Assistant City Auditor in his
office, adivis lng that this position will replace an auditor position which is
now included in the staff and it will not be necessary to appropriate additional
ZOHI~G: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
atndy, report and recummendntlen the requeat of Suburban Realty Corporation that
property located on the corner of Beech Street and Barberry Avenue, H. W,, des-
cribed as Lots $ - 9, inclusive, Section 3, Hap of Westmood Annex, Official
Tax Nos. 2630612 - 2630615, inclusive, he rezoned from RS-3, Single-Fomfly
Residential District, to C02o General Commercial District, the City Planning
Commission submitted the folloming report recommending that n RG-I zoning designa-
jtion be granted In lieu of the requested C~2 zoning designation:
"January 6, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor
nnd Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia .
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of January 5, 1972.
Hr. Douglas Kielhopf, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning COmmission and noted that hfs client wishes
to construct multi-family units on this parcel of land (RG-2).
cial and the residential uses in the area, fie noted that he is
requesting the C-2 reznning designation since it conforms with
his parcel.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, asked if the petition-
er would be willing to leave a plantin9 strip so as to conform with
the character of the block. Mr. Kielkipf noted that they would
do so if required.
however, recommended that it be limited to a RG-I designation since
under a C-2 zoning designation.
density should be restricted to RG-I. Mr. Kielkopf noted that the
petitioner would be willing to accept a RG-I zoning designation
in lieu of a AG-2 zoning designation.
approved recommending to City Council to grant the RG-I zoning
designation in lieu of the original C-2 zoning designation.
Sincerely,
S/ John H. Parrott by L. M.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Douglas N. Kielkipf.
Attorney. representing the petitioner, advising that he would like to amend his
request to provide for a AG-2, General Residential District; zoning classification
instead of the RG-I designation recommended by the Citl Planning Commission.
Mt. Trout moved that a public hearin9 on the question of rezoning the
iproperty from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District, to RG-I or RG-2 be held
, at 2 p.m., Monday, February 14, 1972. The motion' mas seconded by Mr. LlSk' and
unanimously adopted.
'493
"494
REPORTS OF COM#IYTEKS:
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The Landfill Committee submitted a written report
advising that the City of Roanoke 15 waiting for a reply, from the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors on their request to use the north clear zone at Roanoke
Municipal {Moodrum} Airport for refuse disposal and that in the meantime the Public
~orks Department is making every effort by hauling borrow material and other
means to continue to use the limited area that the city has.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-REGISTRAR: Council having referred to the Personnel Board for
study, report and recommendation a report of the City Manager transmittin9 copy
of a communication written by him to the Chairman of the Electoral Board with
regard to the salary of the City Registrar, the Personnel Board submitted the
following report recommending that Council consider the upgrading of the General
Registrar to Range 19, Step 5. effective July 1. 1970, and to Step 6. effective
July 1, 1971. mith appropriate remunerations of salary and related benefits to
be computed and paid to the Registrar:
"January 13, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Uentlemon:
Pursuant to the request and referral of City Council to this Board
of the salary of the City Registrar, a meeting of the Personnel
Board of the City of Roanoke was held on January 6, 1972 with a
quorum present. Testimony was heard from Mrs, Nell Irvin, Registrar,
Mr. Prank Perkinson, speaking in Mrs. lrvin's behalf and as a former
member of City Council, Councilman Hampton Thomas, Mr. Andrew Thomp-
son, Chairman, Roanoke City Electoral Board. and A. ~. Gibson, City
Auditor. Detailed attention was also given to reports, personnel
records, and other pertinent documents.
The circumstances and proceedings surrounding the upgrading of
position of General Registrar during the preparation and adoption
of the Budget for 1970-71 were reviewed and a certain variance
seems to bare occurred from the normal processing of budgeted
salary matters.
Newspaper clippings, other material and comments of memory by
parties involved indicate that the salary adjustments made may not
have been those that were intended by Council in its budget prepar-
ation and final adoption. This variance created a continuing
salary situation within the office mentioned above and the pay step
adjustment made February Ist of 1971 did not adequately correct
the earlier situation. It would appear that instead of placing the
General Registrar in Range lg, Step 5 from Range 17, Stop 6, with
the adoption of the 1970-?1 budget the position was placed in Range
19~ Step 4. The intended upgrading to Step 5 on February 1, lgYl,
did not restore this relationship and in effect delayed consideration
for increase to Step 6 for one year from that date to February 1, 1972.
It is the recommendation therefore of this Board that Council con-
sider the upgrading of General Registrar to Range 19, Step 5,
effective July 1, 1970 and to 5tap 6 effective July 1, 1971 with
appropriate remunerations of salary and related benefits to be
computed and paid to the holder of this office.
Very truly yours,
S/ Donald D. Graham
Donald ~. Graham, Secretary
City Of Roanoke Personnel Board"
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney and
the City Auditor for'preparation of the proper measure. The motion nas seconded
by Mr. Llsk and unanimoualy adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
BUD6ET-TAXES: Council having deferred action on the adoption of an
Ordinance appropriating $500.00 to Advertising under Section nh, "Commissioner of
the Revenue,* of the 1971-72 budget to provide for advertising in connectim
iwith changing the date mith regard to requiring every person owning taxable tangibl
personal property in the City of Roanoke to file a tangible personal property tax
return mith the Commissioner of Revenue on or before March I of each ear the
~ matter mas again before the body.
In this connection, the City Auditor advised that the Commissioner of
itheRevenue has informed him that he will to with the
try
proceed
necessary
~advertising with monies already appropriated in his advertising account.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter of appropriating $500.00 for advertising
purposes be tabled, The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adoptedl
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20030, rezoning a 13.33 acre parcel of land locate~
on the north side of Salem Turnpike, adjoining Fairview Cemetery Company. lncorpor-i'
died, being a part of Official Tax No. 2650105, from RD. Duplex Residential District,
to RG-I, General Residential District, based upon the petitioners dedicating a
:iportion of the parcel of land to the city to permit the extension of 35th Street
to Salem Yurnpike, having previously been before Council for its first reading,
~read and laid over. was again before the body, Mr. Mheeler offering the following
,!for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20030) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1. Section 2 of Yhe
ilCode of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 265. Sectional 1966
~Zone Map. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3~, page 1§2.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor and Wheeler ...................4.
NAYS: Rr. Trout and Mayor Mebber ..................................2.
(Mr. Thomas absent)
ELECTIONS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure amending and reordaioing Section 49 (b), Voting place in Fishburo
Park Precinct, Chapter 2, Precincts and Voting Places, of Title IV, Elections of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, so as to change the location of
the voting place in Fishburn Park Precinct, he presented same; whereupon, Mr.
Mheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance:
495
~496
(#20040) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordnining Sec. 49 (b), ¥otino olace
~n Fishburn Park Precinct. Chapter 2. precincts and Votina Places. of Title IV.
Elections, of the Code of the City of Roanoke. IG56, as amended, so as to change
the location of the voting place in Flshburn Park Precinct; and providing for an
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36, page 189.)
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
Nebber ...................................
NAYS: None ....................O, (Mr, Thomas absent)
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
ilthe proper measure approving an addendum to the budget of the Mental Health
Services of the Roanoke Valley for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, for
the following Resolution:
(=20019) A RESOLUTION approving an addendum to the budget of Mental
!Health Services of the Roanoke Valley for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1972,
~iprogram for mentally retarded children.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 190.)
!!by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
~iMebber ............................
i NAYS: None .............O. (Mr. Thomas absent)
I!
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
ilprepare the proper measure approving a report of the City of Roanoke HiGhway
liSafety Commission recommending a 1973 fiscal year work program for highway safety
~within the City of Roanoke; directing the City ManaGer to make certain applications
iifor Grants-in-aid; signifying Council's intent to bear the city's proportionate
ishare of certain Grants-in-aid. should they he subsequently accepted by the city,
ilhe presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(~20050) A RESOLUTION approving a report of the City of Roanoke HiGhway
Safety Commission recommending a 1973 fiscal year work program for highway safety
within the City of Roanoke; directing the City ManaGer to make certain applications
for Grants-in-aid; signifying Council*s intent to hear the City's proportionate
share of certain Grants-in-aid, should they be subsequently accepted by the City;
nad providiug for transmittal of a copy of said report to the Govereor of Virgioie
through the State Highmay Safety Division.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36. page 1~1.}
Mr; Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion uae seconded
by Mr. Lfsk Dud adopted by the following vote,:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Llsk, Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ..........O. (Mr. Thomas absent)
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVERENYS
PROGRAM: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure
reaffirming the city's interest in the concept of a regional Jail; expressing
the city's disapproval of the Veterans* Hospital property, in Roanoke. as a site
ifor such facility and requesting theFJftb Planning District Commission to further
study and evaluate other sites in the area for their suitability for such purpose,
he presented same; whereupon, Dr. Taylor offered the following Resolution:
(~20051) A RESOLUTION reaffirming tho City*s interest in the concept of
~a regional jail; expressing the City's disapproval of the Veterans' Hospital
property, in Roanoke County, as a site for such facility; and requesting the
Fifth Planning District Commission to further study and evaluate other sites in
area for their suitability for such purpose,
(Fsr full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 3b, page 192.)
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
lWebber .............................
NAYS: None ..............O. imf. Thomas absent)
ROTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Lisk moved that all telegrams and communication~
received by the City Clerk pertaining to the Director of the Roanoke Civic Center
be placed on the agenda for the regular meetin9 of Council on Monday. January 24,
1972. The notion was seconded by Mr. Tro~ and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-INVITATIONS-ROANOKE VALLEY: Mr. Lisk moved that Mayor Webber
~be requested to extend an invitation to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors,
the Council of the City of Salem, the Council of the Town of Vintou and the
Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County to meet with the members of the Council
of the City of Roanoke on a date agreeable to both parties to discuss mutua!
problems and concerns. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
497
-49.8
.... Hayor Ife'bber advised t~at he would'~ot'i'f~'{l.peop'~e con'ce'rued with this
adJourued. : ' ~,
ATTEST: .'
(]o~ONWEALTH- OF ~ROlNi~
VIRGINIA :~I'ATE: LIBRARY
RICHMOND 23219 '
HICROFItfl CABERA OPERATOR'S CERTIFICATE ,
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE MICROPHOTOGRAPHS
APPEARING ON THIS REEL ARE TRUE AND"ACCURATE REPRODUCTIONS OF
THE RECORDS LISTED ON THE TITLE SHEET PRECEDING EACH ¥OLU~tE OR
'" '~ SERIES OF RECORDS HICROFILHED THEREONJ THAT THE RECORDS I~ER£
...... M!CROF!..L~..EP ON._~T~I_E_.~.ATE_,_(~_R.~_R.~.G_ TH~E_.PER~.O.D!~..A~.~_.A..T...~.THE-
REDUCTION RATIO INDICATED$ AND THAT UHEN HICROFIU~ED THE RECORDS
t~ERE IH THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTttENT,, OFFICE,~ OR INDIVIDUAL
LISTED ON THE TITLE SHEET,